The reality of sex [is] of male lust and women being aroused by male lust. It attracts women. It doesn’t repel them. – Camille Paglia
Neofeminists don’t see the world as the rest of us do, but rather through some strange arrangement of distorting mirrors and lenses which causes them to perceive nightmarish horror and degradation where the rest of us just see life. And while rational people understand facts as things to be worked with, dealt with and lived with, neofeminists think of them as obstacles to be removed, circumvented or denied. For example, many if not most of you have probably already seen this video of Australian hurdler Michelle Jenneke:
The video has gone viral, with thousands declaring her the “sexiest hurdler ever”. And, predictably, neofeminists with nothing real to worry about are whining about it all over the internet, bleating about “objectification” and moaning, “Why do men sexualize everything about women?” and so on. Never mind that many women found the young lady appealing as well; never mind that many women and gay men talk in much the same way about attractive male athletes. Never mind that Jenneke clearly enjoys the attention, and that real feminists should be happy that young men aren’t threatened by a woman who could probably run circles around most of them. Never mind that, judging by the comments I’ve seen, her youth, exuberance, confidence, personality, spirit and smile have won her far more fans than her physical charms. The problem these twisted, bitter women seem to have is not that men find any particular female characteristic or set of characteristics attractive; it’s the fact that sexual attraction exists at all. In the dark little holes they use for minds, human beings “should” relate to each other by arbitrary, egalitarian, gender-neutral criteria, with the most valued being “intelligence”. Their emphasis on this rather dubious measure of personal worth derives from the fact that they imagine themselves to possess it in greater degree than others, a belief which is disproven by their rejection of reason and objective fact and their failure to recognize that if their parents had regarded “PIV” (their ludicrous term for coitus) with the same disgust they do, they wouldn’t be here to calculate the relative proportions of dolls, subject advertising to “feminist analysis” or bloviate about the “male gaze”.
If everyone had just agreed to ignore these women’s deranged fantasies when their disconnection with reality became hideously apparent roughly 25 years ago, they’d be nothing more than a fringe group today (occupying a position on the credibility ladder somewhere between young-Earth creationists and those who insist that the moon landings were faked). Unfortunately, many other feminists refuse to denounce them due to a warped sense of sisterhood, much as those “good cops” we keep hearing about refuse to denounce the “bad apples”. Still others are in denial about their existence, or else believe they’re far less numerous and influential than they actually are. But worst of all are the men who enable them, either because neofeminist rhetoric provides a powerful excuse for tyranny, or because they’re pathetic lap-dogs who embrace the dogma as a means of sucking up to women. Here’s a fine example of the latter, a bitchy attack on another female hurdler which would rightfully be described as misogynistic had its author not larded it in prudish pap:
…Lolo Jones…has received far greater publicity than any other American track and field athlete competing in the London Games. This was based not on achievement but on her exotic beauty and on a sad and cynical marketing campaign. Essentially, Jones has decided she will be whatever anyone wants her to be — vixen, virgin, victim — to draw attention to herself and the many products she endorses. Women have struggled for decades to be appreciated as athletes…But Jones is not assured enough with her hurdling or her compelling story of perseverance. So she has played into the persistent, demeaning notion that women are worthy as athletes only if they have sex appeal…[she] posed nude for ESPN the Magazine…[and] appeared on the cover of Outside magazine seeming to wear a bathing suit made of nothing but strategically placed ribbon. At the same time, she has proclaimed herself to be a 30-year-old virgin and a Christian…If there is a box to check off, Jones has checked it. Except for the small part about actually achieving Olympic success as a hurdler…
What’s “demeaning” is a man having the colossal gall to tell a woman how she “should” act, but writer Jeré Longman assumes it’s OK for him to do so as long as he parrots neofeminist drivel. It’s also pretty astonishing that he claims Jones “has not achieved Olympic success” despite the fact that she qualified for the Olympics twice, which is exactly two times more than he has. Her real sin in the neofeminist catechism he embraces (for what reason, only he can say) is not that she failed to win a medal, but rather that she dares to be a sexual adult woman instead of an androgynous parody.
(Thanks to Hal 10000 for inspiring this column by pointing how much the Jenneke video “controversy” reminded him of my column “That Is So Hot!”)
You said exactly what I was thinking! Michelle Jenneke’s appeal is only partly because of how physically attractive she is.
Exactly! She also deserves recognition because she is very good at running hurdles. If you can stop yourself from looking at how hot she is, you will notice that she runs like a machine. Every hurdle cleared exactly the same way.
Hey, I’ll watch Anna Kournikova all day long, even if she never learns to play tennis!
Great article as usual! As to telling people what to do and how to act: I see neo-feminists constantly telling men how to act, while worrying that men “objectify” them. That is a big fat contradiction. 🙂 .
the girl is not only hot,but she seems to have a fun,outgoing personality.its natural that people will be attracted to her.id really like to see theese neofeminists complain about the objectification of male athletes and the fact that mediocre ones get more publicity because of their sex appeal.David Becham is one of them,he only had mediocre soccer skills but because of his marriage to a spice girl and commercials,where he sold his sexuality,even people,who are clueless about soccer know him.yet,there were not enouph people who denounced him,like they do with Lolo Jones,whom they made cry,from what i hear.even amazing athletes,who dont need such publicity at all use their sex appeal.Christiano Ronaldo,Iker Casillas,Gerard Pique,even Lionel Messi,who has not a conventionally attractive face,has done sexy commercials and hes considered to be the best soccer player in the world,he had enouph fame before he”objectified”himself,yet he didnt get any shit for doing so,like a woman would.are those double standards acceptable for women who consider themselves feminists and why dont they realise they reinforce them?
as for intelligence being the best thing someone could offer,its not only that they dont offer that,but its completely ridiculous and even dangerous to say sth like this.if one thing matters is someones character,how truly ethical they are.intelligence without ethics means atomic bombs,it means white phosphorus,it means tyranny and so many other dangerous things for people.
When I watch the video of Michelle Jenneke, I see a beautiful young woman enjoying her physical exuberance. I saw animal joy in having a stong, fit, energetic body. She’s also very hot. Since I’m bi, I suppose I too “objectify” women.
A secret- Sometimes, when we’re feeling happy, confident in how we look, we show off a bit. It’s a great feeling, that. To feel that power of sexual attraction running through us.
Recently I was at a coffee house music performance with a friend. After, she said “you got one of the singers to sing songs he didn’t think he remembered.” I thought sadly to myself “Thirty years ago I could have gotten most men to get up on stage and try to sing songs they didn’t even know.” That power vanishes as we age.
One of the things about the sex/adult entertainment business is the ego rush- People are paying to look at me!
Ozzy women are cut from a different mold. 😛
When I was surfing in Hawaii in the late 80’s we had a big controversy about why women’s pro surfing wasn’t as popular as men’s. The prizes for the women’s competitions were tiny. I thought “tough titty – the world is not fair”. In fact, back then a guy would win millions of dollars for coming in forth place in a golf tournament – but a guy who won the Pipeline Masters might win a boom box after risking his life on the North Shore …
And that’s when pro-surfer Brad Gerlach caused a stir by suggesting that the women’s competitions would not only compete with, but would ECLIPSE the men’s competitions if they just surfed naked.
He caught a lot of shit for that from neofeminists. However, Brad never backed down and … when his own career started getting “eclipsed” he was willing to take his own advice!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbl1w4fqpHQ
Personally – I never surfed naked but the breaks in Waikiki (on a fairly large day) were my favorite because the waves would easily strip the swimsuits off of the female tourists (who had no clue about the force of the waves).
I was looking up Michelle Jenneke videos last night and I stumbled on something you might be interested in:
The channel has 44 more in 1080p.
And yes, this column does make me giggle a little because it does sound like it applies to libertarians, specifically the idea of them being useful idiots just like neofeminists. But it’s not worth arguing about.
I think a LIbertarian stole your best girl. 😀
As a matter of fact, my best girl was under a hundred indentured servitude contract. The Libertarian was kinda cool with it, actually. He was one of those “right to own your body means the right to sell it” types. It was the state that took my best girl away from me.
😉
FYI: The only reason you haven’t been placed on permanent moderation for your constant trolling is that nobody here is stupid enough to take your troll-bait, thus you haven’t gone beyond “annoying” to “disruptive”.
What kind of weird sprint was that? There’s some kind of extra track inside of and at right angle to the regular track. Or something like that. And they run into a padded wall? World Trade Federation?
Also, somebody let a camel loose on that track. At least I think somebody did; I’m pretty sure I saw its toe.
It’s almost cliche at this point, dorky tool trashing the pretty girl he never had a chance with and getting as ugly as possible in the process. The part where he insults her for not having won a medal is particularly rich. It’s like the opposite thinking of the ghetto cliche’ – “don’t have the playa, hate the game’ – they love the game, hate the player.
I think the real reason that neofeminist drivel survives in the mainstream is good, old-fashioned, female jealousy. Otherwise know as “Lolo Jones is going to steal my man!”
Now, a secure woman wouldn’t have that reaction, but we all know women who don’t like it when their men look at another woman. Heck, I’ve been dining out with a woman who said, “I would never date you ever,” and when she caught my interest in a well built woman walking by she was like, “What are you, hypnotized?” Even though she had made it clear she had no sexual interest in me whatsoever, my sexual interest in another woman triggered a reaction that honestly surprised me. (We used to eat out together regularly because we worked in the same department, and we enjoyed each others conversations.)
Neofeminists, of course, are often either strongly lesbian or have serious sexual dysfunctions, and are thus motivated to stir up mischief between men and women. (The lesbians want a larger pool of women to choose from, and the sexually dysfunctional get disgusted by the idea of anyone having sex, ever.) So, they tell women that it is their moral right to be with eunuchs who no longer have sex drives. (I think mainstream women who like this rhetoric unconsciously tack on, “Except when I want him to!” though that isn’t part of the neofeminist agenda.)
We should just have done and make them run in burkas.
There we go.
It’s disturbing. If you analyze some of the rhetoric there’s a good chunk of neofeminists who, after a bit of spin and massaging the vocabulary, would be touting this as a modern solution. In their eyes it would honestly level the playing field. As in, if no one can see the body then it can’t be appreciated.. er I mean “objectified” it. Am I getting the newspeak right? Appreciation = objectification right?
Whatever. Just don’t point out that putting someone in a bag is very much a triumph of objectification.
But hey… it really isn’t a bad idea. Women only Olympics? How about women only stadiums? No shaking the hips beyond two inches, measured by refs? No TV cameras even because the camera itself is the male gaze. Even when it’s wielded and directed by a woman and watched by women. See, we ladies are so brainwashed that we just can’t HELP but see the world through the male gaze. At least according to the ‘Critical Contexts in Modern Visual Communications: Photography + Female Identity’ course I took a few years back.
Oh… also btw, no smiles. You’re not allowed to be filmed while smiling and staring confidently into a camera because someone might call you exuberant and/or sexy. You carnal whore.
If what I read once was accurate, the original Greek Olympics of antiquity were undertaken nude.
It was as much a celebration of the aesthetics of male and female form as athletic prowess.
We’ve lost all perspective on our natural bodies and how we should see them.
Of course I’ve no desire to inflict my body on the rest of you. I’m a creaky old goat; nobody’s going to want to see me in the buff. 🙂
I suggest that these feminist radicals aren’t against sexual attraction so much as men’s sexual attraction to women. Why do I say that? Because the radfems themselves have no problem with women’s attraction to handsome, hunky men. See this link, for example, and note especially the last few comments where these women practically short out their keyboards drooling over the prospect of being in a studly man’s harem:
http://cherryblossomlife.com/2012/05/18/the-worlds-losers-out-themselves-for-radfem-2012/
They don’t want a world without sexual attraction, they just want funny-looking and awkward men to go away and leave them alone.
Hmm, the odd thing here is that what I’ve read there does not track with the women I’ve known personally. I’ve been with a woman for 13 years, and she told me just the other day that if she found out I had a girlfriend, “I would kill you and her.” (To which I replied, “I would expect nothing less!”) So, if I stop posting, you can guess what happened 🙂
The Radfem women on that forum seem to be claiming that they’d have sex with “hot guy” and then dump him when they got bored of him, or after they had a baby. There are plenty of “hot guys” for whom that would not be a bad outcome, since then they’d get to play the field again. (It would be cruel to a man in love… but who could fall in love with one of those horrible women posting on that board? I think being in a relationship with one of them, I’d envy the dead.)
I just don’t see it as a realistic view. Maybe I’ve only had experience with jealous females? I don’t know, I need a certain amount of passion in a relationship, and I find jealousy goes along with that. (But then…. I feel that the women on that forum might be bottom feeders… just a hunch.)
No, it’s not a realistic way to order civilization. A society like that would collapse within a few years, at best, but yes it would be great for the few hunky men allowed to live there.
I wouldn’t say most women want a world like that but most radical feminists seem to be. The people on that page might well be the bottom-feeders of that movement, but their sentiments are echoed by most of the leading voices of radical feminism, like Andrea Dworkin.
Most women I’ve met in my 58 years (I’m a blue-collar agnostic, married 34 years, have several now-adult kids including three daughters; my wife and I are long-time lifestylers, nudists, and have long had what amounts to an open marriage) definitely don’t want a radfem world like that.
However, I do believe that Radfems inadvertently express a gender truth which Western society has wanted to deny through most of history.
My take is that post-1960 Feminism and the coinciding contraception advances have enabled women’s biology to manifest itself in a manner that was socially not permissible and perhaps even deliberately suppressed ever since Agriculturalism has dominated: being, not only that women, generally, are not instinctively sexually monogamous but also, and more significantly, that women have conflicting biological instincts within themselves for whom they desire as sex partners on one hand and whom they want as nurturer/provider/partners on the other hand.
Since humans possess not only animal instincts but also self-awareness, higher reasoning, psychology, and emotionalities — and our instincts and those higher, rational properties often not merely interfere but also outright conflict — all humans consequently face layers of personal and societal complexities and difficulties. But I believe women’s additional-conflicting biological drives give them far greater difficulties than men experience.
After Agricuturalism became dominant, it seems, maintaining a functional society, with emphases on families and children, has necessitated heterosexuals to minimize those complexities and difficulties by settling for monogamous compromise which has typically been some form of “marriage” or long-term relational committment. For women, generally, that’s meant not only accepting accepting one man as her sex partner but also accepting that the man she chooses as her nurturer/provider/companion must also be her sex partner . Western society in the going-concern reinforced that lesser-of-the-evils compromise by adopting a “women are monogamous” mantra and repeating that to itself until it was, at least popularly, assumed to be fact.
In an alternate universe (that included both our heterosexuality and our existing gender biologies yet omitted the consequent difficulties we face in our reality) a woman in her reproductive prime could have a man she found sexually attractive solely as her sex partner and the sperm donor for a baby; then have a different man three-four years later for her next baby; but also, if she wanted, have a yet-different man — the “sensitive, supportive, nurturer-protector” type for whom she might have little to zero sexual desire — all along as provider for both herself and her infants.
A prime-reproductive-aged woman in that universe would be societally-free to satisfy not only her instincts for the few men she finds sexually attractive and wants short-term to fuck and/or impregnate her; but also her desires to have a caretaker/provider for herself and her babies, even if that meant different men to fuck her every three or four years PLUS another man with her with whom she might not even be having sex at all.
Post-1960 Western societal developments have allowed women to explore themselves and to live in ways not socially possible nor thinkable until recently. As they have and do, women’s conflicting instinctual components are being addressed, even if inadvertently.
So, that RadFem dream of “pump the hunk then dump him”, while not only impractical but ultimately impossible since it addresses merely one of those instinctual components, seems to me a manifestation, albeit regrettably coupled to an absurd political agenda, of women recognizing and openly acknowledging to themselves and to society what their instincts drive them to want.
To paraphrase Roger Scruton: sexual harassment laws are designed punish the unattractive
This writer is a fairly recent convert, and neofems tend to get more extreme over time. She hasn’t yet internalized political lesbianism and the need to fight what they call heteronormativity.
That’s insane. I read the commentary. These “radfems” have the most cursory understanding of evolution – and they absolutely despise men, maleness, and women who like men. It oozes from every word. It’s shocking.
Why is it women and neofeminists won’t disavow them? several commenters come out and say that women are better off loving women – and avoiding men altogether.
Basically, they’re lesbians. I have no problem with this, but they should be prevented from making publis policy or influencing it because they have no real interest in the public.
Forgive the lateness of this comment. I’m revisiting this post due to a conversation with a friend, and I feel the need to make this comment:
You are correct. They are not interested in the public; they are interested in the pube-lick! 🙂
Oh, and when a woman like Lolo Jones gets endorsement deals, feminists whine about objectification, but they also whine when women in the Olympics don’t get endorsement deals*. You can’t win with these people so heck with ’em.
*http://feministing.com/2012/07/03/why-doesnt-sarah-robels-the-strongest-person-in-america-have-all-the-athletic-sponsorships/
I’m probably the only person who hadn’t seen the video of Michelle Jenneke. She is the ultimate exemplar of (British English) “fit”.
I hadn’t either. I miss out on everything!
I hadn’t seen it either. I also live in a cave so that’s my excuse.
You troglodyte…me eremite… 🙂
I prefer troglophile… just don’t call me a troglobite.
How about a trilobite? Then you could be a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas.
Michelle Jenneke sure is sexy, and that’s no lie. The most important thing about her (from a sports point of view) is that she can cover one hundred metres while clearing hurdles faster than most women. No amount of (dazzling) smile or shaking her (really hot) ass would matter if she wasn’t fast or was always tripping over hurdles.
I hadn’t seen it until today, in fact. I’m not an athletics fan 🙂
Yep, the lady is fit using multiple definitions of the word. I think it’s fantastic that she’s owned her “sexy” as well as her “sprinty”.
Australia’s culture seems to much more “body positive” (with all that that implies, including sexuality) than here in the UK, for sure.
The person who finishes last in an Olympic event…has still competed in the Olympics, which is more than not only most of us, but most athletes ever do as well.
As for endorsement deals…wait, businesses are using sex appeal to sell products? When did this start? Oh yeah, about the time the idea of selling goods and services started. Canute had better luck holding back the tide than anyone will in stopping this type of advertising.
That’s really what it is. I knew this as soon as I saw the first hip jiggle from Jenneke – she’s trying to stand out for potential endorsements. Nothing wrong with that either since, in a way, the Olympics are a great big “audition” for that kind of stuff.
If she were selling smoked rat carcass on the side of the road I’d buy a case just on her smile and energy alone. So, good news – we’ll be seeing more of her on TV – and probably Maxxim too. 😛
Takes a lot of money to train and you need a comfortable lifestyle. I train three hours a day but I don’t pay a coach and I’m not in Olympic condition either. Top it off – on travel, my training comes to a halt except for cardio. When you’re an Olympic athlete – it’s these endorsements that allow you to train 6-8 hours a day and hire the coaches you need along with the bio-mechanical folks that athletes seem to be using a lot these days. You can’t do all that while you’re working as a security guard.
Few people really think of this – you can have unlimited potential – but unless you have the brains to come up with a way to reach it – you’re not going to go very far and may only see one Olympics.
My cousin came in 15th for tryouts for the US Olympic shooting team (after being in 10th for two rounds). We still had to remind her that 15th out of 300 million is pretty damn good.
There’s a 404 error on http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lolo-jones.jpg embedded in this page.
Not for me. Anybody else?
The reality of sex [is] of male lust and women being aroused by male lust. It attracts women. It doesn’t repel them. – Camille Paglia
I guess Camille hasn’t met many dykes.
IIRC, Camille Paglia is a lesbian.
She is indeed a lesbian.
Then her statement is contradictory to her own experience. But Camille said stuff like this back in the day to establish herself as a public personality, so I don’t really take to much stock in her quotes.
It’s a generality, Susan; that doesn’t make it wrong. In context, she was talking about normal heterosexual women, not sex-averse political lesbians.
She was actually talking about women at rock concerts, read in context. Women aroused at male sexual energy, not at being lusted after.
I have a sneaky suspicion, based solely on some anecdotal and personal observation evidence, that there *IS* an instinctive female sexual response to the overtures of a desireable (in her view) male.
Maggie defines her own sexuality as “reactive”, nor do I think she is alone in that; some women visibly react to muscular alpha types (scientific studies, as well as anecdotal) even though their high-order cognition rejects it.
This isn’t “wrong”; it’s our innate sexual, social and socio-sexual instincts.
Like the emergent behaviour of the termites creates the huge termite mound from four simple instincts, our instincts around sexuality, mating and socialisation has its own emergent results.
It’s called tribalism. It creates a much higher survival chance for the humans that embrace it, while giving each individual’s varying responses a role in the results.
Of course, this model has been outstripped by our high-order intellect, citified living and moral philosophies in the last 10,000 years; our instincts, however, date back 250,000 to the evolution of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
That’s the source of a lot of deeply conflicted sexual and social people in our modernist society.
Shame and Stigma arent helping with that *one bit*.
Maggie wrote:
I have what some may consider a heretical view about “intelligence”. In my view, these twisted bitter women are quite intelligent. If they were just stupid, they wouldn’t be a problem for people who value liberty and truth.
I think there are many different kinds of intelligence. Some experts talk about “social intelligence”, “problem-solving intelligence”, and many other kinds. If one measure of intelligence is the ability to succeed at something with less time and effort than others, then these people are quite intelligent.
They understand how to play mass media and politics like a pipe organ. They understand how to use logical fallacies to fool those who aren’t adept at logic. They understand how to use the politician’s lust for winning and fear of losing to their advantage. They understand how to use emotional sleight of hand to prey on troubled people to convince them to join their crusade. All that is intelligence — the same kind of intelligence exercised by successful sociopaths.
There is a possibility that Lolo Jones is there simply to look pretty. Nothing gets the ratings up like sexy women.
I don’t watch the Olympics, and if I lived by myself I probly wouldn’t have tv, or at least not cable. Best way to object to something is not to watch it. I don’t believe in the Olympic because 1) It disrupts peoples lives in the host cities 2) It costs more money for the host cities than it brings in, and 3) Athletes from richer countries have an advantage over athletes from poorer countries because the former have better nutrition, equipment, and training availability. So no, I don’t care for the Olympics. But unlike neofems, my reasons for dislike are better reasoned 😉
oh,it certainly costs more money than it brings.the olympics of 2004 are one of the reasons Greece has such a big debt.we borrowed large amounts of money for them and in my opinion had much better Olympic games than the Brits,despite the fact that we are a much poorer nation.you can attribute the willingness to take such big loans to the fact that we care a lot about our image and we wanted to do an excellent job,but it came with a heavy price,that we are called to pay today.the tourism that the the games brought us boosted our economy but the debts were just too high.ive heard that the temporary economy boost was largely due to the legal and taxed brothels,but i dont know how much of it is true or if they simply exaggerate.
You don’t believe that a nation’s ability to produce and train these athletes is part of the competition?
Well the US finished first overall in medals – and it wasn’t even close – and we have no nationalized healthcare (yet). 😀
No, I don’t. It’s so much a given that athletes from richer countries will do better that the Olympics becomes boring to me. It’s the eqivalent of shooting fish in a barrel and then giving the shooter a gold medal for being an excellent fisherman.
Well, just speaking for myself – if you were to hold all sporting events until there was a totally equal playing ground – there’d be few sports and they WOULD be boring.
Nothing like the 1980 US Hockey Team when it defeated the Soviets – that was a miracle moment.
Or this guy here … from South Africa – not exactly a superpower …
“It’s also pretty astonishing that he claims Jones “has not achieved Olympic success” despite the fact that she qualified for the Olympics twice, which is exactly two times more than he has.”
Gotta agree with the article’s author on this note. Qualifying for the Olympics only means something when compared to the rest of the athletes who didn’t. Yeah, in a room full of them, you’re a champion! But once you get to the Games, hey, guess what? You’re run of the mill until you win a medal. Then even when you win a medal, the only one you truly win is gold: as the saying goes, you didn’t win silver or bronze, you lost gold. And if you don’t think this is how many Olympic athletes think, talk to one. I doubt many of them will say, “Yeah, Imma aim for a silver or bronze. That’s good enough.” Nope. True enough, if they have any sense and grace at all in interviews, they will express those feelings of gracious defeat. But inside they’re thinking about all the things they did wrong to lose the gold and how they can improve on their next performance.
Athletes at this level are all type-A personalities. They don’t aim for 2nd, 3rd, or lower, and they’re not happy when they end up in those positions even though logic dictates that someone will and when competing against true peers, it is very likely that you will, World Championship medal or not. Therefore, when regarding Olympic athletes, success=gold medal. Yes, there have been silver and/or bronze medalists who receive adulation and/or endorsement deals, usually because of one of three factors: 1) Public sympathy/charm (see Michelle Kwan); 2) Tragedy/drama (see Nancy Kerrigan); 3) Overcoming very extreme odds (would be surprised if Bryshon Nellum doesn’t receive an endorsement; he was shot in the legs during a drive-by and wasn’t supposed to walk again. Won silver this year).
Also, receiving endorsements doesn’t help pay for coaches and training to begin the path to the Olympics; it helps athletes settle the extreme debt they run up during all those years of training. Athletes can’t get an endorsement until they’ve shown on an international stage that they’ve spent many years training, so obviously they can’t wait until that point to pay for anything. That doesn’t even make sense. Young athletes spend their time almost evenly split between school and their training facility with a small sliver of time at home and with friends. Older athletes (senior high school-university age), balance work, training, school, and home life and for many it doesn’t work out. Hence all the talk of sacrifice; as well as the sour faces we occasionally see when they don’t perform as well as they feel they should have after all the training, etc.. Most university athletes have some type of scholarship or grant to help pay for some things but the financial toll of chasing the Olympic dream is still very high. Unless the athlete comes from a wealthy family, lots of debt is incurred. Comfort is a luxury that is rarely afforded.
The happiest person on the podium is the gold medalist; and the next happiest is the bronze medalist. The silver is unhappy because “if only I’d tried harder” or whatever, “I’d have got gold”. The bronze is happy because “I made it”. Not my random thoughts, the phenomenon has been studied.
I’d love to read said studies. Basically, I’d like to know if this was studied on all athletes or only in certain fields. When someone is awarded bronze but they were hundreths or thousandths of a point (or seconds) away from winning gold or silver (as happens often with gymnastics, track and field, and swimming) then I doubt they’re feeling all that happy. Damn, if I had only run a little faster…if I hadn’t moved my foot that 1/64th of an inch on my landing….if only I hadn’t taken another stroke…. thinks the “happy” bronze medalist who lost by thousandths. But again, if you can point me to that study.
I’ve seen two studies; most recently one somewhere on-line. This studied the smiles of the trio on the podium — not very scientific, you might think. The other was a year or two ago; IIRC, it was based on a questionnaire — it might have been the New Scientist. I’m not nearly organised enough to record or bookmark, or tear out of a journal something that has caught my attention for a couple of minutes. Sorry.
Found the first article:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/2012/08/09/why-bronze-medalists-are-happier-than-silver-winners/
Another one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_medal
Google search brings up thousands more.
It’s all about expectations. When in 2008 (Beijing) the American men’s gymnastics team won Bronze, they were thrilled, because they weren’t expected to win anything. If, however, Michael Phelps had won seven Golds and a Silver, it would have been considered a failure because everybody (especially Phelps) was all about “eight for eight.”
I’m also a bit surprised to learn that Jamaica is one of the wealthiest nations.
I don’t really think you agree with the author …
What he’s really saying is that Jones has given up on the Olympics to “whore” herself out to endorsements.
Whoever said that endorsements and Olympic greatness were mutually exclusive things? She takes her clothes off to get into the shower (I presume) and most would agree this doesn’t hurt her performance on the field.
How then does stripping for ESPN hurt her performance?
I mean it’s a good slam I suppose … “Haha! You Whore! You might be photogenic but you can’t run for shit!”
Which – okay … uhm … really?
Let me find that … “Do I Really Care” button – why, here it is!!
The fact is … for ALL we know, Jones has been working her ASS off to get into the big time of track and field. On the side here – she’s making some money because – hey, any number of things could happen. She could FAIL at T&F, or she could get injured … or she could meet ME and fall in Love! 😛
She could FAIL at T&F, or she could get injured … or she could meet ME and fall in Love! 🙂
*sings* When you wish upon a star…. 😛
But, no I don’t agree with the author on that point. Swimmer Amanda Beard earned similar criticism but her medal count kept the worst criticism from forming.
i was wondering about this . I myself have been a runner -bicyclist since the 70s. watching the olymp this year was fun as always … the ladies and men were all so beutiful and dressed like athlets. i was wating for some sex/neg folk to start in.
One of the things that I disagree with most when I read feminist comments on “sexualisation” and “objectification” is the idea that thinking a woman is sexy means we can’t also respect and admire her for other reasons. As if its’s a zero-sum game, where appreciating someone’s looks uses up all the positive feelings that’d otherwise be available to celebrate their talents and achievements.
I watched most of the Olympics with bunch of other men and made small talk about it with the guys at work. I’d be lying if I said that none of us noted the hotness of certain athletes, but I’ve honestly not heard any disrespect towards female athletes because of their looks.
As Brits we were all rooting for cyclist Victoria Pendleton; celebrating when she won gold in the keirin, and gutted for her when she was beaten by Anna Meares in the individual sprint. The fact that she “objectified” herself by posing naked didn’t stop the crowds from cheering her on. I don’t think a look at her bottom detracted from her achievements, or the respect people have for her as one of Britain’s greatest ever female cyclists.
In fact, the only people I’ve seen arguing that athletes like her are “undermining their talents and achievements” and deserve to be “condemned” are feminists writing articles like this: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/07/olympics_2012_-
Personally, I think that women who don’t act like men have an easier time gaining respect in sports and also in penetrating into sports normally dominated by men.
How many female auto racers came and went before Danika Patrick came along? I’m not a NASCAR / Indy Car fan … but I live in the South and so I’m bombarded by it.
Frankly – I remember ONE female Indy Car driver when I was growing up and she was famous but I can’t think of her name right now. And no one “rooted” for her when she raced. Personally – I think she came into the game “too seriously” – there was nothing really fun about her – or hot really.
The whole game has changed now – and aside from Danika Patrick – you got women from all over the world now adopting her modus operandi …
http://www.sub5zero.com/top-15-hottest-female-race-car-drivers/
The uncomfortable truth is that female athletic accomplishments are always second-rate. True, people even get excited about frog racing, but sex appeal is only notable achievement of the female body.
I think you have whacked the nail right upside the head here. They assume that we can’t respect a woman while also finding her sexually attractive because in truth theythey cannot respect a woman who is sexually attractive. And since of course no mere man is capable of anything that they are not capable of…
Ditto for you, whacking the nail upside the head there.
‘In the dark little holes they use for minds, human beings “should” relate to each other by arbitrary, egalitarian, gender-neutral criteria, with the most valued being “intelligence”.’
I am reminded of the video about Sweden’s gender war, and think that, instead of egalitarian: it’s all about power structures, with the paragons of intelligence and wisdom at the top!
I’ve been perceived as intelligent as far back as I can remember, but there is something viscerally appealing about being perceived as physically attractive. I suspect neither gender escapes from the desire to be attractive.
I’ve been perceived as an intelligent since childhood, and I still say it’s a poor characteristic to place above all others. Leadership, judgment, wisdom, self-control, integrity and several other characteristics are more important in a leader, and personality, friendliness, agreeability, honesty, fairness, emotional strength and yes, sexual attractiveness, more important in a companion.
Have you read “Odd John”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odd_John
Lolo Jones must be the most famous US athlete for NOT winning an Olympic medal -especially given what happened in Beijing.. Perhaps it would have been different if she’d brought home gold.