As someone else said, it’s her religion discriminating against the sport. It’s very similar to The Boy Scouts and their “no gays” rule. It’s a private club, you aren’t mandated to join, you don’t have the right to join. If you agree to abide by the rules you are welcome to join and participate. Same with OL.
I’m not against promoting tolerance and understanding in all areas, but we don’t need to homogenize society and bend the rules for everybody. I went to dinner not long ago at an Orthodox Jew’s home. There was no cream for the coffee during dessert because we had meat for dinner. What was I going to do, pitch a fit and ask him to break his faith to cater to my comfort? No. I respected his beliefs and traditions and drank it black. BFD.
Strength (see what I did there) comes form diversity. You’re only as strong as your weakest part.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
As a non-religious person I see it as the same thing as the what was mentioned in an earlier post about wearing a Santa suit to lift in. I don’t care if he thinks he’s Santa, he can’t wear the suit to compete in! Unless he maybe gets a regulation lifting outfit done in the Santa colours, I’d be okay with that. So maybe they could allow spandex, if that will allow them to tell if she is not wearing anything that is not allowed underneath(?), and she could still be covered.<-I have no idea if just being covered is crazy enough for her.
Meh, I’m really glad I’m not into/born into this religious stuff. 
[/quote]
I can’t tell if this is supposed to be satirical. Spandex lifting burkas? Competing in Santa suits?[/quote]
Muslim lifting girl = Crazy Santa suit guy
If your going to make allowances for crazy people you gotta do it in a crazy way. I was serious about the spandex for the Muslim girl, but I don’t know much about her brand of crazy, so not sure if that would be sufficient for her or if it would be acceptable for the judges either.
*note I think the Muslim girl is crazy not Alexus.
Religion, it’s all craziness to me.
I’m okay with crazy people. As long as they don’t cause trouble, they can be Santa all year long if they want to, not just at Christmas.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
I went to dinner not long ago at an Orthodox Jew’s home. There was no cream for the coffee during dessert because we had meat for dinner.
[/quote]
My God what a nightmare! No cream! You should’ve made him eat his fucking Yarmulke for that one.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Strength (see what I did there) comes form diversity.
[/quote]
Actually that’s a load of liberal bullshit. Strength comes from unity. You know like breaking a single stick as opposed to trying to break a bunch of sticks.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
As someone else said, it’s her religion discriminating against the sport. It’s very similar to The Boy Scouts and their “no gays” rule. It’s a private club, you aren’t mandated to join, you don’t have the right to join. If you agree to abide by the rules you are welcome to join and participate. Same with OL.
[/quote]
I don’t think these are equivalent. Saying “no gays” would be like saying “no muslims” which is wrong IMO (although a private club has the right to be “wrong” if they want).
What is happening here is more the equivalent of the following:
The boy scouts saying gays are welcome (like everyone one else) but that they have to wear the scout uniform (like everyone else).
A gay guy wishes to join but refuses to wear the uniform because it is “hideous” and fashion is important to him.
Scouts say he has to wear the uniform like everyone else if he wants to participate.
Gay guy says its discrimination and makes a big issue out of it.
[quote]alexus wrote:
i wish this were cast as a ‘factors that limit women’s participation in sport’ issue instead of a religious one…
i mean i’m not religious. but i would not participate in volleyball or track and field for that matter in virtue of the clothing that is required. the required clothing isn’t necessary in order to prevent cheating. there are alternative ways of checking. there isn’t any reason that i know of why the elbows and knees shouldn’t be covered for weightlifting any more than for boxing or swimming or basketball or volleyball or whatever…
and so a number of women don’t participate who would otherwise. and that seems to me to be a shame.
i actually found something in australia where some (early teen) guys didn’t want to participate in a weightlifting competition because they didn’t feel comfortable wearing the tight fitted outfit. they let them wear board shorts over the top. it was a local comp so they could do whatever they wanted in that respect. what is wrong with board shorts? why not allow people to compete in outfits that they find comfortable and / or require outfits that are comfortable and modest?
i think it is particularly important for women’s sports since there is an issue already about female athletes being respected as athletes for their abilities rather than being viewed as sex objects. women’s liberation… why shouldn’t females be free to compete in a way that is free from being sexually objectified by the male gaze?
the women who was covered… is about the only picture i’ve seen of a female oly lifter where people haven’t made comments about ‘i’d hit it’ or ‘omfg what a hideous beast’. i do feel sometimes that traditional muslim dress is about the only way for women to dress to be taken seriously as people these days… especially in the gym. pretty sad, huh.
don’t mind me… the gym morons been getting to me…
[/quote]
A singlet is hardly “sexual” attire. It’s exactly the same thing the men wear. I don’t think this applies here at all. If a women has a problem with this, then IMO the issue is her’s not society’s.
Strength (see what I did there) comes form diversity.
[/quote]
Actually that’s a load of liberal bullshit. Strength comes from unity. You know like breaking a single stick as opposed to trying to break a bunch of sticks.[/quote]
It does smell of “liberal bullshit”, but my point is that with so many diverse types of people in our country and world, if we try to accentuate positive attributes everyone can benefit. Maybe it’s just tolerance.
JSYK, I’m only liberal in that I don’t give a fuck what anybody else does, so long as it doesn’t impact me or my loved ones. More Libertarian, in the old way, not the new Tea Party Liber-tard way.
Yargh!
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
As someone else said, it’s her religion discriminating against the sport. It’s very similar to The Boy Scouts and their “no gays” rule. It’s a private club, you aren’t mandated to join, you don’t have the right to join. If you agree to abide by the rules you are welcome to join and participate. Same with OL.
[/quote]
I don’t think these are equivalent. Saying “no gays” would be like saying “no muslims” which is wrong IMO (although a private club has the right to be “wrong” if they want).
What is happening here is more the equivalent of the following:
The boy scouts saying gays are welcome (like everyone one else) but that they have to wear the scout uniform (like everyone else).
A gay guy wishes to join but refuses to wear the uniform because it is “hideous” and fashion is important to him.
Scouts say he has to wear the uniform like everyone else if he wants to participate.
Gay guy says its discrimination and makes a big issue out of it.[/quote]
OK, that’s just funny!
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I’m okay with crazy people.
[/quote]
So you’re okay with me then?
[/quote]
Of course! Crazy can be entertaining.
the boy scouts have a no gay rule? well… that simply is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
i think this case is different from the santa suit case because the headscarf is a cultural item.
cultural traditions often appear crazy when they are not our own cultural traditions…
what is the olympics supposed to be about? i thought it was about different people from different cultures coming together to celebrate sport. banning headscarfs (and having clothing rules where the elbows and knees aren’t to be covered) EVEN WHEN this is part of the cultural tradition of many women and there there are safe alternatives that don’t impact positively or negatively on sporting performance seems to me to be against the general spirt of the olympics.
it limits women’s participation in sport. there are more than enough factors going on already that limit it…
women are free to wear next to nothing in america… but seems that women aren’t free to wear headscarf and cover their elbows and knees. don’t people find that odd?
[quote]alexus wrote:
EVEN WHEN this is part of the cultural tradition of many women and there there are safe alternatives that don’t impact positively or negatively on sporting performance seems to me to be against the general spirt of the olympics.
[/quote]
You keep saying this, but you literally have no idea how it affects judging, so you’re really just making it up. Again, I’ll make the point that bare elbows are almost certainly make judging press-outs easier. As someone who does the lifts, I think you know this to be true, but you’re glossing over it because you’re set on making this a women’s rights issue.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]alexus wrote:
EVEN WHEN this is part of the cultural tradition of many women and there there are safe alternatives that don’t impact positively or negatively on sporting performance seems to me to be against the general spirt of the olympics.
[/quote]
You keep saying this, but you literally have no idea how it affects judging, so you’re really just making it up. Again, I’ll make the point that bare elbows are almost certainly make judging press-outs easier. As someone who does the lifts, I think you know this to be true, but you’re glossing over it because you’re set on making this a women’s rights issue.[/quote]
Agreed. Plus, the men WEAR EXACTLY THE SAME THING so how exactly can this be a women’s rights issue? The IWF isn’t the organization that is creating a double standard between women and men.
[quote]alexus wrote:
women are free to wear next to nothing in america… but seems that women aren’t free to wear headscarf and cover their elbows and knees. don’t people find that odd?[/quote]
Women are free to wear a headscarf and cover their elbows and knees in America.
Yeah I don’t see it as a women’s rights issue at all, or an issue of cultural intolerance. If you could make a convincing argument that the rules are unnecessary, then there would be reason to believe the rules should be removed (for everyone) but otherwise, I think it’s a non-issue.
Besides, sexual objectification is inherent to a misogynist culture, not to the wardrobes of the women in it. Both American culture and cultures where veils and coverings are prevalent are overflowing with misogyny and the wardrobes, skimpy and non, are BOTH manifestations of its influence. Adding or removing clothing from has zero impact on misogyny or removing the excessive sexualization, objectification or the subsequent degradation of women. I recently saw a shitty comment on a youtube video of Sage Burgener demonstrating lifts in a baggy t-shirt and baggy sweatpants, for example.
I think what you’re suggesting is that the sexual objectification of women is caused by the women wearing non-modest clothing and that’s looking at it backwards. That’s not to say that if a rule was passed to require all women competitors to wear hooter’s uniforms, that it wouldn’t contribute to a misogynist environment, but uniforms that are neutral of sexualization are just that, neutral and are not sexual in any way, save for a viewer who’s gaze makes it so.
[quote]bcingu wrote:
[quote]zahmad wrote:
It’s a requirement of the faith.[/quote]
Where does the Qur’an mention hijab?[/quote]
It doesn’t. It simply says to dress modestly, for men and women, but fanatical clerics throughout history have spread a perverted interpretation of that line, which is why the sect of islam that calls itself “submission” --ironic, since all Muslims consider themselves “submitters”–is more modern in this regard and not the fanatical bullshit you see on TV.
The problem with Ahmadinejad is that he’s a populist, so giving away land to the poor (the majority of his voters) and using events like the IraniAN women’s soccer team getting DQ’d is just part of the propaganda machine. Par for the course for any police state.
[quote]zahmad wrote:
The Quran does mention hijab using the word “khimar” which means head covering and also says to dress modestly. Some Muslim women may not wear the hijab, and they are human beings with free will and choose to do whatever they want to, but it doesn’t change the requirement in the religion.
Just giving you my understanding, not to debate you/your friend.
[/quote]
I’m not aware of the exact language, but I know the version used by Submitters’s–the one translated by Dr. Khalifa Rashid–does not say that women are required to cover their heads. None of the female Submitters I’ve met have covered their heads.
As with all such texts, I’m sure words have been distorted for so long that to even question the language is an automatic insult to the faithful; it’s impossible to “correct” them, because each person thinks his text is the one true interpretation.
Yet another issue with religion.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
I went to dinner not long ago at an Orthodox Jew’s home. There was no cream for the coffee during dessert because we had meat for dinner.
[/quote]
My God what a nightmare! No cream! You should’ve made him eat his fucking Yarmulke for that one.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Strength (see what I did there) comes form diversity.
[/quote]
Actually that’s a load of liberal bullshit. Strength comes from unity. You know like breaking a single stick as opposed to trying to break a bunch of sticks.[/quote]
Actually, if you Diversified with a steel cable and a carbonfiber rod it would be stronger. You can be unified and diverse.
[quote]debraD wrote:
Yeah I don’t see it as a women’s rights issue at all, or an issue of cultural intolerance. If you could make a convincing argument that the rules are unnecessary, then there would be reason to believe the rules should be removed (for everyone) but otherwise, I think it’s a non-issue.
Besides, sexual objectification is inherent to a misogynist culture, not to the wardrobes of the women in it. Both American culture and cultures where veils and coverings are prevalent are overflowing with misogyny and the wardrobes, skimpy and non, are BOTH manifestations of its influence. Adding or removing clothing from has zero impact on misogyny or removing the excessive sexualization, objectification or the subsequent degradation of women. I recently saw a shitty comment on a youtube video of Sage Burgener demonstrating lifts in a baggy t-shirt and baggy sweatpants, for example.
I think what you’re suggesting is that the sexual objectification of women is caused by the women wearing non-modest clothing and that’s looking at it backwards. That’s not to say that if a rule was passed to require all women competitors to wear hooter’s uniforms, that it wouldn’t contribute to a misogynist environment, but uniforms that are neutral of sexualization are just that, neutral and are not sexual in any way, save for a viewer who’s gaze makes it so.
[/quote]
This is a great point because I read an article about Sweden (may have been Finland) being the “greatest country for a woman to live in,” in terms of average career potential for females and famous women, celebrities and in the corporate world…and I’m damn there are quite a few sexy women–who even dress sexy–in that country.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
I went to dinner not long ago at an Orthodox Jew’s home. There was no cream for the coffee during dessert because we had meat for dinner.
[/quote]
My God what a nightmare! No cream! You should’ve made him eat his fucking Yarmulke for that one.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Strength (see what I did there) comes form diversity.
[/quote]
Actually that’s a load of liberal bullshit. Strength comes from unity. You know like breaking a single stick as opposed to trying to break a bunch of sticks.[/quote]
Actually, if you Diversified with a steel cable and a carbonfiber rod it would be stronger. You can be unified and diverse. [/quote]
True to the extent that the steel cable and carbon fiber rod would have to have shared values with the sticks, live in peace with them, adopt the customs and moral standards of the sticks and basically be patriotic sticks.
Just quietly, wouldn’t there also be a problem with her having to lift her skirt to belly button height while someone watched her pee into a cup?
I recall when a boxer converted and was unable to comply with drug testing since another man viewing his genitals was immodest. He asked to be allowed to turn around to urinate while the drug testing official watched. It didn’t fly, and he got banned.