The Daily of the University of Washington

Record-holding ski jumper benched due to gender


View this day's paper in PDF
View this day's paper in PDF

Lindsey Van is one of the best ski jumpers in the world. She set the normal-hill world record on the Olympic ski jumps in Whistler, British Columbia, and won first place in the women’s ski jumping event when it debuted at the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships last year. At 25 years old, she is likely at the peak of her athletic career and would be a favorite going into this year’s Olympic Games in Vancouver, British Columbia, if it weren’t for one major obstacle: her gender.

Despite the fact that ski jumping has been an Olympic sport since the very first Winter Olympic Games in 1924 and the fact that female ski jumpers have actively petitioned to be included in the games since the Nagano Olympics in 1998, there will be no female ski jumping event in Vancouver this year.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) contends that the reason why ski jumping remains the only Olympic sport from which women are excluded is not a matter of sexual discrimination. They claim that the women’s version of ski jumping lacks the size, universal appeal and history of world championships that is required of Olympic sports. If the fact sheet on their official Web site is any indication, the ladies of the Visa U.S. Women’s Ski Jumping Team aren’t buying it. The page attacks the IOC’s allegations point by point, citing that, “in 2009, more than 160 women from 18 nations were registered with FIS as elite ski jumpers.”

The disturbing truth is that there is no good reason why the IOC has chosen to exclude female ski jumpers from the Vancouver games. Female jumpers use the same jumps that men use, are scored according to very similar technical criteria, and have accumulated the numbers and support necessary for the success of their sport.

We always think of the Olympics as an event that celebrates equality, that brings people of all nations together. But if you’re a fan of ski jumping, you know there’s a whole host of willing athletes who aren’t allowed on the slopes.

Even more troubling is that the women have the law on their side.

According to wsj2010.com, which bears a petition endorsed by and in support of elite female ski jumpers, “in Canada, it is against federal and provincial law for the government to use public funds for venues that exclude women.” So, last April, Van and nine other female ski jumpers decided to pursue their rights in court.

Time magazine reports that the women “sued the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) for violating [Canada’s] ban on gender discrimination.” The all-male ski jumping events in Vancouver clearly exclude capable female athletes, so “The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled … [that] the IOC’s decision did qualify as gender discrimination.”

Unfortunately, the British Columbia Supreme Court also said that VANOC “had no authority to tell [the IOC] which sports they could and could not include.” This essentially gave the female jumpers confirmation that, yes, they are being discriminated against, but left them with no recourse whatsoever.

Given that the Olympics are already under way, the female ski jumpers of the world have no choice but to keep trying. One hopes that another four years spent training, promoting and petitioning for their cause will put the necessary pressure on the IOC, and that female ski jumpers will eventually get an equal chance to compete on the global stage.

Reach columnist Rebecca Kuensting at opinion@dailyuw.com.



14 Comments

#1 Mike Jones!

on February 17, 2010 at 9:20 p.m.

This article doesn't say if she's hot. If she's hot, she should jump. She should jump naked onto my face!

#2 Just sayin...

on February 17, 2010 at 9:28 p.m.

I don't get the idea of women's sports. Women's sports are like men's sports but with inferior atheletes? Are they like, "hey, let's create a sport for atheletes to compete in and then create the exact same sport for people who suck at sports compared to those athletes."

It would be like starting a league of basketball for short people, except short people don't need to get home to oook me some fried chicken.

Just sayin.

#3 Carl McJarL

on February 17, 2010 at 9:36 p.m.

The only thing worse than women's sports where they stay clothed is the 19th amendment.

What's up with that by the way? Were they like, "hey, since we've been electing pretty decent presidents for the last hundred years or so, let's see what happens when we replace intelligence with handsome features."

#4 Brian_Cox

on February 17, 2010 at 9:48 p.m.

Well written article, Rebecca! I completely support you.

#5 Ariel W.

on February 17, 2010 at 10:43 p.m.

@Just sayin: Are you serious? Women are better than men at some sports, like running and swimming. See this article if you want examples: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0240.htm Regardless of times, don't forget that sports were designed by men for men to value male bodies. Look at American football for an example. And men's sport teams typically get more funding and sponsorships. Maybe if we had more opportunities and encouragement and designed our own sports, we wouldn't "suck."

The only thing more appalling than Van being denied the right to compete is the first three sexist responses to this article. And people think sexism is over?

#6 Sexism is over

on February 17, 2010 at 11:11 p.m.

Ariel. Very, very good points. What that sexist bastard said was uncalled for. Now, that fried chicken ain't gonna cook itself, sweetie...

#7 Sexism is over

on February 17, 2010 at 11:11 p.m.

Ariel. Very, very good points. What that sexist bastard said was uncalled for. Now, that fried chicken ain't gonna cook itself, sweetie...

#8 Sean

on February 18, 2010 at 1:02 a.m.

To the sexist comments by two male posters, feel free to join us when you advance past amusing yourselves by making fart noises with your arm pits and thinking sexism is the same as free speech.

#9 Sean's girlfriend is going to dump him

on February 18, 2010 at 10:09 a.m.

Sean:

Hey, you showed me! The reason you don't get laid is because you try to substitute hyper-inflated interest in women's issues for a lack of a sense of humor. When you try to parrallel their outrage by using meaningless terms like "sexist," you misunderstand that they don't want you to be a sychophant. They want you to present them with a challenge, debate them, and to tease them about their politics. I have tested this theory a lot. Let me just say that I have never met a feminist worth sleeping with who wouldn't sleep with me because I said sexist things. And I have slept with a lot of feminists.

As for fart noises with my armpit, I've never been able to do that for some reason. But let me also say that I've never been turned down for sex for farting around a woman. The more adolescently I laugh after farting the better it comes off, too. Behind that facade of offense, they're realizing that 1) you're masculine, 2) you're confident enough to fart around a woman, 3) you're not intimidated by her.

Of course sexism isn't the same thing as free speech, genius. Free speech is statement about the law and enforcement of the law, whereas sexism is a subject matter protected by free speech.

Good luck out there buddy. Let me know when you're done kissing that chick's ass because she's interested in me.

#10 Matthew Z.

on February 18, 2010 at 10:34 a.m.

Thar be be trolls in dem hills.

Seriously everyone, ignore the sexists after this point. They are just trying to get us riled up and are distracting us from the article.

#11 ???

on February 18, 2010 at 3:17 p.m.

By "benched due to gender" do you mean, "there was never an event for her at the Olympics in the first place?"

That's like saying "World Record-holding headstander benched due to ethincity."

#12 Brian_Cox

on February 18, 2010 at 4:14 p.m.

Being a bit flourishing with your language and imagery is pretty acceptable when writing an opinion piece. This isn't a news story. It's a slant.

So, nitpicking over accuracy isn't needed here.

The intent of her piece is still very well communicated. There is no reason to single out these athletes for sexist rejection. Let them compete!

#13 Jim McHolt

on February 18, 2010 at 4:22 p.m.

If it wasn't for complaining about the sexist comments, you people wouldn't have anything to write about.

#14 MarcKS

on February 19, 2010 at 8:22 a.m.

The easy solution for the female ski-jumpers is to lobby to be allowed to compete against the males. Since there is no equivalent female competition the IOC would be forced by those same sexual discimination laws to allow the female jumpers to compete for gold... just against the men.


Post a comment

Name:



Login to verify your name

Email:


Required, but not shown.

Comment: