So the Olympics have begun, and the games are a great way to observe various gender issues and sport. For one, we see very clearly the hard-to-explain gender difference in beach volleyball attire , men in basketball-like uniforms and women in bathing suits. But in the majority of sports, event attire is similar for women and men, and according to what's suitable for the athletic activity.
It's also so nice to be able to watch women's games reported in a more professional manner (although later this week I'll try to discuss the gender difference in editorializing the athletes), focusing on their athletic and academic achievements.
But Friday's "Creep Show" article in the NY Times , while making some valid points, was author Buzz Bissinger's paternalistic take on young women's athletics and seemed to reflect more his own discomfort with developing young women in the spotlight. As such, I think it speaks to some of the unease with female sexuality in-progress as well as normative ideas about what makes female bodies female.
1. Bissinger displays an inability to comprehend a body as feminine if it is not hourglass-shaped. He says,
In fact I can’t think of any competition in the Olympics, or all of SportsWorld, more creepy and disturbing: these largely shapeless girls in their leotards and flaxen-waxen hair and bouncy-wouncy ponytails. “They look like girls from the neck up,” I was told by Joan Ryan, whose 1995 book, “Little Girls in Pretty Boxes,” blew a sky-high lid off the sadomasochistic training regimens that young female gymnasts were being subjected to. She continued: “From the neck down they look like prepubescent boys.”
Shapeless? Are muscles not a kind of "shape"? Oh that's right, he means "feminine" shape-ever-so-slightly fleshy curves: hips, breasts, tiny waists, soft and supple (not strong) thighs, and the like. This is a modern expectation of the female body, which we know very few women , athletic or not, to actually possess. And he denies femininity to their bodies based on this modern conception. Ideal bodies and bodies in fact have always been in part a function of wealth. Very quickly, "Rubenesque" women (named after the Renaissance painter of such women, Peter Paul Rubens ) were ideal in the past because food was scarce and a woman being fleshy meant she could actually afford to eat. Same with the fair skin "ideal": not only is it racist, but also meant that the family was wealthy enough that she did not have to work outside or leave her house and therefore be tanned by the sun. In the same light, muscles would not be ideally feminine because which women were muscular? The peasants working outside doing physical labor.
So to call these young women/girls' bodies like "prepubescent boys" takes a very narrow and privileged view of what a female body looks like, and insults women who don't have sufficient curves as "creepy" and "disturbing." Curiously, the body shape most like a lot of these athletes-"rectangular"- is what 46% of American women have (see above link). At its core, it gives into binary thought: that a female body in absence of shapely breasts and hourglass body shape is by default boyish. It also assumes that the female body takes 2 forms: prepubescent boy (a.k.a. girl), and curvy, sexualized adult woman. Can't these 16 year-olds just be the in-between, developing 16 year-olds that they are? Why do we insist that teenagers are either formless not-girls or fully developed and physically and emotionally matured sexually available women? And this is a cultural question: as The Lolita Effect author suggests , why do we not recognize the developing female body and person? And why is the "lack" of femininity in the gymnasts ' bodies so problematic, whereas the lack of curves in, say the volleyballers, basketball players, or swimmers are not? Just guessing, but is that because the 1st are scantily scad , the 2nd are "mannish lesbians," and the 3rd in their one-piece uniforms, swim caps, and goggles are gender-ambiguous anyway, while gymnasts are supposed to be the pinnacle of athletic femininity? In this way, doesn't the author succumb to the same assumptions he's trying to write against?
Perhaps these questions also suggest something more radical : that male and female (athletic) bodies are potentially more the same than we give them credit for, that bodies' differentiation into muscular men and curvy women are more cultural than natural. I mean seriously, do male athletes look anything like everyday guys walking around? And considering how few women (despite what Hollywood leads us to believe) actually have the "feminine" hourglass figure, I would argue that perhaps athletic bodies, male and female, and non-athletic bodies, male and female, actually have more in common with each other than each sex does within itself "in general."
The recent questioning of the female Chinese gymnasts' age buys into a similar idea. The NY Times reports,
The smallest of the six competitors is Deng Linlin, 4 feet 6 inches and 68 pounds. The team’s average size is 4-9 and 77 pounds. That is 3 ½ shorter and nearly 30 pounds lighter than the average for the United States team. Shawn Johnson, a favorite in the all-around, is the only American gymnast both shorter than 5 feet (4-9) and lighter than 100 pounds (90).
"This is a joke,” [Bela] Karolyi said last week. “We are people who have had children of our own, so we know what a 16-year-old should look like."
Really? What a 16-year old should look like? Geez, American representations of 16-year olds look like 22 year-old club chicks these days, so I'm not sure judging an athletic and ethnic body by what a "generic" (read: white, American) 16 year-old "ought to" is particularly wise. Enrico Casella, the coach of the Italian women’s team, argued the point well:
“By looks, you could say that the United States is using doping,” Casella said. “They are so muscular. My gymnasts in Italy aren’t that big. You begin to wonder how they got that way.”
2. Bissington is absolutely right about the eating disorders and excessive dieting involved in gymnastics, that training begins at a young age, that training is rigorous, that Olympic gymnasts are young, and that gymnastic training takes a toll on the body. This is all true. But Bissinger seems to only take issue with these manifestations as they occur in gymnastics, and women's gymnastics at that. I would venture that most Olympic athletes began training of some sort at a young age, and considering how much more we encourage athleticism in young boys than in young girls, it is likely that boys could in fact start later and still be successful.
About age he says,
[...] in order to qualify, girls must have been born in 1992 or earlier. In other words, basically 16. Not that 16 is particularly old of course. It is still young, too young perhaps to compete in the Olympics where female bodies are still being formed not just physically but psychologically. But that’s the way it is in women’s gymnastics — in your prime in your teens until such nettlesome realities as puberty and weight gain often render you washed-up and useless.
Bissington neglects the following:
- All athletes, not just female ones, have to be at least 16 and that there are 16 year-old-male and female-competing in other sports. He seems to imply that 16 is too young for female athletes, but says nothing about young male athletes or about young female athletes in other sports. Are women too physically and psychologically immature but men aren't? (this year, there are, for example, only 1 male swimmer under 20, but in 2000, there were 7). It is true, however, that the members of the men's team are all significantly older-between 23 and 29, however, an About.com article suggest this is more a matter of physiology:
Male gymnasts are often older than their female counterparts, however, since the men’s events require strength that is sometimes difficult to develop until after puberty.
If anything, this suggests that it would be men who are physically "immature" at age 16.
- He states that the reason why gymnasts "must" be young is because of the pesky onset of puberty. Puberty has nothing to do with it. The average age of menarche in the U.S. is between age 12 and 13, and strenuous athletic activity in general actually postpones the onset of menarche since a certain amount of body fat is needed to menstruate. Many ultra-thin models suspend menstruation for the same reason. Female gymnasts' bodies tend to "catch up" to themselves later on and typically when their training alleviates. But this is not unique to gymnasts by any means.
3. Bissington also critiques the early age that female gymnasts being their training. Interestingly, if you take a look at the men's gymnastic team, they all began gymnastics by age 7 and 2 out of the 7 members began by age 3. Gymnastics is just as rigorous and physically demanding for men. Further, as the article suggests, gymnastics seems to be the quintessential female Olympic sport, and gymnastics, like ballet, is often something parents sign young girls up for as an "acceptably female" hobby. Such gendered stereotyping is by no means good, but it in part explains why women begin training at an early age and are able to reach Olympic-level athletic activity. Most gymnasts seem to compete in 2 Olympics: one at age 16-18, and the next at 20-22. This year seems to have mostly 16-20 year-olds. Athletes in many other sports, such as swimming, seem to be able to compete for several Olympics, making the age range in other games more broad.
But should we not have female gymnasts compete at their prime by virtue of their age and the sport's difficulty? Bissinger sure seems to have no problem with teens competing in "less demanding" more age-friendly sports. I have no doubt that there are body issues in women's gymnastics, like there are in dance--especially ballet--and sexual inappropriateness by gymnastic coaches, just like in society as a whole, but does this really make gymnastics problematic?
4. I find Bissinger's "gymnastics is so demanding, gruelling and injury-ridden that we must protect 'our' delicate young women!" additionally disgusting. If anything, this is where the "creepiness" lies--in his own paternalistic attitude. Never mind that male gymnast Justin Spring "blew his knee out" in the Nationals as the Olympic commentators stated, only to have reconstructive surgery and come back to be on the Olympic team. His injury and recovery was praised by the commentators as courageous! persevering! an athletic feat! Yet for Bissinger, it's our precious little feminine-girl athletes that need to be protected from the big, bad world of athletic activity and yes, pain.
And his critique that all we see is their success and not the hardships is utter crap. I mean, do we ever readily admit to what it takes to achieve superior levels of achievement in anything? Do models and actresses talk about their strict diet, cosmetic, and exercise regiments? Do businesspeople focus on their years of 70-hour work weeks? I mean, isn't part of success in America maintaining the fiscade of ease?
Ultimately, I find Bissinger's whole approach to be problematic and sexist, both in his approach to feminine appearance and in his paternalism, not to mention his overall double-standards for "feminine" gymnasts vs. female athletes doing other, "masculine" sports.
(cross-posted )
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Olympics and body politics.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8642
Mr. Bissinger has a documented history of protecting athletes from exploitation and eventually being discarded by coaches once their value is deleted. As he cringes at what he calls a creep show, he’s probably wondering what the cost is for these young athletes as they move into their adulthood. As you said early in your remarks, he has some valid points. Why not mention them?
While I agree that in some instances his points come off as paternalistic, I think he makes a number of valid points that you downplay in your criticism.
1. It is fair to be particularly worried about gymnastics because gymnastics is one of few sports where in many countries, girls are selected at a young age based on body type (and not interest in the sport) and then become wards of the state. The potential for abuse is astronomically high. Yes, a lot of people in every sport begin training at a young age, but this is different than doing nothing other than training and having no meaningful option to stop training.
2. While it may be the case that bodies often do "catch up" once an onlympic training regimen is stopped, irreversible damage is often already done. My perspective comes from a dance backround, but if you push your body into doing things that it is not supposed to before it finishes developing there are many instances where its development occurs differently than it was supposed to (if you need evidence, look at the feet of any dancer who started pointe before their feet finished growing).
A lot of olympic sports are arguably bad for your body. But there is a difference between a grown person deciding to make that sacrifice and a fourteen year old being selected to make that sacrifice at the age of three because she had the right body shape.
I did mention them.
Bissington is absolutely right about the eating disorders and excessive dieting involved in gymnastics, that training begins at a young age, that training is rigorous, that Olympic gymnasts are young, and that gymnastic training takes a toll on the body. This is all true.
Like I say, it's fine for him to be concerned. However, I find his concern oddly (but not unexpectedly) targeted at the most feminine-princess-like of all the sports to be questionable in terms of gender ideology. Which makes his "good points" ultimately problematic, which is what my post is about.
My problem with his article is that he does not question impact of competition on any other Olympic sports and on boys at all. And no Olympic athlete competing in their 20's woke up at age 18 at began training. Their ability to compete in the Olympics, regardless of at what age they are competing now, affected their "growing up years," in both body and mind. And he is creepily concerned mostly with their developing bodies, which partially explains why he could give a rat's ass about the mental, physical, and emotional effects on the boys.
The only cost he seems to be worried about is to the replication of ideal femininity, and protecting our little princesses. And that's fucking creepy and worthy of critique.
MM,
1. It is fair to be particularly worried about gymnastics because gymnastics is one of few sports where in many countries, girls are selected at a young age based on body type (and not interest in the sport) and then become wards of the state.
His article is about American gymnasts, not in other countries. My critique is based on HIS article not on possible related issues not covered by his specifically American critique. Plus, in "those countries" you refer to, ALL athletes are chose for their sport. Again, why does this then become a valid argument about FEMALE GYMNASTS? Clearly, there's something going on here.
I don't disagree with your second point at all, and I didn't say his criticisms "in general" were incorrect. It was his sole problem with female gymnastics that is the problem. I also have a gymnastics and dance background, and I did years of pointe, so I know what you're saying. And I'm not by any means saying that there aren't issues with the sport...just his harsh judgment on gymnastics int he absence of any other discussion seems to come from a different place other than concern for Olympic athletes. You wrote, A lot of olympic sports are arguably bad for your body. But there is a difference between a grown person deciding to make that sacrifice and a fourteen year old being selected to make that sacrifice at the age of three because she had the right body shape. I agree. But this story wasn't about "Olympic Athletes," it was about female gymnasts, and that's my critique.
To me, the obsession with female gymnastics at the competitive/Olympic level borders on pedophilia. The judging is utterly subjective, and there is something very wrong with the fact that the types of movements and performance skills that get the highest scores from judges are those that require a gymnast to have the body type of an adolescent girl.
SmartLikeMe posted at August 14, 2008, at 04:42PM: "But should we not have female gymnasts compete at their prime by virtue of their age and the sport's difficulty?"
I wonder if this should also go for women's and men's equestrian events. The younger and smaller you are, the less weight the horse has to carry. If nobody set an age limit, what would the prime age for jockeys be?
lindabeth commented at August 14, 2008 5:50 PM: "However, I find his concern oddly (but not unexpectedly) targeted at the most feminine-princess-like of all the sports to be questionable in terms of gender ideology."
Aren't those the same sports in which there's not only pressure to start young and practice hard but pressure to hurry up and peak young?
I've heard of people complaining about the age-16 minimum in Olympic women's gymnastics because basically "if she can't go to the Olympics when she's 15 then she can't go until she's 19 when it'll be too late because she'll probably be washed up!!!" Do they have any point? Does that happen to women in track and field and stuff, men in any sport, etc.?
I thought that when a 15-year-old boy gymnast is told "you're underage for this year's Olympics" his coaches just expect him to do well at the next summer Olympics (with 4 more years of practice) instead of getting all worried about his aging.
lindabeth commented at August 14, 2008 5:59 PM: "Plus, in 'those countries' you refer to, ALL athletes are chose for their sport. Again, why does this then become a valid argument about FEMALE GYMNASTS?"
Exactly.
Fantastic analysis, lindabeth. Very in-depth.
His comment about them looking like prepubescent boys was interesting to me since I've been admiring the "feminine" waists of the male gymnasts!
I read an article recently that was talking about the astronomical rates of ACL injuries in female soccer players. Why didn't he talk about issues like that?
Also, one thing about the young age of most athletes is that they are better able to deal with more rigorous regimens than older people are. What many people don't know is that our bones don't harden completely until our late teens to early twenties, which means that they are more flexible and less prone to breaks when we are young. So what may seem like a cruel regimen to us is not necessarily as bad for a very young person as it would be for someone older. Though I do wonder what other effects there might be on ALL of these athletes.
great post! it goes along with the joke i saw on the daily show last night, one that i've been laughing about all day.
jon stewart was talking about the chinese girl's gymnastic team, and how no one believes they're 16. he says, of course not, we all know what teenagers look like; then a picture of two of the main characters from gossip girl is shown. funniest part of joke to me, though, is that jon stewart then says, "you know, the kids get out of school at 2:30 so they can run home for their 2nd shave and a quick f**k." ha! my god i laughed. the western concept of what teenagers look like, and how they behave is soooo warped - especially for females.
thanks again for this post!
I just got home after witnessing the title: "Cheer Up: Chinese Cheerleaders Dance at Olympics" or something like that. Seriously. There were these bikini-clad Asian women dancing on the beach volleyball court. For no reason. Oh, sorry, to "Cheer Up" American viewers of CNBC, apparently.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/olympics/2008-08/05/content_6905507.htm
Pfft. I am much more offended by the Spanish basketball team, who all posed for a picture pulling the corners of their eyes to "wink" at the Beijing Olympics. Racist assholes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/aug/11/olympicsbasketball.olympics20081
What a thorough, excellent post.
This discussion has been had in many places on line in the last few days. I was dissapointed in John Stewart and the other sources for focusing on the concerns over the Chinese gymnasts looks rather than the documentary evidence from Chinese official competition websites and newspapers that indicate three of them are under 16. Rules are rules until they are changed.
More to the point here- maybe there should be age limits in other sports such as diving- young bodies of either sex can be seriously damaged by too intensive a trainging and competition schedule before their bodies mature.
Finally, people can change the design of sports to emphasize skills and abilities of older bodies or different bodies if they want to. The code of points in figure skating is an example- they change it to focus more on artistry or athleticism, difficulty or cleanness of performance periodically. Also, I have heard several gymnastics commentators mention the "style" that is popular today. Things come and go- remember the hyperarched backs they all had a decade or two ago? In the end, they could add aparatus or change the emphasis of current ones to skill older stronger more experienced bodies could excell at if they wanted to. The question is would we watch? Why do we feel that the skills these girls bodies are peak for are the best?
Just an observation--Buzz was not the one who commented on the gymnasts' "pre-pubescent bodies." This was a quote from the author of a book about female gymnasts:
“They look like girls from the neck up,” I was told by Joan Ryan, whose 1995 book, “Little Girls in Pretty Boxes,” blew a sky-high lid off the sadomasochistic training regimens that young female gymnasts were being subjected to. She continued: “From the neck down they look like prepubescent boys.”
I have to say, I disagree with a number of things about your critique.
Bissinger makes no reference whatsoever to "hourglass" figures, and certainly doesn't say that only women with hourglass figures are feminine.
The "from the neck down they look like prepubescent boys" quote is from sports writer Joan Ryan who wrote an expose of the abuse of young girls training to be Olympic level gymnasts and figure skaters. Among other things she wrote about girls starving themselves in an attempt to stave off puberty because they feared the changes to their figures would end their careers.
While you interpreted the article as criticizing the gymnasts (and only the gymnasts) for not having feminine enough figures, I found the article to be rather a critique of the hyper-feminine idealization of gymnastics.
The study you're using to define what percentage of women have a particular body type seems extremely restrictive. For example, I've often been complemented (by other women) on my supposedly hourglass figure, but by the definition used in that study not only is my waist too thick (making me a "rectangle"), my hips are too broad bumping me over into the "pear shape" category. Honestly with restrictions like that it's no wonder only 8% of women in the study qualified as hourglass and 46% were rectangles.
I agree with you that coach Bela Karolyi was more than a bit arrogant to state that "we know what a 16-year-old should look like" when referring to the Chinese gymnasts. However, he wasn't as you say "judging an athletic ... body by what a "generic" (read: white, American) 16 year-old ought to [look like]". He's an elite international Olympic women's gymnastics coach with over 30 years of experience - I think it's safe to assume he's familiar with athletic (if not Chinese) physiques. Interestingly enough he's the same coach that Joan Ryan (see above) criticized massively in her book as being an abusive eating-disorder promoting asshole.
...
I had more points I wanted to make, but it's time for dinner. Suffice to say that I agree with windyloo that point scoring in gymnastics could be restructured so that it no longer favours hyper-petite pre-adolescent figures in females (whereas the men's competition favours post-adolescent physiques). In the 1960s female olympic gymnasts used to be in their 20s, and one of the 1956 gold medalists was 35.
I will admit that I haven't read the full article very closely but I disagree with a few aspects of this post. I don't see the observation that the female gymnast's bodies look like prepubescent boys as some sort of statement about adhering to conventional beauty. It doesn't seem to be about the horrors of women who don't fit the ideal mold of feminity. Instead I see it is as questioning intensive training regimens that might suppress puberty in these girls.
And as to why this same question is not asked of the men... I'm sure part of it is that paternalistic sexist attitude, but take a look at the ages of male gymnasts. A quick look at the USA team reveals that many of the men are well over 20. I see 28, 23, 25, 22. The women are mostly between 16-18. Sacramone is practically a senior citizen in the gymnastics world at the age of 20. Women peak in gymnastics MUCH earlier than men so the most intensive training comes significantly earlier.
I think you're missing the point here. The point is that female gymnastics, far more than male gymnastics, is highly abusive. You're so off here that I wonder if you actually read the entire article. These girls aren't supposed to look that way, they look that way because they are incredibly unhealthy. Their bodies are not athletes' bodies, they're the bodies of the overworked and malnourished. Even for athletes, most women and men will have visibly different bodies--and it's fine if naturally don't but the point is that these girls do not naturally look like that, and it isn't healthy that they don't.
Crshark:
The judging is utterly subjective, and there is something very wrong with the fact that the types of movements and performance skills that get the highest scores from judges are those that require a gymnast to have the body type of an adolescent girl.
Is it just female gymnastics that has "subjective" judging? Does male gymnastics, as well as diving, have subjective judging as well?
And it's not that the moves require one to have an adolescent body, it's just that extreme athletic activity can delay some sexual development. It's also that these ARE adolescents! Why can't adolescent girls have adolescent bodies?! Why is no one talking about the adolescent looks of the divers, for example?
And most importantly, why is physical sexual maturity defined by having substantially full breasts? Are A and B-cups somehow not women? Or that they don't have hourglass shapes, because you know, a whopping 8% of women do.
This standard is what a woman looks like is extremely problematic.
@ wax_ghost
His comment about them looking like prepubescent boys was interesting to me since I've been admiring the "feminine" waists of the male gymnasts!
Hell yeah, me too! The swimmers as well :-)
great post! it goes along with the joke i saw on the daily show last night, one that i've been laughing about all day.
jon stewart was talking about the chinese girl's gymnastic team, and how no one believes they're 16. he says, of course not, we all know what teenagers look like; then a picture of two of the main characters from gossip girl is shown. funniest part of joke to me, though, is that jon stewart then says, "you know, the kids get out of school at 2:30 so they can run home for their 2nd shave and a quick f**k." ha! my god i laughed. the western concept of what teenagers look like, and how they behave is soooo warped - especially for females.
thanks again for this post!
Betty Brown, what a great comment! I'm going to find the clip now! I usually watch the Daily Show but I had my Master's defense this week so I was prepping for that.
I had the same thought about the whole age thing. We are looking at this through a Western lens, and a warped, Hollywood one at that. These girls look like I did at 16, when I had barely started wearing makeup and grunge was all the rage. Nowadays....
Not to mention cultural differences, diet differences, etc, which affect growth and such. Not to mention when I wear a ponytail I get ID'd for alcohol!
@ nightingale
Well, I did read the whole article a few times. Did you read my whole post? Because I am not disagreeing with the strenuousness of gymnastics, or denying that there are problems. Just that they are not limited to gymnastics, or to women, and in breaking down the criticisms, am theorizing why such a focus.
These girls aren't supposed to look that way, they look that way because they are incredibly unhealthy. Their bodies are not athletes' bodies, they're the bodies of the overworked and malnourished. Even for athletes, most women and men will have visibly different bodies--and it's fine if naturally don't but the point is that these girls do not naturally look like that, and it isn't healthy that they don't.
I take issue with your appeal to what is "natural." How is an athletic body at all "natural"? And how is a non-athletic body "natural"? Is there really a "natural body? How is an athletic body "supposed to look"? Men's and women's bodies among the sports look different. Different muscles are emphasized, some sports feature bulkier muscles while some sports feature more toned muscles. There is no generically "natural" athletic body.
And the female gymnasts do look different than the male gymnasts. God, I can't believe I have to analyze their bodies, but they do have breasts! They may not be C-cups, but they got em. And since when are 16 or even 18 year olds supposed to be "fully developed", especially is they're athletes? And since when must a developed woman bigger than a B-cup?
And for the record, NO athlete "naturally" looks "like that."
Lisa-
I agree with you that they are talking about the temporary suppression of certain aspects of puberty in some athletes. But the standards by which they are judging what counts appropriate sexual development are problematic for me, and they do not acknowledge that any athletic activity-not just gymnastics-can have this effect, especially on menarche.
The reason I see it tied to a certain view of femininity is because the reason why their bodies look prepubescent to critics is because of small breasts, their "lack" of female "shape," and height. Regarding height, gymnasts tend to be shorter, like basketball players tend to be taller. There are exceptions (for both), but that's the trend, and this does influence how we view their age. But I'm 5'2", my mom's 5' and my youngest sister is not even 5'. Surely, we're not prepubescent! Regarding shape, they do not account for how a muscular physique looks on a female frame, the effect of hard-core female activity on development, and makes this claim based on a lack of certain curves, as if that's what defines being appropriately womanly. If that's a woman, then I'm a prepubescent boy, because while some of the athletes have "no shape" [sic], some do have some, and those ones look like I do. Regarding breasts, several women obviously have larger-sized breasts restrained under their leotards, as do the swimmers and divers. And prior to implant revolution, the average breast size in the U.S. was 34B. The gymnastics team is only a sample of 6 young women. Is it really such a big deal that only one of them are likely a C-cup?
In the end, I take issue with the normalizing rhetoric that these criticisms rely on. And like I said, I do acknowledge there can be abuses. But I question why only women's gymnastics is addressed. Females in other sports have eating disorders and also have effects on puberty. And there are male athletes who are Olympic competitors as well (thought not the gymnasts-and I suggested a biological reason for this in my post). Yet it's only female gymnasts being discussed.
And in general: I know that he was citing someone else's quote, but he was using it to support his point of view, and took it on as his own perspective, as this article was an Opinion article and not a journalistic report.
Also, from my recollection this is an unusual year as far as age for female gymnasts (see below). Like I pointed out, In Michael Phelps 1st year competing, he was 15, and there were 7 male swimmers under age 20. This year, only 1. It's pretty unfair to take 1 year as exemplary of the games in general. Like someone said, other years women into their early 20's have competed. This year, the oldest ones are 20. Our most consistent female gymnast is 16. Being so good so young, hopefully she'll have 2 more Olympics in her.
But I do see the point made about how the requirements could be different to accommodate older athletes.
2004 women's team had 2 26 year-olds, 2 18 year-old, 2 16 year-olds.
2004 men's team had 2 21 year olds, 1 23 year-old, 1 24 year-old, 1 27 and 1 30. (the 17 year-olds in the 2000 games were the 21 year-old at this games, so they added no new teens this year).
2000 women's team had 1 aged 23, 1 aged 22, 1 aged 19, 2 aged 18, and 1 aged 15.
2000 men's team had 2 aged 17, 1 aged 21, 2 aged 26, and 1 aged 30.
Look to 1996, and the women were all under 20 again. So it really depends.
(And don't forget, the upper-body muscles required for men's gymnastics take longer to develop, and men on average physically mature later than women do.)
OK, back to actually watching the gymnastics!
windyloo commented at August 14, 2008 8:43 PM: "Finally, people can change the design of sports to emphasize skills and abilities of older bodies or different bodies if they want to. The code of points in figure skating is an example- they change it to focus more on artistry or athleticism, difficulty or cleanness of performance periodically. Also, I have heard several gymnastics commentators mention the 'style' that is popular today. Things come and go- remember the hyperarched backs they all had a decade or two ago? In the end, they could add aparatus or change the emphasis of current ones to skill older stronger more experienced bodies could excell at if they wanted to. The question is would we watch? Why do we feel that the skills these girls bodies are peak for are the best?"
Excellent point. After all, the definitions and rules of women's gymnastics were made by people in the first place - they're not some fixed given like the speed of light or water being wet is.
lindabeth commented at August 14, 2008 11:36 PM: "It's also that these ARE adolescents! Why can't adolescent girls have adolescent bodies?! "
Nobody seems to be arguing that adolescents can't have adolescent bodies.
The issue seems to be more summed up by cackalacky's comment on April 23, 2008 at http://letters.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/23/chalked_up/permalink/31ba3e178b8670fadaac00ebd75a46c6.html :
"It is always been interesting to me that the majority the competitors in the category of women's gymnastics (and figure skating for that matter) are not women. Female, yes. Women, no. Older than 18, no. Capable of menstrating (based on age and/or weight), hardly. Breasts & hips, none.
[I get the impression that here cackalacky is trying to cover both bases, the age of majority and the notion some people have that womanhood starts at menarche instead of adulthood]
"Yet another case of women not making the cut, even in their 'own' sport..."
lindabeth, I agree. My body type is very similar to Shawn Johnson's - short, with big, strong thighs, small breasts, and (if I were more muscular in my arms) wider shoulders than the Nastia Liukins. That doesn't mean I look like a pre-pubescent boy, and I don't think things like that are going to help stop eating disorders amongst athletes.
And yeah, the swimmers are quite nice-looking as well. Though my favorite eye candy will always be soccer players. ;)
nightingale, I got a sneaking suspicion while watching the all-around competition tonight that the judges were scoring Shawn down because of her body type. The commentators kept talking about how her "style" wasn't as "pleasing" to the judges but I couldn't help thinking that the girls who were thinner were the "graceful" ones while Johnson's power and strength were seen as a lack of grace. So I would hesitate to say that an athlete should "naturally" look like anything; I think that's just as culturally constructed as femininity and masculinity.
I don't have anything to add, because honestly, with the opening paragraph I was hoping for a thorough critique of how sexist the different uniforms are.
I take issue with your appeal to what is "natural." How is an athletic body at all "natural"? And how is a non-athletic body "natural"? Is there really a "natural body? How is an athletic body "supposed to look"?
I'd say the alleged use of hormone suppression to stave off puberty and then the application of hormones to make it come in just in time (like several months before the Olympics) is extremely unnatural.
And the discussion of the Chinese girls' having prepubescent bodies is beside the point. By every possible measure, those girls look ten years old, and I don't buy that this is a cultural difference. My all-girl high school was majority Asian. Not one of the girls in my freshman class looked that young. Not one.
And the discussion of the Chinese girls' having prepubescent bodies is beside the point. By every possible measure, those girls look ten years old, and I don't buy that this is a cultural difference. My all-girl high school was majority Asian. Not one of the girls in my freshman class looked that young. Not one.
Keshmeshi, with all due respect, it is highly likely that the population of Chinese girls in China might be just a little bit larger than the population of Chinese (or even Asian) girls at your school.
China is huge, and depending on region, physical features can be quite different.
The reason we are only hearing this argument about women's gymnastics is because women's gymnastics is the only sport which has been redesigned to give the physical advantage to underage girls, an advantage that far outweighs any increase in strength or skill that would come with another decade of training and physical maturity. 40 years ago all the competitors in the sport were full-grown women. The parallel bars were designed so that a competitor's hip joint met the lower bar as she swung from the upper bar to the lower bar. There were no "flying" moves where the competitor released and flew from one bar to the other.
The person who is singularly responsible for this change is Bela Karolyi, who trained the Romanian women's gymnastic team that introduced Nadia Comenici. It was a team that was made up of young girls of that bodytype, in striking contrast to other teams of the time. Within a few years, the parallel bars had been moved far apart, and so many 12 year olds were competing at the world level that there were cries for age restrictions.
When preteen boys compete in gymnastics, there is no impetus to peak their skills and strength before they reach physical maturity. They have years to improve their skills. The grueling training and dietary restriction forced upon girls is necessary if they are to peak before they reach that inevitable (for most girls) cutoff age. As inevitably it results in early retirement with permanent physical problems for many of them. Injuries like stress fractures of the back are very common in gymnasts. Also, delaying of menstuation through extreme diet and exercise results in decreased bone mass at a time when girls should be increasing the strength of their bones, and leads to early osteoporosis.
I see gymnastics as a sport like "cheerleading", where girls are killed in falls every year. When did sports turn from a healthy activity to a gladiator sport where we put our daughters' very lives at risk?
And the discussion of the Chinese girls' having prepubescent bodies is beside the point. By every possible measure, those girls look ten years old, and I don't buy that this is a cultural difference. My all-girl high school was majority Asian. Not one of the girls in my freshman class looked that young. Not one.
Keshmeshi, with all due respect, it is highly likely that the population of Chinese girls in China might be just a little bit larger than the population of Chinese (or even Asian) girls at your school.
China is huge, and depending on region, physical features can be quite different.
Exactly, not to mention difference in diet and environment for Chinese-Americans versus landed Chinese women.
@ Angela Quattran:
The reason we are only hearing this argument about women's gymnastics is because women's gymnastics is the only sport which has been redesigned to give the physical advantage to underage girls, an advantage that far outweighs any increase in strength or skill that would come with another decade of training and physical maturity.
That's fine, if that's what the critique is. That is not however what this article was about. If it was supposed to be, it was an utter failure. Like I said I'm not saying there are in fact no problems. But the discussion in the article as it is is highly problematic.
When preteen boys compete in gymnastics, there is no impetus to peak their skills and strength before they reach physical maturity.
My understanding is they actually can't, according to the article I cite. Boys bodies develop differently than girls and men's skills focus on upper body strength, and it seems like what they need to do the skill doesn't happen til later on.
But women's gymnastic skills seem to actually peak earlier. Maybe it's in the design, which that is a problem that can and should be addressed. Maybe it's because gymnastics has been the "feminine" sport, and is something, like ballet, that parents send young girls to participate in at an early age. It can teach children valuable skills even at a young age, like balance and coordination. I never had a boy in my class until my last year and I took classes until age 10. Since they start earlier, perhaps they also peak earlier.
Again, I am not saying there are no problems, only that they're not necessarily gymnastics-specific. All athletes training begin at a young, preteen age. And many sports have teens competing.
A 33-year old German won silver in vault. Maybe this has more to do with the way WE see gymnastics, youth, femininity, and that the physical demands of gymnastics are incompatible with cultural ideals of femininity. Just wondering.
Regarding those who point to the age of earlier gymnasts, according to this article, the 33-year-old gymnast Oksana Chusovitina is "the oldest woman in over half a century to win an Olympic medal in gymnastics."
@ Mena:
The issue seems to be more summed up by cackalacky's comment on April 23, 2008 at http://letters.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/23/chalked_up/permalink/31ba3e178b8670fadaac00ebd75a46c6.html :
"It is always been interesting to me that the majority the competitors in the category of women's gymnastics (and figure skating for that matter) are not women. Female, yes. Women, no. Older than 18, no. Capable of menstrating (based on age and/or weight), hardly. Breasts & hips, none.
[I get the impression that here cackalacky is trying to cover both bases, the age of majority and the notion some people have that womanhood starts at menarche instead of adulthood]
This is actually part of what I'm saying. What counts as being a "woman"?
For porn and consensual sex, we think it's the magical age of 18. If it's age for this, then take away some of Michael Phelps' medals, who first appeared in the Olympics at age 15.
If it's menarche, then you might want to "test" all the athletes because chances are, it's not just gymnasts who haven't menstruated yet. And also inform that 19-year old who hasn't either that she's not actually a woman. Also tell many supermodels they cannot sign contracts sing many of them don't menstruate, and are therefore not women.
By god what does "not having breasts" even mean? What size cup does one have to have to actually "have breasts"? How much bigger must your hips be than your waist to "have hips". Honestly, I look a bit like those gymnasts' waistlines. Hell, some of the male swimmers are more curvy than I am!
This is some body-policing and femininity-policing if I ever heard it.
Gymnastics for years has been an accepted way that women could be athletically competitive; it is truly the feminine Olympic sport. And women are pushing for the highest success possible. How is this not any different than the cultural ideal of sport and competition? I think if gymnasts looked like pin-up models, we'd care a lot less.