After Alisa Camplin won her gold medal in aerial skiing at the 2002 Winter Olympics, I somewhat flippantly wrote that her skills in intricate twists, turns and backflips qualified her for a career in politics. Now that she has added an Olympic bronze in the same discipline to her mantelpiece, it behoves me to reflect more seriously on the significance of her achievement.
Camplin’s success is due not only to her athletic gifts, but a range of admirable personal qualities, including the work ethic required for athletic achievement at elite level, great physical courage in the face of the risks of a very hazardous sport and the reality of a string of serious injuries, and persistence and perseverance in working for a goal in the face of adversity. How many people could keep bobbing up after enduring nine concussions, a broken collarbone, broken hand, separated shoulder, dislocated collarbone, torn Achilles tendon, broken ankles and two knee reconstructions?
The point of all this is that Camplin’s virtues rank high on the list of what have traditionally been regarded as “manly� virtues. Thus Camplin’s achievements bear out two key feminist criticisms of patriarchal discourses of masculinity:
(a) that such virtues are exclusive to men (or only appropriate for men);
(b) criticism of the articulation of such virtues, in conventional discourses of masculinity, with more problematic or downright negative traits such as aggression, violence, territorialism, acquisitive individualism, zero-sum competitiveness, etc., as manifested in contact or combat sport, business, politics, war, etc., and with traditional dominant gender roles of “protector� and “provider� for subaltern women.
As a child and teenager growing up in the 1960s and 1970s who played Aussie Rules football and cricket, ran for my school in the athletics and cross-country teams, and learned boxing and judo, I was indoctrinated with my fair share of (b), but also with what might be called “the Camplinesque virtues� – at least as something to aspire to. The concern I have about the socialisation of more recent generations of boys and young men is that the Camplinesque virtues have become disarticulated from the patriarchal baggage, but in the worst possible way.
As a culture we have kept the bathwater and thrown out the baby from the traditional discourse of masculinity, the bathwater being evidenced by misogynous filth in popular music and music videos, loutish on- and off-field behaviour by male athletes and sportsmen, gratuitous vulgarity and verbal aggression by politicians and media personalities, sexist juvenilia in advertising, and anti-feminist backlash thinking and its main consequence, namely that boys are coming to adulthood with expectations that their girlfriends and partners will “do for them� as their mothers have done for them, and unequipped for the adult responsibilies proper to egalitarian, co-operative and respectful relations between the sexes. This gender mis-match in expectations has been amply documented by the work of Barbara Pocock and her colleagues for the Australia Institute.
Now, here is where I may be asking for trouble, but I think it needs to be said. In my experience, because the Camplinesque virtues have conventionally been linked in a chain of discursive equivalence with patriarchal vices and patriarchal notions of gender roles, feminists and pro-feminist men have sometimes seemed reluctant to acknowledge that the Camplinesque virtues are virtues which should figure strongly in the socialisation of boys and young men, as well as girls and young women. There has seemed to be a view that the Camplinesque virtues are essentially, rather than contingently, linked to patriarchal vices, and a kind of distaste for the notion that little boys (and little girls) might actually like to throw themselves around, exert themselves beyond their strength, etc., and that this might be good for them, or that strong character and adult competence requires a capacity to “get knocked down but I get up again�, to get back on the oval with a dodgy knee, to be able to persevere single-mindedly towards a worthwhile goal in the face of pain and hardship, etc.
I would argue (and hope that this would attract general agreement) that the socialisation of boys at home, in schools and in other agencies of socialisation needs to combine the gentle, considerate, tolerant, communicatively competent, emotionally intelligent etc., virtues which are lacking from conventional masculine socialisation and from the utter crud of much contemporary popular culture, with the Camplinesque virtues which were a redeeming feature of traditional manly virtue, and which are good for boys as well as girls. In short, we should be letting boys and girls know that it’s OK to be strong, tough, boisterous, physically brave, to try hard to win in honourable competition – and that one can be and do these things without being a Wayne Carey, a Kerry Packer, a Bill Heffernan, a Craig Gower, an Andrew Bolt, a Sam Newman, a certain type of faux-macho Labor factional thug, or a George W. Bush. If people who believe in egalitarian and respectful gender relations don’t do this, the void will continue to be filled by people who don’t, in ways that we won’t like.
She is the most immediately likeable athlete I have seen in many a year.
She was impressive first time around, and as Paul suggests, even more so in accepting the status of bronze, and giving it a higher personal value than a gold.
A fabulous example of controlling the story, dictating the terms, and having a great time doing it.
The polar opposite of the Wayne Carey brand of sportsperson - onya Alisa!
She’s bloody successful, good looking, cute n’ cuddly, with a big smile and she’s blonde to boot! So? What’s not to like boys?
Err, that’s what intellectuals call ‘Camplinesque’ is it? Where I come from it’s called bloody georgeous!
Thank you observa for that thoughtful contribution.
There’s been a discussion on some of the US blogs recently about a similar concept - in this case that “the feminists” have made boys suffer at school by making them be like girls; sit still, be quiet etc.
I don’t really buy it though. From my experience this kind of problem appears to be due more to a combination of two things: reduced school funding means that “non-essential” items on the curriculum, like sports, art and music are being ignored; and more importantly an increasing fear of risk in all areas of society - an increasing number of law-suits being the main culprit - meaning that children are growing up to be a lot more fearful and careful than they used to be.
Anyone remember Gillian Rolton in the 1996 Atlanta olympics?
Rolton was a member of the winning three-day equestrian event team, along with Andrew Hoy, Phillip Dutton and Wendy Schaeffer. She suffered her injuries when her beloved mount Peppermint Grove fell and skidded during the endurance phase of the event. She remounted, unaware that she had suffered the fractures, and rode on, now unable to use her left arm. She and the horse came down again at the next obstacle, a water jump, and she somersaulted into the water. She then waded out, boarded the horse again, and galloped for another three kilometres, clearing 15 more fences, to finish the course. An ambulance took her to hospital, where she refused pain-killing drugs because she felt she might be needed for the final team jumping round the next day. She wasn’t, but Rolton’s gallantry served as an inspiration to her fellow riders, and the entire Australian team.
Camplinesque in spades. the participation of women in cross country jumping through the 20th century (and foxhunting before that) amply demonstrates camplinesquerie. If you don’t take much interest in horse events, take a look next time you pass a cross country event in progress. check out the size of the things they jump, and the beasts they have to do it on. *Shudders*
My son goes to Taekwondo, which is perfect for the boof combined with respeck for others (and teachers.)
Good to see Observa back. How’s the smoko room?
Yep, and Observa comes out with the qualities that so many Australians still demand of women. Bugger whether or not they are tough, determined, brave or talented - what really matters is whether they are pretty, blond, smiley, and socially submissive. Charming.
Paul, I get see what you are getting at re: new expectations of boys, but like Anna I think that there is more going on there than feminism (which I just don’t think is all that influential, unfortunately). It is certainly something to keep in mind though when interacting with young boys (and girls) - not that my young male (or female) family members seem to have any trouble expressing their boisterous sides.
Hmmn. I’ll think about this and get back to you shortly.
Excellent post, Paul.
re: the martial arts, I think they provide a very positive space for kids to be ‘educated’ about gender. Any implicit assumptions that women lack ‘male’ attributes of tenacity, stamina and (proportional) physical strength are falsified in every judo training session I go to. I think that the gender balance - mostly boys - reflects the discourses Paul mentioned, rather than any (imagined) biological limitations - which were actually around during the 1970s. Women had a smaller official competition repertoire than men.
Where I come from it’s called bloody georgeous!
Live from Gibbo’s head!
Nobody mentioned submissive. That was you. Projecting much?
“and that one can be and do these things without being a Wayne Carey, a Kerry Packer, a Bill Heffernan, a Craig Gower, an Andrew Bolt, a Sam Newman, a certain type of faux-macho Labor factional thug, or a George W. Bush.”
I hate to ask, but would you care to point out what exactly these people’s sins are? (Apart from being successful in their fields, of course, but this being a lefty site that sin is assumed).
“what really matters is whether they are pretty, blond, smiley, and socially submissive. Charming.”
Nobody said submissive. That was you. You are projecting…
Oh I dunno, I think “cute’n'cuddly … with a big smile”, especially in the context of the whole post, could be translated as “socially submissive”. That, or “Pass the bucket.”
As for “these people’s sins” — nobody said anything about sins, Yobbo. That was you. You’re projecting.
It’s like some kind of self-exemplifying and self-contradicting moebius loop, I’m in awe.
“Any implicit assumptions that women lack ‘male’ attributes of tenacity, stamina and (proportional) physical strength are falsified in every judo training session I go to.”
WTF? DK, your dojo must have some particularly soft blokes. It’s not Sydney Uni, is it?
I’ve got no problem with women doing martial arts, but let’s be realistic: men are physically stronger and more aggressive than women.
Yeah, thanks for that Judoka. That would be what the word “proportional” means.
Where I come from its called being an obsessive, over-achieving fanatic.
But, hey, what can I say? They have medals and toileterie/underwear sponsorship.
“After Alisa Camplin won her gold medal in aerial skiing at the 2002 Winter Olympics, I somewhat flippantly wrote that her skills in intricate twists, turns and backflips qualified her for a career in politics.”
You may have meant it as a joke, but another Aussie aerial skier, Kirstie Marshall, went on to be a member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly. Her main claim to fame so far is being ejected from parliament for bringing her newborn child (whom she was breastfeeding) with her into parliament.
So you say, Andjam, but have you read all the debates in the Victorian Legislative Assembly since she was elected? Have you followed her press releases and what she’s done for her constituents?
I wonder why you’re not having a go at the Victorian Minister who was parachuted straight from the AFL to the Cabinet? Because he’s a bloke?
Try not to be so condescending to women.
Justin Madden is the ruckman skydiver you’re thinking of, Kim.
I understand he’s made a fair to good Minister for Sport and Commonwealth Games—though with Ministers for Sport and their ilk, that’s a category defined by the failure to entirely fuck up and have to be sacked in disgrace. Vale Ros Kelly of the Glorious Whiteboard!
Oh, and Andjam, unlike the shiny-bum upper house denizen Madden, Kirstie Marshall actually stood for a lower house seat and won it. Anyone who can do that with infants deserves respect, if not outright awe.
Thanks, Liam, that’s who I meant. I wasn’t having a go at his competence or otherwise (about which I know nothing) - just that Andjam had a go at Kirstie Marshall on the grounds that she was a former athlete. Presumably if she’d been an anonymous former Labor staffer, she’d have flown under his radar.
How many backbenchers get big headlines in the press?
Of course, the papers are going to focus on her BECAUSE SHE DARED TO BREASTFEED IN PARLIAMENT!
Women are people too, Andjam. And they often breastfeed. But that shouldn’t stop them being MPs.
In case you hadn’t noticed.
I wasn’t having a go at Kirstie.
Sheesh. To quote her, ‘Gosh you’ve only been there two days and you’ve changed a law; what’s up next week?’.
Would a hack have achieved such a change? Of course not.
I wonder why you’re not having a go at the Victorian Minister who was parachuted straight from the AFL to the Cabinet? Because he’s a bloke?
I hadn’t even heard of him.
At the rate at which you’re jumping to conclusions, you ought to try out for the track and field team.
Well, I’m not quite sure what you were trying to say, Andjam. It seemed to me that your comment could belittle her contribution. But I apologise if that’s not what you intended, and I misread you.