The outrage goes on and on

While acknowledging the evidence of sexism during these games, it probably is not as bad as in past events. Slowly but surely there is a consciousness raising (partly through articles like this one) that discrimination based on either sex or colour is wrong.

The Olympic games primarily are held up as a moral as well as physical example to the youth of today to excel and to achieve. the sending of hero messages is encouraged, and the actions of athletes are to be emulated.

However there is a strong undercurrent of bias, and dare I say "questionable behaviour" that is evident, though not highlighted in main stream media with regard to the present London games. 150,000 condoms will be distributed to athletes during the duration of these games - and I wonder what message that sends to our youth and general community. Should that be part of the official role of the Olympic committee?

One would think that, at least, athletes could buy their own!

Jocelynne Scutt's point "That prejudice has no place in sport. That sporting capacities and achievements are valued without 'extra points', superiority or esteem being awarded by reference to sex/gender, race/ethnicity or class/status." is easy to agree with.

And achieving it is not difficult either – and has the advantage in these financially difficult times of halving the cost and number of events, competitors and staff in Olympic competition…

Merely remove the words men's and women's from all events.

Only the 'best' athletes compete.

It seems a fitting next step now that these games represent a long overdue and hard-won milestone as reported by topendsports.com: "In 2012, women's boxing was introduced, resulting in no remaining sports that do not include events for women.

Equality in the available sports is one thing, but in many countries women do not have equal right to participate in sports and the opportunity to participate in the Olympic Games. Prior to the 2012 Olympic in London, three Muslim countries have never before sent a female athlete: Qatar, Brunei, and Saudi Arabia. However, they all bowed to IOC pressure and sent female athletes to London. Now every national Olympic committee has sent women to the Olympic Games."

Do shut up while you're in front Jocelynne, or you may annoy us blokes enough to do something about equality.

As WmTrevor says, we could stop having a special category for the weak, slow athletes called women. Hell if that happened there would only be 2 sports left for you, equestrian & nagging competitions.

We could demand equal use of medical services. We might even demand that mens cancer be given equal funding to womens.

We could stop affirmative action, & make you actually compete for jobs.

Hell we could even reintroduce examinations into the education system, so you could go back to the bottom of the class, & out of universities.

So come off it love, enough is enough. Too much gets boring, & will prove unproductive, if you get our backs really up.

Hear, hear! Let's abolish the reactionary neocolonial apartheid-linked notion of 'women's sports' altogether. Let's end financial discrimination in favour of rich nations, too, by requiring all potential Olympians to be brought up and trained in some deserving Third World nation like Mali. The vicious and heartbreaking inequalities that result from some people being bigger, stronger or faster than others can be dealt with by ensuring that all candidates are the same size and weight and are provided with equal nourishment. That only leaves motivation, which we can control for by reducing the prizes and rewards to zero throughout.

I look forward to the enlightened adoption of all these policies, and the subsequent Non-Discriminatory Olympic Games, where the outcomes will be based entirely on random chance. In fact there will be no need to hold them at all -- a simple lottery drawing will have the same result, and be far cheaper.

>>In the meantime, men compete in five canoeing competitions, whilst the Olympics stages no canoeing competitions for women.<<

Yes it does. Women compete in sprint and slalom canoeing:

http://www.london2012.com/canoe-slalom/
http://www.london2012.com/canoe-sprint/

As far as I know there are only two Olympic sports which are restricted to single gender: rhythmic gymnastics and synchronised swimming. They both exclude men which looks like blatant sexism to me. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - I certainly don't want to watch men's rhythmic gymnastics. But if you were looking for an example of sexism in the Olympics wouldn't it have been wiser to use those two genuine examples instead of spreading easily disprovable misinformation about the canoeing?

Cheers,

Tony

grab the tissues as woman for having to travel economomy class while women are beaten in communtities. Maybe they should have to compete at the same level if they want the same treatment as men. That would be equality.

Jessica Fox finished second in the women’s K1 canoe slalom final. Fox, 18, is the current world junior champion and under-23 world champion, and just lost to Frenchwoman Emilie Fer.

Fox said her silver medal was the “most beautiful thing I’ve even seen,” and added: “I’m only 18 and I’ve had such a great season so far and to cap it off with a silver medal at the Olympics is just a dream come true. “No matter what the result to perform like that at an Olympic final is something I was proud of.”

----

Acting Basketball Australia chief executive Scott Derwin said the policy surrounding budgets for each national team gave those teams discretion over how funds were spent, including travel arrangements.

"We should bear in mind that in fact, historically, more funding has been directed towards the Opals," Derwin said.

----

Nobody checks facts these days.

I believe Belize has a women's canoeing team.

Being a tad short of the necessaries to spend on transporting athletes, they're presently paddling to the Olympics - and I believe they've been spotted nearing the cliffs of Dover...should be along any minute.

What a load of hooey..."equality"...when the richest countries are guaranteed the lion's share of the glory because they have the means to spend on the marketable 'product'.

Btw - volleyball costume reflects beach costume. Women get around in next to nothing and men wear baggy boardies.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/london-games/opals-opted-to-fly-economy-says-basketball-australia-head-scott-derwin/story-fne3ajoz-1226430434169

Clever girls! More booze money for the celebrations!

What's with idea that calling them 'girls' is somehow patronising or derogatory. Man if I had a dollar for every post match rugby league interview that started with 'The Boys really dug in...'

How good would men vs women boxing be! Every male victor would be scorned by the feminists as somehow enjoying his win a little too much, and if a woman ever won the attitude would be 'You go girl'! Maybe a handicap event where the woman is allowed a frying pan and a roller pin, and the man is not allowed to disarm her of them. In the shooting men would be the targets.

I think if we cant have an Olympics with no gendered events, they should instead have separate Women's and a Men's Games, held at different times, their 4 year cycles offset by 2 years. I wonder what the funding and audience would look like for the women's Olympics if they couldn't ride on the coat tails of the men.

Same with other sports. How many people would turn up to the Women's Australian Open Tennis compared to the Men's.

Face it, women don't support sport. Men are the ones paying to watch, and that's where the advertising money comes from. If women supported women's sport there would be more money for women. But they support fashion which is why the women's Tennis stars are all about modelling and fashion.

At what point do women start to take responsibility. Men don't buy clothes or support the Fashion Industry so we only get 1/3 of the choice of shops in shopping malls as women

Houellebecq, that's just bullying behaviour. Lot's of posters would comment in support of the article if it wasn't for bullies like you who don't know your place and might contradict them. This article has 2 likes so there!!

You should not be focussed on masculine quantitative values (if the women's team gets more funding than the men's team that's not relevant) but rather on the qualitative values that after other choices were made there was one choice where the women faired worse than the men.

Likewise when men are called boy's that's clearly not meant to be demeaning, it's obvious though that when women are called girls it's a put down.

Also that dreadful idea that men can somehow be excused for their sexist preference for watching sports they enjoy played by the strongest rather than enjoying non-masculine sports demonstrates yet again that you just don't get it.

R0bert

Something like 145 of the 170 members and honorary members of the IOC are men. The Olympics is dripping with sexism soon to be prohibited from doing business in Australia.

There is one answer: separate Mens and Womens Olympics with spectators of the opposite gender not allowed into the respective venues to shout and cheer and perhaps drool.

This does create problems for spectators who are bi-sexual or gay/lesbian of course so we obviously need a separate Olympics for each of them.

Then we really need to separate the black long-distance runners from the white because they really are superior. So it goes on.

Look, we might end up with 37 different Olympics but everyone will be happy! Won't they?

What a blessing to see super fit humans in all kinds of configurations at the Olympics, be heaps better though if women had just as much say in proceedings as the men.

A majority of men (12/2) on the Executive of the IOC determines who is eligible to be a woman at the Olympic Games.

'A majority of men (12/2) on the Executive of the IOC determines who is eligible to be a woman at the Olympic Games.'

I'd like to be 'eligible to be a woman'.

Besides whether men or women are IOC executives the task is prety straight forward.

Task 1: Pull down athlete's pants.
Task 2. Check if there is a penis.
Task 3. Check qualifying times against other's of the same gender.

I think there should be a white games, for white athletes to compete in track events and a white only NBL. Black people have a physical advantage, and women get their own events so why cant white men.

I unashamedly admit I don't get it r0bert. Why when there are plenty of examples of sexism does the author find the need to gild the lily with spurious tales and distortions and outright fallacies. I suppose it's an institutionalised habit of career feminists.

I cant for the life of me understand why, say for example, if 5% of women have been raped, or suffered domestic violence, feminists twist and contort statistics and manipulate definitions to claim 6% is the real figure, and even further add claims about a further 'hidden', or unreported element.

Why isn't it bad enough that 5% suffer. Why are the forever keen to sabotage their own arguments and taint their cause by inflating their arguments and using statistics nefariously.

I know I'm not up on the legal stuff to the extent that you and R0bert are, Houellebecq – I used to think a barrister was the person who produced a cup of coffee by telling a solicitor to do it – but I wonder if Dr Scutt approaches the world from an overly legal perspective?

For example… Everyone is 'eligible to be a woman' (cf. Loretta in 'Life of Brian'; "It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.") but of course not everyone is. The judgement being based on successfully passing the eligibility criteria.

Your straightforward test would have to be modified to prevent allegations of sexual harassment but could also be completed in two steps (the second only, being required for articles like this):

Task 1. Request athlete to pull down their pants.
Task 2. Check if there are any distortions or outright fallacies.

'Why isn't it bad enough that 5% suffer. Why are the forever keen to sabotage their own arguments and taint their cause by inflating their arguments and using statistics nefariously. '

How else will they continue to justify funding for the feminist cause all be it destructive.

An 85% majority of men requiring a woman to pull down her pants to prove she’s a women is criminal sexual harassment.

Well at least the "girls" could make an effort to fit in.

All those lady swimmers & divers, could at least wear the same competition outfit as the blokes. Hipster speedos for all I say.

We could just resurrect the ancient Greek tradition of having all the athletes compete wearing only olive oil.

Cheers,

Tony

Modesty prevents me from correcting you Tony... but you might wish to google the word 'kynodesme'.

No doubt in this day and age someone would, though, be able to come up with a method by which it could be applied to all competitors.

Re female canoeing at the Olympics. Ms Scutt is correct in saying there are no female canoeing events at the Olympics. The female events are actually kayak events, not canoe events. The term ‘Canoe Slalom’ is a misnomer, as it is technically a kayak race.

Kayaks require a double-bladed paddle and the rower has their feet out in front. Canoes require a single-bladed paddle and the paddler takes a semi-kneeling position. The Wikipedia page on Canoeing also backs up Ms Scutt’s claim that it is (as yet) a male-only Olympic sport.

http://www.london2012.com/canoe-sprint/photos/event=canoe-sprint-canoe-single-200m-men/pictures.html#qiang-china-competes-the-men-canoe-single-200m-sprint-heats

Having said that, however, it’s too nitpicky a point to back up Ms Scutt’s claims of deliberate Olympic sexism. I suspect it's more a case of the Olympic committee not yet catching up with the need to hold a women's competition.

Poirot: ‘Btw - volleyball costume reflects beach costume. Women get around in next to nothing and men wear baggy boardies.’

That’s a bit of a long bow, especially considering that many women at the beach wear one-pieces and rash tops and many men wear budgie smugglers. And how does the application of social context apply to women’s Olympic track and field costumes, which have fallen into an alarming sexist double standard since the 1990s? The women’s T&F uniforms are all skintight and show as much arse, midriff, thighs and navels as possible, while the men’s are much looser, with a lot more body and leg coverage.

If this bra-and-panties costuming of women’s T&F competitors were all about increasing performance, then the men would wear them too. Also, women’s and men’s T&F costumes were pretty much the same in the 1980s and 1990s, but have recently diverged to the current women’s style in the last 10 years. There’s a good overview of the issue here:

http://hoydenabouttown.com/20060830.13/if-bare-midriffs-and-short-shorts-really-made-athletes-run-faster/

(WARNING: The above link contains feminist content. Viewing by sneering patriarchal dudes in denial is not recommended.)

Oops! The 'bra and panties' adjective went in the wrong place in the above post, due to a last-second edit. It should have gone into the next sentence, before 'women's style'.

Normally I don't do typo-error alerts, but this is one case in which an exception is needed if I'm to avoid invoking a deluge of hooting and sniggering.

I dunno, Killarney.

Are women compelled to wear that gear - or are they free to cover up more if they wish?

I know the MailOnline is not a 'journal of record' and James Nye follows the house style, but at least some of the athletes involved are quoted:

"Good news - the U.S. women's Olympic beach volleyball team has no intention of covering up in London - despite new rules which allow them to.

…they have chosen to remain in their skimpy crop-tops and bikini bottoms.

'We're not uncomfortable in our bikinis,' said team member Jen Kessy.

…Olympic officials have allowed a change to the dress code in the famously popular sport, to accommodate the religious concerns of nations who have reservations about women wearing little clothing on the beach.

And in addition, the changes to the official uniform of tight bikini's reflect the changeable nature of the British weather, which can become cold despite it being the height of summer.

…U.S team members reaffirmed their love of their minimalist beach gear.

'This is the most comfortable thing for us to wear,' said Kessy to the New York Post. 'We can style our bikinis however we want. They can be bigger or smaller. If it is cold, we will put clothes on. But we won't be playing in shorts. For us, that's not comfortable. You get sand everywhere in the pockets.

'But for others, it's now their choice.'

…Despite their own personal preferences, the U.S. Olympic team has declared their support for anyone to wear what they want while competing during the games.

'We want women of all different religions to be able to play our sport,' said Kessy.

'And to not be able to play because of the gear is not OK.'"

In a poor attempt at evenhandedness one of the sidebar linked articles is titled "Diving for his dreams: after a wobbly start Tom Daley JUST qualifies at 10m platform (but at least he still looks good in his trunks)"

>>And how does the application of social context apply to women’s Olympic track and field costumes, which have fallen into an alarming sexist double standard since the 1990s? The women’s T&F uniforms are all skintight and show as much arse, midriff, thighs and navels as possible, while the men’s are much looser, with a lot more body and leg coverage.<<

>>Are women compelled to wear that gear - or are they free to cover up more if they wish?<<

Do all women have dodgy long-term memory when it comes to sport or just you two? At the Sydney 2000 Olympics the women's 400m final was won by a woman dressed as a condom. That woman happened to be Cathy Freeman and there was quite a lot of media hype around the win - there's no way you could have missed it. I'm surprised you don't remember it.

She must have had some reason for the fancy dress and I'm confident that it's not because she is a devout Muslim. Maybe it was meant to be more aerodynamic or some-such - but not so aerodynamic that the officials thought it provided an unfair advantage or she wouldn't have been allowed to wear it. My guess would be that other female athletes are allowed to wear similar garments but in most cases just choose not to.

Cheers,

Tony

Well, der, Tony Lavis...

My question: - " Are women compelled to wear that gear - or are they free to cover up more if they wish?" - was to highlight that very fact.

I think most women are happy competing in a minimum of clothing.

When female athletes pose for Ralph magazine and bang on about their virginty on Twitter, wear the skimpiest gear possible etc, it's all about their branding, trying to get more funds. Even Magnussen would have a gold medal if he shaved his designer stubble.

Women have turned tennis into a fashion parade, and are able to get more money in endorsements than actually playing. Exhibit A, A.Kournikova.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/05/commentary/column_sportsbiz/anna/

But it's a victim feminists job to decide for women that they are victims of society for their choices in brand management. If only those nasty men would support women's sport and spend their money on Cathy Freeman's favourite deodorant, when women don't even support sport at all.

So if women decide to use their looks to get more funding, with the result their sporting achievements receive less focus, it's all society's fault, or , more accurately, the nasty men's fault for finding women attractive.

I have as much sympathy as I do for hollywood media-whore starlet that 'just wishes she could have some privacy', all the while selling the rights to her wedding to the highest bidder, and suddenly talking about her latest romance exclusive the week before her latest film comes out.

Tony, I'm sure the feminists would say that 'Nike made her do it', not that Cathy chose to wear what would earn her lots of money. See, it's all a conspiracy, the nasty mens like to see skin hugging outfits, so they kept her in perpetual 'financial bondage'.

Enough men like to watch men for their achievements in athleticism, the fastest times in the world. Enough men like to see female flesh and be vaguely interested in a bit of a contest which is never quite as fast as that of the men.

Enough women are happy to see men tastefully clothed leaving a bit to the imagination while they play their silly games, and like to see women athletes dressed fashionably so they can bitch about their choices and whether they're shagging Kobe Bryant.

PS: I'm convinced more athletes cry these days since celebrity endorsements.

Poirot: ‘I think most women are happy competing in a minimum of clothing.’

Really?

Is that why Australia’s Opals have successfully lobbied since the Beijing Olympics for a change of uniforms from the skimpy, figure-hugging body suit to the looser, body-covering uniforms worn by the men?

And is that behind Anna Meares’ crack to Sally Pearson in a televised interview during the London Olympics about competing ‘in your underwear’?

And I suppose that completely contradicts the 2006 Senate Committee report that revealed many young women drop out of competitive sports because of the skimpy uniforms they are mandated to wear at local and elite level.

And I suppose it’s why sports competition dress code rules have to spell out in minute detail the mandatory differences in male and female attire for each sport. For example, in the case of beach volleyball (Olympics dress codes, Section 24.2, 1984) ‘the bottom of men’s shorts must … finish a minimum of 15 cm above the knee’ and women’s briefs must be ‘cut on an upward angle towards the top of the leg’.

I think it's more a case of women being 'happy' not to be kicked off the squad for refusing to comply with mandatory dress codes. Until the overt and covert pressures are removed from women athletes to compete in skimpy attire, e.g. because of discriminatory dress codes, double-standard sponsorships, media perve factors, fear of ‘wowser’ labelling etc, we have no real way of knowing how many of them would actually prefer to cover up a bit more.

Killarney,

I'll have to own up to being rather ignorant of the various sporting dress-codes for women (and men). Thanks for the info. It would be interesting to know how the "skimpy" rules came about in the first place.

'I think it's more a case of women being 'happy' not to be kicked off the squad for refusing to comply with mandatory dress codes. '

I think it's more a case of women wanting more funding and better sponsorship deals. It all goes back to my argument, that to even break even, women must show flesh. Why? Because women don't support their sports. As men don't get floor space in Westfields because they don't support fashion.

'Until the overt and covert pressures are removed from women athletes to compete in skimpy attire, e.g. because of discriminatory dress codes, double-standard sponsorships, media perve factors, fear of ‘wowser’ labelling etc,'

Oh the pressure of million dollar sponsorship deals! The horror!

Until women start paying for bums on seats, ie these days bums on couches, watching sport on TV, their sport stars and the organisers of womens events will have to attempt to fund the sport via men's attraction to women.

If it rated on the Tele, there would be advertising revenue, and women would have the power to set their own dress codes. But the girlz let them down, being as they are more interested in reality TV and soaps.

In this media age, brave men of the world, the cricket traditionalists have refused the commercialisation of their whites, with the small sacrifice of the odd badge here or there.

See, its up to the individual how much they will sacrifice their values for money. While Venus Williams intimidates and pushes the boundaries away from traditional tennis clothes to sell her fashion wares, the cricketers have attempted to keep advertisers at bay. Think of the derogatory 'pyjama cricket' phrase.

Women would do well to support the noble cricketers, standing up for their principles, sacrificing sponsorship dollars to keep their whites, in this short attention span corporate world, in the only true test of skill and endurance, over 5 days!

How many brave women have the guts to compete over 5 days, getting their whites all grass-stained.

I'm annoyed at not thinking of a way to make this post an entertaining read. But…

I've just been going through the Official Beach Volleyball Rules 2009-2012 of The Federation Internationale de Volleyball…

http://www.fivb.org/EN/BeachVolleyball/Rules/bvrb0912_forweb_EN.pdf

Section 5.1.1 says "A player's equipment consists of shorts or a bathing suit. A jersey or "tank top" is optional except when specified in Tournament Regulations. Players may wear a hat."

Section 5.1.2 says. "For FIVB World Competitions players of a given team must wear uniforms of the same colour and style, according to tournament regulations."

The only discriminatory rule I can find is section 2.4 where "The height of the net shall be 2.43 m for men and 2.24 m for women." The lower net heights for people 16 years and under do not discriminate between males and females.

The International Association of Athletics Federations Competition Rules 2012 – 2013…

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/06/28/26/62826_PDF_English.pdf

Mentions this in Rule 138: "The Call Room Judges shall ensure that athletes are wearing the national or Club uniform clothing officially approved by their national governing body, that the bibs are worn correctly and correspond with start lists, that shoes, number and dimension of spikes, advertising on clothing and athletes’ bags comply with the Rules and Regulations and that unauthorised material is not taken into the arena."

Rule 142 starts: "In all events, athletes must wear clothing which is clean, and designed and worn so as not to be objectionable. The clothing must be made of a material which is non-transparent even if wet."

The next sentence made me laugh: "Athletes must not wear clothing which could impede the view of the Judges."

The judge's view of what exactly, is not clarified!

I may have missed something in 287 pages but that's it for the IAAF's rules on uniforms and I couldn't find any discriminatory dress codes.

At least we're starting to rule out any regulatory discrimination at an international organisation level.

I seem to recall a certain Ozzie lady 400 Meters runner winning gold in a full body suit, including hood. It would probably have fulfilled muslim requirements.

I don't give a damn what outfit they wear, but if they want my taxes to support their effort, the swimmers had better do a better job of enabling me to pick them out, when they are racing. This business of some wearing a yellow cap, & some in some probably designer thing of almost white, with a bit of green & yellow that could not be seen is not good enough.

This is particularly important with the "B" grade commentator, who was more interested in reciting his research of someones past glories, than calling a race. Perhaps channel 9 should try contracting some horse race callers. They at least should be able to tell us what's happening in a 8 starter field.

Bouquets to the sailors, rowers canoeists [kayakers], & the track & field, & cyclists, who we could pick out of the crowd.

Wm Trevor

The dress codes for women’s beach volleyball – requiring them to wear high cut bikini briefs with no more than 6 cm width at the sides – were strictly enforced for the Sydney Olympics and also at the Athens Olympics (but I can’t find the official code for Beijing).

However, both the FIVB and the IOC relaxed the beach volleyball rules for the London Olympics late last year and earlier this year respectively. This was mainly in response to protests from Muslim and other nations with more modest dress codes, which claimed women who could not wear the designated outfits for cultural or religious reasons were effectively banned from competition.

While this is something of a hollow victory for Western feminism, it does at least give Western women more cultural premission to cover up more, without the usual accusations of feminist wowserism or expectations to kowtow to the perve factor to get sponsorship.

And on the topic of more relaxed beach volleyball dress rules, check out this pic of the beach volleyball match between Australia and USA on 7 August. So much for women wanting to wear as little clothing as possible when given a choice … or perhaps it was just a very cold day!

http://www.enstarz.com/articles/5027/20120807/womens-beach-volleyball-olympics-2012-aug-7-will-there-be-a-team-usa-vs-team-usa-final-matchup-live-stream.htm

Killarney,

That's hilarious.....wow they covered up their upper body!

.....but their lower body costume doesn't convince me they they're in any hurry to "cover up" to stop the perves.

(maybe it was only cold above the three foot mark)

It's kind of you, Killarney to repeat, for the benefit of people who may have overlooked them, points I made on page one – specifically the changes to rules that have been part of enabling women athletes from repressive regimes to attend international competition.

To reciprocate, I'll quote one of your sentences from Saturday: "Having said that, however, it’s too nitpicky a point to back up Ms Scutt’s claims of deliberate Olympic sexism."

So we seemed to share agreement with my sentence above: "At least we're starting to rule out any regulatory discrimination at an international organisation level." But…

I don't pretend to share your point that "this is something of a hollow victory for Western feminism".

Since I can't for the life of me regard Western women in general – and internationally competitive women athletes in particular – as so lacking in feck as to be incapable of achieving whatever victory they decide they need to.

Poirot

Check the pic again. The two women in the background are the Australian team and they're both covered neck to ankle.

Wm Trevor

'I can't for the life of me regard Western women in general ... as so lacking in feck as to be incapable of achieving whatever victory they decide they need to.'

Probably because you vastly underestimate both patriarchal intransigence and the degree to which Western women have been brainwashed to believe that sexual objectification is liberating. Without all the recent pressure from the 'modest' dressing countries, I'm sure the bra-and-pantysising of women's sports uniforms would have continued unimpeded.

And btw, thanks for teaching me a new word. I hadn't come across 'feck' before. (That is ... assuming it's not a typo.)

Killarney,

Right you are.

I still find it telling that the US team chose to strut their volleyball ability in brief bikinis...even stranger that they chose such a comprehensive covering for the top and next to nothing for the bottom.

Still, it will be interesting to see how the trend goes in the next decade or so regarding women's sporting attire.

As to "feck" - it's quite a beauty. I know it from watching "Father Ted". Perhaps it originated in Ireland.

We're all doomed to perceive the world based on our own experiences, Killarney, and I can only reassure you that mine has been that intransigence is very much gender neutral – but if I "underestimate… the degree to which Western women have been brainwashed to believe that sexual objectification is liberating" it's because those I know are too self-aware of such a process and too smart to have been so.

No, not a typo… Mostly only appears as feckless these days – Scottish origin I believe; 'worth, value, effect'. Thank you for pantysising – amusing and multifunctional. I think I'll use it as in: the delusion of anyone who thinks their bum doesn't look big in skintight jeans.