"Norway’s women’s beach handball team fined for appearing at a match wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms"

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

"Norway’s women’s beach handball team fined for appearing at a match wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms"

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.


CURRENT NEWS ITEM
--- first appearance 7/20/21


"When you go exercising or doing some kind of sport, you decide for yourself what you want to wear and what you would be comfortable with. But for professional athletes, it’s different, as they have uniforms that are appropriate for the sport they do, representing their country and oftentimes displaying sponsors’ logos.

However, the national women’s handball team of Norway has had enough of their uniforms as they thought they were too revealing, and in protest, they wore shorts instead of bikini bottoms. Now the team is facing a fine of €1,500 ($1,766) for breaking uniform regulations.


...........................Image



According to the International Handball Federation’s rule book, “Athletes’ uniforms and accessories contribute to helping athletes increase their performance as well as remain coherent with the sportive and attractive image of the sport.”

When describing what the bottom part of women’s uniforms should look like, it is said, “Female athletes must wear bikini bottoms that are with a close fit and cut on an upward angle toward the top of the leg. The side width must be of a maximum of 10 centimetres [about 4 inches]."

The Norwegian players spoke up that they feel these uniforms are too revealing, making them feel uncomfortable and unnecessarily sexualized.

Before the championship started, Norway approached the European Handball Federation asking to let their team play in shorts; however, they were not allowed to and were reminded that breaching of the rules would be punished by fines or disqualification.
source and more


So, your opinion: Are bikini bottoms too revealing or not? Keep in mind that competitors in other womens sports wear "revealing" uniforms as well.


.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: "Norway’s women’s beach handball team fined for appearing at a match wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms"

Post #21

Post by Difflugia »

Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:46 amSO, they wouldn't care one wit that their bikinis are "too revealing" if their male counterparts wore skimpy uniforms as well?
Why would that necessarily be the case? While a double standard is problematic on its own, the lack of one doesn't eliminate anything else wrong with the situation.
Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:46 amBetter make up your minds girls because you can't have it both ways.
I find it interesting that you've chosen language that infantilizes women while arguing against their agency.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: "Norway’s women’s beach handball team fined for appearing at a match wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms"

Post #22

Post by Miles »

Difflugia wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:09 pm
Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:46 amSO, they wouldn't care one wit that their bikinis are "too revealing" if their male counterparts wore skimpy uniforms as well?
Why would that necessarily be the case?
Because that's what you quoted your source as saying:

"In their mind, the fact that they have to compete in skimpy uniforms, when their male counterparts do not, is a sexist double standard."

Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:46 amBetter make up your minds girls because you can't have it both ways.
I find it interesting that you've chosen language that infantizing women while arguing against their agency.
Not exactly sure what you're referring to, but assuming it's my reference to them as "girls," it's interesting that you regard the label "girls" as an infantile designation because the "girl(s)" in the following book titles all refer to women, with 2/3 of the books written by women:

"Girl In Information Technology: Pearls of Wisdom from The Bleeding Edge" Mary O'Hara

Lost Girls" Bob Mayer

"Girls who Bite Back" Emily Pohl-Weary

"The Smiling Girl on the Cardboard Moon" Charles Stumpf & Ben Ohmart

"The All-American Girls Professional Baseball League: American Events" Trudy J. Hanmer

"The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" Stieg Larsson

"Girl with a Pearl Earring" Tracy Chevalier

"The Girl Who Played with Fire" Stieg Larsson

"Gone Girl" Gillian Flynn

"Girl, Interrupted" Susanna Kaysen

"The Other Boleyn Girl" Philippa Gregory

"The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest" Stieg Larsson

"The Girl on the Train" Paula Hawkins

"The Girl Who Chased the Moon" Sarah Addison Allen

" The Welsh Girl" Peter Ho Davies

"Kiss the Girls" James Patterson

"The Little Drummer Girl" John le Carré

"Shanghai Girls" Lisa See

"Vinegar Girl" Anne Tyler

"Gossip Girl" Cecily von Ziegesar

"Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America" Lillian Faderman

"Twenties Girl" Sophie Kinsella

"The Girls of Slender Means" Muriel Spark

"Girl with Green Eyes" Edna O'Brien

etc.

etc.

.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: "Norway’s women’s beach handball team fined for appearing at a match wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms"

Post #23

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
[Replying to Miles in post #21]

Thing is, you don't hear women in other regulated sporting events and even those on other beach handball teams whining about wearing bikinis or other "revealing" sports wear.

That is not true, actually, and it is a valid complaint and challenge against some rules. Rules can change when they are shown to be unjust, unfair, sexist, etc, sometimes/otten by people challenging those rules and taking a stand. And why is their complaint about what affects them and them alone considered to be whining, but your complaint about their complaint is not whining?


Regardless, women in other sports do feel the same as the Norway women here. Just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean it is not happening.

The 21-year-old Voss, who hopes to compete at this year's Olympic Games in Tokyo, donned a full-body suit at the 2021 European Artistic Gymnastics Championships in Basel last month, in what was described as a stand against sexualisation in gymnastics.
The German Gymnastics Association (DTB) said their athletes wore the full body suit in Basel as a stand "against sexualisation in gymnastics".

Voss said the suits could also help to avoid embarrassment.

"Gymnasts don't always feel so comfortable training in leotards, also in gymnastics competitions, one has the feeling that they slip out of place or could slip out of place. And perhaps that cameras or photographers can catch this poor moment," Voss said.

"This bodysuit originated for this reason, simply to show that there is a possibility and since 2012, wearing matching trousers is also allowed."
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sport ... 021-05-13/

There are articles where uniforms are called out for being sexist, or sexualizing women (as well as federations being called out for shaming women if they wear something considered too revealing), and articles where sports tried to institute dress codes specifically just for female athletes, but the complaint against them stopped them from enacting those rules.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/badm ... flna812049

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... cs/351188/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/o ... -olympics/



I'm sure there's more out there, and I'm sure there will be more to come.


Peace again.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: "Norway’s women’s beach handball team fined for appearing at a match wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms"

Post #24

Post by Difflugia »

Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:43 pm
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:09 pm
Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:46 amSO, they wouldn't care one wit that their bikinis are "too revealing" if their male counterparts wore skimpy uniforms as well?
Why would that necessarily be the case?
Because that's what you quoted your source as saying:

"In their mind, the fact that they have to compete in skimpy uniforms, when their male counterparts do not, is a sexist double standard."
Which supports exactly what I said and not the false dichotomy that you've made of it. If they have to compete in skimpy uniforms and men don't, that is a sexist double standard even if skimpy uniforms for the men would be a problem independent of the standard.

To be more explicit, claiming that one thing is a problem doesn't imply that a different (even if related) thing is not a problem (or that they "wouldn't care one wit" about it).
Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:43 pmNot exactly sure what you're referring to, but assuming it's my reference to them as "girls,"
Yes. Referring to women as "girls" is using infantilizing language by definition.[/quote]
Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:43 pmit's interesting that you regard the label "girls" as an infantile designation because the "girl(s)" in the following book titles all refer to women, with 2/3 of the books written by women:
Which is irrelevant because I didn't claim that doing so in every single context is bad. I specifically included your context as important to my comment.

You are, in fact, suggesting that these women shouldn't have the latitude they desire in determining the style of their own uniforms, are you not? You referring to them as "girls" in exactly this situation could be perceived as an attempt to present the women as immature and less able to make competent decisions. Perhaps that's not how you meant it, though. Perhaps you refer to women as "girls" as a matter of course and I was making a connection that is only apparent.

Because I was curious, I ran two searches of your posts, one checking for the words "girl" or "girls" and a second one for "woman" or "women". As of this post, the first returned 48 hits and the second returned 180. So, even before any other sort of analysis, you normally refer to "women" more often than "girls" by a nearly 4-to-1 margin.

I then did an unscientific tally of your language. Of those 48 posts, I found that 20 were unique (i.e. not part of a quote chain) and your own words (not a quotation of another source or poster). Of those, 15 referred unambiguously to children, three were ambiguous (two used the phrase "slave girl") and two referred to adults, including the post in this thread (the other is here from 2009).

My interpretation of these data is that you rarely refer to adult women as "girls" and the one time that you have done so in the last ten years is a post where you are specifically arguing against women having more decision-making authority. With that context in mind, here is what I wrote again:
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:09 pmI find it interesting that you've chosen language that infantilizes women while arguing against their agency.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: "Norway’s women’s beach handball team fined for appearing at a match wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms"

Post #25

Post by Miles »

Difflugia wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:40 am
Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:43 pm
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:09 pm
Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:46 amSO, they wouldn't care one wit that their bikinis are "too revealing" if their male counterparts wore skimpy uniforms as well?
Why would that necessarily be the case?
Because that's what you quoted your source as saying:

"In their mind, the fact that they have to compete in skimpy uniforms, when their male counterparts do not, is a sexist double standard."
Which supports exactly what I said and not the false dichotomy that you've made of it. If they have to compete in skimpy uniforms and men don't, that is a sexist double standard even if skimpy uniforms for the men would be a problem independent of the standard.
To be more explicit, claiming that one thing is a problem doesn't imply that a different (even if related) thing is not a problem (or that they "wouldn't care one wit" about it).
Then making men wear a different uniform is sexist as well. Meaning any difference in uniforms between the two sexes, skimpy or not, is sexist. Perhaps so, but is it actually meaningful? Hardly.

Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:43 pmNot exactly sure what you're referring to, but assuming it's my reference to them as "girls,"
Yes. Referring to women as "girls" is using infantilizing language by definition.
Miles wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:43 pmit's interesting that you regard the label "girls" as an infantile designation because the "girl(s)" in the following book titles all refer to women, with 2/3 of the books written by women:
Which is irrelevant because I didn't claim that doing so in every single context is bad. I specifically included your context as important to my comment.
But you failed to qualify it, which means any and every usage applies, even book titles.

You are, in fact, suggesting that these women shouldn't have the latitude they desire in determining the style of their own uniforms, are you not?
That's up to the Federation to say. If they want to give the women a say, so be it. If they don't want to give women a say, so be it. As it stands, they do not.

You referring to them as "girls" in exactly this situation could be perceived as an attempt to present the women as immature and less able to make competent decisions. Perhaps that's not how you meant it, though. Perhaps you refer to women as "girls" as a matter of course and I was making a connection that is only apparent.

Because I was curious, I ran two searches of your posts, one checking for the words "girl" or "girls" and a second one for "woman" or "women". As of this post, the first returned 48 hits and the second returned 180. So, even before any other sort of analysis, you normally refer to "women" more often than "girls" by a nearly 4-to-1 margin.

I then did an unscientific tally of your language. Of those 48 posts, I found that 20 were unique (i.e. not part of a quote chain) and your own words (not a quotation of another source or poster). Of those, 15 referred unambiguously to children, three were ambiguous (two used the phrase "slave girl") and two referred to adults, including the post in this thread (the other is here from 2009).

My interpretation of these data is that you rarely refer to adult women as "girls" and the one time that you have done so in the last ten years is a post where you are specifically arguing against women having more decision-making authority. With that context in mind, here is what I wrote again:
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:09 pmI find it interesting that you've chosen language that infantilizes women while arguing against their agency.
WOW! I didn't know my post merited so much attention and devotion to scrutiny. I feel kind of special, :oops: and hope you give me reason enough to return the attention.



.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: "Norway’s women’s beach handball team fined for appearing at a match wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms"

Post #26

Post by Difflugia »

Miles wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:41 pm
Difflugia wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:40 amTo be more explicit, claiming that one thing is a problem doesn't imply that a different (even if related) thing is not a problem (or that they "wouldn't care one wit" about it).
Then making men wear a different uniform is sexist as well. Meaning any difference in uniforms between the two sexes, skimpy or not, is sexist. Perhaps so, but is it actually meaningful? Hardly.
So now it's a slippery slope? Why are you working so hard to justify requiring skimpy outfits that the women don't want to wear?
Miles wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:41 pm
Which is irrelevant because I didn't claim that doing so in every single context is bad. I specifically included your context as important to my comment.
But you failed to qualify it, which means any and every usage applies, even book titles.
What did I fail to qualify? For the third time now, I wrote this:
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:09 pmI find it interesting that you've chosen language that infantilizes women while arguing against their agency.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:09 pm
You are, in fact, suggesting that these women shouldn't have the latitude they desire in determining the style of their own uniforms, are you not?
That's up to the Federation to say. If they want to give the women a say, so be it. If they don't want to give women a say, so be it. As it stands, they do not.
You literally said that the women involved should "suck it up" and now you're saying that you don't have a dog in the fight, that it's between the women and the Federation?
Miles wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:41 pmWOW! I didn't know my post merited so much attention and devotion to scrutiny. I feel kind of special, :oops: and hope you give me reason enough to return the attention.
First, gender equality and personal freedom are both important to me. Second, though we certainly don't always agree, your social sense normally seems much more aligned with mine and this whole thread seems out of character for you in a way that I find a bit disturbing. I actually went back and read a number of your old posts to see if my expectations are just my own projections. At least in this case, I don't think they are.

I don't normally expect sexist claims or even language from you. Your statements in this thread not only reflect unacknowledged male privilege, however, but your arguments are the classical ones used to both support male privilege and minimize its apparent impact by gaslighting. The search of your posts reinforced that both are uncharacteristic for you. It's like you're socially progressive in practice, but when the gods-given right of men to be sexist was challenged, something deep and dark surfaced to defend it and brought some extra sexism with it.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: "Norway’s women’s beach handball team fined for appearing at a match wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms"

Post #27

Post by Miles »

Difflugia wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:23 pm
Miles wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:41 pm
Difflugia wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:40 amTo be more explicit, claiming that one thing is a problem doesn't imply that a different (even if related) thing is not a problem (or that they "wouldn't care one wit" about it).
Then making men wear a different uniform is sexist as well. Meaning any difference in uniforms between the two sexes, skimpy or not, is sexist. Perhaps so, but is it actually meaningful? Hardly.
So now it's a slippery slope? Why are you working so hard to justify requiring skimpy outfits that the women don't want to wear?
For reasons I've already given, I believe their complaint is bogus.
Miles wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:41 pm
Which is irrelevant because I didn't claim that doing so in every single context is bad. I specifically included your context as important to my comment.
But you failed to qualify it, which means any and every usage applies, even book titles.
What did I fail to qualify? For the third time now, I wrote this:
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:09 pmI find it interesting that you've chosen language that infantilizes women while arguing against their agency.
What you failed to qualify is the use of the word "girl(s)," which means any and every usage applies, even book titles.

Difflugia wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:09 pm
You are, in fact, suggesting that these women shouldn't have the latitude they desire in determining the style of their own uniforms, are you not?
That's up to the Federation to say. If they want to give the women a say, so be it. If they don't want to give women a say, so be it. As it stands, they do not.
You literally said that the women involved should "suck it up" and now you're saying that you don't have a dog in the fight, that it's between the women and the Federation?
Miles wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:41 pmWOW! I didn't know my post merited so much attention and devotion to scrutiny. I feel kind of special, :oops: and hope you give me reason enough to return the attention.
First, gender equality and personal freedom are both important to me. Second, though we certainly don't always agree, your social sense normally seems much more aligned with mine and this whole thread seems out of character for you in a way that I find a bit disturbing. I actually went back and read a number of your old posts to see if my expectations are just my own projections. At least in this case, I don't think they are.

I don't normally expect sexist claims or even language from you. Your statements in this thread not only reflect unacknowledged male privilege, however, but your arguments are the classical ones used to both support male privilege and minimize its apparent impact by gaslighting. The search of your posts reinforced that both are uncharacteristic for you. It's like you're socially progressive in practice, but when the gods-given right of men to be sexist was challenged, something deep and dark surfaced to defend it and brought some extra sexism with it.
Were it not for the fact that I'm quite certain that just about every one of them wears a "revealing" bikini when relaxing at the beach I might feel they had a case when it was said "they thought [bikini bottoms] were too revealing, and in protest, they wore shorts instead of bikini bottoms." (Keep in mind the rule that says the side width must be of a maximum of 10 centimeters (4 inches), which would be about twice that of the bikinis pictured in the OP.) So I don't believe for an instance this is what they truly thought. As I've said, I believe their whining is bogus. That for whatever reason, publicity perhaps, they're carrying on with the charade of wounded sensibilities.

(Just to clear up an early statement I made in post 3, I no longer feel that prudishness has anything to do with the issue.)


In any case, as interesting as our discussion has been, I've grown weary of it and leave the last word to you.

Have a good day. :approve:


.

Post Reply