Breasts and Veils

We were talking about The Veil today at work, and the possibility of a ban.  I work in a school, so we were discussing the practicalities, such as identifying whether a student sitting a GCSE exam was who she claimed to be, under a full burkha.  I failed to see any problem. We ask for a forefinger print scan for children to use as ID to pay for school lunches; why not extend it to exams?  Only those who refused would have to identify themselves by other means.

Then I began to see the double standards behind this proposed edict.  Western societies have dress codes too.  We ask that women cover themselves - their breasts, that is - in public.  Baring these dangerous commodities could constitute a breach of the peace if anyone objected.  Yet men, regardless of the contours of their torso, are permitted to walk around bare chested if they so choose, without fear of penalty other than a ban based on the dress code of a particular establishment (which would, I presume, also ban topless women).

So, we have established that western societies have equally unreasonable dress codes for women only.  The difference lies merely in the part of the body that only women must cover up, that men may flaunt with impunity.  Certain Islamic sects say it is the hair or face. The West says it is the breasts.  Both are equally unfair to women. Both are equally unreasonable in any real sense, other than the prejudices of the rest of society.

And there is something particularly unreasonable about the requirement for women to cover their torso whilst men can display theirs; a woman's breasts have a use; a point to their existence. They are the natural founts of sustenance for newborn babies, and nutritionally beneficial for all babies up to about two years old.  Men's chests have no use whatsoever, and very few are even decorative.

There's an excellent poem about the problems faced by breastfeeding mothers. Thought-provoking and entertaining, I recommend it to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiS8q_fifa0

So, when our Government is considering if and to what extent Islamic veils should be banned; let them look to their own house first.  On hot summer days there are sights forced into my field of vision that no-one should have to encounter: sweaty bare-chested man boobs, while women whose breasts are their child's source of nutrition, or whose torsos might be considered "worth a look" (and I don't include myself here), are forced to cover up.

Double standards? Absolutely!

Sport: War for Civilised Nations

The Ancient Greeks knew what sport was for.  The Olympic Games was a time when armies called a truce and sent their best warriors to Olympia to compete in the Olympic Games.  Away from the blood and dust of battle, the prowess of each nation's best warriors could be admired close up by those who probably financed the wars they were briefly excused from.

Each Olympic sport was a stylised battle tactic.  Who could run the fastest? Who could throw a javelin or disc the furthest? Who could wrestle his opponent to the ground, or race his chariot the fastest?  In The Games, the reputations of nations and their armies were enhanced or destroyed by the performance of their athletes.

Today, we have revived this ancient tradition.  An Olympic medal, preferably gold, is the ultimate desire of any athlete, and to amass the greatest number of such athletes is the greatest sporting desire of nations.  We have other platforms for athletic performance, but the re-emergence of Olympic glory eclipsed them all.

The Games, like the world that competes in them, are much, much bigger than the ancient Olympics.  What sports to include and what to leave out is a lobbyfest between nations, each trying to include what their athletes do best.  We now have the Winter Olympics too; beyond the organisational skills of the ancients, it introduces human power and speed over ice and snow; and the Paralympics, where disability shows its magnificence, humbling the able-bodied hoi polloi.  For each of these festivals of competition, dry committees must thrash out between them what sports deserve to be called Olympic/Paralympic, and which must be rejected.

So, how does this committee arrive at its decision?  I have no idea, but I know how I'd decide.

The Greeks of old chose sports that displayed the battle prowess of the athletes.  Each sport had a value in warfare. A nation whose warriors were trained in the Olympic sports would be fearsome opponents!  This leads me to believe that, if the modern Olympics are to be in the spirit of those of ancient Olympia, this criterion should apply to the sports chosen for Olympic competition.

Looking at the sports on display in the modern Olympics, I do sometimes wonder what their value could possibly be in warfare.  Pretty much everything in the main arena would be recongisable to an Olympian from ancient Greece. They would be amused, and probably impressed with the swimming and diving; their swimming pool was just for toning up. Gymnastics, horse skills, shooting, boxing and martial arts clearly have value to a warrior.  Even synchronised swimming provides strength, precision and endurance underwater, whatever arguments may be put as to whether it is sport or dance.  And then there are the team sports.

The power needed to cycle or row is obvious, the participants having amazing physical prowess and, where needed, teamwork.  Hockey players use arms, legs, hand-eye coordination and team skills, as do all the sports where the ball is hit or handled.  Indeed, the most pointless sport in the Olympics, to my mind, is football (soccer, to US citizens). I can think of no equivalent use of running around, kicking and passing a ball using only your feet, in a battle of war.  Maybe this was why Team GB was so reluctant to enter a team until forced to as a host nation;  they just didn't see the point.

In all probability, there isn't a football fan in the world who would agree with me; but I would ask this of anyone who can make the comparison: If you were facing an opposing army (let's make it unarmed combat), would you be more alarmed by facing an army of Premiership football players, or an army of top flight Rugby Union players?

Olympia, Greece.

Footnote: Chess isn't called a sport because it's played on a board; but it's one of very few competitive activities where luck plays absolutely no part. There's no dice throw, lane draw, wind speed or equipment to affect the game; it's just mind against mind; and the game is ritualised war. It's played in the Mind Sports Olympiad, but receives little notice from the world at large, though the tactical brilliance of a chess master could be all the advantage needed when sending an army to war.