Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Sexism in Olympic sport

By Jocelynne Scutt - posted Wednesday, 8 August 2012


In May 2012, the European Women's Lobby (EWL) passed a resolution on 'The Olympics and Universalism'. Proposed by the French Division, seconded by Germany, Cyprus, Greece and Italy, and adopted with six dissenting votes only, the text reads:

'On 25 July in conjunction with the opening of the London Olympics, a protest will be organised against the Olympic Committee's failure to respect the principles of equality and neutrality. The presence of the presidents or delegates from the EWL and from National Coordinations [member countries] would be of major importance. The aim of the protest is to ask for a strict implementation of the Olympic Charter based on universal principles.'

Universal principles incorporate the notion that fair play and sport are synonymous. That prejudice has no place in sport. That sporting capacities and achievements are valued without 'extra points', superiority or esteem being awarded by reference to sex/gender, race/ethnicity or class/status.

Advertisement

The pall of racism clouding the 1936 Berlin Olympics is well-known, often being the subject of comment and media coverage, including documentary film. Yet the continued and continuing scourge of sexism in sport is not recognised by the Olympics Committee and rarely remarked upon by commentators – unless in scoffing at women's performance, engaging in patronising commentary, or commenting lewdly upon women competitors' dress, looks, physique or even more intimately.

This runs directly counter to the 'Fundamental Principles of Olympism' set out in the Olympic Charter, holding the practice of sport as 'a human right … without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play', whilst the goal of Olympism is 'to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity'.

When it comes to sex and gender, how this measures up to the reality is questionable.

The sound of the Benny Hill theme echoing through the air at the beach volleyball venue is particularly apt – if beach volleyball is regarded as a matter of sexuality, a sexual rather than a sporting performance. Even without Benny Hill – notorious for his bombast when it came to women's bodies, wrapping up grossness-toward-women in a repartee purportedly funny – the Olympic Charter is not so much in evidence when women's sport is in issue.

The Charter makes much of notions of games prowess being necessarily combined with being a 'good sport'. High achievement in sport goes hand in hand, according to Olympic philosophy, with high standards of personal behaviour or, in colloquial terms, 'gentlemanly conduct'.

Yet so often, these are not on display.

Advertisement

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, gains frequent media coverage, mostly on the basis that he is a 'loveable buffoon' or 'clown' – whilst at the same time being touted as a replacement for the current British Prime Minister, who is suffering a downturn in polls. Even before the Games' opening, Johnson was reported as making lascivious remarks about the volleyball events – no, not the men's but the women's. Upon viewing the sport-in-progress, his regular Telegraph column blathered:

'As I write these words there are semi-naked women playing beach volleyball in the middle of the Horse Guards Parade immortalised by Canaletto. They are glistening like wet otters and the water is splashing off the brims of the spectators' sou'westers. The whole thing is magnificent and bonkers …'

Beach volleyball is so often a target for these sorts of remark, making repetition boring. Still, commentators continue with the metaphorical (or sometimes literal) licking of lips as if they are the first to observe the players' shape and costume. The element of skill, together with intense and intensive training, which brought women to Olympic standard and into the teams in the first place is not the subject of these comments. Indeed, an observer might not be blamed for assuming from this media coverage that it is not the standard of play on the field that forms the criterion for selection or competition, but body-shape and shortness of skirt or shorts together with skimpiness of top-covering that merits the awarding of points and medals.

Beach volleyball was also a Harry Windsor target, media avidly reporting that the man scored tickets to the event, as if his reported antics in nightclubs about the town somehow equip him appropriately for a prominent place in the stands when beach volleyballers enter the stadium. This is, according to reports, 'the worst kept secret of the Olympics', with Harry reportedly 'excited' at securing his 'trophy' tickets for 'front-row' seats. That this approach is juvenile in the extreme does not seem to register with any of those involved in writing up the episode, apart from the Guardian where it was noted that headline news seemed to be that Harry 'will be attending beach volleyball, where real ladies famously wear real bikinis'.

Even where women's prowess in Olympic sport is affirmed, with nations pridefully including gold, silver and bronze in their medals tally, media commentators still mouth sotto voce upon the women's 'performance' on the winners' dais – where all women are, invariably, 'girls'.

This approach is, of course, supported in that far fewer female sports commentators take their place in media boxes at Olympic arenas than do male sports commentators. Australia, as with other countries, sends a woeful number of women in media contingents to any sporting event, with the Olympics being no different. The notion that male commentators are well-qualified to pronounce upon women's sporting prowess – when those events are covered – appears to be well-accepted by television, radio and print media. The opposite idea: that women commentators are equally positioned to cover men's sporting events doesn't follow – at least where media powers are concerned, and that women might commentate on women's events also is lacking, for women are little seen or heard when it comes to women's or men's events.

Even the opening of the Olympics – an event to which universalism should apply, too - is covered by men seen by production heads as 'personalities', whatever the public might think.

So far, women basketballers from Australia have travelled economy class whilst their male counterparts travelled in business. And, showing that sexism has no national boundaries, Japanese women soccer players flew economy whilst the men's soccer team flew business. In both cases, the women's teams are in the top echelons of their sport, whilst the men's teams languish as 'also rans'.

In the meantime, men compete in five canoeing competitions, whilst the Olympics stages no canoeing competitions for women. Yet it is not as if the world is sans women canoeists. Indeed, medal winning canoeist Samantha Rippington is challenging this exclusion in the United Kingdom High Court – facing up to the financial and psychological costs this places upon her, along with the physical stress and (despite plaudits from admirers of her courage and conviction) the opprobrium her stand inevitably unleashes. There are, sadly, some who will not accept that women have a right to engage equally in sport, much less protest through legal forums when denied that right.

Canada has declared that its local Olympic Games Committee is engaging in 'government functions' when undertaking its role as 'head' of Olympics activities and actions in Canada. Hence, it is subject to human rights principles and domestic legislation. The UK case aims at making the same point – relevant not only to canoeing but to the Olympic practice of providing many events for men which are not replicated for women, and for having a far larger programme of men's than women's events. Universalism? On the part of Olympics' organisers, hardly. Insofar as the women challengers are concerned? Spot on.

The Olympic Charter declares that Olympism 'is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind', whilst 'blending sport with culture and education', with Olympism seeking to 'create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational values of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles'.

Yet, as 'Letters to the Editor' published in the Guardian (3 August 2012) affirm, 'joy of effort' is strongly underpinned by money for men – sponsorships, high salaries – as where male footballers 'earn yearly salaries in a day', whilst female footballers survive in their sport solely through working other jobs to support themselves and their families.

The goal of Olympism, as attested by the Olympic Charter, is to 'place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind', with a 'view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity'.

Yet again, as a Guardian 'Letters to the Editor' (3 August 2012) correspondent observes, male runners get by in knee or thigh-length shorts, whilst women must wear short-shorts or 'knickers' in vying for media coverage and sponsorship for, clearly, aerodynamics have nothing to do with shortness of length of leg 'covering'. As this Guardian correspondent points out, too, at women's events it is not long before commentators begin speculating along lines of 'is she a woman or a lesbian' – clear attestation to their stupidity (a lesbian must be a woman, though the reverse is not true) as well as their prurient sexism.

In the 1980s, as a member of the NSW Women's Advisory Council, winning athlete and Olympics competitor Marlene Mathews spoke of the pressure on women at Commonwealth (earlier Empire) and Olympic Games to wear full makeup, including brightly-coloured lipstick and nail polish, and to shape and spray their hair before going onto the circuit, in order to quell questions about their sexuality. Yet, ironically, not only does this not put an end to the 'woman/lesbian' question, it directs attention to women's bodies as sex objects, not sports people at the top of their game.

The Olympic Movement, says the Charter, is the 'concerted, organised, universal and permanent action … of all individuals and entities who are inspired by the values of Olympism'. Yet to get there, women are obliged too often to engage in practices such as producing calendars picturing them naked in order raise funds and pursue sponsors so that they are free to train, to win 'berths' in Olympic trials, to compete in events that will take them to Olympics standards and earn the fares that will get them to those events to compete.

Sports organisations within the Olympic Movement 'shall have the … responsibility for ensuring that principles of good governance be applied'. Belonging to the Olympic Movement 'requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and recognition by the IOC', the Charter concludes.

How do Australia and Japan stand, then, in their differential treatment of women-as-women in air travel? Where does the UK stand when its local Olympics Committee says it is not covered by the Equalities Act 2010 (UK)? How do any countries stand when not only do they do nothing to obviate the need for women to wear costumes – such as 'knickers' – but collude in this culture by designing as 'official "sportswear"' and 'country "uniforms"' the very costumes that have nothing to do with the ability to compete in sports events, and everything to do with the necessity for women to exhibit sexuality in order to be 'seen'?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

41 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt is a Barrister and Human Rights Lawyer in Mellbourne and Sydney. Her web site is here. She is also chair of Women Worldwide Advancing Freedom and Dignity.

She is also Visiting Fellow, Lucy Cavendish College, University of Cambridge.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jocelynne Scutt

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 41 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy