It puts the underpants on its bum
Well why stop there? Why not force them to wear no pants at all?
Women’s team fined for not wearing tiniest possible pants.
Norway’s women’s beach handball team have been fined 1,500 euros (£1,295) for choosing to wear shorts rather than bikini bottoms in a match at the European Beach Handball Championships in Bulgaria.
The fine was ‘150 euros per player, for a total of 1,500 euros’ handed out by the European Handball Federation (EHF) because shorts are ‘not according to the athlete uniform regulations defined in the IHF [International Handball Federation] beach handball rules of the game.’
But why are those the athlete uniform regulations? Why are women forced to wear sexually provocative underpants for what is supposed to be an athletic competition? Who made the rule, and how, and why?
Why are the rules different for men?
Shirts without sleeves and shorts are obligatory for men and tops and bikini bottoms are obligatory for women (see IHF Beach Handball rules of the Game – Athlete Uniform Regulation).
Stop right there. Why? Why are the requirements for women sexual? Why are men ordered to wear shorts while women are ordered to wear bikini bottoms?
I’ve been wondering this ever since beach volleyball turned up at the Olympics.
A request was made by the Norwegian Handball Federation (NHF) before the tournament started for their players to wear shorts rather than the ’embarrassing’ bikini bottoms that are regulated, report Inside The Games.
But oh no, that would never do, they have to be embarrassed, so that men in the crowd can get their jollies.
However, they were told that they would be fined for ignoring rules which state bikini bottoms must be ‘not more than 10 centimetres on the sides’.
Norway captain Katinka Haltvik told NRK: ‘So then we are forced to play with panties. It is so embarrassing.’
That’s a bonus.
H/t Sackbut
I respectfully suggest that all female teams go onto the beach wearing whatever they choose to wear: bikinis, boiler suits, overalls, frilly frocks, Santa suits, tuxedos… whatever.
Well they can’t, can they, so in the real world it would be nice if officialdom weren’t forcing them to wear sex-pants for an athletic contest.
Well, they bloody-well can. They can make a stand. It just depends on what their priorities are. Honour? Or winning?
If men were required to wear Speedos, it would equalize it, at least. But if they did, women might see more than they are entitled to, and we can’t make it sexy for the women, only for the men.
The women would prefer to be noticed for the quality of their play; silly them. Don’t they know the only reason for women’s sports is for men to ogle? One rule for men, another for women…as usual.
That would be great.
I wonder if this difference in uniform is a deliberate attempt to court more viewers. Make the women’s division a masturbatory aid ==> more men tune in / pay for tickets.
Isn’t that obvious?
And on the other hand
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympics/olivia-breen-paralympian-shorts-tokyo-b1886969.html
I believe they call it “fan service.”
Omar @ 3 – Well sure, they can in that sense, but why in HELL should they have to? Why should they have to blow up their chance at an Olympics medal to make a point about not selling women like so many hamburgers?
I recall an old chestnut, “News is what’s written on the back of advertisements.” Something similar could be said for sports. Most watchers aren’t paying any attention to the score in women’s beach volleyball. Yet it’s selling ads just the same. Refusing to jump around in panties is as much of a breach as refusing a post-match interview. It hinders the sale of the product and its ads.
Very skimpy togs turn up on distance runners; and high-jumpers and pole-vaulters want to avoid any loose fabric that might knock down the bar. Volleyball?
The obvious way to protest this is for the men to start wearing bikini bottoms and take the fines. But they don’t seem to be doing that…
Omar, we’ve been through this before more than once and I never seem to be able to explain why it’s not that simple. It’s not a choice between honour and winning, it’s something that could impact their whole career. They’ve trained their whole lives for this. They’ve given up their free time, the chance at romantic relationships and the stuff all their friends are doing. If their protest doesn’t go their way – and there’s no reason to expect it would – they could find themselves pushed out of that career in an instant. And this works all the way down; if players are expected to wear similar outfits at lower levels of the sport, expecting the women and girls to protest is very definitely asking them to seriously jeopardise their careers.
And as Ophelia says, why should they? People shouldn’t have to abide by terms and conditions if the Ts and Cs are bullshit. And women shouldn’t have to protest when everyone male and female athletes, coaches, promoters, managers, sponsors…. everyone.
latsot:
Well then, perhaps you should write a letter to your local MP, cc to the editor of your local paper.
My paternal grandmother was a suffragette back at the turn of the last century. Her suffragism landed her in Holloway Gaol, London, where she was banged up for a stretch. She carried my father in there with her as a prenatal child. And she and her fellow suffragettes helped change the world.
Sorry to have to be the one who tells you this, but never in all history has Authority given concessions without fear of worse consequences if they don’t, despite their knowing full well that one concession leads on logically to the next and the next. That is the only reason that modernity emerged from the Dark Ages.
NB: I am not God, and I don’t write the rules.
Omar:
I don’t appreciate your condescension. When you’re questioned, you tend be over-defensive, which isn’t helpful. I’m not trying to pick a fight and I’m not criticising you. If that’s what I appeared to be doing, I’m sorry for it, because it wasn’t my intention.
I’m just not so quick as you to blame these women and girls for being hesitant to protest when they have everything to lose and little chance of winning.
They will have to take risks, of course, if they want to change the rules, but the risks should not be theirs alone to bear. As I said, the men’s team should be protesting, too. The public should be lobbying the sponsors. That’s how change will ultimately happen and I’d much prefer it if the careers of young women were not ruined in the process. This is not vast social change, it’s about the costumes worn in a sport. I think it could be an important landmark in social change, but let’s treat that one step at a time. With the right focus, change can happen without the need for suffering.
Omar @ 14 – I respectfully suggest that that comment was downright rude.
latsot, that likewise was arguably condescending. ‘Over-defensive’ is a subjective value-judgement. But in any case, I withdraw my comment at #14 and apoogise for any offence it may have caused you, OB and/or anyone else. (And I realised immediately after I posted it that I had left off my little home-made emoji ;-)
Hope this does not make things worse. As the barber said, “It was just a little harmless joke (sob). A trifle overdone. (Sob).”
https://www.poetrylibrary.edu.au/poets/paterson-a-b-banjo/poems/the-man-from-ironbark-0001016
No problem, Omar, I’m not offended.
Well I am, I’m DEEPLY offended, but I will make a heroic effort and overcome my offenditude so that I can concentrate on how offensive a certain Science Based blogger is.