Woman Taking Different Knees?

[Peter]

@ cudzo

The reference to "taking the knee" was just short-hand for people standing up (or kneeling down) for what they perceive to be their "rights".  In this case, it seemed to me that they were two different things - therefore two different knees.  Sorry for the confusion.

[ravenbait]

Ravenbait, Quixoticgeek and Beardy are echoing my thoughts - not that I think all other posts are wrong but they (R, Q and B) are where I am coming from.  I think Olivia Breen has a right to wear what she does but the picture she shows on the BBC news page is not the one that is presumably what gave rise to the official's comment, ill-advised though that may (or beer-belly-wise) may not have been.  Have a look at the slew of you tube videos of female athletes leaving the long-jump pit from non-descript athletic meetings to see where the beer-bellies are coming from.  Yes, I have seen some of them - but I've always kept my shirt on.

I'm not entirely sure if your last comment is meant to imply the beer bellies have a point? I may be misreading it — apologies if so — but that's what I infer. The default sexualisation of bodies is a whole other annoyance for me. Like, so what if they wear skimpy outfits? They're there to perform, not to be subject to ogling. When I race, I wear skintight, fairly skimpy outfits. I know there are men who ogle triathletes because they find my race photos on flickr and favourite them (and then I see what groups they belong to and have to douse myself in brain bleach).

There is a pervasive sense of entitlement to women's bodies in particular that should be resisted, indeed fought against. This is not "nature". It's not inbuilt, hardwired to the male brain. If that were the case, tribes where lack of clothing is the norm would never be able to function for men being distracted by women's bare skin. This is cultural, it is learned, and it can be resisted.

Where the beer-bellies are coming from is decades of entitled sexualisation and objectification of women. They crawl out of an ocean of "make them slutty, but not too slutty, because real sluts are worthless" onto a muddy shoreline of lads mags and page 3 girls. The official has a bad case of internalised misogyny that has its roots in 19th century prudery.

The women who play beach sports should be able to wear what they like, whether that's a crop top and shorts or a t-shirt and baggies, or the bikini that incidentally gets the beer-bellies on their feet. The onus isn't on the athletes to wear something that will please (or not) others, but on those watching them to appreciate the athletes for their performance, not for fappability. My gods. This shouldn't even need to be said.

Men* need to stop believing they can't help but ogle. It's entirely possible to be aware of someone else having a body without it being the most important, never mind only aspect of that person that matters. No matter what it looks like.

Sam
*I will add, because I genuinely do not have the spare efforts required to argue about the moral validity of generalities, that if you do not feel this applies to you, well done, I believe you, now go and teach your l33t skillz to the men to whom it DOES apply.

[Peter]

Yes, sam, you have misinterpreted me. I've never seen the point of a beer-belly!  The beer-bellies are not there for the athletic prowess on display - in my opinion - and neither are the videos of jumpers on you-tube.  There is no attempt at analysis of technique and so on.  It is (again in my opinion) athletics as porn in the way it is done.  Athletic men have equally beautiful bodies but they are not expected to pander to this clientele - which is why there are almost no videos of male long-jumpers in insignificant events (or clothing)!

Oh, and while I'm here, Jack Grealish's hair is pretty unacceptable as well!

Genuine question:  i'm not much of a texter - what is l33t, please?

[Mr Larrington]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet

(Edited back into English) Fear my elite search skills…

[Cudzoziemiec]

@ cudzo

The reference to "taking the knee" was just short-hand for people standing up (or kneeling down) for what they perceive to be their "rights".  In this case, it seemed to me that they were two different things - therefore two different knees.  Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks, clear.

However, I'd disagree that these are two different things. They are two different styles of dressing, but one thing – the right to dress as you prefer (reveal or cover as much skin as you choose, figure hugging or baggy or whatever) in as far as it is compatible with the sport (I think Citoyen and others have already said this, in effect).

[Mr Larrington]

Peter reports via PM that for some inexplicable reason his (work) laptop won't let him access the link to the Wikinaccurate link about Leet coz it thinks it's pr0n, nor will it let him reply to the thread anymore.  It's not him being standoffish.

[quixoticgeek]

Peter reports via PM that for some inexplicable reason his (work) laptop won't let him access the link to the Wikinaccurate link about Leet coz it thinks it's pr0n, nor will it let him reply to the thread anymore.  It's not him being standoffish.

Oh I do love an overzealous work content filter. Can he access the first page of the thread?

J

[TimC]

I've never understood the beach volleyball rules on female dress. I had no idea that handball had the same rules (admission: I'm not exactly sure what handball is!). I totally understand Olivia Breen's objection to the umpire complaining about her clothing; she wasn't wearing anything unusual, and if she feels that that clothing helps her perform optimally then what's the problem? However, making it compulsory to wear revealing clothing for no other reason that it improves viewing figures is patently wrong. If it's your (voluntarily taken on) job to get people to look at you in a sexual manner, ok, do what you need to do, but to play a game? I think I first became aware of beach volleyball as a sport in the Rio Olympics (other than in Top Gun). Yes, it's Brazil, and yes, their ladies seem to like to wear not a lot, but I was quite uncomfortable for the few minutes I watched as it became obvious that the kit was a kind of mandated uniform. It's not a sport I'll watch again unless they change the rules to allow some discretion in what the players wear. I'm surprised that the players themselves haven't pushed harder to change things, but perhaps it's so much part of the culture of the sport that they daren't?

[Mr Larrington]

Peter reports via PM that for some inexplicable reason his (work) laptop won't let him access the link to the Wikinaccurate link about Leet coz it thinks it's pr0n, nor will it let him reply to the thread anymore.  It's not him being standoffish.

Oh I do love an overzealous work content filter. Can he access the first page of the thread?

Seems he can read it OK but not reply to it, since he's referred to a couple of my posts and one of Cudzo's before the Thought Police got him.

[Wowbagger]

...I know it's internalised fat shaming to say that noone wants to see my 100kg of fat dyke wallowing around in the sand.

...

Actually, I would. It sends a powerful message which says it's OK for women not to be of the standard colour-supplement-approved shape which it seems they are "meant to aspire to" and they can be free to be whoever they want to be, and are not banned from certain activities because of their body shape.

There is an all-year-round swimming group in Southend known as the Blue Tits. My swimming pal is a member. Quite a few - in fact, I think almost all - of their members are female and the vast majority of them are generously proportioned. They don't care and I think it sets a good example.

Blokes, on the other hand, don't seem to be quite so fat-shamed, although, as a warm-weather swimmer, I think I've observed that men are a minority of beach users. This could possibly be because a fair few of the adults there are taking kids with them and there's a tendency for the supervising adults to be women.

I'm off to the beach shortly and I will discreetly observe and assess the approximate make-up, gender and body-shape wise, of my fellow wallowers.

[citoyen]

...I know it's internalised fat shaming to say that noone wants to see my 100kg of fat dyke wallowing around in the sand.

...

Actually, I would. It sends a powerful message which says it's OK for women not to be of the standard colour-supplement-approved shape which it seems they are "meant to aspire to" and they can be free to be whoever they want to be, and are not banned from certain activities because of their body shape.

+1

I just want people to be able to enjoy doing sporty things (or should I just say "being physically active" - we also need to take away the exclusive effect of that word "sporty").

[Cudzoziemiec]

Peter reports via PM that for some inexplicable reason his (work) laptop won't let him access the link to the Wikinaccurate link about Leet coz it thinks it's pr0n, nor will it let him reply to the thread anymore.  It's not him being standoffish.

Oh I do love an overzealous work content filter. Can he access the first page of the thread?

Seems he can read it OK but not reply to it, since he's referred to a couple of my posts and one of Cudzo's before the Thought Police got him.

Apparently I used a dirty word.

(click to show/hide)

He think it was "skin".

Does anyone know who Peter works for? Maybe the Mormons? 

[Wowbagger]

I think he has been in the habit of doing educational things with musical instruments, but I have to say, without casting any nasturtiums, that I thought he was old enough to know better.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I've never understood the beach volleyball rules on female dress. I had no idea that handball had the same rules (admission: I'm not exactly sure what handball is!).

ISTR handball was invented by the Danish national football coach in the 1930s as an exercise to get his squad to think tactically. Somehow it grew from there to become a sport in its own right. It's quite popular (to the extent that it's played in schools, for instance) in some parts of Eastern Europe as well as, presumably, Scandinavia. What I find odd though is the way that beach handball or beach volleyball is considered a separate game from handball or volleyball.

[Peter]

I think he has been in the habit of doing educational things with musical instruments, but I have to say, without casting any nasturtiums, that I thought he was old enough to know better.

Wow, (in both senses)  I seem to have been let in again!  Not quite sure what you mean by old enough to know better.  If you mean old enough not to work, certainly (I officially retired - and not teacher's early retirement - years ago but I still teach guitar a day a week for the Local Council (whose laptop this is) because I enjoy it.  I also do it to remember who I am as my hands deteriorate!

If you mean old enough to know not to post on here about certain subjects - well, yes, obviously - but I am taking the knee for the right to be misunderstood!

[fd3]

A selection of *I must stress this* half baked thoughts.
Outside of the sporting world there are jobs that require women to wear high heels and other objectifying clothing - I don't see this as significantly different.
With either job or sport, the uniform is not a surprise after purchase addition, you know what you are getting into.
Would it be different if the beach handball association were sponsored by the makers of small swimsuits? - players must wear sponsor's kit or you don't get paid.
Where do they get their money from?  Who chooses to watch the women's sport instead of the men's?  If you exclude the voyeurs are you left with enough paying customers to fund the players and allow them to make a living from the sport?  If not, do you accept to continue as amateurs or do you chase the money from the voyeurs, or is there a third option (should the equivalent men's sport subsidise you, or should the taxpayer - if so, why)?
This was in the news RE the 11-woman game and is really evident if you google pretty much any female cyclist.
If one team elects not to be voyeurbait, while on the face of it that would seem fine, are they not profiting from all the other players who are voyeurbait?

Now, clearly these players should have the right to wear what they want, but they don't have a right to be paid, though they should have the right to try and make a living off it - which can well mean things like swimsuit calendars of pro cyclists - if they so choose.
To make it a real choice surely we need to find some way to give them financial security - but the reason they are in this predicament is because there isn't the money for it.

[Wowbagger]

I think he has been in the habit of doing educational things with musical instruments, but I have to say, without casting any nasturtiums, that I thought he was old enough to know better.

Wow, (in both senses)  I seem to have been let in again!  Not quite sure what you mean by old enough to know better.  If you mean old enough not to work, certainly (I officially retired - and not teacher's early retirement - years ago but I still teach guitar a day a week for the Local Council (whose laptop this is) because I enjoy it.  I also do it to remember who I am as my hands deteriorate!

If you mean old enough to know not to post on here about certain subjects - well, yes, obviously - but I am taking the knee for the right to be misunderstood!

No, Peter - your philosophy is somewhat different from mine. I'm at the stage that I don't want any more pupils and to earn money from them - I've was self-employed for over 20 years and as I wound down and did fewer and fewer hours, the annual tax return became a more significant chunk of my annual work and by far the biggest chunk of my annual stress. I don't need to earn money and commit myself to a work routine, so I've chosen not to.

I'm quite happy to share any expertise that I might have acquired along the away in an ad hoc kind of fashion: if anyone I know wants an occasional session to sort out some musical issue I might know something about then I'm happy to help, but I don't want payment or commitment. Similarly I made a comment on a piano playing forum a couple of years ago that I wanted to treat my pension as a research grant so that I could immerse myself in the vast ocean which is the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach, and that received a favourable comment from a superannuated international concert pianist.

No offence intended by my comment, hence the reference to nasturtiums.

Horse-hairs for corsets, innit?

[citoyen]

A selection of *I must stress this* half baked thoughts.
Outside of the sporting world there are jobs that require women to wear high heels and other objectifying clothing - I don't see this as significantly different.
With either job or sport, the uniform is not a surprise after purchase addition, you know what you are getting into...

OK, stop there. No one should have their life choices and career path defined and restricted by what inexcusable conditions they are not prepared to put up with.

To reiterate what I said at the top of the thread: stop telling women what to wear. That's all there is to it. It's not complicated.

On the matter of sponsorship, sport no longer allows tobacco advertising, and fingers crossed they're heading towards putting an end to advertising gambling as well. Sometimes the ethical position is allowed to trump financial considerations. But it's more than just virtue signalling - it's important because these things do real harm, and are therefore detrimental to society as a whole. The same goes for forcing women to dress a certain way just for the privilege of being allowed to do something they're good at.

[fd3]

I agree with your "should", so how will reality move to this? 
If someone is trying to run a women's sports team, assuming that they will make a significant proportion of their income from ogling voyeurs, you can only demand they stop if you either find an alternative funding stream or accept telling the women players that they are out of a job.

[citoyen]

Exactly the same argument was used to justify tobacco sponsorship of sport for many years.

[fd3]

If you say so, but those sports mostly had enough money to do without.  In the case of Rugby, they gave up on tobacco sponsorship and lost their second tier to being semi-pro.  How did sports that relied on tobacco sponsorship get different revenue to make up for this?

[citoyen]

In the case of Rugby, they gave up on tobacco sponsorship and lost their second tier to being semi-pro.

I can't find any evidence to support this claim. Please enlighten me. (It might help to be more specific than "Rugby" - which code? which country? which year?)

Anyway, this is straying from the point. Again.

assuming that they will make a significant proportion of their income from ogling voyeurs

Why are you making this assumption?

[TimC]

A selection of *I must stress this* half baked thoughts.

I think you may be overthinking it. Handball isn't a professional sport. It's only been going about 20 years as a codified sport. I'm pretty sure it doesn't appear on any TV channel outside Olympic or European multisport events. The Wikipedia page suggests that the men's game applied to be able to wear swimsuit bottoms instead of shorts in 2002, but were refused. I suspect the reasons for that, and for the women's team fine, are that the rule-givers are a bit too pleased with their position of power, and they're probably a bunch of middle-aged white men who've never even played the game. As several sports have done in the past, it's probably time for the teams and the rulemakers to part company.

[citoyen]

I suspect the reasons for that, and for the women's team fine, are that the rule-givers are a bit too pleased with their position of power, and they're probably a bunch of middle-aged white men who've never even played the game. As several sports have done in the past, it's probably time for the teams and the rulemakers to part company.

Bingo!

I’d be surprised if it’s anything to do with sponsorship or what the punters have demanded.

[quixoticgeek]

I agree with your "should", so how will reality move to this? 
If someone is trying to run a women's sports team, assuming that they will make a significant proportion of their income from ogling voyeurs, you can only demand they stop if you either find an alternative funding stream or accept telling the women players that they are out of a job.

How do the men's teams in this sport fund themselves? Cos they are certainly not dressed for ogling voyeurs? Why does the women's team rely on ogling men to be able to get funded, but the mens doesn't?

We had the tdf on the projector in the office a couple of weeks ago. It was the ITT stage, and for most of the afternoon the view was mens arses. Mens, taut, lycra clad, powerful arses. Being that I don't really do men, this did absolutely nothing for me. Had I put on the giro rosadonna, for an ITT, I would have got a similar view of women's bums. The men get paid substantially more for what they are doing, than the women, and we're told that the women should accept that the only way they can be funded is cos we oggle their arses? I'm a lesbian, I find women attractive. But you know what, when I'm watching cycling I'm watching cos I want to watch cyclists performing at their best, not trying to work out which ones I want to shag. Why can't men do the same?

And if any of you read that last sentence and want to say "not all men". Just don't - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen

A couple of years back I watched the women's one day support act for the veulta espania, where they did a crit race in Madrid. The director really liked the German Lantern Rouge, as about 90% of the footage we got was her arse. I'd much rather that the focus had been on the awesome cycling talent in the group, and not just their bum.

One of the things I love about working from home, is I don't have to worry about what I am wearing. I never turn my camera on[1], so most days I don't even bother with clothes, or just a tshirt. I don't have to worry about what I'm wearing, is it going to be ok for this situation? does it reveal too much? does it cover up too much? is it too formal? not formal enough? Can I wear a skirt today, or am I going to have to crawl around under a desk fixing cabling? Working from home I don't have to worry about any of this. It's brilliant. The men don't have to worry about that.

Tom Scott has worn the same identical red tshirt in his films for years. Karl Stefanovic wore the same suit on TV for a year. If a woman wears the same clothes to work 2 days running people will comment.

I wish people would stop judging women and girls by what they wear. I wish we could wear what we want without having to worry someone isn't going to like it. If I get knocked off my bike on my training ride tonight, the media may ask "was she wearing a helmet?". If I get dragged into the bushes and raped, the media will ask "Was my clothing revealing and inviting?". Both are the same basic victim blaming bollocks. I should be able to walk across Dam square at any time of the day completely fucking naked, without risking that someone will rape me. I should also be able to do the same in a modest dress with a head scarf on. But the reality is, that many have a problem with one or both of those.

Let's just stop telling women what they can and cannot wear. Let's stop judging women based on what they do or do not wear. And if the women's version of a sport requires leching old men to be financially supported, and the men's version doesn't, how about the men grow some fucking balls, stand up for what is right, and help us change that.

J

[1] either that or it's been on since the beginning and everyone is too polite to tell me that it's on and enjoying that I am topless.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-30069564