In one of his treatises from the 1920s, Baron Pierre de Coubertin – the main instigator of the modern Olympic Games – declared that women’s participation in sport was only acceptable on one strict condition: no spectators.
Because why, after all, would anyone want to watch women playing sport unless they were – to put it in blunter terms than he does – really there to perve?
Better to make women’s sport invisible than to expose them to that sort of immorality.
Better to pull the image than expose them to trolls.
De Coubertin arrives at this conclusion through a process of elimination. The (presumed to be male) spectators couldn’t possibly be appreciating or learning from watching women play on any technical level, since female athletes will always only be ‘inferior copies’ of men.
So what else is there?
He insinuates that some women might actually be playing sport in order to get that kind of attention.
Take away the onlookers and not only will this ensure that women’s sport stays wholesome, but women might even lose interest altogether. Problem solved.
It is an extremely narrow view of what spectators are about, even allowing for the fact that De Coubertin is wrong to dismiss the possibility of a technical interest in women’s sport.
When he banishes spectators from the women’s stadium, he doesn’t just banish oglers and connoisseurs, he banishes supporters – a category of spectator that doesn’t seem to have occurred to him.
This is because De Coubertin sees spectators in general as a threat not just to the integrity of women’s sport but to sport in general, because the moral benefits of sport depend on it being a private, spiritual practice and not something you do for attention.
De Coubertin is a famous proponent of amateurism, but the ultimate root of all evil in sport is not money but the “taste for applause”.
We put champion athletes on show so their example can serve as an inspiration to others, but in general these spectacles should be reserved for special ceremonial occasions.
It’s hard to think of an understanding of sport more alien to how we think about it today.
When we talk about sport in its dominant form as the subject of sports sections, sports programs and sports news, we are talking about something that ultimately revolves around a set of spectacles, where by definition spectators are as crucial an element as players.
The importance of spectators is closely connected, of course, to the issue of money.
If you want people to pay to see you, you want to put on a good show.
But it’s again a very narrow view of the relationship between spectator and player to reduce it to an economic transaction.
The whole point of the supporter is that they are there through thick or thin, and Lord knows vast numbers of sportspeople play in front of audiences for nothing or close to nothing – female sportspeople in particular.
The real lifeblood of the relationship between players and spectators in our contemporary understanding of sport is not money but emotion, which is experienced by spectator and sportsperson alike: love and hate, joy and disappointment, rage and passion.
This photo of Tayla Harris has been the talking point of the AFL world this week. (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Media)
Technical appreciation is bundled up with this, of course, and no doubt appreciation of physical beauty as well – not to be confused with up-skirting (or up-shorting). But the heart and soul of the sporting event is, well, the heart and soul.
Citius, Altius, Fortius.
Faster, Higher, Stronger.
De Coubertin took this Olympic motto from a Dominican priest who used it in a speech at a school athletics carnival.
It was supposed to symbolise the elevation of mind, soul and body through sport and for De Coubertin it represented the “program of moral beauty” that sport was for him.
The root cause of De Coubertin’s exclusion of spectators from women’s sport is his exclusion of women from this program.
He refused to admit the possibility that women could also elevate themselves in this way, could also undertake this journey of self-transcendence, despite the fact that he saw this journey as a key expression of our very humanity.
As a result, he could not see how someone watching a woman play sport could be appreciating this expression of humanity and not just seeing a sex object or inferior version of a man.
Funnily enough, De Coubertin saw women’s role in sport as supporting one of their husband and son’s spiritual journey.
Sidelined and invisible.
Well stuff that, Pierre.
Citius, Altius, Fortius, Tayla Harris. Faster, Higher, Stronger.
Batsy
Roar Rookie
Thanks again for your response and time FT. All of the responses have led to useful reflections on my writing and approach.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
Hi Batsy, Your comments have had me reconsider how to read your article. Frankly, I did not pick up on the similarity of the picture being withdrawn to the PDC comments. But, I see the comparison now. Further, I would accept that both were done with good intentions which may be the most important aspect of any action. While good intentions do no mean an action is perfect, it leaves room for potential improvement, while bad intent does not. The turn of the last century was one of sexual repression and men went to the theatre to look at dancer's legs. It would have been predictable that at least some observers of women's sport would have been also there to look at their legs. PDC's comments may have been spot on and simply been an extension of observing the stage door jonnie phenomenon. (I guess that there were a lot of women who went to the circus to look at Leotard's legs too) Thanks
Batsy
Roar Rookie
Hi FT, thanks very much for taking the time to read and comment on my article. If the main point of my article was to attack PDC for 'sexism', that would indeed be uninteresting and predictable. The starting point is always the present, in this case the theoretical parallel between the decision to withdraw the picture of Tayla Harris because of pervy trolls, and PDC's declaration that women's sport should have no spectators because those spectators would be perves. No philosophical declaration is an island, and it seemed to me that the bundle of ideas associated with his declaration - on what spectators want and do in general, on what sport is about in general - are also subtexts of the way we see women's sports now. Ideas are interesting, I like to see connections between them and across time. I understand what ahistoricism is. My starting point is that PDC’s attitudes remain today, as illustrated by the Tayla Harris case. It's a thought experiment that takes a little event and traces a path back a 100 years and then back again. I'm disappointed that this keeps getting reduced to the statement that "PDC is a sexist pig", but that's life! Thanks again.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
You have correctly pointed out that not everyone likes women's sport but that does not mean that they either think like PDC, who must have been quite a forward thinker, or that they share his opinions. Most of the troll around are not forward thinkers nor would they share PDC opinions even based on what you have said above.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
In fact, in his day PDC was in front of the curve and it took quite a while for the Olympics to develop a momentum.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
Batsy, great to read a new author. Thanks for having the fortitude to put it out there. I love the idea of boosting women's sport, but have a number of concerns in your selection PDC as a central figure. In reaching back over 100 years, have you chosen a suitable central figure that provides a suitable and fair lesson for competitors and sports fans today? By delving into a period of completely different social mores, all you have done is create a strawman. The current assumption in social comment that it is either logically and/or ethical to hold historical figures to modern values should in itself also be examined. Invariably, historical figures fail to meet modern expectation and values in one or more respects, it is after all hard to satisfy conditions that have not yet been developed. Holding historical figures for examination in a modern world they never knew is in itself a form of post revisionism and leads to obvious problems. Would the historical figure be a different person today or would that be unaffected by the modern world and its expectations? I have trouble supporting positions I did only 10 years ago, age and experience change all our lenses. Asked by a journalist if he would do it all again the same, Mohamad Ali angrily said Do you take me for a fool and that I have learned nothing 60 years? Can you demonstrate that PDC would hold the same values today? For your critique of PDC to be valid you would need to establish that he was not a person of his time, but would hold the same opinions across time and culture. For PDC to be a valid counter point to the current position, requires that PDC's attitudes are commonly held today. Have you established that PDC's attitudes remain today, probably not. Even one hundred years ago, PDC was more liberal that the ancient Greeks for whom only naked males were allowed to compete. Women found watching were thrown over a local cliff. A further interesting investigation might be how many women thought it worth the risk, tried and got caught?
Batsy
Roar Rookie
Thanks again for your comments, Rick, I absolutely agree that trolls have been given way too much power in proportion to how representative they are of the general populace. Most of my piece was about de Coubertin's understanding of spectatorship and its relationship to modern times rather than his views on women, and none of it was about denying the positive aspects of his legacy.
Rick
Guest
I didn't say you were criticising the Olympic movement, I was merely pointing out that someone like De Coubertin did a mountain of good for sport in his era, which incidentally was 100 years ago in an entirely different era. You didn't analyse just merely attack one man who made a progressive step for his day, albeit this didn't include the involvement of women in sport but because of his input these more progressive steps were taken by the people who followed him. I don't believe that plenty of people think that women should not be involved in sport, in fact after spending 50 years playing Aussie rules, basketball, tennis & golf I don't know one. I realise some may troll for their own personal delight but this doesn't equate to plenty in the mass populous. Something you may wish to explore is jumping off the internet and mixing with that populous.
Batsy
Roar Rookie
Thanks Snowy, nice of you to say.
Batsy
Roar Rookie
I don’t expect better from De Coubertin on women in sport, but I do expect better from people now, and when they’re not better - as in the case of some of the reactions to Tayla - I look to someone like Pierre to help me understand why because he is going to give me a lot more insight into the problem than a troll tweet.
Batsy
Roar Rookie
Thanks Rick, wasn’t criticising the Olympic movement. But unfortunately while teachers no longer make left handers write right, recent events suggest plenty of people still think like Pierre on this point and I am interested in analysing that.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
Where to start? When researching events that occurred a long time ago and in a different place researchers/historians/anthropologists/archaeologists need to be aware of their own biases and when drawing conclusions must look at the events and conclusions through contemporaneous eyes. Put simply, the beliefs, world views and social norms of 2018 are vastly different to those in 200 BC or 1896 AD. We (generally, although some dinosaurs still exist) have no doubts that all people should be seen as and treated as equals. Pierre de Coubertin did not live in such a time. His lived experience was vastly different to that of someone in the 21st Century. I agree that by modern standards de Coubertin was off the mark, yet by the standards of his time he was on the mark. He should not be criticised for that and any conclusions about him must be sensitive to that. Keep in mind that in two hundred years future generations will look at our social conventions and beliefs and will ask "how could they believe that?".
Snowy
Guest
Great work Batsy. Well researched, well thought through, well expressed. Look forward to more of your work.
Rick
Guest
Of course if it wasn't for someone like De Coubertin we wouldn't have the Olympics as we do today, he revived the Olympic movement into something better and left it to others who improved on it further. Yes his vision of women in sport is out dated, much like teachers at the time not letting people (including men) write with their left hand. But his take on sport being "not winning but taking part" is still the essence of the first steps at sport/gamesmanship and if you think thats alien be very careful of all those little monsters running around on sports grounds today just enjoying being a part of life. Very easy to take cheap shots.