Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Craig Lord says: "...women have breasts, so they cover up; men have chests and they don't need to cover up. Very simple."

To put it in context Craig Lord is referring to the possibility that FINA is now considering that mens suits be allowed to have the same coverage as the womens suits. (i.e. Short-john coverage.) In some bit of sexist logic Lord states that since women have breasts, therefore they must cover them up whereas men don't and should leave them exposed. See his article here: [Link]

Above is a Photo of Olympian Johnny Weissmuller on the medal stand at the Paris Games in 1924. Note his choice of swimsuits: both his chest and core area are covered. Below him is obviously Michael Phelps circa 2009 illustrating that full coverage suits have been summarily allowable for almost a century.

From the website:

"... At the Paris 1924 Games, he won gold in the 100m freestyle, 400m freestyle and 4x200m freestyle relay. We see him here after his 400m freestyle surrounded by his fellow medal-winners, Sweden’s Arne Borg (2nd, on the right) and the USA’s Andrew Charlton (3rd, on the left) ..."

All three men are covering their chests and torso. Perhaps we should put an asterisk next to their accomplishments?

Per Craig Lord's twisted moral logic, men should NOT be allowed any right whatsoever to cover their chests since they don't have breasts. Well, should women swimmers be forced to wear two piece suits because both men and women have stomachs?

It really gets down to this, what if a male swimmer wants to cover his chest? Why should male swimmers be denied the same modesty and/or coverage that are afforded to women?

Lord is seemingly protesting swimsuit rules that were not only valid in late 2009 and into the early part of 2010 but rules that were also allowable circa 1924. Men have been swimming in "techsuits" a lot longer than they have been swimming in briefs.

So, in Craig Lord's universe we men that want to cover up our chests like Ian Thorpe and Johnny Weissmuller are just a bunch of "naughty, naughty boys," huh?!

No comments: