![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gender and sport
Saturday, January 11th, 2003 12:51 amNormally when N. calls me away from the computer to watch something on TV, I am irritated. Here I am, checking my mail, LJ-ing or trying to learn about some computer arcania, and I am summoned to watch the antics of some media personality or witness news of a murder, rape, prostituiton ring or road accident. This time, though, I was called to watch the finals of "Fitness Woman" on Eurosport, which at least did not make my stomach churn. In fact, despite the cheesiness of the event, I was impressed.
The idea behind the event is to combine strength, flexibility, co-ordination and aesthetics into a kind of übermensch (or at least überfrau) competition. It failed sadly on the aesthetic criterion, since these things are generally the antithesis of aesthetics anyway, but I was wowed by what these women could do. Used to action film stunts and special effects as we are, it is easy to be unmoved by displays of physical prowess, but if you've ever tried doing even basic gymanastic moves like splits or handsprings, you realise how amazingly difficult this stuff is. It is not easy to wrap your legs over your shoulders and stand on one had, then untangle yourelf and go into a diagonal front flip. It's even harder if the silly rules of the competiton mean you have to dress in ludicrous costumes and maintain a fixed smile while you're doing it.
This brings me to the subject of this post. Firstly, why is it that sportswomen are not only required to do physically demanding things (which is what sport is all about) but to look pretty while they're doing it? (when they aren't, as in Olympic events, there is a big yawn factor - "Oh, it's the women's javelin, time to have a piss and put the coffee on"). Secondly, why is it that football, which requires little more than aerobic fitness, team work and good foot-eye co-ordination draws fanatical audiences of millions, but women's sports get the late slot on Eurosport or the state's third channel, even when the women concerned are performing physical feats that most men could only dream about in their action-movie fantasies?
The idea behind the event is to combine strength, flexibility, co-ordination and aesthetics into a kind of übermensch (or at least überfrau) competition. It failed sadly on the aesthetic criterion, since these things are generally the antithesis of aesthetics anyway, but I was wowed by what these women could do. Used to action film stunts and special effects as we are, it is easy to be unmoved by displays of physical prowess, but if you've ever tried doing even basic gymanastic moves like splits or handsprings, you realise how amazingly difficult this stuff is. It is not easy to wrap your legs over your shoulders and stand on one had, then untangle yourelf and go into a diagonal front flip. It's even harder if the silly rules of the competiton mean you have to dress in ludicrous costumes and maintain a fixed smile while you're doing it.
This brings me to the subject of this post. Firstly, why is it that sportswomen are not only required to do physically demanding things (which is what sport is all about) but to look pretty while they're doing it? (when they aren't, as in Olympic events, there is a big yawn factor - "Oh, it's the women's javelin, time to have a piss and put the coffee on"). Secondly, why is it that football, which requires little more than aerobic fitness, team work and good foot-eye co-ordination draws fanatical audiences of millions, but women's sports get the late slot on Eurosport or the state's third channel, even when the women concerned are performing physical feats that most men could only dream about in their action-movie fantasies?
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}