News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I doubt that fight can be counted as "exceptionally good performance", but anyway why the same didn't happen for those that both performed exceptionally well and actually set records?
There are so many examples of that not happening that makes me seriously doubt it identifies the right cause(s).
What you think are the right causes are not the causes, they are the tools (stereotypical biases etc) that these people use to make their stories believable.
And counting is not the correct methodological approach to this question it is the incident rate (historically of women whose success has been deliberately downplayed because she does not fit the stereotypical women in their head vs men who suffered from the same).
Those look nothing like "tools" to me.
I will make it simpler: In this very thread a person talked about "high testosterone". Why they didn't say the same about the 99% of the women who won competitions? Probably because of a combination of factors:
To me the combination of the above is a much better explanation of the causes for which people attacked this particular boxer, and not the many other women of success, including black and including masculine (e.g., Simone Biles, or Grace Bullen).
I really don't see how this measurement can lead to any conclusion. How can you not measure the amount of women who don't fit the stereotypical woman aspect and yet whose success has not been downplayed due to their aspect (i.e., people called them men)?
It makes up for a more believable story in this context (boxing which is accepted as a masculine sport) and therefore becomes a more efficient tool. It fits in more easily with people's biases making it much easier to spread. Simon Biles is a gymnast so that does not fit into the context here. Grace Bullen does. But you can not simply say "it did not happen to other women in plausible scenerios, therefore it is not real". It is like saying belts are useless in %90 of the cases, it is a useless statistic that does not take into account the expected effect.
What do you mean? Comparing the rate at which women are subject to such effects vs men is a worse statistic than saying "but many successful women are not subject to such effects"? If there is a systematic bias towards women's success being downplayed, you cannot call this an isolated incident of stereotypical bias.
You can take any other boxer, I specifically chose black and "masculine" athletes as examples to show that even race/body type alone was not the determining factor. In these Olympic games you have just Imane's example: how can you call this a trend or make general statements with one case (not even the Taiwanese boxer got attention)?
Men don't have a category to which they are wrongfully assigned when they win sports. This is also because men are the higher category in most sports (i.e., higher performers), so it is a parallel that simply doesn't make sense. So yes. It is a worse statistics because men who are victim of gender stereotypes are generally not the ones who excel at sports (men who are called women in general break the masculine stereotype of the muscular and competitive guy - and these unsurprisingly are not characteristics common in elite athletes).
But this was not your claim either. Your claim is that downplaying is done by specifically saying those women are men. The whole point here is on the cause, not the existence of the phenomenon in general.
You are thinking it is a worse statistics because you are still too fixated on the particular example that I gave which that she was called a man. We are currently discussing the ridiculous ways in which women's success are generally downplayed more than men and men are embraced more than women. That is because you think the cause ia gender sterotypes where as I think gender stereotypes is a particular tool/excuae used in this particular case whose cause is unwillingness of particular types of people to accept women's success. And then you will again say they have embraced a lot of women's success in this particular event and we will circle back to me talking about incident rates and other historical examples and how compared to men incident rate of downplaying the success will be much higher so perhaps we can stop here, I dont know.
If you think the point of my original statement is really about "successful women being called men all the time" then you have really missed the point. It just points out to a particular way in which a woman's success was downplayed in this particular event vs all the other men's were embraced. Many other women's were embraced as well, however the impact of downplaying this woman's success was profound.
How did I miss the point? To me it seems clear that what you were saying that women can't be successful, if they are, they are considered men (because men have success).
I am not fixating on the example, sorry, it's the whole thesis you condensed into this sentence that I am fixated on. Women's success can be downplayed in many ways. Either way, in sports in 2024 I don't think this is as much of a problem as it is - say - in business. Most importantly, I think this case had not much to do with downplaying Imane's success (the whole case started waaaay earlier she won the medal), but simply with other factors.