First we had Ian Thorpe who was popularly known as the ‘Thorpedo’. At this year’s Olympics it has been James ‘The Missile’ Magnussen and the 4 x 100m men’s swim team being dubbed the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. To say nothing of the numerous headlines including phrases such as ‘fails to launch’, ‘settle a score’, ‘battle’ ‘bravery’ ‘warriors’ or the ‘new weapon in the swimming pool’. Flicking through the sports pages of today’s newspaper, there is ‘a fight ahead’, someone is going to ‘lead the charge,’ and another has ‘battled the brigade’. To say nothing of the ‘shootout’, athletes ‘imploding’, others having a ‘showdown’ or a ‘surrender’ and medal winners nicknamed the ‘pistols’.

The use of military terminology in sport is not new. The sporting arena has been termed a battleground on endless occasions. However, it seems to be particularly during the Olympics when the usage of military metaphors and similes escalates to an inescapable level.

So does it matter? Well, in a word, yes. One only has to look back to the infamous Olympic games in Berlin in 1936, and the use of sport by the Hitler regime to make a point about Aryan superiority to know that it does. Hitler saw sport as a training ground for military recruiting and a way of feeding a nationalistic fervour. However, despite its use by a much-reviled figure, the use of military terminology in sport has nevertheless been accepted as the norm.

                           
 

Using such terminology on a daily basis makes the horrors of real war somehow seem less horrific. The normalising of military terms through the sports pages desensitises us to the outcomes of war. We become so habituated to reading how an athlete destroyed his foes that when we read the same language in the world news pages we are already immune to the impact those words would otherwise have. War can be viewed as a game, like the sports that share its language, making it seem less real and less serious. We can forget that the conquering that happens on the real war fronts, often involving the deaths of civilians, and of women and children, as well as of soldiers, are ones that involve real deaths not temporary sporting ones. Real wars do not have entertainment value. Having a battle reported on the back pages of the newspaper makes the far-away battle of page 12 seem ordinary, acceptable.

Another problem with the use of this terminology is that it encourages a violent macho culture in sport, with admiration of aggression in sport, of combative attitudes. These seem to be far removed from one of the fundamental principles of Olympism, as stated in the Olympic Charter in force as of 8 July 2011 (available on the website) that ‘The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.’ The aim of cooperative participation in sport, the ‘spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play’, also espoused in the charter, are undermined by the military terms that are constantly used in sports reporting which is the language of winners and losers and is not about participation.

This language elevates winners and makes winning the top goal whereas we know that in real war everyone is a loser and many losses are irretrievable. The simplicity of the sporting analogy enables us to mistakenly think that only winning counts and that losing is not an option, thereby feeding the philosophy that underpins governments’ continued participation in wars. The national pride attached to winning in sport is out of proportion to its real value, but it stimulates national pride and facilitates a similar desire to win on the real arena of real war where people die. Being labelled a ‘loser’ is almost the worst insult you can throw at someone and this disgust about losing supports continued military participation in world conflicts.

So as Australia contemplates its tally of medals at these Olympics, far less than the number anticipated, expect retribution. There will be consequences, including a lot more money to be fuelled into elite sport (at the expense of money for community participation in sport.) After all, no-one wants to be a loser, do they?

By: Danielle Binks 

Last week Chris Berg wrote a fantastic opinion piece called ‘Let the cult begin’, his take on the symbolism, fundamentalism, militarism and fascism behind the Olympic Games. But he left off sexism.

The Ancient Olympic Games, first recorded in 776 BC, had only male competitors and it wasn’t until the 1900 Paris Games that women were first allowed to compete (and even then only in ‘feminine’ sports like equestrian, tennis and croquet). If you think that things have improved since Ancient Greek times though, think again.

With only a month until the London Olympics were to commence, Saudi Arabian officials released a statement saying they would permit female qualifiers to compete at the Games – the first time in their history. Before 2012, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Brunei were the only three countries to never allow women to compete in the Olympics.

More and more people have been writing about sexism in the modern Olympic Games, and for London 2012 the criticism began before the first starting pistol even went off.

Scrutiny started in Australia back in March, when Channel Nine (the official broadcaster of the Games) released their line-up of commentators. It was all the familiar faces for Nine; Ken Sutcliffe, Cameron Williams, Karl Stefanovic, Eddie McGuire and Mark Nicholas with the only female representative being Leila McKinnon (who also happens to be the wife of Channel Nine CEO, David Gyngell). Peter Bannan, in his opinion piece, made a point of listing the many qualified female journalists who could have comfortably slotted into Olympics coverage for Channel Nine. And many more pointed out that Karl Stefanovic and Eddie McGuire were not particularly qualified to commentate on the Games anyway.

Social Media has become a new battleground for Olympians, and no doubt a headache for their PR teams. Women seem to be the biggest targets of online trolls, and the jibes have been typically sexist;

And even more sexist outrage started to trickle through as Australian athletes made their way to London. Much was made of the fact that the Australian women’s basketball team flew to London in premium economy class, while our men’s basketball team flew business. This, despite the fact that the women’s basketball team, The Opals, have won more gold (and were taller!) than their male counterparts, The Boomers. This story was rife with metaphor and headlines screamed a sexist summary; “Female athletes fly economy, men fly business” (interestingly, the same thing happened with Japan’s national football team).

Social media erupted in #SexistOlympics talk. But when the initial hubbub died down, voices of reason suggested that it simply came down to budget – The Opals had chosen to spend more of their money on training, rather than airline luxury (which may be why they’ve won more medals too!).

Ad-man, Todd Sampson, spoke about this sexist debacle in the first episode of ABC’s ‘Gruen Sweat’ (taking a critical look at Olympics advertising). Sampson wondered if The Opals had the same (or lower) budget than The Boomers, but explained that regardless of budget allocation there was  “… no way you can side-step the sexist aspect of it. I mean, we know from a money perspective and from a popular television sporting perspective, women are certainly second-class citizens.”

That headline – “Female athletes fly economy, men fly business” – seems to be turning into the unofficial underpinning of these Olympic Games, as more and more people express their outrage of, what they consider to be, a very sexist Olympics.

Let’s take a look at the recent media frenzy surrounding Australian swimmer, Leisel Jones. Australian media outlets wanted to open a dialogue about whether or not Jones was prepared for her fourth Olympic games. But the way they went about discussing Jones’s Olympic-readiness was so, so wrong. They posted not one, not two, but fourteen unflattering photos of Jones – taken from various angles (bending over in her bathers – not really a good look for anyone, even on their best day) as well as a number of pics where she looked terrific, but readers were clearly meant to be dismayed at a slight bulge or bump under her t-shirt.

Leaving aside the question “who cares if she is ‘fat’?” what was really bizarre was how many people jumped to the media’s defence – particularly touting the line “it’s not about sexism!”, and explaining that it was meant more as a commentary on her fitness, not image. Those of us who, *gasp*, dared to criticize such blatantly scathing, sexist coverage of one of our female athletes were even accused of overreacting, of being a little bit too precious (the ‘there’s no crying in baseball!’ defence);

One opinion piece pointed out that male athletes receive the same weight-scrutiny, and gave Grant Hackett as a recent swimming example.

Okay. Let’s look at the ‘flab attack’ Hackett received;  

Compare to the pictorial evidence put forward for Jones:

Would you say that’s an equal level of scrutiny?

What is Australia’s preoccupation with the Jones fitness debate? Many people pointed out that such close scrutiny of a female athlete’s image (complete with 14 photos of ‘flab’ evidence!) sent a bad body image message, and it did. But it’s a message that has become part and parcel of the modern Olympic Games. A message that says: it’s not what you do; it’s how you look. Never mind that Leisel Jones has eight Olympic medals to her name, three of them gold. Or that she has secured seven World Championship gold medals and every Commonwealth Games medal that she has won has been gold, all seven of them. Never mind that she must still be ‘fighting fit’ to have qualified for these Olympic Games. No, no – she looks terrible when she bends over in her bathers – she must be put out to pasture.

Sex sells, more’s the pity. In ‘Gruen Sweat’ Todd Sampson also said; “I think most marketing, not all of it, but most marketing tends to portray women, sporting athletes, as sexy rather than talented, which is a shame.” He’s absolutely, unfortunately, right. The marketing of female athletes has become more and more degraded in recent years.

In the lead up to the 2008 Olympic Games, female German athletes posed for Playboy. Katharina Scholz (hockey), Petra Niemann (sailing), Romy Tarangul (judo) and Nicole Reinhardt (canoe) all posed topless for Hugh Hefner’s sexist mag;

                     

Last month Lauryn Mark, Australian women's skeet shooter, posed in a bikini and with a rifle for Zoo Weekly Magazine.

                         

The Olympic motto is Citius, Altius, Fortius, a Latin expression meaning "Faster, Higher, Stronger". But it seems that “Flirtier, Hotter, Sexier” is more the motto for female athletes these days.

Then think on the Olympic creed:
 

The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.
 

Female athletes have fought long and hard to carve a place for themselves in the modern Olympic Games. London 2012 is the first time women from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Brunei have even been permitted to compete! 

Of course there is still much work to be done to eradicate sexism from the Olympic Games. Admittedly a great deal of that work will rely on the media becoming less complacent and sexist in their coverage, but it’s also up to female athletes to realize that their talents are more than skin-deep and commercial-driven. And it’s a matter of appreciating how long and hard the struggle for female representation in the Games has been. Female Olympians should not fetter that hard-won struggle away on Playboy and Zoo covers, nor should the media take it lightly by taking pot-shot pot-belly headlines.

Enough is enough.

A step in the right direction came yesterday, when it was announced that basketball player Lauren Jackson would be the Australian athlete to carry the flag - for the first time in 20 years - at the opening ceremony. It was a nice (overdue) turn of events, after the “Female athletes fly economy, men fly business” headlines – now it’s going to be “Female athlete flies the flag for Australia.”

Now, that’s more like it!