Research into women's surfing a wipe-out

Surfing made a rare visit to the front pages this week courtesy of Mick Fanning’s blood-curdling encounter with a South African shark.

However, another surfing matter making the news seem unlikely to garner the same publicity or affection.

A 2012 PhD on women’s surfing sponsorship by Southern Cross University academic Roslyn Franklin, which has only now made its way into the public arena, makes the claim that women surfers are underpaid and over-sexualised.

Moreover, Franklin concludes that female surfers are marketed more for their looks than performance. Hold the presses.

Setting aside the fact that you can even do a PhD on women’s surfing sponsorship, numerous talking points arise.

Firstly, the overriding theme is that this is a bad situation. While the subject is surfing, the writer leaves no doubt that the real agenda is feminist, focusing on the disparity between how the genders are treated by sponsors.

Make no mistake, inequity between male and female in any respect is a serious issue and should always be approached carefully. But the mere suggestion of a valid issue, nor the proclamation of such, does not in itself make an issue valid.

To support her argument Franklin cites the example of six times world champion Stephanie Gilmore, citing how her appearance topless in a commercial for surf brand Roxy was a classic case of sexploitation.

Perhaps, if Gilmore had been coerced or portrayed in such a way without her knowledge or blessing. But Gilmore is a mature woman who makes her own choices as she sees fit.

And therein lies the problem for Franklin. For as long as individual women surfers are prepared to feed the beast, to market themselves in a sexual way, within their own moral boundaries, it is nonsensical to expect any wider change.

Imagine a Roxy executive upon hearing that Gilmore is willing to appear half-naked in their advertisement declining the opportunity, or agreeing only if she covers up and looks like a bloke? Not going to happen in this lifetime or the next.

A recent Sunday Courier Mail article on the topic quoted Sunshine Coast pro surfer Dimity Stoyle as struggling to find sponsorship despite being ranked in the world’s top 17.

Since when is the “top 17” a real list? Perhaps the top 16 were too happy with their sponsorship to be bothered to support the argument?

Perhaps Stoyle’s frustrations would be better solved by working her way into the top 5, and seeing how things improve financially from there? Or else becoming an orthopaedic surgeon, I hear that pays well – for women and men.

Instead Stoyle chooses to play the victim, noting that in order to make a better living “I’d have to show more arse and boobs in my instagram photos.”

The problem for Stoyle, Franklin and others is that surfing is, by definition, a sport conducted on sand and water, a place where people typically wear little clothing. Where body image and sexuality are inextricably linked to beach culture.

That’s nobody’s fault or something engineered by manipulative male sponsors, that’s simply how it is.

Companies which sponsor surfing are understandably linked to surfing culture, with products and services which are well served by attractive images of male and female surfers.

It is this undeniable link which renders Franklin’s research meaningless. Portraying a female surfer in an attractive, even sexual manner is, given the arena in which the sport exists, entirely reasonable.

Perhaps if Franklin’s study had found the same outcomes but in a different sport, one in which the contestants are dressed to compete more conservatively, say Chess or Shooting, then her conclusions would have more bite.

Arguments about manipulation and sexploitation of women carry more weight the larger the distance between the sport and the image portrayed.

Companies allocate sponsorship and advertising dollars according to how they envisage receiving maximum return for their investment. As always, certain identities lend themselves to the use of their image where others don’t – for any number of reasons.

Is that unfair? Perhaps, but it certainly isn’t in any way wrong or unethical. The same thing applies in entertainment, business and everyday life, not just sport.

Violinist Vanessa Mae took the world by storm in the 90s, not because she was a virtuoso musician any more talented than a hundred other violinists, but because she knew that to package herself in a visually enticing, sexual way was her key differentiator.

If any other violinists cried foul they would have, like Stoyle, missed the point. The commercial world rewards innovators, people who make things happen, and not those who seek to corral everyone within their own self-created moral boundaries.

We don’t all have to like people who push the self-promotion envelope – in fact even Mae’s birth father publicly disowned his daughter because of her overt sexuality – but as much as Franklin might not like it, there is nothing at all wrong with this.

It is also nonsense to suggest that only “glamour model” sportswomen receive sponsorship. A “hot” body is not and has never been a pre-requisite to achieving success and a high profile in any sport.

The final word is reserved for a clearly frustrated but misguided Stoyle, who claims that it doesn’t matter how ugly male surfers are, if they are good surfers they are paid well.

Imagine the ruckus if a male surfer chose to use the word “ugly” in any public discussion about a female surfer, regardless of the context?

Perhaps Stoyle, like many on the so-called progressive side of the gender argument, considers her position as an elite surfer entitles her to a free hypocrisy card?

Alternatively there is always the option for her to get better at her sport, and/or work harder at finding a sponsor motivated by what value she might bring to the table, regardless of her looks.