A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Interesting article home-page-linked. Some pertinent points that deserve discussion include (my numbering):
1. Skimpy outfits, made-up faces, smoothly waxed bodies. These are some of the images that come into my head when I think of the Olympics.
2. So I think I can be excused for worrying that the Olympics, and other sporting events, have become yet another way for women to be objectified.
3. And why do female runners wear tighter, shorter shorts that show their every curve than male runners, who may wear skin-tight shorts sometimes but are also seen in looser, airier outfits?
4. And what's with the absent body hair?
5. But I do find it worrying how even in a competition like this, the women are still put on display for their appearances rather than for their exploits.
1. That's the LAST thing I think of when I think of the Olympics! Perhaps the issue has more to do with what YOU are looking at?
2. Women are indeed objectified in all media. If you are a good-looking person in the public eye, that comes with the territory. That's the way our culture has developed. Women do it themselves when they (women's soccer team) poses nude or when women athletes gladly doll up for media shoots. They know what sells. This happens also with men, by the way, or did Mark Spitz sell that poster for the medals or the Speedo?
3. ??!! Men wear tight unis too, sometimes far past the TMI line (Linford Christie!).
4. Is this 1960s East Germany? I RARELY see women that have not removed their body hair! Now men are doing it too.
5. Appearances ARE important - if the camera is going to do close-ups on the girl gymnasts' faces, you betcha they're going to have make-up on! Their idea. And you still have the wrong idea about the Olympics, appearance is still FAR below athletic skill in this competition!
[TBC]
**CAUTION** - any smart-*ss comments will get this thread deleted. Since the management here posted the link to the article, I can only assume it is an important topic to discuss.
Last edited by Marlow on Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OK, now that I have that out of my system, her premise is, of course, a valid one: women are indeed objectified all the time and it diminishes us all. But . . . sport is not to blame, we are. It is what we have created and the demand for attractive women to 'worship' will ALWAYS be present in our culture.
The premise of the article is wrong. Sports does not objectify women. It is women athletes who objectify themselves to make more money. And I say more power to them.
T&F competition rules do not specify a dress code that mandates skimpy clothing. And some muslim women who compete do not wear skimpy clothing. Some wear full body suits. The Afghan sprinter even ran in a hijab.
As for female gymnasts applying make-up, I would expect her as a woman to understand why.
Another quote from the article: "I'm the first to admit that I know very little about athletics in general and professional athletics on the level of the Olympics in particular".
OK, now that I have that out of my system, her premise is, of course, a valid one: women are indeed objectified all the time and it diminishes us all. But . . . sport is not to blame, we are. It is what we have created and the demand for attractive women to 'worship' will ALWAYS be present in our culture.
One person looks at a fit female athlete and admires her beauty and another looks at her as nothing more then an object, that's their problem not hers.
SQUACKEE wrote:One person looks at a fit female athlete and admires her beauty and another looks at her as nothing more then an object, that's their problem not hers.
Good point. Objectifying is nothing that just happens; human beings objectify other human beings. Those that do it are the ones to blame; and not the ones being objectified, which is basically what the article does.
SQUACKEE wrote:One person looks at a fit female athlete and admires her beauty and another looks at her as nothing more then an object, that's their problem not hers.
Good point. Objectifying is nothing that just happens; human beings objectify other human beings. Those that do it are the ones to blame; and not the ones being objectified, which is basically what the article does.
And there are many women who look at men as provider objects...doesnt bother me in the least.
Coincidentally, not a single female track athlete represented in this year's ESPN the Magazine's Body Issue(at least the gallery on the website). Track men represented by Ashton Eaton and Walter Dix.
My wife commented (critically) about the women's track outfits, but oohed at the male bodies at the swimming trials and gymnastics. I commented (positively) about the women's track outfits and was mute about the male bodies in swimming. What can it mean???
jeremyp wrote:My wife commented (critically) about the women's track outfits, but oohed at the male bodies at the swimming trials and gymnastics. I commented (positively) about the women's track outfits and was mute about the male bodies in swimming. What can it mean???
It can only mean one thing...time for a date night and hurry!
kamikaze7 wrote:The premise of the article is wrong. Sports does not objectify women. It is women athletes who objectify themselves to make more money. And I say more power to them.....
Yes, but men don't need to do that to make more money. Get the disconnect?
kamikaze7 wrote:The premise of the article is wrong. Sports does not objectify women. It is women athletes who objectify themselves to make more money. And I say more power to them.....
Yes, but men don't need to do that to make more money. Get the disconnect?
Thats because women don't look at men as sex objects, and a damn shame! Maybe I should speak for myself.
things like pornography and prostitution are not - as you point out, women 'freely' subject themselves to that to make money, but it is males who create that need and the women who 'accept' that lifestyle may think it is 'free will' but I firmly believe it is not a 'choice' (I'm sure many virulently disagree with me - feel free).
But . . . yes, there is much humor in the broader subject. MOST women do indeed objectify men on many other levels - it is human nature. There are many intelligent women who do NOT need the money, who seek objectification. They dress very provocatively just to be lusted after. It's an emotional need. Men just need to learn that 'no means no' even tho all the other signals say yes.
Marlow wrote:but I firmly believe it is not a 'choice' (I'm sure many virulently disagree with me - feel free).
You have to be kidding right? The general rule (there are always extreme circumstances) is that no one forces someone to take off their clothes and get in front of the camera, or broadcast themselves in more suggestive clothing to attract their desired result . . . whatever that is. To suggest it is not a choice is so typical of today's PC society. I can see the rhetoric already, whoever faces an unintended consequence that might result of such behavior receives the phrase from the PCs . . . "your the victim here".
