Minister for Sport's opinion about women's sports.. gah

[benid]

blogs.channel4.com/cathy-newman-blog/sports-minister-tells-women-cheerleading/461

I haven't seen much UK Olympics coverage. I have been in Canada for the last week. It has been wall-to-wall coverage there, and the women's teams and athletes have had extensive coverage. Again, it helps that they have so many outstanding athletes and medal prospects. But do people feel that there is an inherent bias in the UK media, or is it more widespread?

I think people are referring to the old style of cheerleading,

I think people are determined to put Cheerleading firmly in a box, you're wasting your breath trying to convince them otherwise.

Time to leave this thread to the dinosaurs.....

It isn't about putting it in a box, it's about understanding cheerleading's historical connection to being on the sidelines supporting men and its continued connection with a culture of women being glamorized (and needing to look glamorous) even when they are in the midst of a physically challenging activity.

It is the common thread of all the sports the minister listed - this connection with how we look. The need for women to be decorative.

Meanwhile our female Olympians have been voicing fears that their looks are considered more important than their feats on the track/in the arena. (www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jan/17/sportswomen-glamour-deeds-survey)

The problem with the sports minister talking about cheerleading, ballet and gym as ways to get women into sport more isn't that those aren't physically challenging activities, it's that promoting sports that have a reputation for their participants to be "good looking" in a decorative sense only prepetuates the ideas that women should be constantly thinking about how they look and that visible physical exertion isn't feminine.

Okay, so what about roller derby, that someone linked to above?

That was historically a 'show' sport, one could assume for the benefit or titillation of men. Women were expected to be made up and look glamorous. It isn't now. Neither is cheerleading - hence people are becoming annoyed that others are demeaning it.

It isn't anything to do with the 'reputation' of the sports you mentioned. At all. Those preconceptions are wrong, and ignorant. The best way to challenge those preconceptions is to show people that they are wrong.

The issue wasn't that this woman was promoting those sports. It is that she said 'you can still do sports and look glamorous' and then used the examples she did, which other women here have backed up by declassifying them as 'proper' sports. The entire problem with her comments was that they were based around how you look when participating, and that there is such a thing as 'feminine' which all women should uphold and therefore should limit themselves to sports others consider 'feminine'.

Roller derby has a long and messy history, mainly as a mass participation activity. It doesn't have significant history of women being dressed up to titilate men, though of course, it has happened.

Cheerleading on the other hand is not all about extreme cheer and the like. The original activity of cheering on male sports still exists and is still, to some extent, lauded as an ideal for young girls in the media, especially American media that permeates teen life. It is this image that makes it seem "feminine" in the way the minister was using, not the reality of the athleticism and power of the fiercly competitive cheer competitions.

Mass participation activity? What do you mean?

Roller Derby grew out of public roller skating gatherings. These evolved in to races and the races into what is basically roller derby. It was normally co-ed and pretty much died out in the 70s. The women only version started up more recently and did not evolve from a version in which women were put on show for men.

The modern day version of roller derby, started out with women wearing short skirts/hotpants, long socks, fishnet tights, vests etc.

The stereotypical image of a 'derby girl' is as described.

The reality is women in sports clothing. Not dolled up, in the least.

Sorry, I'm unclear. Are you trying to say the stereotypical image of roller derby is similar to the stereotypical image of cheerleading? Or that the reality and the image are different in both cases? Or what?

The reality and image are different in both cases.

Roller Derby skaters are sportswomen.
Cheerleaders are sportswomen.

Some cheerleaders are also eye pleasing rah-rah girls though.

But you can't dismiss the sport of cheerleading and say it isn't worthy, or that those who participate are only there for the titillation of men, because that is offensive, ridiculous, ignorant and wrong.

Lots of men participate in cheerleading as well. Pretty offensive to them.

I'm not dismissing the sport of cheerleading. I'm saying it has a problematic history that continues to this day in terms of objectifying women. And I'm saying that the minister's reference to cheerleading as a "feminine" sport was referencing and supporting this view of the appropriate role of women to be decorative objects.

I disagree that the issue with her statement was that though.

Her statement was offensive because she said women could participate in sport and still look feminine which is ridiculous, because a) what is feminine and b) why should anyone care how you look when doing sport.

Agreeing that cheerleading (or anything else) is objectifying, actually supports her argument.

It seems she was responding to a question about how would you address some girls / women's concerns that you can't do sport and look feminine.

The better answer would have been to ask why looking feminine was deemed to be important to those people.

Not to say "well, look at these sports and look how feminine they look"

Maybe she was caught off guard?

The minister for sport and equality should never be caught of guarf when asked a question about women in sport. Really.

"why should anyone care how you look when doing sport." But people do care how women look when they do sport. Advertisers, marketing, media, men on sports chat sites, John Inverdale to name but a few.

You can't take that out of the equation when you are looking at why women don't enter sport. No people shouldn't care but they do and that is what needs to be tackled. The objectification of women.

It is a problematic area. Looks should not matter. But they do - even in the men's arena, although not to the same extent. David Beckham had a far bigger profile than his talent should have allowed. So did Anna Kournikova. Both played on their looks, and were massively rewarded.

I don't think that piling into the sports minister is helpful. This isn't another Inverdale moment. Having a woman in such a position has got to be a great thing. For one, it means that the people (men) in government see a need for such a role and are trying to do something about the gender imbalance. And she obviously sees that for some of them, the (false) image sport has of being dominated by great, hulking, muscly brutes needs to be overcome.

It's easy to pick on someone for a clumsy or inappropriate phrase, but I doubt she meant it to be negatively interpreted. And who hasn't said something, only to later think, 'Bugger, I could have phrased that better.' But if you are going to dismiss everything that girls and women do because it has historical links with a patriarchal society, there ain't going to be much left that they can do.

But if you are going to dismiss everything that girls and women do because it has historical links with a patriarchal society, there ain't going to be much left that they can do.

Well, except netball, football, hockey, lacrosse, rugby, swimming, horse-riding, boxing, swimming, athletics, tennis, table tennis, badminton, squash, weight-lifting, golf, cycling, basketball, diving, canoeing, skiing, cricket.......................

I'm not into sport but those are the first few examples of sport that popped into my head which women can do and which do not have a historical link with a supporting/titillating role in a patriarchal society.

Actually, a lot of the sports you mentioned do have historical links with a patriarchal society - as in women have not been allowed to do them in the past.

It still goes on now.

And, with very few exceptions, the sports you listed above, when played by women, are specifically known as 'women's' X.

Football, or women's football.
Rugby, or women's rugby.
Boxing, or women's boxing.
etc etc..

There isn't just 'football' - it is specifically defined as Women's Football. You don't need to say Men's football, it's an assumption of ownership and normality that patriarchally, falls to men.

I agree, and that's why it would have been nice if the minister for sport could have thought more deeply about how to change that and attract women into those male default sports, rather than just suggest the answer is to attract women into the sports where they could either still look "feminine" or that are historically linked to supporting/titillating men in a patriarchal society.

She used a clumsy phrase. But she is targeting a shortfall of 1.8 million women. Not all women, but those who currently don't participate. She is offering an alternative that may appeal to them. She is presenting an additional set of activities that men don't have (I assume). For some people to pile all this negativity at her door because she is actually trying to do something, rather than just criticise, is unfair.

What if it worked? What if the best part of 2 million women took her up, and did rounders, or zumba, or whatever? What if a government actually enabled women to participate around their other commitments, by listening and providing the infrastructure? Once I had picked myself up off the floor, I would be rather impressed.

Men can (and do) do all of the activities she mentions.

Just as women can (and do) do all of the activities traditionally reserved for men.

Segregating sports into his n hers, especially with reference to "femininity", looking "radiant" and picking out cheerleading (which no matter what anyone says, at a professional level in the US does mean immaculately groomed beautiful women in tiny clothes cheering to support the men playing the main featured sport), does not help anyone.

She needs to be asking why women don't participate. Is it because they never got involved at school? Why was that? Is it because lots of teenaged girls try to adhere to grooming regimes which are incompatible with joining in sports? Why is that? Is it because girls get a lot of stick about their changing bodies and they feel vulnerable in PE? If so, what can be done? What about periods in all of this? Many girls feel utterly rough when they start menstruating and swimming becomes problematical etc. What about primary school - I have read that problems with girls and sport start very young & in the playground. How can this be tackled?

There are a load of possible reasons, which should be fully explored. Her response is ill thought out and weak.

From the original article;

^But her biggest scheme is happening in Bury, where £2.3 million has been invested by Sports England. “We’re looking at this particular location and trying to understand about local woman, their lifestyles, and what motivates them to getting into sport,” explains Ms Grant.
So far she has learnt that local women were reluctant to use the public swimming pool because they felt uncomfortable about men being able to see them from the café. It was a particular issue for black, minority and ethnic (BME) women, and has resulted in a re-locatable swimming pool being created, which holds up to 10 women and can be moved to different locations.^

Hmm. 2.3 million pounds - weak and ill-though-out? As sports minister, she has to offer practical solutions. She is doing so.