Super Bowl Sunday: Quit being a bitch. The game’s on! (Guest Post #1)

Meet my friend LJS, everyone. I might have made it through my entire life without knowing of the existence of the Lingerie Football League were it not for her. I could be mad at her for that, but I’m not because her description of the LFL, along with some conversations I’ve had with others about football over the past few months, led me to the decision to do this whole Super Bowl feature in the first place. And the thousand-mile journey to the amelioration of football’s negative effects on women and society begins with one  football mega-feature on a radical feminist blog. Naturally, I asked LJS to write about the LFL and her view of sports culture:

If you are anything like me, there is nothing more exciting than the thrill of the football season’s first kick-off.  It signals the beginning of 17 weeks of Sundays filled with sweaty men playing a game that I not only have no control over, but didn’t contribute to in any way.  Which doesn’t stop me from yelling like I’ve won the lottery every time “my team” scores and referring to them as “we.”  And of course there is the anticipation of the camera pan to the scantily clad cheerleaders smiling brightly like a shiny row of botched lobotomy victims.  But I sometimes find myself thinking, as I am sure that we all have from time to time, “You know, this game is pretty good, but like I like my beer cold, my pork barbequed, and my chips with dip — I like my women objectified.”  I mean REALLY objectified.  Sure you have your cheerleaders jumping around in bikini tops and micro-minis in between snow flurries, and sure you have your beer commercials that cater to a 15-year-old male fantasy, but that just doesn’t take it far enough for my tastes.  What if we replaced the players with the cheerleaders?  Then we could dress them in bikinis to play a contact sport, because clearly their “safety” isn’t a top priority, and give the teams names like the San Diego Seduction, the Philadelphia Passion, and the Los Angles Temptation.  Blatant and unapologetic degradation of the players would ensue.  I mean, c’mon, you women knew what you were getting into when you were born with vaginas, right?

Fortunately for everyone out there that was nodding their head at the very thought of a football league of cheerleaders, Mitch Mortaza had an idea.  Think of him as Joe Francis, founder of Girls Gone Wild, mixed with that sleazy older uncle that always used to leer at you getting out of the swimming pool.  A winning combo, I know. Ol’ Mitch is the founder of the Lingerie Football League (LFL), which is now ending its 2nd season. And yes, it is exactly as described above.

Mortaza and the LFL make no apologies.  In fact, during a recent try-out session that was chronicled by the Philadelphia Inquirer’s John Gonzalez, Mortaza eloquently explained what he is looking for in a LFL player:

The women of the LFL need three things… confidence, athleticism and, finally, they have to be gorgeous. We’re not looking for the best athletes. We want our league to have women like Anna Kournikova, Danica Patrick and Gabby Reece. They’re not the best at what they do, but they’re the most marketable. We know why men turn out.

A trip to the LFL’s official site backs up Mortaza’s statement.  The site’s content is flanked on either side by black and white pictures of two women dressed in their underwear and covered with dirt.  The woman on the right looks into the camera seductively, while the woman on the left actually has her face cut off by the edge of the webpage.  I think that is a kind of unintentional statement about the league’s overall attitude toward its players and women in general.  A half-hearted effort to “get to know” the players on the official LFL blog, LFL Unlaced (Get it? It’s a pun, right? UN-laced? Haha! The fun never stops), is another thinly veiled chance to show more pictures of the women in their underwear.  And some of it doesn’t even make sense. Okay, a picture of the player in her “uniform” I could see, or maybe even enjoying a day at the beach in her favorite G-string, but the editors at “Unlaced” are hardcore, they don’t give a fuck. A rousing expose on Chicago Bliss’s Danielle Moinet has a lead-in picture of Danielle (presumably) in a lace bra and underwear set with some black lace Madonna gloves, circa 1984, followed by a picture of her in a red bikini standing in front of what I can only assume is the industrial garage door of a commercial loading dock. Scrolling down, I kept expecting a list of her “turn-ons” (long walks on the beach, men who fart in public, and Miller High Life) followed by a pictorial of her favorite sex positions.

So who is Mitch Mortaza? Not surprisingly he started his career of douche-baggery on the low-budget reality show Blind Date.  His segment gets off to a stirring start when he lists toe rings among his turn-ons and refers to himself as a “white shark in captivity” when it comes to his dating style.  I won’t go into too much detail (you can watch it on YouTube if you need to induce vomiting), but he is exactly what you would expect from the founder of the Lingerie Football League, dayglo tan and all. Unfortunately for everyone, except maybe the poor women on Blind Date, Mortaza moved from reality dating shows to founding the yearly Lingerie Bowl that ran during half-time of the Super Bowl for the first time in 2004. Mortaza claims that he was inspired by watching all the people leave their seats during half-time at a Super Bowl game he attended and wondered if he could capture that audience somehow.  However, my bet is that it had more to do with his copy of Chicks with Balls that didn’t leave his DVD player for all of 2001 and the first half of 2002. Either way, the Lingerie Bowl got corporate backing (I’m looking at you,, and Horizon Productions) and became a relatively huge success. The popularity of the Lingerie Bowl was the spark for the woman-hating brushfire that became the LFL.

Okay, so what is the point, right? I mean, anyone with any kind of capacity for introspection, empathy, or sense of humanity can see that Mortaza is a piece of shit and the LFL is a ridiculous mockery of the personhood of women.  When I first heard of it I thought that same thing. However, after some thought, further research, and personal observation my perspective started to change.

The LFL, to me, is the culmination of privilege that surrounds men and their sports. It is not unusual for men to make disgusting and degrading comments about the women on screen while hanging out with their buddies watching their favorite football team, and often it is in front of their wives/partners/children.  But because it is in the arena of “sports” it is somehow protected.  Saying anything about it results in being labeled a “nag” or a “bitch” that is “bringing down their man time.”  Men often feel that they have a “right” to dehumanize and degrade women as long as it is in the confines of their “guy time” and that the women in their lives should have to not only be okay with it, but laugh it off while serving their buddies sammiches.  The only thing missing from the picture is the string of pearls, the 1950s haircut, and a box of Betty Crocker cake mix.  The men I am talking about are those that think they are “enlightened,” who “watch” the kids and “help” around the house (for those that are interested in the split of domestic labor among married couples with children that both work full time please see Coltrane, 2000, “Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work” for a good summary.  Yes folks, in some ways we are still living in the 1950s).  These are the same people who tuned into the Lingerie Bowl at half-time.  And I can guarantee you that they make up most of the followers of the Lingerie Football League.  They have turned in their Dallas Cowboy cheerleader calendars for Lingerie Football League trading cards and it falls under the category of “sports” and so is therefore untouchable.

I know that most of the people that read this blog won’t think that this applies to them, believe me I have read the comments sections closely, but that is not the case.  I, as a married woman with a young child, am certainly closer to this world then most of the “regulars” here (not that this describes my husband in any way), but this IS the world that we are living in.  This IS more the norm than not.  I do think that we, as feminists, should be concerned about women whose lives are dramatically different from our own.  This includes those that are in pornography, strippers, LFL players, prostitutes, mothers, and housewives.  Well, either that or we should admit defeat and turn in our feminist cards for a football and a really nice bustier.

Bookmark and Share

14 thoughts on “Super Bowl Sunday: Quit being a bitch. The game’s on! (Guest Post #1)

  1. So how about my new sport? Man Hunting! Where radical feminist womin take large pointy sticks/nails/spikes/logs and heave them through the chests, balls, and faces of misogynists? It’s just fun sports! There’s no hatred motivating it whatsoever!


  2. There was an episode of CSI:NY on recently (probably a rerun) that focused on a lingerie football team. If I’m remembering it correctly, the players wore a lot more padding, and one of the coach’s comments suggests that they actually wanted players with athletic ability. (Although the victim still ended up dying as a result of a dubious attempt at cosmetic surgery.)

    Given how often the CSI franchise makes any odd group that shows up in an episode look really bad, I’m a bit surprised at their version of lingerie football looking less screwed up and dangerous than the real thing.


    1. I know very little about it, having never seen them in action, but I hear they basically have nothing but shoulder pads so that everyone can see “the goods.” Clearly safety is about priority #11.


  3. Personally, I don’t think the LFL is any more interesting than any other piece of media that involves scantily clad, good-looking women. I would also agree that it only exists behind a barrier of “it’s sports” when in reality it has just as much merit as mud-wrestling in a bar in a pool full of jello.

    I think that what is really interesting is whether or not taking hot women out of traditional, feminine roles (usually tangential to the sporting activity) and making them the center of a new sporting activity, is a good or bad thing. In one sense, it recognizes potential across gender boundaries, and allows women to be validated for the same achievements as men. However, the whole thing takes place in a construct of pure sexual objectification…I guess my question is: does a step in the right direction entail divorcing women from football entirely, or incorporating them further into the sport?

    @ Imaginary: You can actually do that kind of shit in India if you have lots of money.


    1. Dude, the LFL can in no way be seen as a positive. A) It’s objectification at its worst. B) Even if it is women doing something men usually do, that thing men usually do is stupid, and hence should not be emulated. Feminism isn’t about women being men.


  4. I guess my question is: does a step in the right direction entail divorcing women from football entirely, or incorporating them further into the sport?

    Both and neither. A step in the right direction entails realizing that some women like football, some women don’t. Some of them are conventionally “hot”, some of them are not. Some of them are athletic, some of them are not. Basically, a step in the right direction means ditching the gender stereotypes where sports are concerned (and preferably in every other area as well).

    The LFL doesn’t concern itself with that. Its purpose is to reaffirm the status quo and confirm the categorical superiority of men. Like the DCC show on CMT (or the countless knockoffs on the ESPNs), the LFL exists to portray the frivolity of women’s athletic endeavors and consign women forever to the sex class.


  5. @ Rian

    I agree that the LFL is a bunch of shit, but if we are comparing forms of misogyny over time I bet we would see that in the 1950’s women playing masculine sports, no matter how hot they where, would have just been frowned upon. What we have now is women being objectified as they play masculine sports, with the extreme case being the LFL. I might be wrong, but I just think the misogyny is different in a meaningful way, and I am wondering if it is more extreme than before (which would be ironic in our post-feminist age) or less extreme, which could conceivably considered progress.

    @ ND: I understand that feminism isn’t about women being men, but is females engaging in masculine behavior (playing football) really a problem? If your objection is just to the stupid way it’s done in the LFL, then I would agree. If it is broad enough to encompass the WNBA, however, or a theoretical WNFL, I don’t see the moral imperative for the objection.


  6. “I know very little about it, having never seen them in action, but I hear they basically have nothing but shoulder pads so that everyone can see “the goods.” Clearly safety is about priority #11.”

    Though I’d general agree with what you’ve been saying on this issue, I’ve always been under the impression that the gear that American Football players have on isn’t about safety, it’s there because of the way it looks.

    Now, I’m not sure exactly why you’d want your players to look like…that…but the rest of the world tends to wear sensible clothes while playing football…though maybe American football is inherently more dangerous.


  7. then there’s this:

    and this:

    and this film here:

    I saw the movie (which is about the history of fantasy football leagues) and it features briefly a group of women who apparently formed a highly-competitive amateur (?) football league in the spirit of women’s softball leagues.

    not sure if this helps or hinders the discussion, but maybe it’s instructive to point out that not all women who play football do so in itchy underpants.


  8. This is just men looking for new ways to hurt the fuck out of women. FYI : it’s working

    (I never say FYI, I used it for effect. What effect- I’m not sure)


  9. I loved your writing here but I must say one thing: Some (most) married women always claim “oh no-not MY hubby-pooh…) I have unfortunately worked in the sex biz a long time ago. There were sooo many “clients” of mine and of my girlfriends who wore wedding bands were engaged their wife was home pregnant or they had girlfriends. No man is innocent-I don’t care if a woman has been with him for years. Men make awful roommates/boyfriends etc. They have a thing called a dick. A hard dick has no conscience. Men are men are men! We can’t change them because they do not want to change deep down. They are happy being irresponsible not loyal and very sneaky pricks. Thank god I am out of that awful business. It haunts me often…All of the CEO’s celebs rich fuckers blue collar types…”hippies” you name it and I have had “sessions” with them! I’m not proud of myself for being in the biz but I am proud I got out. I wish I could expose these pigs and what they are into..Men are all the same..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s