The United States Metrosexual Olympic Team - Mincing to Medals?

[Selene]

[Brant Gaede]

People are complaining because the uniforms are made in China. They aren't complaining that 75% of the non-food items they buy are probably also made in China.

I never liked the nationalism very much tied into a country's Olympic participation. I don't much like those uniforms, regardless. The mannequins hardly look like real people. Fans shouting, "USA, USA" make me sick. I especially don't like soccer for such.

--Brant

grump

[syrakusos]

Originally, when finally (after 60 years) the modern games were created in 1896. it was conceptually impossible not to think in terms of "nations." In the ancient games athletes came from cities which were "states" in their own right, as we understand the term. However, also, originally, in 1896, the intention was that athletes be amateurs, non-professionals. Russian communism in particular, but fascism in general gave the lie to that. And then there was the gender ambiguity of the East Germans. Now professional basketball players compete in the Olympics, as Jim Thorpe rolls over in his grave.

It would be easy enough to just globalize the qualifications and forget about nations entirely, but for the ongoing, continual and continuous bribery scandals of the IOC.

The real problem - the true metaphysical problem here - might be the insistence on athletic ability. I mean, myself, "all I ask of my body is to carry my brain around" (quote Edison). Ultimately of what use is a javelin, except to kill some other mother's son?

[Selene]

Does the javelin kill the father's son at the same time, Michael?

[Brant Gaede]

The real problem - the true metaphysical problem here - might be the insistence on athletic ability. I mean, myself, "all I ask of my body is to carry my brain around" (quote Edison). Ultimately of what use is a javelin, except to kill some other mother's son?

Might be a son-of-a-bitch.

--Brant

[syrakusos]

Does the javelin kill the father's son at the same time, Michael?

It was, of course, a reference to the 1915 song. (From George Mason University, read here.) You probably knew that, though. Not much eludes you.

[studiodekadent]

The real problem - the true metaphysical problem here - might be the insistence on athletic ability. I mean, myself, "all I ask of my body is to carry my brain around" (quote Edison). Ultimately of what use is a javelin, except to kill some other mother's son?

I absolutely agree.

As an intellectual who had to grow up in Australia, an utter jock-ocracy where sport is a national religion and our national olympics team is funded and trained by a public institution (the Australian Institute of Sport) for the sole purpose of increasing "national pride" by winning more Olympic medals, I absolutely loathe all this glorification of pure athletic ability. We build machines so as to save on labor. We use our minds to reduce physical workloads. Physical work may have generated the most wealth during slave economies, but in today's economy it is new ideas and new technology which are responsible for our prosperity.

Prosperity which is taxed away so that the idiots of my nation can get their once-an-Olympiad festival of Jigoistic bread-and-circuses where their National Phallus throbs as the Australian team ascends the medal tally.

The Olympics glorify a skill set which, in today's modern world, only generates prosperity as public entertainment (which itself is highly enhanced by all the inventions created by the nerds which most of the athletes probably beat up during high school). The only exceptions are the more aesthetic sports (which are usually treated as "girly" or "not real sports" or something along those lines). Who is richer, Michael Jordan or Bill Gates?

Not only that, but the Olympics are a zero-sum-game competition that basically functions as an international dick-measuring contest. Only one person can be at the top of the heirarchy, get on your knees and start sucking. This just teaches people that "good" is defined not against objective criterion, but as defeating others. This kind of winner-loser zero-sum-game mentality is both an inaccurate representation of real-world success and a fantastic way to encourage pessimistic views of human nature as just another animal. It teaches people to be concerned not with achieving their own values or making themselves happy, but rather to dominate others in order to receive glory.

As for Adam's whole point... "oh noes, these olympics uniforms look insufficiently masculine and far too metrosexual!!!"

1) Bad news, 'metrosexuality' (i.e. non-gay men realizing that it is totally okay to actually take care of oneself and care about one's appearance, and it doesn't make you less of a man to own some f**king moisturizer) has already won. It is normal these days for men to, in varying degrees, do some skin care. Even going to the gym is principally about aesthetics rather than health. Face it; we are all metrosexuals now. Even 'masculinity' is just the same thing... it is appearance-management in order to conform to a specific ideal of the 'correct' way for men to look.

2) If you want your Olympics team to embody your ideal kind of butchness, that says more about you than it does about anyone else. It also says you care far too much about the Olympics.

3) Socially-accepted masculinity changes all the friggin' time. By today's standards, the Founding Fathers were pansies (look at their eloquent writing! and their obvious intelligence! They MUST have been pansies!!!).

4) World class athletes, who do actual things which are undeniably within the bounds of traditional masculinity, are somehow "mincing" and looking "metrosexual" and this somehow diminishes their manliness? REALLY?!? This just goes to show how utterly f**king shallow traditional masculinity is; it reduces down to appearance and to superficial mannerisms and has nothing to do with any personality traits whatsoever.

5) From the picture I'm seeing, the outfit doesn't look even remotely effeminate. It looks closer to a Naval dress uniform actually. What would you prefer, Adam? Putting all of them in nothing but muscle-shirts and jockstraps?

Everyone can go and get off on the Olympics as much as they like, but I won't be joining in what is nothing but a festival glorifying the brutes who during my time in high school were treated like kings and given all the accolades and appreciation and respect, whereas I received nothing but scorn, ridicule, social emasculation, and the tax bill to train the athletes for the next Olympics so that the dumb people in my country could live vicariously through relatively inconsequential achievements.

[Brant Gaede]

Does the javelin kill the father's son at the same time, Michael?

It was, of course, a reference to the 1915 song. (From George Mason University, read here.) You probably knew that, though. Not much eludes you.

Of course they raised their boys to be soldiers. They just didn't know or understand this--the how and why of it all. Roosevelt was an ass. Most Presidents turn out to be destructive asses one way or another, especially with their ignorant geo-political fiddling powered by too much national power in terms of hubris, guns and butter.

--Brant

[Selene]

As for Adam's whole point... "oh noes, these olympics uniforms look insufficiently masculine and far too metrosexual!!!"

1) Bad news, 'metrosexuality' (i.e. non-gay men realizing that it is totally okay to actually take care of oneself and care about one's appearance, and it doesn't make you less of a man to own some f**king moisturizer) has already won. It is normal these days for men to, in varying degrees, do some skin care. Even going to the gym is principally about aesthetics rather than health. Face it; we are all metrosexuals now. Even 'masculinity' is just the same thing... it is appearance-management in order to conform to a specific ideal of the 'correct' way for men to look.

2) If you want your Olympics team to embody your ideal kind of butchness, that says more about you than it does about anyone else. It also says you care far too much about the Olympics.

3) Socially-accepted masculinity changes all the friggin' time. By today's standards, the Founding Fathers were pansies (look at their eloquent writing! and their obvious intelligence! They MUST have been pansies!!!).

4) World class athletes, who do actual things which are undeniably within the bounds of traditional masculinity, are somehow "mincing" and looking "metrosexual" and this somehow diminishes their manliness? REALLY?!? This just goes to show how utterly f**king shallow traditional masculinity is; it reduces down to appearance and to superficial mannerisms and has nothing to do with any personality traits whatsoever.

5) From the picture I'm seeing, the outfit doesn't look even remotely effeminate. It looks closer to a Naval dress uniform actually. What would you prefer, Adam? Putting all of them in nothing but muscle-shirts and jockstraps?

Everyone can go and get off on the Olympics as much as they like, but I won't be joining in what is nothing but a festival glorifying the brutes who during my time in high school were treated like kings and given all the accolades and appreciation and respect, whereas I received nothing but scorn, ridicule, social emasculation, and the tax bill to train the athletes for the next Olympics so that the dumb people in my country could live vicariously through relatively inconsequential achievements.

Andrew:

I did put this in humor.

The Olympics has become a pale reflection of its original model.

Objectively the "uniforms" look like a WASP's convention in Martha's Vineyard.

The berets do not work at all, despite one, or, two of our elite special forces units, it is French in imagery.

As to your projections as to my intent and feelings by posting this, I will let that die on the vine of unjust opinions.

Adam