Did anyone see that article last weekend on the Olympic athletes and sex? The Times Online's Matthew Syed reported on how the athletes were acting like bunnies once their sport was over. Of greatest interest to me, he noted that success on the field didn't necessarily translate in gender equitable terms. While Olympic gold is a “surefire ticket to writhe” for even the geekiest of Olympian men," says Syed, “gold-winning female athletes are not looked upon by male athletes with any more desire than those who flunked out in the first round.” Why might this be? Syed's hypothesis:
"It is sometimes even considered a defect, as if there is something downright unfeminine about all that striving, fist pumping and incontinent sweating. Sport, in this respect, is a reflection of wider society, where male success is a universal desirable whereas female success is sexually ambiguous."
In all fairness, Syed is not condoning the phenomenon, merely noting it. Is he correct? What do you think?
1 comment:
I agree. And it's unfortunate that it is still like this, but I don't feel we women are as close to parity as we think or society thinks - when it needs to.
Post a Comment