Rio women's sports, starting with rugby 7s

I agree. Actually I think its a shame the men can't wear sparkles if they want. Sparkly bright colours are universally appealing to children and a shame its only really acceptable for women to express that side of themselves as adults. I love the women's leotards!

The debate about why women athletes dressed differently to the men came up on here during the last Olympics. There was a poster who was a former elite runner who posted and said basically that that is how they wanted to clothe themselves for 1). performance and 2). there was a bit of showing off! I don't remember anybody having a pop at her back then. There is something that smacks of body shaming about some of the griping on here. Men dress in kit that optimises their performance. For women to be criticised for doing the same thing seems odd.

The Olympics coverage seems to be about as equal as you can get in terms of coverage of both sexes. The BBC don't seem to favour one over the other, either with regard to athletes or presenters.

How about forgetting what the men are doing, and simply celebrating peak human performance? Skill, dedication, grit, determination, speed, endurance and occasionally, something a bit special that just takes your breath away. If someone wants to wear a bit of sequin, frankly I think they have earned the right.

For all the diving/trampolining/gymnastic sports I prefer to see the women looking elegant and artistic in flight, sometimes the pursuit of high difficulty takes away from that I think. Simone Biles is amazing on beam but her routine is a bit fast and not very graceful. I enjoy watching someone like mustafina or wevers a lot more .
Did anyone see the silver medal trampoline routine yesterday? That was incredible

We are latecomers to watching but started with mens and womens gymnastics today. DS, heavily influenced by my fulminating over everyday sexisms, enquiring why do the women have to look so sparkly (having just watched equally impressive men, unaided by sparkle). DD enquiring why the female runners were "bare" (crop tops and knickers). Didnt have an answer until we all enjoyed a swimming race with androgynous figures excelling and then finding out at the end who they were (women-we hadn't registered tbat the cozzies came all the way up as well as all the way down!).

(That's present as in presenting yourself, not the current time. Just realised it could read as either.)

I wish they'd kept the floor the same, but maybe added a tumble track for a separate class - I think they could do even more impressive tumbles if they didn't have to cover half the floor in their run up!

The body shape change is really interesting. I do think the present looks more 'natural' (not that anything in gym is that natural!) for the ballerina-type bodies than the more muscular type. I don't see why they can't present more like the men rather than arching their back so much.

Yes it has changed a lot since they changed the scoring. I miss the 10s though

Me too. And shoot me down but I do think the American female gymnasts are muscle bound and a bit odd looking.

The heptathlon starts today. Jess Ennis-Hill and Katarina Johnson-Thompson go for GB. Should be good!

Did anyone watch the women's 4K pursuit cycling qualifiers last night? Fascinating - the contrast between the UK and the USA (1st and 2nd fastest qualifiers) was really intriguing. I'm a cycle-to-work cyclist, not a keen follower of competitive cycling (I know little bits and bobs, because my gran was a serious cyclist, enough to know about slip streaming etc). My impression (be interested to hear from "proper" cyclists on this one) was that the US had better individual athletes - their explosive speed at the beginning was amazing, but the Brits were better technically as a team (maintained steady pace, didn't allow gaps to build up so they could all slipstream one another, knew exactly who should stay at the front and for how long). It was so impressive to watch.

Yes it has changed a lot since they changed the scoring. I miss the 10s though.

The power and strength and ability was just staggering.

I read a really interesting article earlier today (HuffPo?) about how changing the scoring system has resulted in a massive shift in the athleticism of gymnastics. By rewarding difficulty and trying more athletic and challenging routines rather than the 'perfect 10' routine that encouraged less risky routines that were good enough to get a 10 in theory but not pushing boundaries, the sport itself has changed and so have the bodies of the athletes. Complex tumbling combinations are particularly rewarded and so you've seen a big shift from more ballerina body shapes to the really strong legs and bodies you see in eg the US team, because you can't do those sorts of skills without some serious muscle.

With gymnastics I get more annoyed about the format of some of the events. For the floor exercises the women have to prance about to music. The men don't

Why talk down the women's gymnastics? They do something different and it must be inferior "prancing about" because men don't do it.

I'm starting to think The Pool reads mumsnet

www.the-pool.com/news-views/fashion-news/2016/32/laura-craik-on-rio-2016-gymnastics

I had to laugh at Clive Woodward commenting on the rugby 7s. He kept saying girls, but occasionally saying ladies. But I didn't notice him saying the male equivalent - boys and gentlemen. I'm sure he was becoming aware of this discrepancy because he finally got to the point where he referred to women sometimes - but he sounded uncomfortable.

He is obviously and clearly not sexist in any way and was admiring the strength and power of the female players and how good the players were. But he also really had a real job referring to the players as women. It just shows how ingrained socially our habits are, however unsexist we are, so I cut him some slack ….because if the great Clive can admire women's rugby for its speed, strength and watchability then the dinosaurs who think it is unseemly/no good etc. had better take notice.

Jess Varnish, who was controversially omitted from the GB squad, believes they can win a medal on the first day of competition.

“I'm hearing good things from the squad. I know the boys are ready to smash the team sprint today," she told Radio 5 live.

"The boys, they're the first medal available today so they're going to feel a bit of pressure. I spoke to Phil (Hindes) last night and I said 'How are you feeling?' and he's like 'I'll let you know tommorow'."

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/olympics/36772396

Not necessarily. It's infantalising. generally the men are referred to as "men" and the women as "girls" Just in the same way that a sport is a 'sport' when played by men and a 'women's sport' when played by women. The combination of the othering and infantalising is quite grating once you start to notice it.

The only exception I've noticed so far is the diving commentator who insists on referring to the men as 'boys'.

Bless her baby feminist heart, she's also started loudly correcting the TV commentators when they refer to grown women as "girls".

I can see why that grates, but what does she say when athletes say it about themselves? 'Boys' and 'girls' are used by participants all the time, especially in team sports.

It's been fantastic watching it with DD who, at 14 is in the throes of adolescent body image issues. We've been noting how many different body shapes there are and how different disciplines tend to have similar shapes i.e. gymnasts = small and muscular, cyclists = big calves and thighs, swimmers = tall with large shoulders. All these women are strong, fit and at the top of their game yet so few conform to the idealised female form you see in the media.

Bless her baby feminist heart, she's also started loudly correcting the TV commentators when they refer to grown women as "girls".

With gymnastics I get more annoyed about the format of some of the events. For the floor exercises the women have to prance about to music. The men don't.

One of my heroes, Katherine Grainger, is in action today (if the wind drops on the rowing course!)

elbandito thanks for the link btw. Great article :)

Actually having been a sporty girl I am of the opinion less is more and would rather exercise in a good sports bra and tight gym shorts than baggy flappy stuff. My issue is that if I do that 20 years ago men assumed I was asking to be catcalled/groped and now I'm older I'd get judged for exposing a less youthful body!
Men seem fine to go running in a pair of running shorts alone when it's hot so I don't think they feel the same social pressure at all, as long as they aren't wearing "womens" clothes
I wish everyone could be treated like adults and wear whatever suits theit lifestyle best

Not meant as a dig, I make as many typos as the next person, but I am giggling at the image of the yolk of the patriarchy... I'll have mine sunny side up, please.

There's an interesting discussion going on in chat about the women's gymnastics, exploitative coaching practices, dress codes and makeup and the like. It's thrown up a very interesting mixture of points, especially from posters who themselves did gymnastics to a very high level as teens/ younger women. Several have made the point (echoing Lass, I guess) that as teenagers, they were in fact typical teenagers who liked wearing a bit of slap (I was a teenager way back in the late 70s/early 80s - new romantics, eyeshadow like a panda... I can see where they were coming from). But at the same time, another poster pointed to an interview Simone Biles gave complaining about being pressured into wearing a bow in her hair when she didn't want to. (And of course the thread has had its low points, notably a poster contrasting the suitably feminine looking Russian team with what she disgustingly called the "she-men" of the American team).

DS and I watched the women's gymnastics final - it was fabulous. The power and strength and ability was just staggering. And contrasting it with the exercise in child exploitation which was gymnastics when I first started watching back in the 70s, it is fabulous to see strong adult women doing amazing feats of athleticism. (And although some are still in their teens, one of the Ukrainian women who is arguably still one of the best vaulters in the world, is 41!)

But going back to the appearance thing, it seems to me obvious that the attractiveness of male and female athletes is presented very differently. A male athlete whom women admire is presented as the active agent in the situation - his attractiveness puts him in the position of being able to pick and choose from among the women at his feet (cf footballers, racing drivers, etc.) A female athlete whom men admire is presented as passive recipient of their gaze - she isn't allowed to choose what attention she finds acceptable and what she isn't. That's why the beach volleyball outfits matter. The costumes of the women set them up for objectification in a way in which skimpy speedos on a male diver, say, does not, because society sets up the power balances differently.

So, under the yolk of The Patriarchy, when is a choice ever a choice for anyone? And is there some measurement of how constrained any choice is - some sort of sliding scale? How constrained do you feel these athletes are?

I've asked that question as well but never got an answer beyond general "no choices are entirely free of social pressure" .

I suspect every day when I put on a dress I'm (mindlessly) "performing femininity " and I'm doing so under the yoke of patriarchy but all the women on MN who go to such lengths to post about how they are never out jeans and sweatshirts think they are making a free choice.

Sorry, bit of a derail.

Anyone see the weightlifter this morning? She looked fantastic