Thursday, August 16, 2012



'The Olympics has destroyed womanhood': Columnist provokes storm of criticism after attack on 'chestless, manlike' competitors

There is no doubt that many female competitors do look unfeminine but you are not supposed to say so, apparently

A Turkish newspaper columnist has been heavily criticised after writing an article which said the Olympic Games is destroying the female figure.

The piece - called Womanhood is dying at the Olympics' - was written by Yuksel Aytug and was published in the daily newspaper Sabah and on the paper's website.

However, it soon spread around the world by saying the Games was distorting women's bodies and that extra points should be given to female athletes based on how feminine they looked.

According to Hurriyet Daily News, he said: 'Broad-shouldered, flat-chested women with small hips; [they are] totally indistinguishable from men.  'Their breasts – the symbol of womanhood, motherhood – flattened into stubs as they were seen as mere hindrances to speed.

He added that the appearance of many female Olympians was 'pathetic'.

Following the publication of the article, Mr Aytug was strongly criticised by people on Twitter and his own female colleagues.

Team GB's Zoe Smith, 18,  faced abuse about her appearance before the Games began.  She was the subject of vile internet abuse after appearing on a documentary earlier this year, with anonymous Twitter trolls telling her she looks like a 'lesbian' and a 'bloke'.

SOURCE


15 comments:

Anonymous said...

What do these people know about women? Most require that their women be covered head-to-toe. At least the likes of Zoe Smith are not afraid to show off her body.

And besides, I'd let Zoe Smith bench-press me any day.

Bird of Paradise said...

Good grief they have liberal colomists in turkey as well

Use the Name, Luke said...

I didn't watch much of the Olympics, but I did catch some. The most visible women I saw were gymnasts, divers, volleyball players, soccer players and runners.

The gymnasts and divers tended to be very young, roughly mid-teens. That's an age when they're still developing. Of course these girls won't have the figures of a mature woman! What, did he think these teenagers were available for marriage or something? (Of course he did! Mohammad made 9(!) an acceptable age.)

The others were older, generally in their 20's (with a few older than that). They did have more curves than the younger women, which is to be expected. They just didn't have much fat which is what tends to enhance those curves in the average woman.

The guy's an idiot. But then, what can you expect from a culture that literally views women as cattle that can talk?

Anonymous said...

Again it boils down to who is the arbiter of standards, in this case what is feminine or feminine enough? Is it what other women think or what men think? Even then some men find fat or voluptuous women the most feminine, others like thinner types, or teenage types, etc. If one believes in personal freedom, then it's up to the individual woman how she looks or how nature made her. And if any advice is given then it's not to be over influenced by fashion or anybody else's taste.

Anonymous said...

"what can you expect from a culture that literally views women as cattle that can talk?"

Are you talking about the conservative war on women?

Anonymous said...

5:54, to compare the two is laughable if not ridiculous. Keep parroting the liberal talking points without any rational thought. yikes what a sad life you live.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Are you talking about the conservative war on women?

Correction: The leftist assault on Christianity/Catholocism calling itself a "war on women".

10:48 is right. Sad, very sad.

Anonymous said...

Beauty pagents are for appearance. Athletics are for performance. Besides, I don't think that mannish appearance has any chance of becomming popular among the non olympian community. Besides, in his culture woman's figures are supposed to be obscured, yes?

Anonymous said...

When the right wing wants to deny women control over their own bodies, that IS a war on women.

Anonymous said...

Luke, you probably hate women because you never got laid.

Anonymous said...

12:53 when the government wants to control what we drink and eat, what we put into our bodies, that then must be a war against men AND women. When it comes to food, my body, my choice.

Use the Name, Luke said...

What started this faux "war on women"? The HHS decision requiring everyone (with the sole narrow exception being churches, only churches) to pay for conception and abortion. There was no "war on women" prior to that.

It was a change in policy. Never before in U.S. history did our government require private individuals and organizations to pay for these.

Who made this change in policy? Not conservatives. It was your own, hard-left administration: Barak Obama and Kathleen Sibelius.

It's not "control of bodies" that's at stake, it's "who pays for your actions!" "Keep your hands off our wallet you **** ***** ***. Reach into your own pocket" is not an attack against women.

Defending ourselves from leftist aggression is not an attack.

Your lies are transparent and plain for all to see. Why do you bother repeating yet another "big lie"? Do you think you're Geobbels or something?

Anonymous said...

"It's not "control of bodies" that's at stake"

So, you do not give a crap about women then? You care more about money?

Hard Right Winger said...

Let me straighten out some of you who charge that we conservatives want to control women's bodies. Wrong. We want to control the wahjubie, but the rest of it you can have.

Use the Name, Luke said...

So, you do not give a crap about women then? You care more about money?

You're obviously a Chubby Checker fan.

C'mon everybody! Put on your dancing shoes and dooo the twist!