Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Sheilbh]

Also, as for the outlook about winning not being everything, no one is as relaxed and uncompetitive as Olympic athletes

Although, as an Everton fan, I can understand how a Sunderland fan has reached that conclusion

[Jacob]

If I were to hazard a guess on how women's sports came about, I'd think it came out of education separated by gender.

As I understand it, sports as a modern phenomenon has a philosophical grounding in "healthy body, healthy mind". It was seen as promoting a bunch of virtues - team work, hard work, physical exercise, learning how to comport yourself when losing and winning, and so on. I'd expect that a lot of women's sport development would happen in the context of girls' and women's education - which at that time was frequently segregated from boys' and men's education. But the educators would still have seen the benefits - so they arranged sport activities for girls.

This combined with various sporting organizations being formed for people who enjoyed sports as a past time eventually lead to larger national organizations, and eventually international ones. But it grew out of a sense of "this is good for the people doing it" not "we must find the ultimate champion of the world."

[crazy canuck]

Yeah well competition isn't fair at the highest levels. All sorts of luck and genetics go into it.

I think occam's razor and history clearly demonstrate that the segregation of sports along gender lines is entirely because most everything was segregated on gender lines. Keeping men and women separate is a key component in keeping women in their place.

Yes, this is about sexism, but segregating sports wasn't really the mechanism for "keeping women in their place.  Not is it about being prudish as Jos claimed (the point Grumbler was disagreeing with). Rather, women were not just segregated, they were denied the opportunity to play many sports.  And as you will know it is just recently (in the span of time we are discussing) that universities had to support women's sports programs.

[Josquius]

But they wouldn't get far enough to interfere. And as grumbler shows above, where fairness is kept (equal and required teams) coed sports do exist. Hardly a way to keep the weak fainting women out of men's hair.

We are talking about an age before tournaments were anywhere near as developed as now. There's no getting far to worry about. It's the mere fact of women intruding on men's private social spaces.

Also, as for the outlook about winning not being everything, no one is as relaxed and uncompetitive as Olympic athletes 

Yes?
The Olympics basically epitomises the idea that it's the taking part that matters.
 For most athletes at the Olympics a medal is a nice to have. The mere fact of being there and representing their people at the Olympics is the primary achievement.
This is the case today. In the strictly amateur early Olympics it was even stronger.

[Sheilbh]

Yes, this is about sexism, but segregating sports wasn't really the mechanism for "keeping women in their place.  Not is it about being prudish as Jos claimed (the point Grumbler was disagreeing with). Rather, women were not just segregated, they were denied the opportunity to play many sports.  And as you will know it is just recently (in the span of time we are discussing) that universities had to support women's sports programs.

Yeah I don't know that universities are a huge area of sport here (or they are but no-one cares about any of it ) - but women's sport was actively repressed.

For example, the peak crowd for a women's football match for almost 100 years was in 1920 at Goodison basically for a game of Everton Ladies v St Helen's Ladies. There were over 50,000 spectators. Women's football had become hugely popular in the war because men's football basically ended as that age group of men were on the front. Within a year the FA had basically banned any organisation that were part of the FA from using any of their facilities for women's football. That ban lasted until the 1970s - and in those years women's football continued but it was played in parks and rugby training grounds (not idea). The audience for it was killed because the governing body wanted it killed. It wasn't prudishness, but sexism and a genuine fear that actually women's sport might be just as popular as men's.

It was interestingly a different style of game I believe and a sign of the future. From what I've read, I think men's football (in England) was still fairly robust and very, very route one - while women's football was less physical and more focused on passing. Which was how the game would develop and in the men's game (in other countries) was already developing more in that way.

The Olympics basically epitomises the idea that it's the taking part that matters.
 For most athletes at the Olympics a medal is a nice to have. The mere fact of being there and representing their people at the Olympics is the primary achievement.
This is the case today. In the strictly amateur early Olympics it was even stronger.

This is the story the Olympics tell and it's bullshit

It's a bit like the opening ceremony this year singing Imagine - "imagine there's no countries" - after a massive parade of all the world's flags before being about to compete. There has always been a lot of rhetoric about the Olympics and what it stands for (much like FIFA and every other sporting governing body) - although I'd note that I think de Coubertin actually thought women participating in sport was "wrong". From the start there's been symbolism and importance in the Olympics - it's Chariots of Fire, it's Jesse Owens. And it has always been that. There has never been a point where it is actually just about the struggle and gentlemanly clapping good sportsmanship.

On a more prosaic level - if you've reached the level of an elite athlete you are not chill and relaxed about your ability to win.

If I were to hazard a guess on how women's sports came about, I'd think it came out of education separated by gender.

As I understand it, sports as a modern phenomenon has a philosophical grounding in "healthy body, healthy mind". It was seen as promoting a bunch of virtues - team work, hard work, physical exercise, learning how to comport yourself when losing and winning, and so on. I'd expect that a lot of women's sport development would happen in the context of girls' and women's education - which at that time was frequently segregated from boys' and men's education. But the educators would still have seen the benefits - so they arranged sport activities for girls.

Maybe. But I think that's very where some of the codifying of sports came from in 19th century Britain - as well as sort of more broadly athletics, calisthenics etc in the late 19th century. And I think it's probably hard to disentangle that from some of the discourse at that time around social Darwinism too.

I don't think that applies to all sports - and I don't think it came for women from education. I could be wrong but my sense of women's education at that time did not really include anything like physical activity as a good thing. I think it was seen as unladylike. And on the education (but also, in England, a colonial style mission to civilise the working class) I think some of that "healthy mind, healthy body" stuff was particularly aimed at stopping men from wanking or being sexually "wasteful" which I think was seen as a specifically male issue at that point It was a healthy way of burning off men's energy that may otherwise be wasted on self-abuse, each other or ladies of the night (where they might even get a VD which would ruin them). There is also an interesting side bar of 19th century athletics, masculinism, early 20th homosexuality and fascism

I think women's sport may be more the way sports like football spread in the rest of the world - people are playing a game. Other people watch because it's fun. Then they think it'd be fun for them to do - so they go and found their own sporting clubs (I think for women because they wouldn't be allowed in the men's). And especially as a lot of sports start with an amateur era for women especially I think that meant participating at a certain age (before marriage) and from a certain class (that allowed time for leisure) - also true for men but I think perhaps more pronounced for women, and I think married men would have been absolutely fine continuing. I think for a long time there was a perception and fear that participation in sport would make women mannish.

[Josquius]

This is the story the Olympics tell and it's bullshit

It's a bit like the opening ceremony this year singing Imagine - "imagine there's no countries" - after a massive parade of all the world's flags before being about to compete. There has always been a lot of rhetoric about the Olympics and what it stands for (much like FIFA and every other sporting governing body) - although I'd note that I think de Coubertin actually thought women participating in sport was "wrong". From the start there's been symbolism and importance in the Olympics - it's Chariots of Fire, it's Jesse Owens. And it has always been that. There has never been a point where it is actually just about the struggle and gentlemanly clapping good sportsmanship.

On a more prosaic level - if you've reached the level of an elite athlete you are not chill and relaxed about your ability to win.

It's a story one part of the Olympics marketing is big on but I don't think it's nonsense at all, as much as another part of the Olympics has really tried to stamp it out in more modern times with the eddy the eagle rule - though they have left a small crack open for such people to occasionally get through like that equitorial guinea guy from 20 years back who had his first time in an Olympic size pool at the Olympics.

Think about the most famous Olympic stories and there's a few examples of people smashing it, some of people winning against the odds, but I do think the biggest stand outs are those are even there against the odds.

Look towards athletes from the big Olympic nations and generally yes. Their eyes are very much on winning (to various degrees. I do think just getting a medal is enough for many). But there's a lot of people entering below them who can't be that deluded. Just making it to the Olympics is a huge achievment.

[HVC]

But you're ignoring that even non contenders have to compete against their own countrymen (countrypeople? ) to get there.  Thinking athletes in general, and olympians specifically, aren't competitive is one of your weirder takes

[Josquius]

But you're ignoring that even non contenders have to compete against their own countrymen (countrypeople? ) to get there.  Thinking athletes in general, and olympians specifically, aren't competitive is one of your weirder takes

That's your weird take. I never said that.
I said being at the Olympics is a victory in itself.

[garbon]

But you're ignoring that even non contenders have to compete against their own countrymen (countrypeople? ) to get there.  Thinking athletes in general, and olympians specifically, aren't competitive is one of your weirder takes

So many times the camera work at this year's Olympics focused in on the tears or angry faces of losers.

So much for just happy to be there.

[Josquius]

But you're ignoring that even non contenders have to compete against their own countrymen (countrypeople? ) to get there.  Thinking athletes in general, and olympians specifically, aren't competitive is one of your weirder takes

So many times the camera work at this year's Olympics focused in on the tears or angry faces of losers.

So much for just happy to be there.

It was always a funny contrast. Some American athlete who has just came second acting like his life is over and the world is collapsing... And then just along from him a guy from Mongolia or somewhere who came seventh who is still all smiles- if he came third then he's just been declared champion of the universe and is ecstatic.

[crazy canuck]

But you're ignoring that even non contenders have to compete against their own countrymen (countrypeople? ) to get there.  Thinking athletes in general, and olympians specifically, aren't competitive is one of your weirder takes

So many times the camera work at this year's Olympics focused in on the tears or angry faces of losers.

So much for just happy to be there.

It was always a funny contrast. Some American athlete who has just came second acting like his life is over and the world is collapsing... And then just along from him a guy from Mongolia or somewhere who came seventh who is still all smiles- if he came third then he's just been declared champion of the universe and is ecstatic.

Athletes have different expectations when they enter a competition.  Some athletes come with an expectation that they have a good chance to win the gold. Those are the athletes that are going to be very disappointed that they didn't.

Some athletes have no expectation of even making the finals.  If they make the finals of an event, they will be very happy, no matter where they finish. And they will be exceptionally happy if they don't finish last in the final.

Then there are other sports where the metric is not so much measured against who they are competing against as against the clock or some other objective measure. In those circumstances athletes who do their personal best, but do not win, will be very happy

[garbon]

I guess this will go here as its where we are discussing this.

https://www.gbnews.com/sport/olympics/jk-rowling-drastic-action-paris-olympics-imane-khelif

JK Rowling takes drastic action after criticism of Paris Olympics star Imane Khelif

JK Rowling has reportedly deleted a 'trove' of tweets and gone silent on X following her recent criticism of Paris Olympics star Imane Khelif.

...

After being named in the lawsuit, Rowling hasn't tweeted.

And BroBible say the Harry Potter author has deleted a 'trove' of messages on social media regarding Khelif and her participation at the Olympics.

Rowling's reposts remain visible, however.

Her last act on X was to retweet an image of Turkey's Esra Yildiz Kahraman performing an 'X' chromosome gesture after her defeat to Lin Yu-Ting.

[Josquius]

It'd be nice to think she genuinely feels bad but more likely she's just peeing herself and trying to cover her arse. Badly

[Sophie Scholl]

It's a veritable who's who of horrible humans that have been named in the lawsuit. I wish them all the fullest penalties enforceable by law. 

[Valmy]

Anything that gets JK Rowling to get off the internet and go outside and maybe get in touch with being a normal person again can go be a good thing.

How can she be this amazing successful author and decide to only write dumbass anti-Trans tweets on the internet the rest of her life? She could be writing anything.