World Cup, pt. 9

yup - this is long - I don't know who reads this anyway, so if you give up in 3 paragraphs, I'll never know.

The next World Cup starts on June 26, 2011 in Germany. Yes, 2011. This will be the 6th cup for women. Germany is the 2-time-in-a-row defender. We have won 2 of the 5; Norway has the other. In comparison to the men, no one is going to be surprised if the US or Germany makes it to the semifinals.

Now this won't be a rant about women's sports getting the short end of the deal with support from their various national sporting associations or governments. I might, but it will be later. And will involve tea sets.

Oh, what the hell, I'll do it now.

I realize that women's sports doesn't have the draw that men's do. It's stupid, but it's reality. I could argue, rather than about women's sports, about gender discrimination in sports in general. Or the down-side to Title IX in sports. The stupidity of society in general about sports.

Oh, what the hell, I don't know where to start.

Tea sets:
In 1989, after winning their 1st UEFA championship, the German National Women's team received a tea set. Not even a really nice one, either. Not even one in black and white with red & gold highlights, or with the Deutsche Fußball Bund logo, or even the ordinary German eagle, not a really modern design, not even a completely goofy one with the pot designed to look like their jerseys. Nope - a quaint, old-fashioned pastel floral design. Yes, in '07 for winning the World Cup, they got a 50,000 € bonus. You can buy a lot of tea sets for 50k €.

Why doesn't American society want to spend the time or money on sports other than the Holy Trinity (basketball, baseball & football)? Ice hockey I understand being a geographically limited sport. The expansion of the NHL has made it more appealing in warmer climates, where they now have easy access to it. E.g. Hurricanes, Coyotes, Stars. I understand, given the already limited audience, the limited opportunity for women to have a pro hockey league. But soccer? Not even men's soccer gets the coverage that the lower-Nielsen-rated NHL does. But why not?

If sports are subsidized by commercial advertising dollars, and these companies want to make more money, I would think the opportunity for yet more commercialization would appeal to them. You would have different companies "sponsoring" the women's teams. Victoria's Secret isn't going to advertise for the NFL; although I don't understand why not. If the point of advertising is to a) get name recognition and b) increase sales, why not try to get the guys to buy sexy stuff for their girlfriends? Or themselves? More women are watching pro sports. Why not appeal to them through this venue? Are these feminine-appeal companies worried about being associated with men's sweat? If advertising at women's sports, are they worried about their name being associated with Brandi Chastain's bra?

Look at the sheer volume of ad dollars spent by Nike & Adidas impacting couch potatoes who aren't going to buy actual sporting gear. These guys are the ones buying ordinary clothes with the little swoop/3-stripes adding 175% to the otherwise expensive item. An activity equally participated in by women.

FIFA's general website is pretty thin for the women's branch. The page for the women's world cup is pathetic. Why can't they at least put more stories there? I'm not expecting the same level of coverage as the men. Afterall, the women don't have as much opportunity for professional play and therefore there is simply less to report. Nevertheless, the "recent news" for tournaments has no stories about the women. Sure, you say, the men's world cup is going on as you type, what do you expect? I expect to have one link - just one! - to the story that the first group of teams has been qualified for the women's tournament next year. If you go to a national teams' page, the "honors" doesn't distinguish between men's and women's. For some reason, I'm sure the Dutch women's team wasn't in the 1924 Olympic finals.

Sexism is pervasive in society. Men's discrimination is generally ignored (who cares?) or refuted (it can't possibly exist) or justified (what goes around comes around & they deserve to see what it's like). Title IX has been a godsend to women's sports opportunities. This is good for general public health**, encouraging participation from a location other than the couch. Of course, long-term spending on public health is all too often considered a waste of time. This is good for men. However,

Colleges/universities eliminating men's teams in order to offer women's sports is equally sexist. Of course, it's equally total bullshit offered to deflect their obscene expenditure on Football and Men's Basketball and blame it on the federal government's 'interference'. It's bullshit offered to blame women. Double-dipping at the discrimination trough - make the men blame the women teams and the women defend their desires to have teams. All the while claiming "but football brings in money that we claim to spend on the educational parts of the university". Without exception I don't believe this. Okay, maybe 10 cents on the dollar goes to education. Because we can't in the same sentence acknowledge that the average football coach makes 5-25x what the average professor makes. (ibid, In 2001 the Gopher's coach made $1,300,000 per year.) Plus maintenance for the stadium, a cost no one mentions in arguing the bond issues for building these stadiums on tax-payer dollars, which must also be kept-up on the taxpayer purse.

Some men's teams get screwed under Title IX; some sit back and reap the benefits of the men's gymnastics team blaming the women's soccer team for lower funding.

The Girls of Summer (review possibly coming out later) is interesting, if not so well written. The title, however, pisses me off. Why can't a publishing house, who wants to publish a book about how women's soccer in the US has struggled against sexism and who presumably wants to market it to a primarily female audience, use the word woman rather than girl? grrrr... How about cover art similar to The Women's Room? Despite the content of the book, does the publisher fear female sports are really seen as ok only for little girls who haven't become real women? Or are they worried about turning off the idiots who still think professional women athletes are all lesbians whose uterus is now incapable of functioning properly? Seriously, I remember hearing b.s. like this when I was in jr. high (i.e., ~1976). Stupidity which fails to match the epic don't go swimming when having your period because it will suck the water up into you. It's not idiocy safely relegated to the 1950s or Terms of Endearment.

Googling Germany+national+women+soccer yields a wikipedia page on the national team, which is actually the men's team. Of course, that page was written likely by a political-idiot American who also states that "Germany" has never technically won the world cup. Implying only West Germany has. Ignoring this is the fact that only the English-speaking world called it "West Germany", and it has since May 23, 1949 always technically been the Federal Republic of Germany, which won the Men's World Cup in 1954 . So, depending on how you choose to look at it, either
a) "Germany" really did win the world cup in 1954 because the team fielded was from the Bundes Republik Deutschlands (i.e., the Federal Republic of Germany) and every single year since the team team fielded has been from the Bundes Republik Deutschlands
or
b) In 1990 when the "west" won, reunification had "technically" been agreed upon.
And, the suggestion from Google asking if I really meant Germany+national+women's+soccer still doesn't even result in the German team, only the general page about women's soccer. I realize Google is a responsive tool, but really, to fail to provide the page on Germany when googling the exact title of the wikipedia page?

Of course, some women are self-defeatingly stupid, too. What fucktard thought playing in mini-skirts over hot-pants was a step forward for women's sports? Probably the same person retard lunatic man(you really expect me to believe a woman came up with this idea? ... okay, I guess that is my point) woman who thinks playing beach volley ball in a thong as an Olympic sport was a Bright Idea. Elegant? If the Dutch think this is elegant, I'd really hate to see what they think is unattractive. Look at the team photo - if you're posing and the first thing I think is "wow, you can see up their skirts" ... it ain't elegant, sister, it's selling sexy. Do you really need to look elegant to play soccer? What athlete driven to compete and win is going to care if she looks pretty when she's sweating like a stuck pig and gasping in exhaustion after running non-stop for 45 minutes? Do they seriously think this will encourage 12-year old girls to be aggressive and self-assertive? I gotta tell you, if wearing skirts had been required to play soccer, there is no way in hell you could have gotten me onto the pitch when I was 13. I was all for sports; and all for contact sports on top of that. Karate, judo, SCA-fighting, yes. Mini-skirts? Fuck no! Maybe skirts aren't the reason they're #16. This is Holland, the same team duking it out Sunday for the Men's World Cup Championship. It's not as though they come from a nation devoid of world-class examples, say, Botswana. Afterall, skirts are ranked higher than two shorts-wearing teams from countries with power-house men's teams (Spain & Argentina). Two.

Speaking of which, if one looks at the 16 teams who were in the quarter-finals of the men's world cup this year, you have:
country ---- men's rank --- women's rank
Germany --- 6 --- 2
Paraguay --- 31 --- 116
Uruguay --- 16 --- 116
Argentina --- 7 --- 29
Brazil --- 1 --- 3
Holland --- 4 --- 16
Spain --- 2 --- 20
Ghana --- 32 --- 44
USA --- 14 --- 1 ... yes, yes, I know we weren't in the quarter finals, but our women are #1
mind, this is national ranking and not tournament placing.
The difference between the Dutch men's and women's teams isn't sooooo big. It's not the absolute difference in ranking. Just because one team is ranked higher doesn't mean there's something wrong with the other. But the ranking does compare women, not both. though I am curious about the points - Brazil, men's #1 has 1611 points; USA, women's #1 has 2233. They both use the 3/1/0 point system. Why do the women's teams have so many more points than the men's? This is a serious question and I would like an answer, if you have one.

Ah, I need to stop

**website might not be there, article is:
Physical Activity and Public Health -- A Recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine, JAMA, (1995) 273, 402-407.

.

500 cal/day v. 300 cal/hr

The standard figure cited for breastfeeding is that it uses an extra 500 calories per day; an incentive to loose the pregnancy weight.

The English National Health Service (their agent of evil socialism), reports something even better. Sex will use up 300 calories per hour. Giving you a whole-body cardiovascular work-out and reducing the risk of heart disease. I suppose this figure depends upon how ... enthusiastic ... you are.

And, yet again even better:

If you're worried about wrinkles - orgasms even help prevent frown lines from deepening
.

Warm & emotionally supportive just ain't the path to success

"I think you're going to see a kinder workplace," said Suzanne Hodes, vice president of CareerXchange, a South Florida staffing firm. "It's my belief that women are more nurturing, caring and looking for work-life balance."

1) every "woman are nice & need to get more high-powered jobs" is made by a woman. Only 1 interview-ee is a man, who apparently whined a confused "why is this happening to us?"

2) the above statement is unbelievably sexist bullshit. The vast majority of women I know in Management are just as hard-assed, profession-driven as men.

2a) any woman heading into the top corporate, Fortune 500 companies had better be as hard-assed, profession driven as men. Otherwise the company won't want them. And those companies assuredly don't give a damn about a warm & fuzzy emotionally supportive work place. They care about money.

-->> this is why women don't get paid as much as men at this point in their business careers: if they're willing to put family first, without a stay-at-home husband, they're not going to compete on an even playing field, because they're disadvantaging themselves by trying to play a different game with different rules expecting the same results?


3) 'it's my belief' does not belong in a piece like this, unless is completely panders to (in this case) women. ... ... Oh, that's right, it does.

4) The Business section of the NY Times had a large picture of the head of the pension plan at GM above the fold on p.1. She was wearing a nice business suit, smiling in a friendly manner, standing with her hands demurely held together in front of her standing in the unoccupied foyer of some large building. Described as "A soft-spoken woman described time and again as likable, ..." No where did I see anything which said "I'm a high-powered kick-ass hard-ball playing s.o.b., so don't fuck with me'. If this is how GM presents its financially powerful people, it's no wonder they're about to be stomped out of existence. I wouldn't take her seriously, even if it was my kid's school principal. I might dress like that at work, but I sure as hell wouldn't let anyone take a photograph of me for the Times (or anything else) looking like that. I'd want to be standing in front of my desk with the evidence of my hard work trying to drive up my employer's assets. Or at least some totem of business power. There was a picture of Whitney Houston in some glossy mag the same day - now that was a photo of a powerful, self confident woman.

And yet, the story is basically "this is a high-powered, highly paid woman who's being investigated because of how much money the top people at GM make, including herself". So, it says "she makes boat loads of money, and is being looked at suspiciously - oh, and she's a woman too".

--->> This is why women don't make as much money as men in business. If you are presented as submissive, no one is going to take you seriously. If you have that much power, you should have the brass balls to demand to control how you are presented to the public, who don't realize you're powerful. This is how we're telling young girls to get ahead? Look like someone's secretary? Even the C.E.O. Barbie (really I saw one in the neighbor girl's Barbie book) looks more like a CEO - facing front in front of a big desk in a big office with the trappings of power (it was 15 years old and she had a fax, something on the big cheeses got back then).


I'm willing to bet that if I went looking for photos of Angela Merkel and Hilary Clinton, the American press would be painting Clinton as a nice, warm woman who wants to help you. The only photo I've seen of Merkel looking warm & supportive was at a professional soccer match. Which isn't really the same kind of 'supportive'.

It sounds different when you put it that way...

Wrap your kid in cotton batting away from reality:

The website lists every incidence of violence, sex, and drug/alcohol in movies. The link above is for the most recent Harry Potter movie.

I realize that such analyses are likely more informative for parents than just PG or G. Most parents probably object to some things more than others. Still this is pretty silly sounded when sanitized and taken out of context.

The following is a small portion of what's listed for sex in Harry Potter #6
A teenage girl and a teenage boy are shown kissing passionately in a couple of scenes. A teenage boy and a teenage girl share a lingering kiss in a few scenes. A teenage girl, clothed in a robe, and a teenage boy stand very close to one another, they pause as if to kiss but they are interrupted before doing so.

A teenage girl blows a kiss to a teenage boy. A teenage boy and a teenage girl are shown holding hands in a couple of scenes. A teenage girl tells a teenage boy to take her hand and they hold hands.

A teenage boy stares wistfully at a teenage girl. A teenage girl looks longingly at a teenage boy. A teenage girl looks as a teenage boy and winks, flirtatiously. A teenage boy looks at a teenage girl suggestively, waving at her with a longing look in his eyes. A teenage girl sits down on a sofa next to a teenage boy and feeds him a cookie.

A teenage girl asks a teenage boy on a date. A teenage boy asks another teenage boy if he and a teenage girl "did it" -- not intending to inquire about sex, but the implication is there. A teenage boy angrily expresses his displeasure with another teenage boy who had run his hands over his sister.

While I realize that people, including myself, would like to know what's in a movie before letting my child see it - especially if it's something I would expect to be G but is rated PG - this is just over the top in the detail. Why not simply list the most egregious sexual act in the movie?

Teenage boy gives teenage girl a passionate kiss.
Teenage girl gives teenage boy a passionate blowjob
Teenage girl gives teenage boy great sex: penis shown
Teenage boy gives adult woman great sex: vagina shown

Come on ... if there's sex shown, it's a pretty safe bet that passionate kissing is also on-screen, and at that point, it's pretty irrelevant if kids are holding hands. And, strangely enough, it doesn't mention exactly how long any of this is going on. Nor does it mention how the activities are perceived within the context of the story line. Perhaps the passionate kissing scene is derided or ridiculed? (Although, assuming it's the big kissing scene I recall from the book, it probably is accompanied by anger and heartbreak from one of the other characters.) I think the context within the movie is as important as the individual activities.

To put this in perspective, Over the Hedge and The Incredibles are both rated PG, as is Harry Potter #6. I simply cannot imagine how these are on par with each other.

And, for Over the Hedge, IMDb's parental information page (so help me) states: On several occasions, we see Verne's bare turtle butt, but it's nothing explicit (and is played for laughs when his shell is off) -- a turtle's ass with no anus is sexual?? Hey, Marge, get that Barbie the hell away from little Suzie! Don't let her undress it! I think there are buttocks on the doll! Is Toy Story 2 rated PG because Mr. Potato Head is muttering to himself "I'm a married spud! I'm a married spud" after finding himself in a car with Tour Guide Barbie?

Okay, so after writing that I - of course - went to the Kids In Mind website and queried Toy Story 2. Sex rating: 1 of 10 (and, yes, it is possible to get a 0). Reason for this (again, so help me):
A few kisses on the cheek. Some "male" toys admire lots of dancing Barbies in swimsuits.

If movie is rated PG and you can't figure out that a few seconds here and there of heavy-duty kissing might be on screen, then you seriously need to learn what criteria the MPAA uses to assign ratings. Although, I must admit I like the German system (link in English) better, which is like:
no age limit -- 6 and under -- 12 and under -- 16 and under -- 18 and under

Ah, well - back to writing my paper. The Author & I have a date for seeing Public Enemies tomorrow if I've got the paper done.

Only in San Francisco...

Well, according to the AP, not really unique to S.F.

Penguin Love Triangle: gay penguin ditches partner of 7 years to get laid.
At the San Francisco Zoo, Harry left male partner Pepper for Linda. ... The blogosphere has been buzzing for days over the perky widow who stole the handsome gay guy from his longtime partner.

She's been called a "home wrecker" and the sobriquet that rhymes with witch, and lambasted as a wretch "who only lives for her own happiness, no matter who gets hurt."

Cherchez la femme notwithstanding, the saga of Linda and Harry and poor, cuckolded Pepper has ignited a fierce debate about whether homosexuality is a choice. Even People magazine has called for details.

I would think it funny, if I didn't think these people were serious about their emotional outrage on behalf of ... a penguin?

Benefits of Infidelity.

How many different times in one article can someone espouse the idea that 'what goes on within a marriage is no one's business', swiftly followed by '... then we have a right to know'?

Who the hell cares who he was sleeping with? Is his dick on GPS (Global Positioning system)? Or maybe a VPS (vaginal positioning system)?

Why is staying married after an affair/marital infidelity/screwing around so utterly incomprehensible? Just because divorce is easy to do, does it need to be easy to choose? Who are we to judge her decisions? Maybe she just doesn't care that much if he is playing hide the wiener with someone else? Maybe he sucks in bed, and she's glad to have a break. Maybe she's got a boy-toy on the side and is gleefully laughing at the media attention being drawn away from her own vices?

Who cares?

I really don't care if the president is screwing around on his/her spouse. Does this display grave moral defect? Sure. So does eliminating social security. So does invading Iraq on inadequate grounds. So does tax breaks for the rich...

And you know what?

All of those other things screw the poor, screw the many, screw the powerless. These screw me, without my consent.

Let him go screw anyone he wants, individually. It will be a welcome break from the entire government trying to rape my sanity and pocketbook.

Why attribute her actions as a "lioness defending her cubs"? Why not simply assume that she made an adult decision to stay married to him?

People don't want to believe this. The masses would rather believe that there is an absolutist right/wrong, black/white. They don't want to take the time to attribute deeper motives than some biological pre-programed instinct. They want to believe that She Couldn't Help Herself. You women want to be treated like you've got brains, and not just ovaries? Assume that she made a choice of her own free will, whether or not you understand or approve of it. That's women's lib.

Bits & Pieces

This has been a great week. Well, actually only the past few days, but they were great.

1. I have not forgotten everything I knew about organic chemistry. Prof. Moore would probably drop dead (if he hasn't kicked the bucket already)
2. I am not (too far) behind my internship project.
3. I have been mistaken as the daughter of a co-worker from someone thinking I'm about 10 years younger than 42.
4. Need a specialized chemical glove? Pow, got the best answer in 30 seconds.
5. Brainstorm session regarding ergonomic problem no one wants to deal with? My solution was the best liked.
6. The choir fellow at church is very nice, and wants to know when Peter and I will be able to start cantor-ing at mass.

Damn fine few days.

Strangely, the same choir fellow's father is from Clarksburg. Apparently everywhere he's familiar with in the state is around there. I wish I could remember how he spells his name - it sounded familiar.

I can see why Minneapolis is (reputedly) the best place to live - after San Francisco - if you're gay/alternatively-lifestyled.

There's a note I saw about "don't confuse your comfort with your security". Something our Beloved Fuhrer apparently doesn't realize.

The other day at Powderhorn Park (3 blocks away), the boys were the only white kids there. A not uncommon occurrence. Yesterday day at Currie Park (up near the U.), they were again the only white kids. However, this time all of the other kids were Somaali. Not to be too nationalistic, there was a distinctly different feeling between the two. And it wasn't the color of everyone else's skin - it was simply the fact that the black kids in our neighborhood are all American. How far does speaking English go to being One of Us? It's not like the kids were playing any differently: just dressed differently. My own kids are just as American as I am; but running around with their father, one might not think so, since they don't speak English to one another. I never considered whether someone might think they aren't American.

I bought a new bike. Of course, mine has a 1/10th h.p. engine, unlike my brothers'. I don't think Schwinn makes them with motors. It will be a great improvement, since I plan to ride to school come September.

Holy God of Politics!!

It just occurred to me that classes start on Tuesday 9/2, the day after Labor Day. For some reason, I thought the Republican National Jerkoff would be over on Labor Day. Nope! Derailed mass transit, blocked roads, mobs of rabid conservatives ... All between me and the Ivory Tower. Back to the very gay-friendly environment ... perhaps the hoard of gay/lesbian/other should go have a sit-in at the Xcel Center: hold hands, kiss, make out, hell, have sex on the street. Make the moralistic bastards as uncomfortable as possible, and make them leave sooner, so that I can get to classes.

Needed a Laugh