Positives and negatives of the Olympics.

[kickassangel]

Hopefully a fairly light hearted thread but thought we could keep a tally of the plus and minus sides of the Olympics.

Plus
Women from Saudi, and more women from other Middle Eastern States.
Women included in the military flag bearers
Future sports people fairly even m/f balance (and their sponsors)

Minus
Still more events for men than women
Still more men taking part, and given better status/accommodations etc
Women carrying the country names, and the bowl things during the parade.
Mainly women nurses with the children on beds.
Paul McCartney getting the 'men' to sing first and the 'girls' to have a go second.

I was hoping that I'd noticed some more positives, but apparently not.

What did other people notice?

I hope so, LRD :)

I hope it didn't sound like I was being needlessly picky, I just hate any 'accepting crumbs' attitudes.

No, you sounded fine and you're right lemon.

casey - ah, in that case, that rule is another positive, I would say. And you're right, it doesn't make her any less brave (maybe more? I suppose she doesn't have the protection of being excited she might do really well). I'm not patriotic but it is exciting having this happen so near home.

TeamGB is 48% women,the highest it has ever been.

The women that I have seen carrying out medals and flowers are in "business attire" (smart, knee length dress and flattish shoes with a small sash ) which equate to the suits for the men doing this role. No mini skirts etc. the choice of suits for both would be nice but it's progress.

Synchronised Swimming is a woman only Olympic sport.

They really should have netball there (apart from being a great sport it will increase possibility of NZ winning medals). Men play netball these days too.

I don't think this has been linked to yet - interesting read.

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jul/27/arab-women-sport-no-more-barriers

I find the Olympics ghastly in many ways, but must admit to being slightly cheered by all the British women competitors doing so well. It's so rare to see female sportspeople given as much as attention as male ones, and nice to see lots of photos of women in sportswear achieving things rather than standing around looking pretty. Also good to see that the silver medal winner Lizzie Armitstead has spoken out about sexism in sport:

www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-30/british-medal-winner-armitstead-attacks-sexism-in-cycling-pay.html

I don't think there is much of an argument for netball on the basis that it is left out for being a mainly female sport. There are lots of other team games that aren't in the Olympics. Rugby and cricket for a start. I would really like to see cricket in the Olympics, the England women's cricket team are fantastic.

Rugby will be included on the Olympic programme from 2016

see here

softball, a woman-only sport, was dropped after Beijing, although I don't know why. possibly because it's extremely boring

Please do enlighten me...

"Still more men taking part, and given better status/accommodations etc"

Really?? Better status and accommodation? Hmmm.

well, there's been a lot of coverage about the Japanese & Australian teams sending their men first class, and women in coach class to get to the games. (I was using the word accommodations in the broad sense, not specifically just the rooms they sleep in).

Many events, but most notably the marathon, show the men's event first, with the majority of camera time being given to the men, women start later and end later and are treated as the 2nd division version of the real thing.

Just a couple of examples.

I am really, really trying not to be harsh here, but some of the comments are ludicrous.

Firstly re the marathon. The women's event is on the 5th August, a whole week before the men's event. So, unless the BBC et al are planning to delay coverage until approximately 1400 on Sunday 12th August, how could anyone possibly deduce that coverage favours the men's event? Had Paula Radcliffe been fit, the BBC coverage would have concentrated on her above all other entrants - and rightly so. She has been an amazing athlete for GB over the years.

Secondly, the accommodation provided by LOCOG has been absolutely equal for the entire event. Individual country's decisions re travel are out of LOCOG's hands.

Thirdly, someone had a go yesterday at the fact the the Saudi women athletes were walking behind them men. That is a terrible indictment of SA and it's stone-age culture, but again LOCOG cannot affect this. Why can people not rejoice in the fact that they, Qatar and Brunei were effectively forced by the IOC to include women in their teams? This is a case of 9 steps forward and 1 step back, and it should be celebrated. Certain people seem to want to find a negative aspect to even what should be the happiest events.

As another example, someone on here last week kicked off because the GB women's team were 'forced' to play two days before the opening ceremony. This is a tremendous honour, and a recognition of just how good these women are. In terms of international ranking, they are above the men's team, and opening their home Olympics was a tremendous chance to raise the profile of the women's game in the UK. But no, let's have a good old complain about it instead.

I remember reading a comment on here a few months ago from a 'senior' feminist, i.e. someone who had been an activist in the 60's. She commented that she found modern feminists to be a whiney bunch (her words, not mine). I'd love to know what she makes of this thread.

Oh, dear.

network, you're not being harsh, you're just missing the point.

Does it occur to you that - just possibly - it was the SA culture we were objecting to? And not assuming the olypmic organizers would wave a magic wand and change it?

Come on. How could that not occur to you?!

To refer to this as 'whiny', when we're talking about saudi arabia's attitude to women ... words fail.

LRD, I assume you mean me. In which case - why bring up what we know to be an abhorrent cultural practice in a discussion specifically about positives and negatives around the Olympics? Because I assume that the OP meant to discuss the Olympics specifically, given the thread title. That is why I raised it. If this isn't specifically about the Olympics, then it becomes a free-for-all about any negative practice, anywhere, any time.

I meant you, sorry (and apologies, I think there is a poster called networkguy and, if you by some slim chance see this, no, I wasn't think of you at all! Pure stupid mistake!).

I don't quite get why you think we wouldn't bring up an abhorrent cultural practice in a discussion of an event in which that abhorrent cultural practice was displayed?

What am I missing here?

I thought was were talking about positive and negatives of the olympic games, because presumably we're all watching on TV and we'll have lots of common ground to discuss. So, when I commented for example on the bloke who hugged his coach, sure, I'm well aware that wasn't integral to his sporting prowess. But I noticed it. So I commented.

Yet, you don't seem to mind that. You only get fretful when we comment on things like Saudi Arabia's attitude to women ... as if really feminists should not focus on such trivia?

I find it puzzling. Doubtless I am a bear of little brain.

TBH the Olympics felt it was justified to exclude South Africa during the days of apartheid. However, countries that treat women like shit seem to suffer no similar sanctions.

I hadn't looked at it that way crackfox. But I did hear that apparently some imans believe it's haram for both men and women to make money from sport, or to get too into sport (please correct me if I'm off the wall here, it was a comment on a blog, so not from a reputable source). If that's true, perhaps some of the same people who don't want women competing would also be happy to see their entire country not competing, and that would be different from South Africa, where they wanted to compete?

LRD, I don't mind the name thing, it's fine. And as I have said twice already, SA's practices in this regard are abhorrent. But it wields massive international power and influence due to oil, as we all know. The fact that the IOC were able to overturn what the majority of that country's Wahhabi-ist clerics want should be the headline. That was my point. There is a 90 per cent positive spin on this story. Your point about discussing SA policies is valid - I cannot tell anyone what they should or should not discuss. I just thought that for once, we could have a positive spin on something significant. International sport can play a huge part in changing internal attitudes.

Saudis aside, I'd be interested to have any feedback on my other points though.

So, sorry, what are you complaining about?

Or what is someone whining about, according to you?

I'm just lost here.

I'd say the majority of this thread is positive, btw - I was really enjoying that aspect of it.

CrackFox, Saudis are the world's largest oil producers, and are therefore close allies of the USA. South Africa does not. That is the way of the world I am afraid.

namechangeguy I agree with your point that it has raised the prfoile of women's football by having it start before the Opening Ceremony. I think it was a great honour to be the event that kicked off (ha) the whole Games.

or it might even have raised the profile...

That's true, that's a nice one.

the saudi arabian woman is under pressure from her father, according to a news report.
I really hope she can compete and win a medal!

LRD. The thread is called 'Positive and Negatives OF THE OLYMPICS'. Bringing Saudi Arabian cultural practices into a discussion about THE OLYMPICS is not relevant, as Saudi Arabian cultural practices are a separate issue from THE OLYMPICS, and the OLYMPIC committee can have no direct influence. I am sorry. I cannot make it any clearer than that. That was my first point. You disagree. That is fine, we are both adults entitled to a view.

My other points were related to attitudes towards the following;

1. Why was the GB women's football team opening the Olympics seen as a negative? I saw that as a whine.
2. Someone complained that the women's marathon was being relegated behind the men's marathon, and broadcast second, when in fact it is taking place a week earlier than the men's event. I saw that as a whine, and frankly totally inaccurate.
3. Here is another - in the OP, the reference to nurses in the opening ceremony being mostly women. Well, most nurses are women. Nurses have been the backbone of the NHS since it's inception. They should be recognised and celebrated for doing a thankless task for little monetary reward. Yet this is in the negative column. I think that is a whine.
4. Here is another one for good measure - there is a complaint in the OP about Paul McCartney's reference to 'girls' and asking them to sing along second, as if it is some sort of snub. I think that is a whine, and cannot quite get my head around it to be honest.

Well, I think it is perfectly relevant, since it occurred at the olympics. You may not. We can disagree, it's allowed.

I'm not quite sure it merits calling other people 'ludicrous', though. That's a bit OTT.

Your points are very interesting.

Anyway, to go back to the point of the thread ... another positive for me today: my friend's DD, who has been scared of riding her bike since she fell and broke her arm, is back up again after watching the women's race! Isn't that lovely? She is nine.