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

[Johnny Dangerously]

Then we'll agree to disagree. To me, it works within the story. You guys see C cups and suddenly breasts are all you can think of.

Fair enough.

Actually, that seems very unfair, especially since there are women on this thread who didn't like the lede too. We're not in junior high. I can think of more than breasts right now and still discuss this topic.

[Tom Petty]

schmucks.

51 posts and not one mention that those puppies have turned into D cups thanks to her pregnancy? shame on all of you.

[RickStain]

As someone whose wife is pregnant right now, that is definitely one of the better parts.

[Some Guy]

If she's such a great athlete, there's no need to talk about her cup size.

Except the article isn't really about how she's such a great athlete. It's about her marketability. When talking in terms of marketability, physical attributes are relevant. It's sad but true.

I didn't find this piece to be Pulitzer-worthy or anything like that. But I didn't find it to be offensive or off-putting in anyway, either.

[DanOregon]

Then we'll agree to disagree. To me, it works within the story. You guys see C cups and suddenly breasts are all you can think of.

Fair enough.

IJAG - whether it's in a story on Candace Parker or not, yes.
 

[imjustagirl]

Then we'll agree to disagree. To me, it works within the story. You guys see C cups and suddenly breasts are all you can think of.

Fair enough.

Actually, that seems very unfair, especially since there are women on this thread who didn't like the lede too. We're not in junior high. I can think of more than breasts right now and still discuss this topic.

Except it was a reference to what DD said.

I'd never actually given much thought to Candace Parker's breasts until just now, and now every time I see something in reference to her, that's all I'll think about.

[goalmouth]

"A saint in hightops."

Does anyone remember the MASH episode when Frank wrote copy for a unit film and described the doctors as "saints in surgical garb?"

For a magazine author, Glock is a great sitcom writer.

[Joe Williams]

I have no problem with the first C cup reference, but coming back to it in second reference is overcooked. Bigger issue to me is the lede as a whole---it's well over the top and loses it's objectivity about 70% of the way through it. I would have ended it at kind to animals.

I only got as far as this post, high on page 1, and haven't read the rest. Sorry if I missed anything crucial.
But WFW.

[Johnny Dangerously]

Then we'll agree to disagree. To me, it works within the story. You guys see C cups and suddenly breasts are all you can think of.

Fair enough.

Actually, that seems very unfair, especially since there are women on this thread who didn't like the lede too. We're not in junior high. I can think of more than breasts right now and still discuss this topic.

Except it was a reference to what DD said.

I'd never actually given much thought to Candace Parker's breasts until just now, and now every time I see something in reference to her, that's all I'll think about.

That's one guy. You said guys, plural.



But seriously, it doesn't seem fair to cite an example from one poster way back on the first page without labeling it as such and instead say "You guys." It's like getting someone to lean into the punch. If you meant DD, you should have said so instead of lumping other people into a comment directed at one person.

[Batman]

Except it was a reference to what DD said.

I have nothing relevant to add. I just thought it was funny that in a thread kinda-sorta about breast size, there was a reference to a poster nicknamed "Double D." Carry on.

[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.

[Tom Petty]

wow. they're only tits guys. not that big of a deal.

[RickStain]

wow. they're only tits guys. not that big of a deal.

80% of human existence could be summed up in that sentence.

[21]

That's the point.

[Double Down]

Glock is an interesting writer. She wasn't shy about writing a piece for Marie Claire awhile ago about how her marriage fell apart, and she was essentially to blame because she got a little bored, frustrated, and involved with someone else. I think that kind of thing takes guts to do, especially because she does come off as a little selfish in the piece.

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/marie-claire/807/why-we-couldn---t-stay-married/

For those defending Sharapova earlier in this thread, saying she cares about tennis and that she's the anti-Kournikova, I think it's actually worth going back and reading this piece that Glock wrote about Sharapova which shows it's a little more complex than that.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3742834

I remember reading it at the time, and thinking Glock brought the right amount of skepticism to the writing, and wasn't worried about making Sharapova seem a little bratty in the piece. I guess the more I think about it, that's part of what disappointed me about this story. We get the "Candace is hot, Candace is preggers, Candace will change the game with her sexy smooth jumper and marketing opportunities" without any real skepticism about the whole thing.

I think I've read about 10,000 "this woman will change the face of women's sports" features in the last 10 years, btw.

 

[21]

Nothing will change the face of 'women's sports' until we just call them sports. 

[Double Down]

Nothing will change the face of 'women's sports' until we just call them sports. 

I don't know. I still have high hopes for Serena Williams' E Cups.

[imjustagirl]

Well, J_D, I kind of thought my "agree to disagree" covered how much more I have to say on this. I had no problem with the lede. To say over and over again I had no problem with the lede seemed stupid. So: I had no problem with the lede. Everyone else arguing it has problems discussing a woman's breasts in a story lede. Fine.

Agree to disagree.

[Batman]

That she won the high school slam dunk contest a few years ago just by being a woman who could jump is enough to make me not like her. C Cups or not.

[GlenQuagmire]

If she's such a great athlete, there's no need to talk about her cup size.

Except the article isn't really about how she's such a great athlete. It's about her marketability. When talking in terms of marketability, physical attributes are relevant. It's sad but true.

I didn't find this piece to be Pulitzer-worthy or anything like that. But I didn't find it to be offensive or off-putting in anyway, either.

There's a way to measure her marketability without talking about how big her breasts are. (I didn't know she had C-cups until I read this article because she is so modest about it. Doesn't mean shit to me now and doesn't make her more marketable than if she had Bs, As, etc.)

I don't think we need to go there to make sense on this subject.

It's a double-standard that a female writer can write about such personal attributes and get a pass for the most part. If a male writer made such a reference, he'd be called sexist and drilled by every feminist organization out there.

[Johnny Dangerously]

Except that you said "that's fair" after saying siomething that to some degree wasn't.

But, agree to disagree is fine with me.

[Tom Petty]

i disagree to agree ... c cups or no c cups.

[micke77]

With all due respects to beautiful and bountiful Candace Parker, I am still thinking about Danica Patrick on the damn hood of that car in the SI swimsuit edition.

[Double J]

schmucks.

51 posts and not one mention that those puppies have turned into D cups thanks to her pregnancy? shame on all of you.

I was thinking that too, but wondering if they were now C and used to be B.

"be B"....ha, that reminds me of that South Park episode where BeBe got BBs and the boys went CC (coo-coo).

[Double J]

Glock is an interesting writer. She wasn't shy about writing a piece for Marie Claire awhile ago about how her marriage fell apart, and she was essentially to blame because she got a little bored, frustrated, and involved with someone else. I think that kind of thing takes guts to do, especially because she does come off as a little selfish in the piece.

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/marie-claire/807/why-we-couldn---t-stay-married/

A little selfish? I think one commenter at the end summed it up perfectly - "This writer is an egotistical twat."

Which strongly suggests it didn't take "guts" to write it. More likely, it was an "I'll get an A for this" type of motivation.