By
Sabrina Willard
As we reach (roughly) the halfway point in the 2014
Olympic Winter Games, it seems timely to reflect on the significance of what is
always an exhilarating and highly-anticipated event for the international
community. Sochi, as it is with all Olympic Games, is a moment in time when
people of various backgrounds are tossed together on the world stage and
hyper-analyzed by seven billion pairs of eyeballs. It can therefore be a telling
benchmark for how the world is progressing in terms of social acceptance and
equality, revealing fascinating (and sometimes ugly) insights into how much
further we still need to go on these fronts. Importantly for us, the limelight
also magnifies the current treatment of women in the sports arena and calls
into question any glaring mistreatment or oversight.
The Olympic Charter is the principle document that
sets the terms and conditions by which the Olympic Games are governed. One such
condition declares that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is “to
encourage and support the promotion of women in sport at all levels and in all
structures, with a view to implementing the principle of equality of men and
women.” But are the IOC’s efforts to uphold this particular provision falling
short?
Yes, we are progressing in the world of sports. Women
were first allowed to compete four years after the inaugural Olympic Games were
held (despite push-back from the man credited with the revival of the modern
Games, Pierre de Coubertin). During that first year, women comprised 22 out of
the 997 total athletes competing in tennis, sailing, croquet, equestrian and
golf. Just two of the five sports offered in 1900 included women-only events
compared to the London Games in 2012, which was the first year in history that
women have competed in every sport offered and accounted for more than 44
percent of the participants. In fact, the participation of women in the
Olympics at all levels has steadily, if not dramatically, increased over the
last 20 years. This is thanks in part to the IOC, which has set various equalizing
precedents, such as the 1991 rule that all new events to be included in the
Games must have complimentary women’s events, adding more women-only events to
events already offered, as well as hosting an international conference every
four years that strategizes on ways to promote gender equality in sports. But,
as the IOC calls-out in its own “Women in the Olympic Movement” document, “the
percentage of women in the governing and administrative bodies of the Olympics
has remained low” (Women in the Olympic Movement, October 2013).
To address this issue, the IOC previously “set the
objective of reserving at least 20% of decision-making positions for women (particularly
in all executive and legislative bodies) within their structures by the end of
2005,” but this goal was not met. (Note: the document did not specify what year
the objective was set.) However, it has stated that it is “aware that such an objective
can be attained only in successive stages,” adding that “a first objective
(having at least 10% of women in decision-making positions by December 2000)
was met.”
Slate recently posted an article providing context
on women at the Winter Games, and the headline “Smaller Hill, Shorter Sled: How
the Olympics Infantilize Women Athletes” leaves no doubt as to the author’s
particular take on the IOC’s efforts to promote gender equality thus far. She
uses ski jumping as an example of how “in 2014, many women’s Olympics sports
are still stuck in that protracted transitional period between basic entry and
complete participation” (Slate, February 2014). Most notably, she reported
that it took women 90 years (and a lawsuit five years ago during the Vancouver
Games) to finally be allowed to compete in this event. Yet, even now, men are
allowed the option of jumping from a higher hill and on teams of four while
women aren’t. This is true for events across the board at Sochi, she notes,
where “women are still skiing shorter distances, launching from more diminutive
hills, and competing on teams of smaller sizes.”
So, assuming that the IOC’s programs to promote
gender equality are doing what it says they are doing, why are women’s Olympic
events still being “half-assed”? (As the Slate journalist put it.) One
theory suggests that the continued pervasiveness of male chauvinism in the
sports world has a lot to do with it.
Gian-Franco Kasper, President of the International
Ski Federation, was reported saying in 2005 that ski jumping “seems not to be
appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view.” Further, Alexander
Arefyev, the Russian men’s ski jumping coach at Sochi, has recently claimed
that the sport requires “too much hard labor” for a woman’s body.
Why is this sort of talk acceptable, and why aren’t
we hearing more uproar from the very people who are the supposed protectors of gender
equality at the Games? Dr. Amy Bass, a professor of history at The College of
New Rochelle who led NBC’s research team during the 2012 London Games,
explained that the International Olympic Committee “is a very elitist and very
male organization.” She also stated that “the abbreviation of women’s
competition is a testament to the lingering belief that female bodies are
physically incapable of going as long, hard, or high as male ones.”
Whether or not this is actually true of the IOC, I
am becoming increasingly convinced that the only way women have a shot at clearing
the hurdle of sexism in Olympic sports is to infiltrate the system at the
executive level. We need to get in there and offer much-needed perspective and
guidance on how future Games can be organized to better provide for the rising
number of female athletes. Ironically, we need to do exactly what the IOC claims
it has been trying to do for years: increase the percentage of women in the
governing and administrative bodies of the Olympics.
This is our call-to-action. This top-down approach
is the best chance we have of achieving gender equality at the Olympics.
I've reallly enjoyed this article and I agree with the conclusion in the end. "Policy makers" are those who control the future of the Game and it needs a lot of bravery and perspiration from some women to reach the position that paves the way to their colleagues to a more significant participation in the Games. I do believe that "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" and only women who accept the challenges would eventually set the standards and the rules in the future.
ReplyDelete