Divvying up the golds

File this under the heading “Any Excuse”

Just got an email from a lady, asking “With 3 more women getting gold are there more golds for men or for women now? And we’ve still got Shanaze and another one in Taekwondo, that lady who read out the Olympic creed.”

I replied that it’s a strange thing if she’s only supporting women – what happened to GB?   Interesting that women only appear to support women but men support everyone.

At the same time, Wiggia wrote about that tweet mentioned at Tom Winnifrith’s place:

EU_London2012 ‏@EU_London2012  Remember Beijing 2008 EU 87 Gold medals!! Will EU break this record? #london2012 Rank (19:10 LDN): EU 61, CHINA 34, USA 30 #EU #teamEU

Yep – had to be that the EU would try to cash in, just as women are doing and so I thought – let’s do some other divisions.

In terms of Yorkshire, it’s apparently 5 golds.   We’ve all seen the Salmond ridiculousness and Hoy’s rebuff.   What about the Welsh after Jade [above left]?  Or perhaps we could do fairhaired v darkhaired?

Also, if we put the English speaking Anglo-Saxon nations [with Celts thrown in from the UK] – in other words, everyone but the Republic of Ireland, that makes it 71 golds and still counting.

If we look only at US and UK, then it’s 62.  If it’s nations I’ve lived in for long periods of time, then it’s 51.

How much more divvying up do we need to do before people become bored wi’it?   Do we wish to synthesize or analyse?   Do we wish to celebrate a coming together, or do we wish to be divisive, like an Odone in the Telegraph?

6 Responses to “Divvying up the golds”

  1. Rossa August 10, 2012 at 12:30 Permalink

    Hmm…wee bit touchy this morning, James. Thought you didn’t mind a woman disagreeing with you.

    You’ve made various points about the media highlighting womens’ achievements over the men. To which I have already responded that surely it was to show that more women are achieving success in their chosen sport and that enhances the overall success of the team, including the men. You chose to equate this with your bugbear about feminazism, which I agree with in the most part.

    You can’t have it both ways. On the one hand you say women shouldn’t be in boxing and then say it’s all about people, not what gender you are. Either we have equal opportunities or not. In much the same way as you defend free speech, you should also defend peoples’ right to choose. And yes I do know that most things are slanted the ‘wrong’ way, as you well know.

    A large part of Team GB’s success has been down to resources being given to more women and perhaps that has been at the expense of men. I don’t know. Working hard and sacrificing many parts of their lives as much as the men do. Though to be truly sexist, many men have a woman at home to do the housekeeping while a lot of women may not. After all, “behind every successful woman there’s still a pile of washing and ironing” (not forgetting the kids)!

    I confess that I actually used to have that saying on a key ring when I was a young, successful woman. Or at least I thought I was in the ‘sexist’ industries of catering, computer software and the car industry, in spite of or despite the men I worked with. And I did have a woman behind me, my Mum xxx

  2. James Higham August 10, 2012 at 13:40 Permalink

    You can’t have it both ways.

    That’s right and this is a misrepresentation of what I’m saying. I was saying that the person who wrote about the women against the men’s golds is only interested in the women – she wants to make an issue of it and that, by modern PC definitions, is sexism. That much is clear.

    On the other hand, I’m interested in all contestants and do not differentiate about who won which gold, which gender they are, which ethnicity, as long as they’re GB. Are women for GB … or are they for GB women – you can’t have it both ways.

    The comment about the boxing is right and that’s a separate issue – women shouldn’t be doing it, it was not done before 1988 when the feminazis insisted against all common sense that anything men did, women had to do – what, use a urinal too? It was always seen as of more danger to women, if only for their vulnerable physiology and that was accepted by men and women in the days before women were ruined by feminazism and got enormous chips on their shoulders.

    I mean, let’s look at it logically. If it was seen as not good for about a century and as women’s physiology has not changed in that time, unless I’ve missed something, then the same principles apply now as then, right? Just because an ideology says something, that doesn’t change anything static like physiology.

    It’s very much like this:

    http://youtu.be/sFBOQzSk14c

    I argue there for a return to non-ideological common sense and for protection of our women and children. :)

  3. Rossa August 10, 2012 at 14:44 Permalink

    ” If it was seen as not good for about a century and as women’s physiology has not changed in that time, unless I’ve missed something, then the same principles apply now as then, right?”

    Aww, come on James. You could use the same argument for denying women the vote because they weren’t as intelligent as men or whatever. Just because something has always been so or for a long time doesn’t mean it’s right for today. Like women now being able to have their own mortgage which they couldn’t do even in the 70s unless they could find a male guarantor. That was because it was considered, by men (and probably a lot of women), that a woman couldn’t manage her own money and was leftover from the days when a woman’s money and property became her husbands when they got married. Or are you going to say that our ‘grey matter’ has changed and therefore we can now be trusted with these things.

    And how does an argument about using an urinal have anything to do with it. The only reason you guys need a toilet hanging so far up a wall is that a lot of you can’t hit a target lower down when standing i.e. most modern toilets ;-) Still remember my sister floating polo mints in the toilet to give my nephews target practice…lol

    I wasn’t dismissing your point I was putting another point of view which is how I believe a lot of women would look at this. Though I would accept it may be a generational thing too.

    And FYI women got 10 golds out of the 25 so far including the team events which I have included as one overall. And another one in the team event for the dressage but that would only be 2/3rds because of Carl Hester. But then he’s gay so maybe that doesn’t count (said tongue in cheek).

    GO THE GB GUYS!

  4. James Higham August 10, 2012 at 14:58 Permalink

    Physiology is a different thing to a vote. The vote came quickly – the boxing did not. I know you’re fighting this and why you’re fighting it, Rossa, but the facts speak for themselves.

    I was putting another point of view which is how I believe a lot of women would look at this.

    Yes they would and it’s wrong – you should go for all the GB or none, not just one portion of them. Or do you disagree with that principle?

    The FYI – why would I wish to know? That’s my whole point – I don’t sexualize the grand job done by all. I know the men might be ahead but don’t talk of it because it’s all competitors I celebrate.

    For evidence, look at last night’s post on the three golden girls – I’m delighted for them. Not only that but I named them. Can you name our last three male medallists of all colours without going back and checking? Ten seconds only – come on. ;-)

  5. Lord Nazh August 11, 2012 at 20:18 Permalink

    So how many golds would the #EU have if they had to play by the same rules as China and the US? (ie number of teams/competitors)

    If they allowed the US and China to have as many athletes as the EU, the EU would be losing very badly

    heh

  6. James Higham August 11, 2012 at 21:41 Permalink

    Not arguing and am following the US too.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string OfgR95 to the field below: