What is Digg?42 Comments
- kent1146, on 07/13/2009, -7/+41They could always ski jump their way into the kitchen and make me a sandwich.
- ahac, on 07/13/2009, -3/+17What about mens synchronised swimming?
- Yazilliclick, on 07/13/2009, -4/+15They train for life for the honour of competing at an event that their sport has never been part of? Nobody's dreams were crushed here at all. Everybody with any sense knew it wasn't going to happen, the female sport is quite simply not large enough or popular enough.. yet. It was a ***** move to try and force it's acceptance through courts with cries of discrimination against women.
- googooly, on 07/13/2009, -4/+14Well they lost the case because they didn't meet the Olympic criteria. Simple
- Yazilliclick, on 07/13/2009, -0/+9Exactly. It certainly is damn insulting though to everyone this group accused of discrimination because of their sex and being against women sports in general.
- Equinamin, on 07/13/2009, -7/+14This is a sad case for women in sports. Women ski jumpers train for life' for that big honour of representing
our country. Dreams crushed~for a great sporting event. Hopes to a change in minds. - inactive, on 07/13/2009, -2/+910 people are not enough to have a freaking international competition.. the courts rightly so, refused to let women get away with their ***** sexist behaviour.. pro-tip.. don't be sexist.. it will get you further in life.
- tgc1, on 07/13/2009, -1/+7I feel kinda bad for laughing so hard about that.
- ahac, on 07/13/2009, -1/+7It's not.
But there are seperate categories for men and women in most sports (for obvious reasons).
And in this case the female category just isn't popular enough. - smacksaw, on 07/13/2009, -3/+9Look - grow the sport, then try again later.
The Olympics and athletic excellence is predicated upon "earning it", the right to represent one's country, the right to move on to medal rounds, etc.
This sport hasn't earned it...yet. I question the so-called Olympic spirit of people who turn to the courts like this. If hard work and competition are so important, work hard and compete and get your sport popular enough to be considered for inclusion next time around. - ahac, on 07/13/2009, -2/+7Yea, just like mens synchronised swimming! Oh, wait... you can't compete there is you got a *****!
- reaper527, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4a sad day? i disagree.
1. "The British Columbia Supreme Court said on Friday it doesn't have the authority to force the International Olympic Committee to put the sport on the program." - the court got it absolutely right. they don't have the authority to force a private entity to include events in their program. (and yes, the international olympic committee is a private entity)
2. there are plenty of sports in the summer olympics that are women only with no male version. should guys be suing to? - tkcom, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4Whining stops here. Case closed.
- smacksaw, on 07/13/2009, -2/+6As someone who has lived in Vancouver on and off since 2000, let me assure you that I am quite familiar with this issue and that it's not popular enough.
All of this protesting *****, I really wish that we had not won the Olympics. I'm tired of the over-inflated sense of entitlement that keeps coming up. - kurtwinter, on 07/13/2009, -2/+6They still have that stupid "sport" involving brooms and ice? If they are going to build a ramp for ski jumps, let the women compete too!
- ToddSchishler, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3They lost the case because this was a Charter challenge. And the IOC doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Charter of Rights, because it is a private organization. Only the government does.
- Toloran, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3Here is the question since the article wasn't very specific: The Article says that the IOC says they aren't having a female ski jumping event because they didn't make the requirements. So what requirements didn't they make? I honestly don't think it is likely they canceled the event because they are female because they didn't go randomly canceling other female events. If it is a legitimate reason (such as the quality of this years competitors being sub-standard compared to previous years), then I see no problem with it.
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3Yes, but in this case equity means not having the event because there are not enough competitors from around the world to compete.. thus it would be a token affirmative action competition.. which would be patronising.. and would actually end up damaging the sport because the winner wouldn't actually be all that good.. so they would win a medal for being better than some other mediocre chump..
Ultimately it would end up being more sexist towards the women because they wouldn't be winning based on merit..
Which is why feminism is doomed to failure.. and why these people are complete retards... I want you to treat me equally by treating me in special and better way than anyone else.. zzzzzzzzz - CBOOTY, on 07/13/2009, -1/+4What about ski jumping in Tennis skirts?
- yunus, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3Separate categories when you have enough competitors and support for those categories is fine. But why not change this non-contact sport where gender isn't a factor to "Ski Jumping" instead of Men's Ski Jumping. Leave the bar where it is, no special treatment based on gender, if you can jump far enough, your in, if you can't your out.
- reaper527, on 07/13/2009, -1/+4curling is awesome!
- TdotFUNK, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3*I see what you did there. Clever. *
- Kyrgizion, on 07/13/2009, -3/+5And this is why I don't give two ***** about any sport at all. People should be happy doing what they do, rather than attaching gigantic amounts of financial and emotional value to something that amounts to the pretend games we played as children.
- newms32, on 07/13/2009, -3/+5You missed the point: Ski jumping is a popular enough sport for inclusion.
- MN1962, on 07/13/2009, -2/+4Why is their first response to insist that men's skiing be dropped. It wasn't the male athletes that did this. These men could have been on their side but they attacked them. Who are the real sexists.
- hpodity, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2Thank you. The olympic criteria states that a sport must be popular in 25 countries over 3 continents for it to be admitted to the winter games, it must also have been admitted 7 years before the games in order to be included, therefore (assuming it hasn't been admitted) even if they won the case, regular procedure means that they won't be able to jump for 8 years. I believe it must have also held 2 world championships or something like that, but I'm not sure about that, so tough nuggets, they can't let anyone in immediately, otherwise we'd get the same sort of results as eddie the eagle.
Besides, women can't ski jump, their uteruses would explode /s - LloydDobbler, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2I was going to say...I've been training the past 10 years of my life as a competitive skydiver (a sport which has no gender divide - men and women compete on the same playing field). I would have trained my entire life...but unfortunately, one cannot traditionally begin training until they turn 18.
I might have dreams of my 'great sporting event' being included in the Olympics, and the 'great honor' that it would bring to me and my country.
But I harbor no illusions that it will ever happen. The sport just isn't prominent enough to warrant that kind of attention. Reality sucks, sometimes.
I recognize that this stings for women ski jumpers, because men's ski jumping *does* have a slot...but just because you compete hard at your sport doesn't make it your right to compete in the Olympics.
Otherwise, I also am acquainted with the current reigning 2-person U.S. table-top football champion team, and I'm sure they deserve to be in this, too. - grantmoore3d, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2I believe it was the fact that the pool of candidates for this sport wasn't large enough to properly represent an international competition. A dozen people doing a sport isn't much of a competition.
- Rikushix, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1Hear hear. I'm from Vancouver and I am pretty much at the end of my rope with the Women's Ski Jumping Organization - months earlier they said that they would file an injunction to get the men's ski jumping program cancelled at the olympics. The old game of "Well if I can't have it, no one can". It's selfish, pathetic behavior that they have convinced themselves is totally justified in the name of "gender equality". It's simple: the sport isn't that big. there isn't enough resources for an olympic event. holding one would cheapen the value of the medals since there isn't much competition.
It just aggravates me so much. They sued VANOC - an organization that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Olympic administration, they're just the publically funded org that has put together the olympics here in Vancouver. They think that their rights trump those of the men's team, VANOC, and pretty much all the residents of Vancouver plus any people, Canadian or otherwise, who were planning to attend the 2010 olympics. - joshoisasleepg, on 10/12/2009, -0/+1I get what they're saying about "there aren't enough women for a whole separate womens ski jumping event". So why not just have a "ski jumping event", instead of a "mens ski jumping event"? Do men and women really perform so differently when flying off a jump?
- Rikushix, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1Sounds like someone sat on the couch at watched TV as a kid. "Sport" != "Sponsorship-driven games with lucrative monetary offers for best competitors"
I dunno, I played soccer for ten years as a kid and I didn't get paid a cent. It may amaze you to hear this, but I actually had fun. Shocking, I know. - orville1151, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1Maybe we should have a men's Olympics and a women's Olympics.
- joshoisasleepg, on 10/12/2009, -0/+1Forget ski jumping and even gender equality for a moment. Tell me again exactly how the BC Supreme Court has decided that it "just doesn't have the authority" to enforce our laws on our own soil? I mean I realize that the IOC is an international body, but I'm really curious about this loophole that causes that to mean they don't have to abide by our laws.
I hope this doesn't mean they're also allowed to systematically and blatantly delete or ignore our rights to freedom of speech and expression when it comes to protesting the Olympics... oh wait, that already happened. New laws have been rushed in making it illegal to post anti-olympics signs on your own property, punishable by a $10,000 per day fine and a year in prison. Anti-Olympics activists (read: University professors) are being followed, harassed, and detained. Their friends and people who only know them are having the same treatment. Federal police are thuggishly intimidating people in every way possible to prevent any sort of dissent or protest against the Olympics. When the BC Civil Liberties Association asked the police to commit to not planting agent provocateurs amongst protesters to incite violent riots, they refused. In BC we are basically living in a police state, and the games aren't even on yet.
Makes me wonder how this supreme court decision really came to be. It's clear to me that the court knows what's right, but for whatever reason, it's not being enforced. We've been sold out, and the worst part is our taxes are paying for it. I thought the Olympics were neat before, but now they are more like a serious threat to my freedom. - Julian88888888, on 07/28/2009, -0/+1When did you play "Ski Jump" as a kid?!
- thomn8r, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1Regimental.
- mizike, on 07/13/2009, -1/+1I'm having trouble understanding how this went down (I couldn't find the actual decision online yet, but read a few articles). The judge finds that yes, the VANOC is subject to the charter and that yes, this is discrimination contrary to s.15 but then turns around and says that since all the VANOC does is impliment what the IOC decides and since the IOC is based in Switzerland, there's nothing she can do. Now, I'm no legal scholar, but if you've decided an organization is both subject to, and in breach of, the constitution you can't just let them off the hook because they're breaching the constitution at some international body's behest. *****, did this even go through section 1?
That being said, this sets a pretty awesome precident. I plan to incorporate a Canadian company whose sole mandate is to impliment policies set by an international body I'm going to have my girlfriend set up. This international body will mandate that I must sell weed at excellent prices. If this happens to be contrary to the Criminal Code, oh well, we have a precident that says it's ok to breach the freaking Constitution if you're solely implimenting the policies of an international body. You can call me the Canadian Pablo Escobar. - winterorchid, on 07/13/2009, -1/+1Get teams willing and capable of competing at an Olympic level, and you'll have the same support as these women. Can we stop pretending men are victims?
- trevor98, on 07/13/2009, -5/+4If gender equality is so important to Canadians and this exclusion violates those core values then Canada needs to boycott- I guess it's not that important after all.
- Tunguska, on 07/13/2009, -5/+4*Generic comment about kitchen, possibly with reference to the making of a sandwich*
- Barackalypse, on 07/13/2009, -4/+2Hard to say which sucks more, the court decision or the sport of ski jumping. I mean no slight to the athletes who participate in the sport, I'm sure it takes a lot of training and skill, I just find it repetitive and dull to watch. Perhaps if they adopted better uniforms, like beach volleyball.
- newms32, on 07/13/2009, -9/+2Can you explain why a dick and two balls should be part of the Olympic criteria?
- orville1151, on 07/13/2009, -9/+2You mean the criteria that you need a ***** to compete in certain sports?
Besides, aren't there usually a whole raft of crazy-ass events in every Olympic games that aren't popular, or even that most people haven't even heard about?
Ski jumping in general is a well known sport, although womens ski jump competition is popular than mens.
But if women were allowed to compete, wouldn't that eventually lead to increased interest, which is kind of what the Olympics is about?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is