How do you feel about Candace Parker's C-cup being referenced in this lede?

[Mizzougrad96]

If a guy wrote that, he would be shredded for it.

The writer didn't need to go there and it's a shame she did.

Here's what I wrote three page back...

[RickStain]

Forget the reference to C cups. The whole lede is too fawning. That's the embarrassing part.

This. It was a badly written lead from an author more enamored with her writing than the subject she was writing about.

[imjustagirl]

I guess here's where my anti-feminism slant comes in: I think you'd get the usual hooting and hollering on here from the normal Feminism suspects, and you'd get it from the pro-chick feminism groups. But it wouldn't offend me any more or any less (or annoy me, 21 ) if a girl or a guy or a Martian wrote it.

The story is about marketing a good-looking talented woman who they hope will cross over barriers. I don't understand how talking about her in a physical way in some way doesn't fit with that angle.

[GlenQuagmire]

Strange to see a Glen Quagmire wanting to downplay breast talk.

I'm against using them in a story that would have been fine otherwise. That's the journalist in me talking.

As for breasts in real life, I absolutely love them. Treasure them, you might say. That's the man in me talking.

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Years ago a football writer made an admiring observation about a running back's "tightly bunched buttocks." I took it out. The writer didn't mean anything more than he might mean while assessing the build of a thoroughbred horse, but I figured if I left it in, he'd never, ever, ever be able to walk into an NFL locker room, ever, ever again. (Hey, Man! Why you checkin' out my ASS?) It's just unintentionally and needlessly scuzzy-sounding. (If he'd gotten poetic about the player's forearms, no prob.) Same with the C cups. There's a photo. Readers interested in assessing the heft of Parker's mammaries don't need anyone's assistance. (Could have graphics dept. point red arrows right at 'em.)

[broadway joe]

I see nothing wrong with the writer referring to Parker's breasts. She's writing for grownups, and grownups, even the ones who read ESPNmag, ought to be able to handle a brief mention of boobs without reducing Parker to some sexual fantasy. The real problem here is how over-written the lede is. It's just a bunch of fancy throat-clearing. The writer seems a lot more interested in showing off her writerly cleverness than in telling us anything interesting about Parker. You get to the end of all that verbiage and all she's really told you is that Parker's pretty and seems to be a perfectly nice person. Great, but we already knew that.

[WriteThinking]

Yeah, Hamm is somewhere between Martina and Jenny Finch. But I really think her marketing has centered on her accomplishments, not her looks.

I'm sure that is, in part, because Martina doesn't have the looks of Jenny Finch, Candace Parker or Mia Hamm.

The lede on this story was just going for detail and descriptiveness -- even if it was over-the-top -- by including the cup size.

I still think both the "endless legs" and "C cup" references are more a nod, certainly an overt one, but still a nod, to her gender -- than anything else.

Sure, the descriptions are part of the stereotypical supposed "ideal" woman. But it could also almost be expected, and is needed, because, let's face it, Parker is the new face/promotional machine of the Women's National Basketball Assn., not the National Basketball Assn. It's just part of the angle, for better or for worse.

In principle, it's no different than if you're covering, say, the Paralympics. If you're doing that, there's just no getting around references to the athletes' disabilities, even if the athletes insist that they're "able," not "dis-abled," and would prefer to be seen simply as athletes, and not handicapped athletes.

Likewise, if it weren't for the fact that Parker was such an athlete and a woman, we might not be writing about her at all.

Or, if we were, it would be just the standard player feature. And that certainly wouldn't do much to specifically connect with or promote the WNBA, bring in any new fans, or cross any barriers in any way that would have any long-term impact.

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I think some of you are giving a little too much credit for literary intent. Glock is a good writer. But ... she was GQ's sex columnist for a time ... she knows what she's doing. Certainly trying to pander to a mostly male audience. (I have a friend who was a sex writer for a women's mag. Extremely smart lady. But wrote with that audience in mind.) She's playing the audience. No literary merit to the C cups.

BTW: Wall Street Journal hed in the 1990s on a biz story about Victoria's Secret -- Tempest in a C Cup

[Batman]

I see nothing wrong with the writer referring to Parker's breasts. She's writing for grownups, and grownups, even the ones who read ESPNmag, ought to be able to handle a brief mention of boobs without reducing Parker to some sexual fantasy. The real problem here is how over-written the lede is. It's just a bunch of fancy throat-clearing. The writer seems a lot more interested in showing off her writerly cleverness than in telling us anything interesting about Parker. You get to the end of all that verbiage and all she's really told you is that Parker's pretty and seems to be a perfectly nice person. Great, but we already knew that.

Last I checked, you don't need to be over 18 to buy ESPN the mag. It's a general interest sports magazine, not Playboy or Penthouse.

I'm not saying a reference to breast size makes ESPN the equivalent of those. Just saying, it's not exclusively an adult audience that's reading this article.

[dooley_womack1]

Holy C cups, Batman!

[ringer]

It's tacky and cheap.

It also turns fact-checker into a weirdo.

[21]

Haven't read the last couple of pages, but pretty sure ringer wins Best Post.

[Johnny Dangerously]

Yep. I think we're done here.

[playthrough]

Like someone said earlier, I'm far more offended by the "female Jordan" reference. Zzzzz.

The subhead is peculiar: "She's also an MVP—of a league few watch. So can Candace Parker be the female Jordan?" I interpret that as Jordan was an MVP of a league nobody watched and then he lifted it up. Not true.

[Lieslntx]

I can't explain exactly why it bothers me, but yes, it does bother me that it was in the lede. I mean, if she is not out there "promoting" that part of herself, then the media has no right to do it. Some female athletes put that part of themselves out there in that way. Some don't. If they do, it's fair game. If not, leave it alone.

[dooley_womack1]

If she's not flaunting her boobs, by dressing to highlight them or by talking about them, then it's not part of the marketing of her. And it's not as if they are such that they would stand out under non-revelatory clothing, so I don't really think they're an unspoken marketing tool, either.

So the taste issue aside, the C-cup reference doesn't pass the relevance test.

[Boomer7]

That seems to do a little disservice to Parker, the league MVP, but as I said, basketball seems to be sort of irrelevant in the overall mission here.

The level of athletic accomplishment certainly isn't the primary element in building a female athlete's brand and trying to make her a mainstream star, as Sharapova, Patrick, Gulbis, etc., have shown.

Sharapova is a poor choice for the point you're trying to make, given that she's won three majors, been ranked No. 1, etc. Anna would prove your point more.

I meant Kournikova. My bad.

[broadway joe]

I see nothing wrong with the writer referring to Parker's breasts. She's writing for grownups, and grownups, even the ones who read ESPNmag, ought to be able to handle a brief mention of boobs without reducing Parker to some sexual fantasy. The real problem here is how over-written the lede is. It's just a bunch of fancy throat-clearing. The writer seems a lot more interested in showing off her writerly cleverness than in telling us anything interesting about Parker. You get to the end of all that verbiage and all she's really told you is that Parker's pretty and seems to be a perfectly nice person. Great, but we already knew that.

Last I checked, you don't need to be over 18 to buy ESPN the mag. It's a general interest sports magazine, not Playboy or Penthouse.

I'm not saying a reference to breast size makes ESPN the equivalent of those. Just saying, it's not exclusively an adult audience that's reading this article.

Yeah, I know. I wasn't being literal. I meant that she was presuming a certain amount of maturity on the part of her readers.

[I Should Coco]

Sex is a part of any top-selling athlete. That's the way it is. Patrick Ewing was never a top-flight endorser because the mofo was ugly as hell.

I always thought it was because Ewing couldn't make a basket without traveling.

[KevinmH9]

I'm late to this party; but, I dont' see the point in the reference to her breasts.  If the point of the article was to compare her to Michael Jordan, then mentioning her breasts is completely irrelevant. 

[London Calling]

Sheesh. Somebody writes an edgy lede, and the freak-out police come out like gang busters.

Get a grip and stop hating. Cool lede, good story -- ESPN The Mag or not.

[Lieslntx]

Sheesh. Somebody writes an edgy lede, and the freak-out police come out like gang busters.

Get a grip and stop hating. Cool lede, good story -- ESPN The Mag or not.

Really, you think so? Interesting.

[joe king]

Lede is way, way over the top.

Saint in high tops?

Mein Gott.

[DanOregon]

Here's another point - I gather Candace didn't go under the knife for her Cs, she was born with them. I don't begrudge anyone being proud of a certain part of their body, but I doubt her efforts had anything to do with them. Maybe that's what kind of rubs me the wrong way - I'm used to reading about athletes working on various aspects of their game, the long hours they put in at the gym, just seems kind of odd for an athlete as talented as Parker to be proud of an aspect of her self she had little to do with. It would be like saying Baron Davis is proud of his beard or Tom Brady is proud of his dimpled chin. This thread has gone on way too long, but I'll say this for the writer, she wrote a lede that made people want to read the next paragraph, which is job one.

[joe king]

Here's another point - I gather Candace didn't go under the knife for her Cs, she was born with them. I don't begrudge anyone being proud of a certain part of their body, but I doubt her efforts had anything to do with them. Maybe that's what kind of rubs me the wrong way - I'm used to reading about athletes working on various aspects of their game, the long hours they put in at the gym, just seems kind of odd for an athlete as talented as Parker to be proud of an aspect of her self she had little to do with. It would be like saying Baron Davis is proud of his beard or Tom Brady is proud of his dimpled chin. This thread has gone on way too long, but I'll say this for the writer, she wrote a lede that made people want to read the next paragraph, which is job one.

Not me.