Great moments in projection: Olympic edition

Did you know that women are ostensibly banned from Olympic ski jumping due to the governing body's concerns about the well-being of their ovaries?

Gian-Franco Kasper, head of the International Ski Federation, had a pretty explanatory answer:

"Ski jumping is just too dangerous for women. Don't forget, [the landing] it's like jumping down from, let's say, about two meters to the ground about a thousand times a year, which seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view."

And it only gets worse. The reasons given to Alissa were a bit more in detail:

"So far, we've been told every excuse in the book. That it's too 'dangerous' for girls. That there aren't enough of us. That we're not good enough. That it would damage our ovaries and uterus and we won't be able to have children, even though that's not true. It's so outdated, it's kind of funny in a way. And then it's not." [feministing, via Pandagon]

It’s touching that the gender that totes its gonads around in little bags outside of the body is so solicitous of the gender that keeps its family jewels stowed safely inside the abdomen.

Comments

[PurpleGirl]

It’s touching that the gender that totes its gonads around in little bags outside of the body is so solicitous of the gender that keeps its family jewels stowed safely inside the abdomen.

This is brilliant.

[cfrost]

Better cancel the tour de France. Men don't belong on bicycles for obvious reasons. Also men's gymnastics: parallel bars and pommel horse are just accidents waiting to happen.

[tomslee]

Another suggestion is that the ski jump - dominated by small, lightweight men - may be a sport in which women can match men.

[cfrost]

It’s touching that the gender that totes its gonads around in little bags outside of the body is so solicitous of the gender that keeps its family jewels stowed safely inside the abdomen.

Being of the gender that keeps it's family jewels in a rather inconvenient external purse, I've envied mammals such as dolphins and manatees that stow theirs away internally. Spermatogenisis in mammals requires a lower temperature than that inside the body, but obviously there is an engineering fix: rete mirabile countercurrent heat exchangers that keep marine mammal's internal balls cool. Clearly, they, and not we men are the products of intelligent design. Even marsupials have a better design: their balls are in front of their penis, so they'll never sit on them. Some, like kangaroos can even retract them if they're in a situation (like fighting) where they might be injured.

That's one beef I've got with the "intelligent" designer. Another is that if he can design the whole universe with all the cool and amazing things in it, couldn't he he/she have come up with a wipeless asshole?

[dr2chase]

Arguably, no more effort/intelligence was expended on human testicle cooling than was necessary; clearly, we're all here to discuss it. And it sure simplifies vasectomies -- perhaps you underestimate the foresight of the intelligent designer.

And this is not the first time that a sports governing body has made silly rules to avoid embarrassment. Just for example, the fastest bicycles (aerodynamically streamlined recumbents) are banned from bicycle races. Why? Once upon a time, some schmoe on a recumbent broke all sorts of records set on upright bicycles.

[parse]

Another suggestion is that the ski jump - dominated by small, lightweight men - may be a sport in which women can match men.

I wonder what would happen if a woman demanded the right to try out for the men's team.

Of course, that might open another can of worms. If you had total gender equality in sport, you wouldn't have any men's or women's teams. Does anyone know how many Olympic sports there are where the best of the women are better than the worst of the men? Would it be possible to have a gender-blind Olympics with significant participation in most events by men and women?

I've been watching a lot of curling for the first time and wondered why it was you need to have separate competitions for men and women. To my (untrained) eye, the men and women seem to be playing at the same level of accomplishment.

[cfrost]

Does anyone know how many Olympic sports there are where the best of the women are better than the worst of the men?

Wouldn't that be a lot, or even most of them?

[parse]

I'm not sure, cfrost, but I may not be very clear, either. I don't mean the best women in the world are better than the worst men in the world--I'm confident in that case it is certainly true of all sports. I mean "sports in which the first-place finisher on the women's team is better than the last-place finisher on the men's team." It may be the case that's also true for most Olympic sports, but I'm not sure one way or the other.

Although I guess to have the most interesting competitions that included both men and women, you would want sports in which, at a minimum, a number of the women's gold medal winners did better than the men's bronze. As I said, curling looks like an obvious example where that might well be true, but I have no idea how many of the Olympic records would reveal such results.

[Pennant]

Generally, for any sports that provide an advantage to those with greater size/reach or strength, men have a biological advantage due to male hormones like testosterone that facilitate the production of muscle mass and bone growth. This winds up being most sports because sports are tests of physical capability that, having historically being practiced by men, tend to emphasize those qualities (yes, I know that's a tautology but that's what you get from millennia of patriarchy). Women have an advantage or parity in sports that emphasize a smaller size, strength/weight ratio, or (to a lesser extent) endurance. However endurance is often a smaller factor than size or muscular strength in most sports, so that men still hold the overall advantage even on extreme contests of endurance like marathon running. So the sports were the natural effects of male hormones are not a significant advantage are going to be few and far between.

Now you certainly could create sports where women are going to be on an even playing field, something dependent on reaction time, endurance, or fine muscular control. However their categorization as sports (curling is one example provided above) will be questionable to some, or even many because they break the pattern of capabilities commonly being tested in most "sports".

[Alon Levy]

With a lot of races, the differences in top performance between men and women are small enough that you can chalk them to the fact that more men practice sports. For example, the 100 meter records are 9.6 for men and 10.5 for women.

[Matt]

Some of your readers might find the decisions of the B.C. courts on this issue of interest. Some of the women ski jumpers argued that being excluded from the Olympics violated their constitutional right to equality. Both the court of first instance and the province's Court of Appeal dismissed their claim, although principally for the reason that the Canadian Charter does not apply to the non-governmental agencies responsible for the discrimination, not because of a lack of discrimination. The ovary issue is not addressed by either court. Still, I suppose some might care to peruse the decisions. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc942/2009bcsc942.html (court of first instance, the B.C. Supreme Court)

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2009/2009bcca522/2009bcca522.html (B.C. Court of Appeal)

[pj]

Would it ruin the discussion if I suggest that SOME members of one gender are dictating to all members of the other gender? Although if you keep lumping me in with a bunch of a-holes I might just have to take time out from my busy schedule some day and go do something about these morons. Paging Branch Rickey, I guess.

[parse]

Now you certainly could create sports where women are going to be on an even playing field, something dependent on reaction time, endurance, or fine muscular control.

It would be interesting to think of team sports where mastery of some positions depended on greater size/reach and strength and others depended on smaller size, strength/weight ratio, and endurance and having premier players of each type was crucial for success. I don't know whether they exist of could be invented, but I think it an athletic event in which teams of men and women working efficiently together had a competitive advantage would be fascinating--fascinating and socially beneficial.

[parse]

Matt, thanks for posting those links. I found two points to be interesting. According to the Appeal Court, women's ski jumping is not banned because of concern about damage to athletic ovaries. The decision states that the event was considered for inclusion in the 2010 Olympics but rejected because the sport's development is still in an early stage thus lacking the international spread of participation and technical standard required for an event to be included in the programme. (I note that Curling Mixed Doubles was considered for inclusion but rejected for the same reason, so my untutored evaluation of the sport as one where mixed-gender participation would be appropriate seems to have some support.

According to the Supreme Court, Many of the men the plaintiffs have trained with and competed against as peers will be Olympians; the plaintiffs will be denied this opportunity for no reason other than their sex. This suggests there are already events in the sport where men and women compete against each other. Maybe gender-blind competition really is the future of sport, at least in some disciplines.

[NomNomNom]

Actually, Lindsey Van (a woman) is the North American world record holder in the ski jump and she has the record on the ski jump the men are now using.
http://lindseyvan.com/resume/

[cfrost]

With a lot of races, the differences in top performance between men and women are small enough that you can chalk them to the fact that more men practice sports. For example, the 100 meter records are 9.6 for men and 10.5 for women.

Not really that surprising. For most of human history large, fast predators have been abundant and firearms did not exist. Selective advantage for fast running would have been pretty much equal for both sexes and selective pressure exerted by predators strong and sustained.

[Tim Vandergrift]

Many interesting points in this discussion, but the central point seems to elude everybody: the IOC is an international criminal cartel for making money by descending on cities, cutting a deal with quislings and turncoats, transferring wealth from gullible or collusive peons to their syndicalist oligarchy, turning a cut over to the betrayers and walking off with billions of dollars in profit, as well as a blinged-out gangster lifestyle beyond the dreams of avarice.

When they do something absurd, or against the best values of sport, the answer is always the same: money. Men's ski jumping has eager corporate sponsors who will pony up the cash, women's ski jumping does not. Ergo, ovaries, competitiveness, and sport development are meaningless distractions. As my uncle Vlad said, cui bono. Once you figure out where the money is going, it all makes complete sense.

[parse]

Men's ski jumping has eager corporate sponsors who will pony up the cash, women's ski jumping does not.

Are you saying, Tim, that these evil corporate sponsors will pony up the cash for women's slalom skiing, women's downhill skiiing, women's snowboarding, women's speed skating and women's hockey, but they won't for women's ski jumping? Any guess as to why that may be so. Cui bono?

[Lesley]

They love them some stunted anorexic female gymnasts though.

[Tim Vandergrift]

Chalk it up to machismo marketing. Ski jumping is a bastion of the elite male skiers, and folks sponsoring them do not (or at least not yet) want to use their dollars to broach it.

[Pennant]

BTW, while IANAL, it's my opinion that the Canadian courts made a huge error in the rulings on the women's ski jumping. It would appear to me that they are saying that, since the decision on event selection was made outside Canada, and even though the event selection process was discriminatory and events are being held in Canada, the Charter of Rights prohibiting discrimination somehow does not apply. To whit, an international contract between VanOC and the IOC on what events will be held on Canadian soil somehow supercedes the Canadian constitution. This sets up a huge loophole for international corporations to get around Canadian law and our constitution.

I think this was a politically-motivated decision that sets a horrible precedent, about on the level of the USSC ruling on the 2000 Florida recount, or maybe even worse.

[Matt]

Pennant, a couple of points in reply. I'm not sure if I'd mount an unqualified defence of the BC courts' decisions, but based on your post I will clear up a couple of things.

First, it's not because of a "loophole" created by a court decision that the Charter doesn't apply to contracts between private parties such as private corporations. The Charter protects individuals from the state. Corporations aren't "getting around" it by contracting with each other, and still have to comply with any federal or provincial laws or regulations that apply to them (and such laws and regulations must themselves comply with the Charter and the rest of the constitution). Private parties who are legally wronged by other private parties don't have a remedy against the state.

Whether the Charter applies isn't really a function of where the event selection decisions were made or where the events themselves are held. As the Court of Appeal decision makes clear, it's a question of whether the event selection decision was a matter within the authority of Parliament, the legislature or government. But it was "clear on the facts that neither government nor VANOC had any authority either to make or to alter the decision of the IOC not to include a women’s ski jumping event in the 2010 Games" (para. 29 of the CA decision).

[Pennant]

Hmm. OK, however considering how much of the VANOC budget was provided by the provincial and federal governments, to say that VANOC were not acting as agents of the state appears to be a very transparent legal fig leaf. Courts are certainly willing to re-qualify people engaged in contracts with corporations from contractor to employee with not much greater justification.

[Matt]

Just to be clear, the court said that VANOC didn't have the authority to decide what events to include, not that VANOC did have that power but didn't exercise it as an agent of the state. "Like other private organizations, VANOC is subject to government regulation and it may depend in large measure on government funds to provide services and infrastructure, but VANOC must manage its affairs under the direction and control of the IOC. That the IOC controls VANOC is undisputed." (Para. 45 of the CA decision)

Courts do try to make sure they accurately characterize the reality of the relationship between a company and a contractor/employee, based on a number of factors. It's not unprincipled, and it's a good thing to do, because that way companies can't circumvent employment standards legislation that only applies to "employees" just by labeling their employees "independent contractors". But just as there really are some independent contractors, so there really are some organizations that get government funding but whose decisions government doesn't control.