# Sexism Discrimination...Geez IOC Pull It Out



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Just venting here folks....

You can't tell me one bit with justifiable rationale women don't belong in the Olympic Ski Jumping competition. 

What a laughing stock with the IOC. Absoultely totally unbeliveable...they can play hockey, bob sled, down hill ski, snowboard half pipe etc. etc. etc.... but can't participate in Olympic ski jumping...what am I missing....N-O-T-H-I-N-G. 

Hopefully with the Russian women coming here to Park City in June for a ski jumping training camp will only push this issue up another notch thus allowing world class women athletes to participate in the next winter Olympics I believe are in Russia in Ski Jumping...Sexism discrimination at it's finest is all I'll say. Pull your heads out of the male dominated ARSE IOC...what a total joke... :roll: :roll:


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Agreed, 100% K2! I thought it odd when we were watching the men's comp the other day and my wife mentioned that women weren't in it too. Pretty nuts. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be. Its a helluva good time watching that event. It would be sweet if we had twice as much to watch.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree completely K2! Also I believe the IOC is a bunch of crooked SOB's. Unfortunately there has always been some conspiracy around judging, ect. at especially the Winter Olympics. I know this isn't the IOC, but what about that stupid Russian skater giving himself a Platinum metal and crap talking about the American gold in Male Figure Skating. Well at least the American is being mature about it.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

How many women ski jumpers are there ?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm all for it. 

BUT - 
I don't like ski jumping as it is right now. I'd like to see the judging component completely removed. Flat out, distance. That's it. Whoever flies the farthest wins. Because if you're flying the farthest, then by definition, your form has to be better than everyone else. So put restrictions on the dimensions of the skis, and no flying squirrel or bat suits or anything like that. Whoever flies the farthest and doesn't crash wins. I'd watch that event. As it stands now is the equivolent of judging best form in the pole vault, high jump, or long jump instead of who actually jumps the farthest. And that's messed up. 

And let women do it if they want. Why not?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> And let women do it if they want. Why not?


I recall an article on this during the 2002 games that said there are 'experts' who say a woman's body is not conducive to this support and would lead to a high rate of injury.

All in all, I don't care since I don't like the IOC, the Olympics, or the huge amounts of moolah WASTED on them. :shock: The IOC is corrupt, so why would people be surprised by anything they do?


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I recall an article on this during the 2002 games that said there are 'experts' who say a woman's body is not conducive to this support and would lead to a high rate of injury.


Well, then why don't a bunch of women get together and start up a league, contest, whatever, just to prove them wrong. The funny thing about this "expert's" opinion, is that if you actually watch a ski jumper live, you will notice that they don't go higher than 20 feet off the slope. I think freestyle ski jumping is harder on the body than this distance jumping is, and women do that. I guess if the women really want to do it, then they better start training for it.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

Wow, another one all up in arms over nothing. 

Believe it or not the IOC actually has to make money, and by adding another sport that no one cares about they stand to loose money. Don't believe me, find a single professional females only league that actually supports itself.

Frankly I'm more offended at the amount of crap that goes on in college sports, if your sport can't pay for itself then it needs to go away. Title IV is the very definition of discrimination, yet that seems to have been overlooked.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Some interesting reading material. Now tell me it isn't based on BS male dominated crap from old men who were raised that if women do certain things their uterues to fall out. Bunch of frick'n nonsense from the good-ole-boys.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 47,00.html

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-is-it ... them-comp/

That second link reminds of the women pilots during WWII testing the airplanes for the men and delivering them to the men.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=708995


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Title IV is the very definition of discrimination ??????????????????????


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packfish said:


> Title IV is the very definition of discrimination ??????????????????????


I am pretty sure he means Title IX. And I agree, Title IX is discrimination in every sense.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Okay since several responses have indicated discrimination...I'll bite the bait as I'm curious as to why some believe IX is discrimination... -Ov-

http://www.justice.gov/crt/cor/coord/titleix.php

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleIX.htm

So if IX is discrimination as some have stated then is...

...Amendment XIX to the US Constitution discrimination also... -Ov-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth ... nstitution

:| :|


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The 19th amendment didn't demand that there must be the same number of women voters as men voters, and if there were fewer women voters, then some men's right to vote would be taken away. It demanded that men AND women could vote.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The 19th amendment didn't demand that there must be the same number of women voters as men voters, and if there were fewer women voters, then some men's right to vote would be taken away. It demanded that men AND women could vote.


Well stated.

The government has no right to force citizens to do ANYTHING, there only 3 proper roles of the government: 1)Secure rights 2)Maintain order 3)Restrain crime. If the government goes beyond these very LIMITED roles they are diminishing the rights of the citizenry.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

_



What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails
That's what little boys are made of !"
What are little girls made of?
"Sugar and spice and all things nice
That's what little girls are made of!"

Click to expand...

_Maybe the I.O.C. believes in legends... :?


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)*Secure rights *2)Maintain order 3)Restrain crime.


Allrighty then *secure rights*....hmmm kinda an oxymoron there now...do as I say but you can't enjoy what I enjoy like Ski Jump...

So again why is title IX discrimination...isn't it allowing for and 'securing rights' eliminating inequality and allowing each gender equal rights to participate.

True Story...When I was growing up I wanted to play little league even the coaches wanted me to play...but because I wasn't a boy I couldn't play as them thar were the rules back then... :roll:

I could play catch with them, pitch batting practice, play pepper with them, hit balls to them, get them ready to play but oh no I couldn't play....I had to stand on the sidelines or sit in the bleachers and watch.

Because of my skill and knowledge in baseball the township allowed me to umpire games at age 14 but yet I couldn't play. What was wrong with that picture :?: ...plain and simple discrimination against me because I was born a 'g-i-r-l'... no Title IX back then and it wasn't fair that I was denied to compete in organized sports just because I wasn't born a male.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

You are absolutly correct K2. You were discriminated against. And it is discriminatory that women are not allowed to compete in the Olympics in ski jumping. It should be allowed. 

Title 9 though - went past opening up the same opportunities to both men and women. It was successful in opening up opportunities for women, but in the process, required taking away opportunities for men. The opposite would be just as wrong. It was great to provide equal opporunities, but it did not do that. It quite literally, took away opportunities for some because they were born as men. Which is just a different version of the same wrong.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Title 9 though - went past opening up the same opportunities to both men and women. It was successful in opening up opportunities for women, but in the process, required taking away opportunities for men. The opposite would be just as wrong. It was great to provide equal opporunities, but it did not do that. It quite literally, took away opportunities for some because they were born as men. Which is just a different version of the same wrong.


Thanks GrayFish...Can you help me out and provide some examples of how men have been discriminated against because of Title IX. I'm not saying it hasn't happened but I'd like to read why, what, and how 'exactly' they we're discriminated against as a result of Title IX. Thanks again... :wink: :wink:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

k2muskie said:


> I'm not saying it hasn't happened but I'd like to read why, what, and how 'exactly' they we're discriminated against as a result of Title IX.


The best example I can give you is with college wrestling programs. After Title 9 was implemented, the numbers of male and female athletes had to be equal, minus football. What happened at most universities, including those in Utah, is that in order to make everything else equal, several mens sports with no womens' equivolent had to be cancelled. (For example, it is easy to have men and womens soccer teams, gymnastics, volleyball, track, swimming, and baseball/softball) The sport most on the chopping block was wrestling, as there really is no women's equivolent. I can't give you the numbers exactly, but more than half of the schools with wrestling programs cancelled them so the school could come into compliance with Title 9. Football was exempted from Title 9 calculations because there is no equivolent for women, and it generates too darn much money (gender equality is great but don't mess with sports revenue/business :roll: ) and finances most other athletic programs.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

BTW - it totally sucks you were not allowed to play baseball. That was my absolute favorite sport growing up. In the small town I lived, boys played right along side girls in little league. We simply didn't have enough kids to separate boys and girls and still have teams. I feel very fortunate to have that opportunity. And every year, we had some girls make the city's all-star team that got to travel to some tournaments. They made the team because they could play. Bottom line. Best players were on the team regardless of gender. It was a very good thing. And our little league basketball was the exact same thing. It wasn't until we got into school sponsored teams that boys and girls were separated.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Let me amend my above explanation on Title 9, as I don't think it is entirely correct. If someone else knows more, please elaborate.

I think that football does count in the total number of men athletes. It is the largest of all the sports teams at any school. As such, to make the numbers equal, other mens sports (that didn't generate revenue) had to go away in order to make the numbers balance. Like I said though, wrestling became a huge thing to chop because there was no women's equivolent. I know several schools have had to also cancel mens gymnastics programs as well as swimming for the men, in order to make all the numbers come up equal men-to-women. The point is, that in order to provide equality in opportunity to women, mens programs had to be cut in order to keep football around. So I guess it provided equality in numbers but in process took away opportunity from some based soley on gender.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

k2muskie said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > 1)*Secure rights *2)Maintain order 3)Restrain crime.
> ...


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Geezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz here we go again as usual. :roll: 

Pro you just don't get it. So tell me this wise one...Football doesn't pay for 'men's' other sports as all mens sports are always in the black. It only covers 'women's' sports solely. 

It isn't about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ its about allowing a young person (female) to partake in a dream and COMPETE (Ski Jump). If a young person male or female wants to COMPETE they should be allowed to and given the opportunity. 

Look at how many families (oh you don't like the Olympics or watch them) sacrifice a great deal to give their child the chance to COMPETE on the world stage. They don't have the FOOTBALL team from XXX university paying their expenses but I'm sure you'll find a way to say they do :roll: . 

It's about having a dream and being able to experience the dream even if it is just once for a minute. 

So for 2014 I surely hope the IOC wins the coveted John Deere tractor raffle so they'll finally be able hook up to it and pull their heads our of their arses. :mrgreen: 

Gotta go as we're competeing on the ice stage with sponsorship and funding provided by K2 entities.... :wink: :wink:.....later!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Talk about not getting it. Football funds other COLLEGE sports, not Olympic sports. :roll: 

As for the IOC adding every sport that k2 wants to watch, is that really feasible? Economics plays a role in EVERY thing, even the Olympics. :shock:


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Money talks and the rest walks- Football produces $$$ for most Universities and alumini donantions - very few women sports can remotely say that.
But because of Title IX so many mens sports equal so many women sports. I was part of the wrestling programs that took the hit. Many many in the west took that hit- less in the mid west and east where wrestling is followed more. Even though I cleaned the stadium after football/basketball games, held car washes, traveled in 1967 Pontiac station wagons and was ranked in the top 20 in the nation- we will still dropped. My donations to the University immediately stopped and are now sent to schools that still have wrestling. I just have a hard time seeing where the equality was met but then I also have a hard time seeing where the equality is met thru admission policies.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

A few thoughts here -

-At most Division 1 universities, only Football and Mens' Basketball actually operate in the black. These two sports subsidize all other athletic teams - men and women. Seems like I read that something like 10 womens' basketball programs (Tennessee, UConn, etc...) actually operate in the black. But that is it. 

-There is no sports equivilent to football for women. Some women have made the rosters of Division 1 football teams. So the opportunity is there. But they are at a large disadvantage without the years of experience playing it thorugh high school, and just some general differences in build and strength that are inherent in the gender differences. 

-Football is the big difference maker in equality in the number of scholarships for inter-collegiate athletics. No university is going to give up the football team in order to make the numbers equal. If they did, then financially most could not support ANY sports teams. When there are 100 athletes on the football team, that meant that 100 other male athletes in other sports had to have their oppotunity taken away. That is the point where I think Title 9 failed. In the demand for equality of numbers, opportunities for some had to be taken away. 

-To me, I can draw the parallel of Title 9 to Fishing. Say we decided that because more men fish, we need to demand an equity situation. Therefore, we will only sell an equal number of fishing licenses to men and women - thus creating an equality of fishing opportunity for men and women. And this year, only 10,000 women statewide bought fishing licenses. Therefore only 10,000 men may have a fishing license this year. The other 1,000,000 men in the state that usually buy a license may not fish. Sure we might have gender equality, but 1,000,000 people lost their priviledge based only on their gender. Is that really equality?

- Out of curiosity - Are there any other winter olympic sports that are men only, or women only? I've not looked.


----------



## phantom (Sep 13, 2007)

Wouldn't it be simpler to have only one competition, where both sexes compete, wherever possible. Why couldnt this be done in ski jumping/


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> -To me, I can draw the parallel of Title 9 to Fishing. Say we decided that because more men fish, we need to demand an equity situation. Therefore, we will only sell an equal number of fishing licenses to men and women - thus creating an equality of fishing opportunity for men and women. And this year, only 10,000 women statewide bought fishing licenses. Therefore only 10,000 men may have a fishing license this year. The other 1,000,000 men in the state that usually buy a license may not fish. Sure we might have gender equality, but 1,000,000 people lost their priviledge based only on their gender. Is that really equality?


Thats a great analogy GaryFish. I think both sides have valid points. I am sure there are women who would love to compete in the Olympic ski-jumping competition but are unable to because of their gender, and I do feel this is unfair. And when I look at the male ski-jumpers they are all small and skinny so I see no reason why a woman shouldn't be able to compete at the same level. However, there is the economic factor to consider. As others have pointed out, organized sports are business, even at the Olympic and collegiate levels. And the unfortunate reality is that female sports just don't make any money. Look at the WNBA. Most WNBA franchises lose money every season, and the league could not continue to operate without heavy subsidizing by the NBA. Why? Because most basketball fans do not want to pay to watch women play basketball. The result is poor ticket sales. Few want to watch them play on television. The result is no networks will carry the games. I do not know why there is no women's ski-jumping event in the Olympics but I would not be a bit surprised if the reason was somewhere along these lines. The Olympics ARE a business, after all. Anyone who doesn't believe this is fooling themselves.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

I think Gary's analogy doesn't fit. In his analogy licenses are being sold to only a certain amount of men and women. Scholarships are not sold, they are earned. If in his analogy women got free licenses and men had to pay, now that would be sexism. I don't see how you can say a wrestler (a program that makes no money) is more deserving of a scholarship than a women's volleyball player (another program that makes no money). 
Later,
Griff


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

Chaser said:


> Agreed, 100% K2! I thought it odd when we were watching the men's comp the other day and my wife mentioned that women weren't in it too. Pretty nuts. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be. Its a helluva good time watching that event. It would be sweet if we had twice as much to watch.


+1 I don't understand their rational. They are competeing (sp) in everything else. Dumb.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

GRIFF said:


> I think Gary's analogy doesn't fit. In his analogy licenses are being sold to only a certain amount of men and women. Scholarships are not sold, they are earned. If in his analogy women got free licenses and men had to pay, now that would be sexism. I don't see how you can say a wrestler (a program that makes no money) is more deserving of a scholarship than a women's volleyball player (another program that makes no money).
> Later,
> Griff


 Sorry don't buy into that- because of Title IX there are schloarships that are *given *to just fill a program.
Not buying into all are *earned*. If I won the lotto I couldn't sponser a wrestling team because I would have to offset that with a woman's sport also. Just don't like that thought wave at all.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Packfish said:
> 
> 
> > Title IV is the very definition of discrimination ??????????????????????
> ...


Thanks for the correction, yes I meant title 9. The Roman empire might still be around if their numeral system was half as complicated.

The point was: people aren't concerned about out right discrimination so long as it benefits their interests


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

hyperduc said:


> The Roman empire might still be around if their numeral system was half as complicated.


Nah, their downfall was a fiat monetary system, very similar to the one we have.  :wink:


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

Stay focused Pro, were dealing with some serious hypocrisy here.

Outside of the athletes and their families no one give a crap about women in sports, the only exception to that is attractive female professional athletes (and to be frank there aren't many of those)


----------



## huntnbum (Nov 8, 2007)

all better now
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=15035325&nid=294


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> -At most Division 1 universities, only Football and Mens' Basketball actually operate in the black. These two sports subsidize all other athletic teams - men and women. Seems like I read that something like 10 womens' basketball programs (Tennessee, UConn, etc...) actually operate in the black. But that is it.


They spoke on the radio today on how even the great Uconn women's team is running in the red also, mainly because the coach is paid $1.6M...

It certainly seems odd that this is even an issue, but to say that it is a right seems like a stretch.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Well it's about time and congratulations to the ladies!!! I knew it was only a matter of time.


----------

