I generally like King Kaufman's sports columns on Salon. But today's, which repeats the rather hackneyed complaints about women's gymnastics, irked me.
I'm not bothered by his central premise -- which is that women's gymnastics favors little girls, and that it can have a disturbing effect on those girls who compete. He's right. But he acts as if it was just happenstance, or due to some specific intent "gymnastics tries to reconfigure women's bodies, to keep them childlike. It's sick and wrong. And when so much emphasis is placed on how cute and pretty they are -- the full make-up, the glitter, the cutesy dance moves -- it's off-the-chart sick and wrong."
First off, I think much of the cute and pretty stuff he complains about -- the glitter and make-up -- come from the little girls, not the sport. If he'd ever been at an 8th grade sleepover he'd know that glitter eye-shadow is something that virtually all 13-year-olds covet.
Secondly, I think he's overlooking the physics involved. He compares it to men's gymnastics, which generally has a higher average age. I think that's mainly due to the fact that that aspect of the sport is much more dependent on strength -- something that improves with age. Women's gymnastics -- the way the moves are designed, the apparatus is built -- favor a tiny, light person who is extremely flexible. Women get taller, heavier and less flexible as they age. Someone who's 5-foot-6 is going to have a much harder time on the uneven bars because of the way they work. If you have a short, flexible, 25-year-old, as you do now, they'll be able to compete.
He says "If you're years into retirement age for a sport at that age, then it's a children's sport and should be reconfigured for adult bodies when grown-ups play. Think T-ball and baseball."
The problem is, to get the changes he wants, you'd have to change the entire sport, and make it less difficult for adults -- the opposite of what he's suggesting.
I'm not bothered by his central premise -- which is that women's gymnastics favors little girls, and that it can have a disturbing effect on those girls who compete. He's right. But he acts as if it was just happenstance, or due to some specific intent "gymnastics tries to reconfigure women's bodies, to keep them childlike. It's sick and wrong. And when so much emphasis is placed on how cute and pretty they are -- the full make-up, the glitter, the cutesy dance moves -- it's off-the-chart sick and wrong."
First off, I think much of the cute and pretty stuff he complains about -- the glitter and make-up -- come from the little girls, not the sport. If he'd ever been at an 8th grade sleepover he'd know that glitter eye-shadow is something that virtually all 13-year-olds covet.
Secondly, I think he's overlooking the physics involved. He compares it to men's gymnastics, which generally has a higher average age. I think that's mainly due to the fact that that aspect of the sport is much more dependent on strength -- something that improves with age. Women's gymnastics -- the way the moves are designed, the apparatus is built -- favor a tiny, light person who is extremely flexible. Women get taller, heavier and less flexible as they age. Someone who's 5-foot-6 is going to have a much harder time on the uneven bars because of the way they work. If you have a short, flexible, 25-year-old, as you do now, they'll be able to compete.
He says "If you're years into retirement age for a sport at that age, then it's a children's sport and should be reconfigured for adult bodies when grown-ups play. Think T-ball and baseball."
The problem is, to get the changes he wants, you'd have to change the entire sport, and make it less difficult for adults -- the opposite of what he's suggesting.
posted by Magpie @ 1:57 PM
0 comments
