We’re a few days into the Winter Olympics, which, although I barely keep one-tenth of an eyeball on them, have reminded me that being a world-class athlete is no protection against sex discrimination. If you’re a chick, anyway.
The games were marred even before the opening ceremonies on Friday by the horrible death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili. In response to the tragedy, and to another near-accident by Italian Armin Zoeggeler (no amateur, he later won bronze) that same day, officials decided to lower the starting point for all lugers: men would be launching from what had previously been the women’s starting point, shortening their track by 600 feet, and the women would be starting from the “junior women’s” starting point, which gave them 800 fewer feet to build up speed.
Disappointment is to be expected; all the athletes trained and strategized based on requirements of the longer course, and complained about losing their edge. Canadian Meaghan Simister’s lament was common: “I haven’t taken one run from [the new starting point] until today. I trained for two years from the ladies’ start. The best part of luge for me is the start and that was ripped from my grasp. It’s tough, but everyone has to do it.”
Male lugers were also disappointed, and while I don’t blame them for that, I am pretty irritated by the gendered language they in which they couched their complaints.
Canadian luger Ian Cockerline was totally bummed, dude: “It takes a lot of the excitement out of it. It’s a little tougher to get yourself psyched up to race when you start from the women’s start.” American Tony Benshoof complained that using the lower entrance ramp was humiliating: “I excel at high speeds and high risk. Unfortunately, they lowered the start and it’s like running the downhill men’s ski race down a bunny hill. It’s a whole different deal.”
This “whole different deal” means that male lugers were topping out around 90 mph (faster than the speed Kumaritashvili was travelling at the point of his fatal accident), rather than 95. The track at Whistler is already considered the fastest in the world, approximately 10 mph “faster” than any other.
Comments on Olympic-watchers sites continue the theme of ewww, girl-stuff:
Come on, do you really think the male luger’s [sic] want to go from the womens [sic] start???
I’m not a luger, I don’t understand the physics of the sport, but why are the starting points separated by gender, anyway? And why is the women’s starting point also being lowered–even more than the men’s was? Gotta maintain that double-standard, I guess…
And on a similar theme: women aren’t allowed to ski jump?
Using the women’s start will make their manly Olympian balls shrink. Trufax.
Not only are they wimps, they’re totes into fashion & style. NYT fail here:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/fashion/11fitness.html
Oh wait…there’s no fashion or style in this article. Wait! It’s all about the skillz of a 4 time Olympic hockey player. Why, pray tell, isn’t the article in the Sports or Fitness section?
Well if they had the same start, GOSH it would almost be like men and women were equal. GASP and then the women might start asking to compete AGAINST the menz. And then it would rain fire. *headdesk*
From a completely uninformed standpoint, separate starts/courses in the luge, skiing, and other events really piss me off.
This Olympics is cursed. No snow, fatal luge accident, all sorts of athlete and coach bitchery (the American coach of the Norway’s women’s speed skating team had to be dismissed for making inappropriate comments to the athletes he was coaching?), and didn’t something break during the opening ceremony? I am convinced that nothing about this Olympics is going to be awesome.
I was wondering the same thing. I guess I can understand lowering the men’s start, but why, if there were no major accidents while the women were practicing, lower the women’s start? The only thing I could come up with was that they didn’t want to take the risk of women out performing men at the same starting point. It might hurt some fragile egos that wouldn’t be completely soothed by claiming less experience with the new start.
@baraqiel: Yeah, one of the, hrm, pillars that was supposed to rise out of the ground to allow all 4 torch bearers to light the flame together got stuck after the hydrolics or something failed.
I was totally ranting about this to my husband last night. I don’t understand why there’s a separate starting point for the sexes in luge in the first place.
I was wondering the same thing, and your post inspired me to check out the official website of the US Luge association. After about 5 minutes my eyes glazed over, but it seems like if you weigh more and are taller with longer arms, then you can control the luge better. So at any given speed, the average male luger would be safer than the average female luger? That’s my guess.
I heard that Ian Cockerline fellow on the radio yesterday, and almost popped a vein at his casually snide bite at female athletes. Asshole.
Interesting that the Olympics are in Canada’s least wintry city. I guess the weather in the mountains is usually colder though.
The higher the start, the longer you’re on the course, the more speed you gain. More speed takes more control, and heavier, stronger lugers have a better chance of controlling the luge at higher speeds. However, that’s just part of the equation and there are any number of other factors, such as ice quality, experience, and skill. So they made the simplest possible change (and the simplest to argue for) and, soaking in the patriarchy as they are, made the sexist decision right along with the original. What is most telling is that we can be pretty damn sure that if a female luger had died on the track and they decided to move the women’s start lower in response, they wouldn’t have also lowered the men’s start. Imagine the howls of protest if they even suggested it!
The Olympics have a long history of discrimination against women athlete’s. The powers that be have long held onto the idea that women needed to be “protected” in ways that they feel men don’t. Here is another perfect example. There is absolutely NO logical reason to shorten the women’s course.
You missed the guy who called it the “old lady start.” Not just for ladies, but the old ones!
I don’t understand why tallness and amount of musculature have to be gendered concepts. Olympic athletes represent a very narrow range of body types, and this is further determined by the sport itself. If luge calls for height and strength, then it seems logical that tall, strong women will become lugers. Maybe I should become a luger. I’ve got tall down…
RIGHT.
Who are they kidding with “women haven’t been ski jumping internationally/competitively for long enough” crap.
Women have been competing internationally in ski jump since BEFORE SNOWBOARDING EXISTED.
baraqiel: I haven’t heard about this skeevy coach for the Norwegian team. Although maybe that’s to my benefit; I’m certainly glad that I didn’t hear Cockerline, like Cimorene did.
pedimd: That may be, but I would also think that men, who are on average heavier than women, would be travelling faster as a result, so the benefit of being “stronger” is a matter of ratio. As our tall friend muchell mentions, physical characteristics aren’t gender-exclusive. And aren’t their sleds custom-built to fit their bodies, so limb-length thing is also sort of moot? (I’m honestly asking; I don’t know.)
bluebears: This “protection” thing is driving me nuts lately. I just heard a story about how women shouldn’t be in combat roles because they are so precious and wonderful, they would totally ruin the manly manly business of war. (Also, there are apparently “toilet issues”). …perhaps there is a post here.
Dork: I watched a PBS (i think?) special many years ago about women in sports throughout the modern era and they focused a lot on the Olympics treatment of women but a line from that program has always stuck with me.
They were discussing how after decades of struggle women FINALLY got the womens marathon included in the games and that the last women to cross the line did so dehydrated and practically crawling, similar to a public display that years earlier (1940s I think) caused the Olympics to pull most women distance events for years, and no one got all panicked about it, the line went:
“Finally, women were allowed to appear physically exhausted in public.”
That last line is amazing, bluebears.
One of my roommates has a theory that the real reason why the Olympics still doesn’t have women’s ski jump is that women, generally being lighter, smaller, and with a lower center of gravity then men, would be better at the event then men.
Honestly, I’d love to see some sports become co-ed, or at least have a co-ed event. I’m a fencer, and I’ve fenced against men before. In these kinds of mental sports, things like height and muscle don’t really matter.
@PhDork: I know nothing about luging. I was just quoting from the luge association’s gender-neutral pamphlet on “what makes a successful luge athlete.” Among other things, they say that good upper body strength and power is critical to controlling the luge, especially during the curves. The limb-length thing has something to do with using the arms as levers. I maintain it’s fair to assume that the average male luger has more upper body strength than the average female luger, but I don’t know if that’s a fair way to determine course start points.
Every time I watch the Olympics (winter or summer) I get annoyed by the constant messages about gender. Don’t even get me started on men’s figure skating. It’s just that with the luge, there is a safety issue to consider, and I don’t understand enough about the sport to determine whether the lower start point for women is important or just sexist bullshit.