Sexism, Orientalism, Gymnastics, and Girls
posted by Sybil Vane
I'm a day late and a dollar short on this, what with the Americans winning gold and silver last night, but I wanted to weigh in on the Chinese age eligibility story.
Unsurprisingly, it's a complicated thing to talk about. Yes, there are minimum age requirements for Olympic competition - 16. But that requirement is fairly recent, instituted in 1997. Nadia Camaneci was 14 when she scored those 10s. And age falsification scandals, even before the 16 requirement, are very very common. So, this is to say: it's not some time-honored universal that girls must be 16 to compete in the Olympics, nor is it particularly unique or novel that the Chinese might be fudging the ages of their gymnasts.
That said, the rule is of course the rule. And historically and culturally situated as it may be, it's still there. What are the problematics, then, in discussing it?
Firstly there is the racial component. When all the NBC commentators are talking about how the Chinese gymnasts don't "look" 16 or they "look very young," there is a subtext of "they don't look like a Western girl does at 16." In fact, Asian women often appear younger than Western women. The evaluation of age based on what people look like is neither a scientific method nor an unbiased assessment. (But I'll indict myself and disclose that I think they "look" hella young.)
Then there is the sexism component. This takes two parts (at least). The "because they are girls we must protect them" part and the "policing what female bodies are supposed to do and look like" part. I admit to being less troubled by the former, even when I intellectually recognize it's importance. It is true that we are more reactive about protecting 14 yr old female bodies than male bodies, it is true that we hype up the rhetoric of vulnerability around female atheletes in a way we don't with men. It is true that this is unfair. But I also think it is true that young women are more poorly served by the realities of elite athleticism when it comes to psycho-social body image issues, and therefore deserve heightened attention.
The second part of the sexism component is less complicated for me. Take this Sports Illustrated interview about the age controversy. FirstSmith Swift tries to frame his concern as primarily health related:
But then, when asked if he thinks the 16 yr old rule is a good one, he admits a more visceral-spectator driven investment:
Finally, though, we get the to the real crux of Swift's objections:
There is a real discussion and debate to be had about women's athletics and age, but E.M. Swift's bullshit discussion just told you more about why it's always a vexed conversation than I could have.
Unsurprisingly, it's a complicated thing to talk about. Yes, there are minimum age requirements for Olympic competition - 16. But that requirement is fairly recent, instituted in 1997. Nadia Camaneci was 14 when she scored those 10s. And age falsification scandals, even before the 16 requirement, are very very common. So, this is to say: it's not some time-honored universal that girls must be 16 to compete in the Olympics, nor is it particularly unique or novel that the Chinese might be fudging the ages of their gymnasts.
That said, the rule is of course the rule. And historically and culturally situated as it may be, it's still there. What are the problematics, then, in discussing it?
Firstly there is the racial component. When all the NBC commentators are talking about how the Chinese gymnasts don't "look" 16 or they "look very young," there is a subtext of "they don't look like a Western girl does at 16." In fact, Asian women often appear younger than Western women. The evaluation of age based on what people look like is neither a scientific method nor an unbiased assessment. (But I'll indict myself and disclose that I think they "look" hella young.)
Then there is the sexism component. This takes two parts (at least). The "because they are girls we must protect them" part and the "policing what female bodies are supposed to do and look like" part. I admit to being less troubled by the former, even when I intellectually recognize it's importance. It is true that we are more reactive about protecting 14 yr old female bodies than male bodies, it is true that we hype up the rhetoric of vulnerability around female atheletes in a way we don't with men. It is true that this is unfair. But I also think it is true that young women are more poorly served by the realities of elite athleticism when it comes to psycho-social body image issues, and therefore deserve heightened attention.
The second part of the sexism component is less complicated for me. Take this Sports Illustrated interview about the age controversy. First
There is a 68-pound girl (Deng Linlin) on that team is claiming to be 16 years old. That is not a healthy body. If she is 16 and weighs 68 pounds, someone ought to put her in a hospital.
But then, when asked if he thinks the 16 yr old rule is a good one, he admits a more visceral-spectator driven investment:
I think it is. I happen to think children should not be competing at this level. It is too much pressure on them. If there is no age limit at all, there is the "ick" or "creep" factor in gymnastics.Uh huh. Can I unpack that for you, Mr. Swift? What you mean to say is if the athletes are too transparently young we might be forced to confront the brutality of elite athleticism on young bodies and the potential psychological/emotional damage of sports culture on the whole. What's more, there is cognitive dissonance in having to register bodies as mature/advanced enough to perform physically as the best in the world and yet, if those bodies are female, not being able to comfortably sexualize them because they appear too young. "ick."
Finally, though, we get the to the real crux of Swift's objections:
I also think the more womanly figure in these competitions is more attractive to watch for the viewers. You see it in the floor exercise, these tiny little girls doing their dance moves, and it's just like watching a child out there.There we go. women's bodies are visual objects, and even those this particular sport requires them to be thin and un-voluptuous for maximum efficacy, let's be honest: tits and ass are nice to look at. And these 10 yr old girls can't really keep up.
There is a real discussion and debate to be had about women's athletics and age, but E.M. Swift's bullshit discussion just told you more about why it's always a vexed conversation than I could have.
Posted at 4:37 AM
|
