Maya’s survival. Photo: Mark Wengler
After Maya Gabeira’s survival of one of the largest waves (if not the largest) ever attempted by a woman and a subsequent botched rescue attempt, I found the sexist sentiments that one might expect on Surfer Magazine’s website and in comments by industry stalwarts. Despite this, I have found that the majority of what is being said is generally supportive of Maya’s efforts.
The overarching theme emerging from our dialogue with each other is that we are progressing, despite the best efforts of a draconian narrative that coughs and sputters along like some persistent fossil. We have to stop feeding the vampires.
Published in the June issue of Surfer Magazine, Janna Irons’ article “Boy’s Club” was posted on October 29th as a feature on Surfermag.com after news came in of Maya’s near drowning.
In it, Irons attempts to ground her argument–that there is a biological reason that there are fewer women who attempt big wave surfing than men–with a 2010 study she plucked from the Journal of Strength and Conditioning:
“A recent study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research looked at the performance difference between male and female as it pertains to surfing and found that women are at a significant disadvantage in regards to peak performance. The study pointed out that men commonly have longer limbs, which allows them to produce more torque through a given movement, which allows them to create greater velocity when paddling. Ultimately, it concluded that women ‘are not physiologically capable of performing some explosive movements equal to their male counterparts even in a relative manner’ and that ‘even relative to body weight, men still have the advantage over women.’ And this study didn’t consider the strength required for big-wave paddle surfing.”
The only study that exists in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning that looks at differences in performance between sexes in surfing is one that specifically studies the explosive force of the upper-body during the pop-up phase of surfing. I attempted to contact Ms. Irons to confirm that this was the study she was using in her article but received no reply. However, looking at the wording from the study and the quotes she is using, it is obvious that this is the study she is using, while conveniently leaving out “in the pop-up phase” in her referencing paragraph. You can read the abstract here and the full study here.
The merits of a study that generalizes (from a small group–20 male and female recreational surfers) whether women will be able to directly compete against men professionally by studying how fast they can get to their feet is absurd. Methodological issues aside (of which there are plenty), one of their base assumptions is already faulty and outdated.
In this study, the researchers use a 1996 summary report that states that length of ride is an essential component of the World Qualifying Series professional judging criteria. This bolsters their hypothesis that the speed of the pop-up in surfing is integral to peak surfing performance.
“This supports the pop-up as a crucial element in surfing performance, because a more explosive pop-up will get them onto the wave quicker thus extending time on the wave.”
While it is important to have a clean pop-up, I don’t think anyone in their right mind would take this study seriously. And as it is used without reference or specificity in Irons’ article, it begs the question: why use it at all?
She also wrangles in the inevitable juice in any biologically deterministic argument: hormones. In any such simplistic argument that attempts to dislocate human beings from their socio-cultural environments, the damage and disrespect to both women and men is apparent. In this argument, “Women are physiologically more risk-averse” and therefore lack the desire to attempt challenging situations and men possess “for lack of a better word, [the] balls” physiologically required. Women run from risk while men rush towards it through some biological imperative embedded in their hormone-addled minds. She attempts to correct for this diminishment of human behavior to our physio-chemical make-up by stating that “Of course, there are exceptions…”
Yeah. Every human being is an exception to this reductive hogwash, frankly.
Irons’ article is important to highlight in order to draw attention to the fact that it is not just men who peddle this nonsense. If you read the comments beneath this article, in fact, you’ll find many men who disagree outright with Ms. Irons. Some even point out how her argument is damaging to male surfers as well as female surfers.
Women can be just as bad at peddling this bullshit as men. We are conditioned to see ourselves in certain contexts and must actively work at seeing ourselves in a non-sexist, non-objectified way. Many of us buy into the draconian narrative, effectively sucking the energy out of those that work to alter the very ideology responsible for the damage. Carry this unfortunate reality over into conversations around the “sex sells” idea, and you’ll see that it really is a matter of conditioning how we see ourselves, as well as how men see us.
There are specific circumstances where I will invoke the concept of patriarchy, and the surf patriarchy is most certainly one.
That being said, this whole Nazaré debacle has certainly offered up some points from which to view the creaky groanings of this group.
It is an essential component of the surf patriarchy that those within it are well established, respected, and highly achieved surfers with decades of experience in many, if not all, areas of big wave surfing. They have a voice, reach, and impact within surf culture, and many have large reach outside that culture.
However, this does not make of their perspectives some kind of unbending law. Their status and voice demand more attention and more questioning because of their influence within the culture.
