Olympic Sissy Men
Have you ever wondered why there are no women's ski jump events in the Olympics? OK, it's not something you've probably given much thought to because it hasn't crossed your radar, but now that you're aware of it---guess why?
It makes no sense: we can fly through the air on snowboards, do back flips on the moguls, yet we can’t ski jump? What’s up with that? Especially since men’s ski jumping has been an Olympic event since the 1920s.
It seems the issue is a hot topic this year and via this MSNBC.com video I finally have my answer. Although some very thin and lame excuses have been floated around, what it seems to boil down to is that the European men don’t want to be shown up by a bunch of girls, one of whom holds the record on the actual ski jump used at the Vancouver games.
Yes that’s right, Lindsey Van beat the men’s record on the exact same ski jump the men will be sliding down to claim their Olympic medals this week. I ask you: how f**ked up is that?
This quote cracked me up:
In 2005, Gian Franco Kasper, FIS president and a member of the IOC, said that he didn't think women should ski jump because the sport "seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view."
Oh my God are we still having that same argument? Seriously? In this day and age? What does Gian Franco Kasper think is going to happen? Vaginas scattered all over the hill? Menstrual blood on the start bar? Boobies flying through the air?
OMG, what punks. I think men have a few parts that could feel ... ummm ... a tad uncomfortable from jumping.
Free the Women Ski Jumpers now.
This is absurd. They fear women out doing the men. The thought that a women could fly further just fries their pea brains.
Women should be able to compete against the men. period.(no pun intended)
Vaginas scattered all over the hill.LMAO! Oh Noes! Party time!
The event I'm interested in is the one with Apolo Ohno.
It seems the South Koreans are whining about Ohno.
I guess they think he should just roll over and let them smack him around. And that he should not play the same game that they're playing.
Go Ohno!
What is your conceptual, continuity?
the reason women can go further is because they are lighter
there has been a huge prob in regards eating disorders in the men, as they work to keep their weight down
.
Weight is important to gain speed on the inrun. Getting the most the most weight in the smallest, least wind-resistant crouch gets you the speediest takeoff. Good ski flyers come in all sizes.
I went to high school in Lake Placid, in the late 50s, and we used the Olympic jumps for team practice. Across the lake, at Lake Placid High, there was a girl name Sandra Vivitsky, who was beating all the boys in jumping, and it bothered the hell out of the adults in that rather small town. They came up with all kinds of ridiculous reasons why women shouldn't jump. I remember one of them suggesting that landings would make the womb collapse. But it was all about sexism (a word we'd never heard in 1959).
And that's all this is about. There's no reason that women shouldn't be flying with the men that isn't just a cover for sexism.
Walt Kovacs' post is correct. Since the advent of the "V" style of jumping, sleek aerodynamics is less important than lift. The skiers are literally gliding thru the air like flying squirrels rather than propelling themselves like a sleek missile. This new technique rewards lighter skiers and minimum weight requirements have been introduced to help reduce eating disorders among jumpers.
NY Times story.
"The thought that a women could fly further just fries their pea brains."
Wow, way to combat sexism by being sexist.
No where does that person say that men have pea brains, but rather people who are afraid of the women out doing men. So yeah, that's not particularly sexist, at all. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that those who hold that fear are particularly stupid, hence the pea brains.
Nice try though.
We're talking about troglodytes. Men that are afraid of women being better than they are at something and their fragile egos can't handle it. That's not sexist - that's an observation about a specific group of people based on clear evidence.
They DO have pea brains and they themselves have made that clear.
*
"What does Gian Franco Kasper think is going to happen? Vaginas scattered all over the hill? Menstrual blood on the start bar? Boobies flying through the air?"
Not sure about the first two options being good teevee but put me down as a vote in the affirmative for option #3. Actually, I think that would be a great event in its own right.
I think I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so.....
I'd tune in for the flying boobies compe(tit)ion.(HeeHee)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYI-VoKUDdI&fe...
NSFW BTW.
Maybe not even safe for home!
Really cute, though.
Without much dangling between their legs I'd think women would be more aerodynamic.
Not to mention a womans curves about the upper torso giving lift - like some beautiful wing.
Fly baby fly!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
by "lift and separate" in those cross your heart bra commercials?
I think I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so.....
Oh. Is this about melons or menses then?
I can't believe the lameness of their excuse. That's not stupid - that's prejudice.
*
a vagina scattered all over a hill? It's not a pretty site, esp if you're a sissy man ;) :) :)
Wasn't it a man who got all messed up feeling the Agony of Defeat?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKEDD1i4oGk
...in the Summer Olympics until 1976. It's amazing what men with small penis' have put women through throughout history.
years ago during the play Vagina Monologues, 4 sissy men got up an left! disappointed, but never surprised!
Maybe they got aroused and went to the little boys room to whack it.
Generally speaking I don't trust anyone making over 150K a year.
I always thought that the reason there was no Women's Ski Jump competition was that women were too smart to enter it....
if the ladies want to go streaking down the side of a mountain and hurl themselves off the edge, then go for it!!
boobies flying through the air. The time is now.
Yes, it is ridiculous that women can't compete in this sport. But I disagree that it has something to do with the men being afraid of female competition. Because they wouldn't have to compete in the same competition!
And one other thing: Women start higher up on the ski-jump than men do. So it doesn't make much sense to claim that Lindsey Van holds the record on this ski-jump not only among all women but also among all men, since men and women don't start under the same conditions.
"It's called the American Dream. Because you have to be asleep to believe it!" George Carlin
I can only think of two Olympic sports where men and women compete as equals: equestrian events in the summer games and curling in the winter. Are there any others?
update: I think there are men and women competing together as crew members in the yachting events as well.
I think I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so.....
pairs groping
NSFW
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Is that "pair" like the pair you guys say the democrats should grow? If so, that might be interesting.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
and most people prefer to watch the women singles skate over the men
although johnny weir is an exception to that rule
I'm unfamiliar with equestrian events but I know for sure that men and women compete on different teams in curling. Go Canada!!!
jimmy the greek
damn!
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Speaking from a female point of view, I know my own life's desire has been to strap two skinny pieces of wood to my feet and go flying off the side of a snowy mountain like a bat out of hell. The reason I never did it personally is because I didn't want to have my face skinned raw after sliding face down a few hundred feet in the snow and I do not find casts on arms and legs attractive, especially when there is one on each arm and each leg.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2010/1/most-...
Show me the yellow cake.
Olympics? The ski jumper who won 4 or 5 medals there? I saw an "ad" that showed a picture of him in the air and the caption read. "Matti Nykanen flies home to Finland." It still makes me laugh.
If women are allowed in the Olympic ski jump -- what's next? BLACKS?!!
lifespans any way. I would think they would outperform men via the physics of it. They usually weigh less and would have more glide. Or maybe not , weighing less might mean they would never reach the speed on skiis that a heavier man would.
I do know that Shirley Mulldowney had an advantage in drag racing because she weighed a lot less than the good ole boys that competed against her.
of view"
Right. Which is why no women ever jump out of those neato aeroplanes.
Maddow. Thank you for bringing logic back from the dead.
Don't chew worry yor purtty liddle head about it
made the same claim about black people...when discussing why they couldnt manage in baseball
he lost his job
this ioc official should lose his
Seeing the headline I fully expected the boys to be out in full force with their juvenile male dominance fabrication fantasies in full display.
I am not completely disappointed.
Although truth be told I could hardly care less about the Olympics, I am still always interested in gender based discrimination, what with the continuation of male dominance in so many areas. Inappropriately so.
One place where gender based discrimination seems largely to have been eliminated is in the hiring of symphony orchestras.
I have a picture of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra from 1953, there were three women.
Today, the men have been completely evicted from the first violins because the women play better.
I cannot draw that as a general conclusion, only a specific fact. If it is a general truth then the men are not likely to get back in.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Alice X
I admit I'm a flaming hetero-male with a decided propensity toward boobies but come on, lighten up a notch.
And as the father of a classical musician who is married to another classical musician - they perform together and individually with CSO (Chicago Symphony Orchestra) chamber groups - I have to say that your observation re women being "better" is both sexist and stupid. I've been around here on C&L for a long time and I didn't expect that from you.
I think I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so.....
I am sorry that you have a problem understanding nuanced meaning.
You want me to lighten up after that?
The women in the first violin section got there because they play better, individually.
The audition committee felt so, or they wouldn't be there.
That they are there is demonstrable.
So what is sexist and stupid about reporting a fact?
I then said:
You apparently know nothing about the way auditions are held, there is screen until the final two.
Until the advent of the Labor Management and Disclosure Act of 1959 the musician's union rejected orchestra players organization on their own behalf. After that law the players organized and their organization was recognized, it had to be, by law, see ICSOM.
Previous to ICSOM challenging and changing the practice, Conductors (all males) held their own personal auditions and females hardly needed apply.
That was sexist and perhaps stupid.
So I would be interested to hear more about why you think what I said was sexist and stupid. When I was simply observing a fact.
In a blind audition if the winning candidates in a section are all women it is because they played better.
The same would be true of any section that is all men.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I took your comment to mean that the women were there because they are somehow inherently better than male musicians. Perhaps I read too much between the lines but that's how I took it. Just as you made the assumption that I "know nothing about the way auditions are held" when you know nothing about me. In fact, I've been through a fair number of them myself though I fully admit that I am no where near the musician that my son and his wife are.
As I said, I've been around on this blog for a long time and usually find your comments to be spot on to my way of thinking so this one (or my interpretation) caused me to do a double take.
I think I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so.....
There are scientific studies that have explored the difference between male and female brains.
One general discussion is here.
I recall reading a report that suggested that the female brain might be better inclined to delicate finger dexterity than the male brain.
I have not seen supporting follow up.
I would like to.
I try to choose my words carefully.
I used the word apparently, I don't know what sort of auditions you have been through.
A blind screen removes all opportunity for gender pre-concept, at least until the final two. It was a long time in coming.
So we have a page loaded with juvenile male dominance utterance, which you admit something of yourself, and you want to pick a fight because maybe I think the female violinists are better by birth.
Whatever.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
It has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a totally threatened male musician but there's some rather large holes in your argument.
Before making any assumption about talent levels and abilities, a look at conservatory enrollments might also indicate a trend favoring women.
When I was teaching piano, 9/10 students were female.
Maybe the males were all trying to be Olympian ski jumpers, or some such thing.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Probably more like they were addicted to video games and pro wrestling.
I am certainly clear that our society does not value artistic endeavor. Whatever gender, or whoever you are trying to undertake it.
Everyone wants great music, for free.
With the internet, so much is free.
A church mouse should not be as poor as I am.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
The comments by the IOC board member aren't new all. It seems the same idea was floated to explain why girl's basketball required six players who were limited to playing 3-on-3 on one-half of a basketball court. When did that idea die away? Not too many years ago. Now maybe the IOC itself will examine some of their out-dated ideas as well.
Next thing you know animals will be competing in the down hill event.
And then they might even let gay homosexuals in the olympics!!!
Yea I'm not sure that DADT will work in the olympics cafeenman.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:/...
Honey they're already there.
Have you completely lost sight of the very real possibility of involuntary egg-drop? At those speeds and from those heights, the ski jump could achieve what nature could not do in utero. And the next thing you know the womens team is now the mens' team!
So yuck it up now, smart guy, but I wouldn't want to be there when all those hetero marriages are invalidated because Canada does not recognize a marriage between a man and a gravity-induced man!
Beware of anyone promising a future full of yesterdays.
Tell u what when the lpga starts to let men participate in their competitions, we'll talk about this premise. Women for the most part are lighter and just that alone will allow them to fly further.
As far as them having their own competition that should be no problem.
Pole vault is another sport women were shut out of until recently, they seem to be doing fairly well in that.
A mere stunt that presents the viewer with a chance of witnessing fatal mishaps.
Hm. You have given me an idea.
I need to get in touch with the people that run the Lingerie Bowl during the Super Bowls.
Anyone want to sponsor a new Lingerie-lympics?
I hereby donate my skills as a judge.
Slow news day on C&L...
....to the early days of the Olympics when everyone compted in the nude.
Lower the retirement age.
Shrinkage.
Is no different than figure skating or ice dancing. Whether you win is not determined by how far you jump but by subjective style points awarded by judges.
You get points for both distance and style, and since style is one of the factors that determines distance(the aerodynamics of your body position is crucial), it almost always works out that the farthest flight wins.
figured out in the 1960's that the Coke-bottle shape was more aerodynamic than the pencil.
Let the girls compete. Who doesn't love female athletes anyway?
IMO the real reason that you do not see women in ski jumping is that it is a noneuro dominated sport and the European run IOC does not want any more sports that noneuros will win medals in. Look to the summer games where baseball and softball are gone but team handball is still around, hmmmmmm, think that there is connection to the fact that two of sports are won by noneuros and that the other is won only by euros? Womans ski jumping medals would be won by noneuros right now and as soon as euros can start medaling in the sport you will see it in the Olympics.
If the IOC complaint is that there aren't enough teams, then let women compete along side with men!
Y'all talking about the curling event?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...let the women compete! ...but no starting higher up the hill)!!! (that is an unfair advantage)
second of all...Rachael's guest doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to gravity. men and women both get accelerated by gravity at the same rate. (32 ft. per second) ...it doesn't matter how much you weigh when accelerating down the takeoff ramp, a fat person and a skinny person will be accelerated by gravity at the same rate.
Galileo proved this centuries ago. (at the leaning tower of pizza)
smaller people will catch more air though!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Yeah, didn't he prove that a medium and a large pizza will fall at the same rate? That's why they named the tower that.
But I think it's 32 feet per second per second, not just 32 feet per second...
Wikipedia:
g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2
(Sorry, I can't format the equation correctly -- the "2" after each "s" should be superscript.)
"This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the Earth's surface increases its velocity with 9.81 m/s (32.2 ft/s or 22 mph) for each second of its descent. Thus, an object starting from rest will attain a velocity of 9.81 m/s (32.2 ft/s) after one second, 19.6 m/s (64.4 ft/s) after two seconds, and so on, adding 9.81 m/s (32.2 ft/s) to each resulting velocity. Also, again ignoring air resistance, any and all objects, when dropped from the same height, will hit the ground at the same time."
ignore the gender differences entirely. force each competetor to wear exactly the same style outfit made of the same material with the same drag coefficient vs. wind. scan them with a laser just prior to the competition and weigh them and let a computer calculate their proper starting point on the ramp utilizing the applicable laws of newtonian classical dynamics so that they compete equally.
horses.
It's not simply a matter of free fall. There's the start out of the gate, the dynamic of the mass of the competitor and skis with the surface, there's the leap off of the end of the ski-jump, and then there's the wind resistance(but I'll take your "catch more air" as a reference in that direction).
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Juan Antonio Samaranch Under Samaranch, the IOC revamped its sponsorship arrangements (choosing to go with global sponsors rather than allowing each national federation to take local ones), and new broadcasting deals which brought in much money.
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
For athletes, the Olympics are the ultimate test of their worth. --Mary Lou Retton
Study the symptoms not the virus...
... wanted to set a record as well.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
While it's obviously stupid to not have a women's ski jumping competition, the record Van set is actually not the same thing as the record set by the men. Women ski jumpers start from higher up on the hill so that they're moving faster by the time they reach the jump, which means she got the record in a way that men can't.
It's still impressive, it's just that it isn't very useful in arguing for women's ski jumping to be at the olympics. There are quite enough good reasons already.
To sweeping the kitchen floor but finding little bits of dirt by the floorboards after you thought you were done.
Apparently sexism, like racism, persists in dark places. Someone get the dustpan. Clean up at the ski jump.
I don't believe in God. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.
-Andrew Carnegie
Wow. I'm actually a Maddow fan but she totally has this wrong.
Leading up to the olympics, there was a public campaign in Canada to have the women's event added to the olympics.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/sports/20...
What I find grossly dishonest is that the most often used reason the sport wasn't included was not mentioned once and only Jeff touched on it.
The international field of athletes for this sport is tiny. When you leave the US and Canada, it is virtually non-existent.
If you include this sport in the olympic games, the medals are guaranteed to go to a couple nations, and the rest just showed up.
If you want a classic example of a non-competitive olympic sport, watch women's hockey. There's no doubt that the United States and Canada are evenly matched but that's it. No other team in the field could beat these teams, even if Canada or the US fielded one less player. It's not competitive and a PR disaster for the IOC.
I'd equate this to adding "australian rules" football to the summer olympics...
I think that comment made about damaging lady parts was incredibly ignorant but you can't run a piece and refer to that as the justification when there are so many more factors involved.
they are not allowed to compete in the Olympics? So a few countries win a few medals for a few years. Big deal. Competition will follow the action.
You can't introduce a sport to the world using the olympics.
Women's hockey was introduced in 1998 and 12 years later the gap has not closed at all.
Canada just beat Croatia 16-0. China has fielded a team for these olympics and they have 265 registered players. That means roughly 10 percent of all the registered players in their country are olympians.
If it isn't a genuine international sport, it does not belong.
If you know, do tell. And then explain to me why they are somehow defective or lesser than the Canadian and US teams, please.
Olympic Men's Ice Hockey had been along for decades (debuted at the Summer Games in 1920) before the Soviets started dominating the competition. For all the snow and ice, hockey was sorta forced in the USSR, but they forced it well: They won the first World Championships they ever entered(1954), then went on to win 7 of the next 9 Olympic tournaments.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
training and every expense they incurred while training. I believe they still do.
They were never serious Olympic players in any events until the late '80s/early 90s. Now they're highly competitive across the board.
I'm going to step back here and say that Olympic amateurism was a farce, and not because of the way that some countries- mostly communist countries- subsidized their athletes and skirted the rules of amateurism. It was a farce because the movement was begun by wealthy elites who kept out the social-climbing professional athletes who were emerging from the lower classes in the late 19th Century.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Andy,
During that time, the olympic hockey tournament was reserved for amateur athletes. Since the best players outside of the eastern block were professional NHL players, they were not permitted to compete. You had 18 year old amateur kids that had yet to turn pro competing against 30 year old veterans of the red army elite.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the addition of professional players, the medal distribution has been more even.
My point about 12 years can also point to a lack of progress. The top 2 spots have been shared by the same countries since day 1. I'm pretty sure neither the US or Canada have ever lost to anyone other than each other in international play. ever!
...the USSR didn't have a history of professional or amateur hockey until after WWII. So those early successes by the Soviets are pretty stunning, imo.
Something else you've got to consider is that when the Soviets came over in the '70s and took on Canadian and US pros, they did so on smaller rinks utilized by the much more physical (when compared to the international game) NHL. The Soviets played quite evenly, even though their slick skating and passing styles were negated by the specs. IMO, the Soviets would have blown out the North Americans on the larger surface.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
In the 1970s, the Soviets did visit many cities and won some games. Fortunately for me as a hockey fan, I live in Montreal and the Montreal Canadians dominated the Soviets both times they played (shots were roughly 3-1) but Tretiak was amazing. I believe the first match in 75 was a tie but the next one was a massacre for the habs.
Also, in the 72 summit series that Canada ultimately won, the Soviets won more games in Canada and the Canadians won 3 of 4 on a larger soviet surface with very questionable reffing.
I didn't realize the 3 of 4 record. Were those games played in the USSR?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
They were played in the Moscow ice palace, with 2 east German refs and red army soldiers behind the bench.
I mention the refs because in one game, the penalty minutes totaled 31 for Canada and 4 for the USSR.
The Canadian team won the match 3-2 despite being short handed for a good portion of the game.
The final tally for the tournament was 4-3-1 for Canada. It should also be noted that the Soviets did defeat Canada in later tournaments.
Now that you mentioned les Habs, I'm going to have to hunt down "The Sweater" on You Tube- as soon as I get back from the grocery store.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
RD You can say that about a lot of sports that are in the Olympics right now, basketball, field hockey, bobsled, luge, and many others. The point for me is that the IOC doesnt want any new sports that are not ruled by the Europeans in the Olympics, period. In womans hockey the IOC thought that the Swedes and Russian teams would be winners, the problem was that the Canadians and the Americans got a lot better with talent when young woman saw their ticket to the Olympics through hockey, while the Euros talent pool did not get any better. IMO if there where any euro women that dominated the sport of ski jumping, you would see it in the Olympics. As long as the IOC is dominated by euros it will only allow those sports that euros win in.
I agree that some sports don't belong but listing several wrongs don't make a right.
Basketball is actually huge internationally and the US dream team did actually get bounced a couple years back.
Field hockey is big in India, Pakistan in addition to the typical European nations.
Anyways, I'm not going to go into some anti euro rant about the olympics. If 15 european nations actively participate in a sport with many registered athletes, I think it's arrogant to argue that it's unfair that it's included in the Olympics just because the 2 north American countries don't practice these sports as much.
Anti euro rant, sure it is, but when I look at sports that would be good for the Olympics, womans sports, and easy to install as an event, what other way could I look at it. Im just tired of the world sports scene that gets kicked in the teeth just b/c euros dont like it. When baseball, a sport played professionally on three contients, is kicked out b/c the IOC says that it not popular enough to be included, it makes you wonder what the real reason is, and when you have sport that is so easy to put in the Olympics and they dont, the question is why, and this is the only answear I come up with.
but getting back to my point, why didn't Maddow even mention this aspect?
An assumption can be made that she's just a talking head, reading the material on the prompter and thus can't be held accountable but whoever actually penned that piece for her was very selective in delivering the facts.
Ya see, it isn't the special lady parts that would be injured, it's the tender lady toes and heels and...Doesn't anyone remember Jim McKay speaking of- Saturday after Saturday- "the agony of the feet"? Yeesh!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
stilettos, but the landing. Oy! It is agony.
Good one, savannah!
The ladies would kill in this event. Guys' muscle advantage declines the closer to the ground you get. Easy to imagine a big leggy lady blasting off and landing two miles away and leaving the guys in the dust.
(yeah, I know this is a bit of a tangent)
In HS one year we did track for a while. Rather than grade people on improvement (which would have taken thought), the teacher had a simpler way to grade us:
A=6 laps, B=5 laps, C=4 laps, D=3 laps... FOR THE MEN.
The women were A=5 laps, B=4 laps, etc. The assumption was obvious. "Women are weaker so they need to do less work."
Setting aside the obvious issue here, the bigger issue for me was THERE WERE WOMEN ON THE TRACK TEAM IN MY CLASS. So basically a woman who was actually on the track team had to do less work to get an "A" than a guy who wasn't. Brilliant planning.
More directly on topic, I can understand them saying that a sport isn't big enough to have its own division. But if that's the case, the women should be allowed to compete directly against the men – but using the same rules (i.e. no starting further up the hill).
I agree. Denying people the right to compete should not be the intention.
Assuming there is no difference in performance based on gender, this would seem perfectly fair. The better athlete will get the spot on the team regardless of gender.
If it turns out the men do have a slight advantage springing off at the top of the jump, then we'd have a problem.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but if all you had to do was run a mile and a half to get an A in gym I wouldn't be complaining.
It's the jumpers that are NOT sissy men that should be standing up for the women jumpers.
Since that seems unlikely to happen - the women need to set up a web-site and lobby for their cause. If they raise awareness and make enough noise, it would probably happen for them.
*
If they continue to enlist competitors, and deepen the pool, sure.
http://www.wsj2010.com/
No women should participate or attend.
Women could do this. Maybe the height could be lower, but they could have an event like this. Kind of like golf. Women's courses are shorter, and some of their tournaments are three days instead of four. Their should be a way.
Thanks for this post!
Only when the last tree has died
and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught
will we realize we cannot eat money.
You're right. Never thought about it.
Now that I have, it's ridiculous, and I'll _always_ think about it when I think about ski jumping. If the Olympic committee is smart, and I believe the data is contradictory on that, they should work to change it.
Comments are closed on this entry