Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

14 Responses

  1. togolosh
    togolosh February 18, 2006 at 12:16 am |

    The official argument seems like an excellent justification for banning women’s gymnastics. Of course that would cost the IOC big money, but hey – think of the children.

  2. spotted elephant
    spotted elephant February 18, 2006 at 12:59 am |

    Well, to be fair, when I was 12, I was ski jumping and my uterus fell out. It not only fell out, but apparently became unattached because it landed in the snow. Everyone was terribly upset.

  3. Magis
    Magis February 18, 2006 at 1:23 am |

    spotted elephant:

    DO NOT ski jump naked.

  4. Magni
    Magni February 18, 2006 at 4:30 am |

    Norwegian ski jumper Anette Sagen has had fights with the IOC bosses and the international ski federations folks about this over the last years. She also get this “it’s too dangerous” argument.

    The funny thing is that Anette is also a pretty good skydiver, which is, at least by insurance companies, considered a Very Dangerous Activity. Apparently 200 km/h from 3km above the gorund is ok, but 125 km/h from 100 m is not.

  5. wolfangel
    wolfangel February 18, 2006 at 9:33 am |

    Hey cool. We can get rid of women’s hockey because it’s “boring”: after all, there are only two good teams, right? (I guess Sweden doesn’t count.) We can get rid of most of the other skiing and snowboarding events because they’re dangerous, and the sledding events — women get concussions! Can’t have that! Apparently the number one accident in skeleton is cutting off your fingers (not at this level, though), too.

    I can’t figure out why we should get rid of curling, yet, maybe they should just have to wear more revealing clothing.

  6. cooper
    cooper February 18, 2006 at 12:53 pm |

    But it’s ok to figure skate and let some dude thrust you up in the air possibly breaking your face open as long as you’re wearing a cute skirt.

  7. piny
    piny February 18, 2006 at 1:28 pm |

    Seriously. The dismount from the uneven bars is a lot more jarring than sliding down a hill.

    But then, gymnastics and ice skating have little women in skimpy outfits, so it’s not really like sports or anything.

    Uh, don’t forget being forced to stay twelve until you’re twenty. I can’t see how long-term amenorrhea is good for your girl bits if ski-jumping is supposed to be so bad.

  8. Frumious B.
    Frumious B. February 18, 2006 at 2:03 pm |

    Considering that female atheletes still have to endure physical exams to prove they are female to compete in the olympics, further examples of misogyny do not surprise me.

  9. Peter
    Peter February 18, 2006 at 4:34 pm |

    Somehow, the fact that a uterus is INSIDE the abdominal cavity would seem to be an advantage when it comes to protecting one’s reproductive system, as opposed to having it hang in a little sack in between one’s legs.

  10. Laurie
    Laurie February 18, 2006 at 10:19 pm |

    Several random thoughts on the whole Olympic women’s events thing:

    Well, shit! There’s no *checking* in women’s hockey?!? I obviously need to actually WATCH the sport sometime and not just think it’s totally cool that they are finally LETTING girls/women play hockey and that my alma mater has won the women’s collegiate hockey tourney a couple of times. *cough* *self-conscious grin*

    zuzu — really good point. After all, if we girls might shake our uteruses (uterii?!?) up too much landing ski jumps, it’s only fair to protect the boy’s tender parts too. Right? Hmmmmm, that might let out other sports too. Anything where they need to wear an athletic supporter….

    Short skirts in skating competition for the same reason that classic tutus came into being: yes, partly to show off women’s legs, but *also* because longer skirts hide the flashy, show offy leg/foot work. Also, longer skirts (well, longer than just above knee length) would just be *dangerous* in skating. That said, I’m really glad they are letting them wear unitard type things now, too.

    So, when are female athletes going to storm the IOC and demand that they enter the 21st century with the rest of us? I honestly did not know that women were not allowed to ski jump, given the other very risky sports they compete in now. And that’s just a stupid, non-scientific hold over that needs to be challenged. Not by me — I’m a dancer, not an athelete, and can’t make a good argument for dangerous sports to save my life. :) But that doesn’t mean I won’t support young women’s right to participate in them.

    ‘Nuff said. Must go grocery shopping now. I’m hoping this one actually goes through — I’ve had a couple of comments just … disappear over the last couple of days. I haven’t pissed anyone off, have I? I don’t mind needing to be moderated, I’d just like a warning if I’ve crossed a line somewhere.

  11. Robert
    Robert February 19, 2006 at 1:18 am |

    Argh, I hate having to be on Zuzu’s side. This is absurd. There’s no reason for women not to play ANY sport. There are sports where perhaps different handicapping or slightly different rules might be appropriate in the interest of promoting collegial sportsmanship between genders – (the staggered starting tees in golf come to mind) – but saying “no chick ski jumpers” is just retarded.

  12. Elizajoey
    Elizajoey February 19, 2006 at 6:00 pm |

    Just to be fair, it is not specifically the IOC that is denying women’s ski jumping but the International Ski Federation. Just like the Canoeing Federation doesn’t allow women’s canoeing in the Summer Olympics.

    There is a new rule that for any sports to get admittance into the Games, both males and females must be involved. However, this is obsolete when the IOC has not done anything to ensure that all events in the Olympics already are open to both sexes.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.