Positives and negatives of the Olympics.

Negative: ENTIRE CLOSING CEREMONY...

Negative: v male dominated closing ceremony...and women obviously over-rep'd in the flesh department - yawn...

Positive: all the Daily Telegraph's sports writers (a paper not known for feminist credentials!) when asked who the best BBC commentator/presenter was, said Clare Balding.

The South Korean fencer. That was an utter shambles and I felt so desperately sorry for her. The committee then said they'd give her a special medal. Still didn't say sorry though.

Andy Burnham is a good egg. I think he's spoken out in favour of feminist issues in sport before.

I hope not LeeCoakley. I am starting teacher training this year (Primary) and I am intending to get much more into sport so that I can do well in this aspect. I want to encourage people, but especially young girls, to get into sport.

That is a worry generally, not just with women, that the good intentions towards promoting sport will wither away.

Thanks! I will go look.

LRD, here's something on that:

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/12/olympic-legacy-labour-burnham

Yes, it's fascinating - I think just seeing such a range of healthy women's bodies has a genuine, low-level effect, doesn't it?

OTOH it makes me notice how much otherwise we see men as default.

I would like to see more women in things like panel shows - other areas where women aren't represented so much. I've got used to there being one women, maybe once in a blue moon two - I'd love to see something where there's a 50/50 distribution, or more, just happening without a lot of comment.

I hope so too, LRD. I can actually feel myself being less pissed off about my own body and less (internally) critical of other women because I've hardly read any horrible comments about other women and have heard loads of positives.

I would love to see more women's (and men's) cycling and athletics on TV. All we ever get is men's football with the occasional bit of rugby chucked in. It's boring and it's all about men.

Roll on the Commonwealth Games!

Yes - and they way women atheletes have become so normal to see on TV, that has been amazing.

I am wondering if it'll carry on, and if we'll find there's a demand to show more of women's sports after the olympics too? I hope so.

The biggest +ve for UK women out of these games IMO is the huge nuimber of UK women athletes who have won or done well, and who can serve as role models rather than celebs on X factor or Big Brother.

One of the things I have enjoyed about this thread is finding that, for lots of us, we know girls who have taken these sportswomen as role models already.

They are excellent role models. No need for a future conditional.

i'm talking about role models. the one young girls have at present arnt very good, and maybe infact damaging , anorexia springs to mind.

fit, well toned, healthy sports people may well be attractive because they are fit, healty etc.

reaching that perfection doesnt require nips/tuks/silicone/shaving/plukking/crash dieting/bleaching. so i rekon they would make better role modles. thats all.

well thats exactly what i mean ariel, when i say sexy or glamourous i dont mean plasterd in make up.

What do you mean then? I'm puzzled.

I love the Laura Trott and Jason Kenny romance. They are so cute together. Nice to see 2 sporty people together, rather than athlete + wife (that is cool too, but it is a bit of a change.)

I don't know about sexy - that's so subjective - but I thought all of these women and the men were glamourous in the sense that they are competing in a really high-level event, and it's exciting.

It seems odd to say 'if they became', to me.

This thread had dropped off my Threads I'm On and it's good to have it back.

Actually I think it was a fair question. It's been stated many times throughout this thread how wonderful it is women are being noticed for something other than their looks, your comment was 'they should look sexy to be role models.' So asking if you were being purposely antagonistic seemed a fair question.

I can't be bothered explaining why, but I disagree with you. Completely. And utterly.

So, what Ariel said.

well thats exactly what i mean ariel, when i say sexy or glamourous i dont mean plasterd in make up.

I disagree completely. Did you see the late night Olympic programme last night? Kath Grainger was on with Gabby Logan, alongside David Beckham, Ben Ainslie and Michael Johnson. Apart from being overwhelmed with envy that she was sitting on a sofa with those three, I was struck by how natural, for want of a better word, Grainger looked - sporty top, hardly any make up and normal hair. But there she was chatting and engaging with Beckham, smiling and being lovely and even being slightly tactile. And SHOCK HORROR - did the man held up as being an utter sex symbol the world over shun her, scorn her or ignore her because she wasn't dolled up and trying to look "sexy"? No of course he wasn't he was treating her with the equality and respect she was entitled to, and being friendly and chatty and, goodness me, even a little bit touchy feely back.

That sent out a lot of messages I thought. A woman can be noticed and admired by men even if she hasn't gone out of her way to atttract them.

why on earth would that antagonise? sportswomen replacing fashion models as role models.

it would encorage sporting activity and healthy eating, rather that flash diets and cosmetic surgury.

i'm not trying to antagonise anyone, disagree with me by all means but dont say i'm just trowing a cat among the pidgeons, thats needlessly objectionable.

Chairman, do you make comments like this just to antagonise? It seems on every feminist thread you're on you make a comment you must know will get people's hackles up.

i dont think it would be such a bad thing is female athletes became glamourous or dare i say it, sexy. if that means they become role models for girls , that has to be better than the size zero catwalk role-models that are in the media.