Greenonetwenty: *People find another subject to write about, this is soooooo dumb. Really! And guess what….. I’m female!*

Ah well, case closed then.

I think you got one consonant wrong in “wits”, Fine

It’s hardly surprising that a country with traditions that require women to cover up would supply their female athlete with a uniform that covers her up, nor is it surprising that countries where commercial interests are heavily invested in commodifying the female form end up supplying their female athletes with uniforms that display their bodies (but only in the sports that favour slender physiques).

The problem is that talented athletes who are body-shy are being put off sport in Australia because of the requirement to wear these revealing uniforms. They are not given the choice to wear something modest, only skin-revealing or skin-tight, that is the problem.

People find another subject to write about, this is soooooo dumb. Really! And guess what….. I’m female! Why not just give these athletes their praise for the great job they’ve done by representing your country; wherever you’re from. This is a serious waste of time, and I’m sure most of them think so too.

LOL that was my thought looking at Roqaya too (see Brett @ 186) re: cling.

I have to say, my ‘burqini’ (and I had one before it was called a burqini) is more clingy than I would probably like. You should see the bemused looks at the pool when I waddle out wearing it. Being the absolutely slowest swimmer in the pool, I can see what’s going through their heads: “That bodysuit ‘aint gonna shave minutes off her slow swimming.”

Yeah, don’t even get me started on that PC.

It’s not going to make your head explode or anything is it?

*experiments*

Edited: Hmm – there was a picture here of a floating silky scarf – it’s disappeared on my browser now

Basically, I win either way.

This discussion is relevant to the Breasts Thread as well. It reinforces the point that erotic/pornographic effects are created at the place where Gaze meets Body. I’ve always thought that the erotic and the ironic were very close together on the affect spectrum — they both exist only at the point where transmitter meets receiver.

Are you forgetting or were you never aware of the 1992 film White Men Can’t Jump?

And I don’t think the importance of cashing in on sponsorship should be underestimated for athletes. I’m sure it is at the forefront of their minds that ’success=sponsorship’ and it’s not surprising that the press would pick up on this aspect. I saw an interesting interview with Sally McLellan where she said her mother worked two jobs to pay for her training until Adidas *ka-ching* got on board with sponsorship, and they then showed her at a sponsors event in Beijing the day after the event writing the Adidas slogan on things. Fair enough too, I can’t imagine the guilt and pressure that I’d feel if I knew someone was working to pay for training in a field where success is so elusive.

The second picture showed Rice, with the writing “Million Dollar Water Babe – Steph’s Pot of Gold…“Just how much can Stephanie Rice earn? After a remarkable Olympics, Australia’s queen of the pool will never have trouble staying afloat”. Now granted different people will interpret that differently, but taken as a whole I thought it was condescending…and she has an entire future ahead of her, and presumably a career as a swimmer, and as whatever else she chooses to do with her life.

“White Girls Can Jump: How Sally Beat The Odds”

Since when did the colour of a ‘girl’s’ skin have even the slightest relevance?

As for headlines. I find ‘Swimming Babe’ patronising. But I don’t find ‘Gold Diggers’ or “How much can Stephanie Earn’ works in the same way. When I see ‘Gold Diggers’, I see 1930’s films about smart women living by their wits in a deeply sexist world. It’s not necessarily an insult. As for a headline about a swimmer and future earnings, isn’t that reasonable? I don’t see anything inherently sexist in it. Sometimes there are more than one reading.