Notwithstanding a dislike for generalisations about people, I’ve recently concluded — after months of lurking on Pete Bodo’s TennisWorld blog (http://tennisworld.typepad.com/ ) — that intense followers of tennis tend to be cerebral with an interest in the arts.
While most sports lovers online spend much of their time hurling insults at each other, the off-topic conversations on TennisWorld cover such subjects as opera and ballet, Bergman movies, and the relative merits of Eliot, Pound and Plath. (Which is not to say that Federer fans and Nadal fans don’t hurl insults at each other, but that they do it with finesse; Indian cricket lovers may learn a few tricks.)
Given all this, perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that Touré — an American novelist, journalist and cultural critic — placed tennis star Ana Ivanovic at the top of his list of “Thinking Man’s Sex Symbols” (TMSS) for 2008 on The Daily Beast blog (http://tinyurl.com/9m5ou6 ). But I’m not sold on the selection.
Though Touré is clearly impressed that Ivanovic is “studying finance online even as she travels the world winning tournaments”, I don’t see why you especially need to be a “thinking man” to appreciate her very obvious charms. Basic eye-to-brain coordination should be enough. More interesting are other names: producer-actress Tina Fey, journalist Lisa Ling and — you already knew about this, didn’t you? — Indian-origin writer Jhumpa Lahiri.
Lahiri’s inclusion on the list was splashed across Indian websites — thus becoming fodder for discussion by those who don’t quite give the impression of being “thinking men”. On Indiatimes (http://tinyurl.com/7txrzn ), in response to the incisive literary question “Do you find Jhumpa sexy?” one commenter says “I’ve not read her but since she is sexy and good looking, I will definitely download his (sic) pictures.” Another avers that “there’s no such thing as a thinking man’s sex symbol. These kind of men keep thinking, but don’t perform. I don’t find Jhumpa hot.”
As always, the good people on Rediff.com (http://tinyurl.com/7vroqt ) are delightfully oblique. “Rather than seeing women as sex product, u shd write about Mother Teresa,” says one Krishna Reddy, “She did a lot of good work.” Another comment provides an inadvertent summary of the general Rediff (and, the anti-intellectual) mindset: “Dear God, May U save the thinking man.”
A more provocative discussion on the original Daily Beast post touches on an old conflict: the right to individual taste vs responsibility towards group representation. Some are incensed that Touré — himself a dark-skinned man — did not include a single African-American woman on his list, and things soon get nasty, with a commenter named PhDiva going commando. “Do you really know any black women?” she asks rhetorically.
“Any black women friends that you’ve ever shared a meal or a sincere conversation with? Your desire to negate us is greater than your desire to understand us.” There’s also the objectification of women. “What kind of stupid article is this?” asks another Daily Beast poster, “Just because the guy who wrote it has also written in the New Yorker doesn’t make it any less of an overtly brainless sexist piece. Only little boys want one woman, or 10, to symbolise an entire gender.” “It’s 2009, time to grow up.” Wise words, but the Neterati stay young forever.
