WAG IGC requiring female campers to wear shorts or leggings

[bogwoppit]

Just saw this released:

https://internationalgymnastics.com/international-gymnastics-camp-mission-statement/

I like that they are listening, and are capable of making policies work for everyone.

 

[Mrs. Puma]

Just saw this released:

https://internationalgymnastics.com/international-gymnastics-camp-mission-statement/

In my opinion they handled that very well.

 

[reluctant]

In my opinion they handled that very well.

Unfortunately I don't think they handled it well at all. Saying it isn't victim shaming doesn't making it not victim shaming. They should have said that they were in error and that they encourage their participants to wear whatever makes them comfortable.

 

[Mrs. Puma]

Unfortunately I don't think they handled it well at all. Saying it isn't victim shaming doesn't making it not victim shaming. They should have said that they were in error and that they encourage their participants to wear whatever makes them comfortable.

We can agree to disagree! I think the fact that they acknowledged that people were concerned about the message it may have sent and explained that that was not their intent is a very positive step. It seems genuine to me? I know very little about them, but many people on this thread seem to have pretty positive opinions of the organization, and it seems they have been pretty vocal about USAG’s fault in all this. And they did change the policy. I’m sure they wish they had framed it differently and had the policy be optional from the beginning, but they are listening to what people are saying and addressing it. Just my opinion! I appreciate yours! Like most things, this is certainly not black and white...

ETA: In the interest of transparency, I actually did JUST sign Puma Jr up for a week. A teammate invited her and she desperately wants to go. Reading all the positive reviews from you veterans helped ‘ol helicopter mom here make the decision. She is thrilled beyond belief. Shorts or no shorts.

 

[profmom]

What I like is that they are obviously listening. And I do think they have been putting athletes first for a long time, so I am confident they will get this right.

 

[Letstalkgymnastics]

Wow! I can't believe how many people are outraged by this. Really?? If you don't like their policies, don't send your gymnast to their camp. Someone needs to explain to me how covering up more of these young girls bodies is a bad thing.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Wow! I can't believe how many people are outraged by this. Really?? If you don't like their policies, don't send your gymnast to their camp. Someone needs to explain to me how covering up more of these young girls bodies is a bad thing.

Allowing them to cover up more of their bodies would be fine. Requiring them to is the issue.

I've phrased this idea multiple ways through the course of this thread, but I'll try to put it here as succinctly as I can. Abuse is not caused by abusers seeing their victim's bodies; abuse happens when abusers feel they can take control of their victim's bodies. This being the case, any solution which dictates what athletes do with their own bodies is inherently missing the point so hard it's cringe-inducing. We should be empowering our athletes to take greater control of their own bodies, making them feel comfortable saying "no" and speaking out if somebody -- even (or especially) somebody in a position of authority -- tries to take that control away from them.
I have no problem with recommendations that athletes wear shorts. The world is a dangerous place, and sadly it is especially dangerous for young women; we should not mince words when warning them of the dangers that exist in the world, the evil that lurks in the shadows. But our solutions should empower them, not control them.

Good on IGC for softening their policy, and allowing the athletes the freedom to choose what makes them comfortable.

 

[Letstalkgymnastics]

Allowing them to cover up more of their bodies would be fine. Requiring them to is the issue.

I've phrased this idea multiple ways through the course of this thread, but I'll try to put it here as succinctly as I can. Abuse is not caused by abusers seeing their victim's bodies; abuse happens when abusers feel they can take control of their victim's bodies. This being the case, any solution which dictates what athletes do with their own bodies is inherently missing the point so hard it's cringe-inducing. We should be empowering our athletes to take greater control of their own bodies, making them feel comfortable saying "no" and speaking out if somebody -- even (or especially) somebody in a position of authority -- tries to take that control away from them.
I have no problem with recommendations that athletes wear shorts. The world is a dangerous place, and sadly it is especially dangerous for young women; we should not mince words when warning them of the dangers that exist in the world, the evil that lurks in the shadows. But our solutions should empower them, not control them.

Good on IGC for softening their policy, and allowing the athletes the freedom to choose what makes them comfortable.

Sorry, I totally disagree with you. It's up to us coaches, adults, and parents to do what ever we can to protect our children. They can feel empowered when they are adults.

 

[duyetanh]

Sorry, I totally disagree with you. It's up to us coaches, adults, and parents to do what ever we can to protect our children. They can feel empowered when they are adults.

I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I want my child empowered now so that she doesn’t have to learn how to be empowered as an adult from a society that at times seems to struggle with empowerment in the first place. Because that honestly isn’t the best time or place to learn. I bust my arse to make sure to empower my child, and am very grateful that her coaches do the same.

 

[Texasmomof3]

Sorry, I totally disagree with you. It's up to us coaches, adults, and parents to do what ever we can to protect our children. They can feel empowered when they are adults.

You are completely missing the point, unless you actually are one of those people who think what a girl wears dictates whether she is abused. Abuse is never the victim’s fault. I can’t believe people like you still think wearing shorts over a leotard will actually stop abusers.

Wow

 

[duyetanh]

It timed out before I could add on...
Empowering my child at a young age has helped her deal with what, while small compared to sexual abuse, have been situations that lead to loss of empowerment. She has been bullied, mentally and physically, because she is a quiet mouse. She has had racial slurs said to her, both by kids and adults...at a young age she has learned that if you don’t stick up for yourself, you risk the potential to often be the target, because you just can’t always count on others to stick up for you.

My mouse has learned to at times be a rat. And when she is, it’s very effective. And she thanks me for empowering her; how she is handling these situations will help her later in life.

 

[Letstalkgymnastics]

You are completely missing the point, unless you actually are one of those people who think what a girl wears dictates whether she is abused. Abuse is never the victim’s fault. I can’t believe people like you still think wearing shorts over a leotard will actually stop abusers.

Wow

I'm sorry....did I say any of those things?? I think not.

 

[txgymfan]

Please be respectful everyone! I haven’t had to wear my mod hat lately. You all have been really good about being polite during heated discussions. Let’s keep it that way.

 

[Jard.the.gymnast]

Do you think they are reading this thread? Could the negative feedback they are talking about us?

 

[Texasmomof3]

I'm sorry....did I say any of those things?? I think not.

You said that the shorts rule is to protect children. That tells me you think what the gymnast wears will prevent abuse.

That is not my experience with how abuse works.

 

[profmom]

This may be taking us a little bit away from the IGC issue, but I hope it might help.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and there is a possibly useful distinction to draw between sexual abuse that involves physical contact, and sexual abuse that involves the sharing of images of individuals who a) did not know that the images existed, b) knew about them but did not intend for them to be used for sexual purposes, or c) allowed the creation of sexual images, but did not consent to their sharing beyond the person with whom they were originally shared. And with respect to minors, C is obviously out of bounds.

In my view, both constitute abuse and both produce harm. It may be more difficult to describe precisely the harm in the use of an image of someone about which the person may not even know for sexual purposes, though in American law such things have been understood as torts since the turn of the 19th century. I would guess that most of us would feel some range of emotions from deep discomfort to burning rage if we learned that someone had taken photos of our children without our consent and distributed them to other individuals who were using them for sexual purposes. I would definitely feel that as an injury to my child even if I knew that there was no associated physical risk.

The image issue is a different dynamic to crack than physical abuse. I don't think that the victimized individuals should be blamed or shamed for the use of the images. But we need to acknowledge that there's a sexualized construction out there of the child gymnast, and a dark market for these images. What can we as a community do to prevent this kind of harm? For physical harm, I think we have discussed a lot of good ideas, the most important of which is empowering our children to recognize inappropriate behavior, to report it, and to believe them when they say that something is wrong. But none of that has any impact on the guy who pays his admission fee, walks into a Level 7 JO meet, and starts shooting with his camera. How do we both protect and empower against this?

(And if it helps bring us back, I appreciate that IGC has password-protected access to photos and only allows official photographers managed by the camp to take photos. This has been their policy for a long time, and it's a good one.)

 

[bogwoppit]

Sorry, I totally disagree with you. It's up to us coaches, adults, and parents to do what ever we can to protect our children. They can feel empowered when they are adults.

It is up to coaches, adults and parents to effect change in the way we manage things, as in set up clubs and systems so abusers cannot abuse. Not window dress the victims with the false security that "shorts" will somehow protect them.

Clothing does not protect from abuse. Abusers not abusing does. Adults following protocols to the letter does. Adults listening when children report does. Adults making safe sport protocols is a step forward. Adults saying girls must wear more clothes in order to participate does nothing but tell girls that their dress is why they could be a victim.

 

[bogwoppit]

This may be taking us a little bit away from the IGC issue, but I hope it might help.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and there is a possibly useful distinction to draw between sexual abuse that involves physical contact, and sexual abuse that involves the sharing of images of individuals who a) did not know that the images existed, b) knew about them but did not intend for them to be used for sexual purposes, or c) allowed the creation of sexual images, but did not consent to their sharing beyond the person with whom they were originally shared. And with respect to minors, C is obviously out of bounds.

In my view, both constitute abuse and both produce harm. It may be more difficult to describe precisely the harm in the use of an image of someone about which the person may not even know for sexual purposes, though in American law such things have been understood as torts since the turn of the 19th century. I would guess that most of us would feel some range of emotions from deep discomfort to burning rage if we learned that someone had taken photos of our children without our consent and distributed them to other individuals who were using them for sexual purposes. I would definitely feel that as an injury to my child even if I knew that there was no associated physical risk.

The image issue is a different dynamic to crack than physical abuse. I don't think that the victimized individuals should be blamed or shamed for the use of the images. But we need to acknowledge that there's a sexualized construction out there of the child gymnast, and a dark market for these images. What can we as a community do to prevent this kind of harm? For physical harm, I think we have discussed a lot of good ideas, the most important of which is empowering our children to recognize inappropriate behavior, to report it, and to believe them when they say that something is wrong. But none of that has any impact on the guy who pays his admission fee, walks into a Level 7 JO meet, and starts shooting with his camera. How do we both protect and empower against this?

(And if it helps bring us back, I appreciate that IGC has password-protected access to photos and only allows official photographers managed by the camp to take photos. This has been their policy for a long time, and it's a good one.)

There is absolutely no need for IGC to even have photos online, it is a money making concept. It could be done away tomorrow if the real fear is that it is problematic. The other camp my kids attended for many years offers no such service and the kids still had a blast. Maybe it is helicopter parents demanding to "see" their kids daily that contribute to the "need" for these galleries too.

Edited to add - We are always going to have creeps that take photos of vulnerable people for a sick reason. That will not change, it is up to the adults in the system to protect the children, not up to the children to change.

Yes, college leos could be better cut, but frankly a lot of the girls like them that way, Walk on any spring break beach and you will see butt cheeks out for the world to see on lots of teen girls, even young teens. They are just butt cheeks.

 

[TumbleTimes4]

@Texasmomof3 just because she believes the shorts rule will protect children does not mean that she believes clothing choices prevent abuse. That’s an assumption and not a fair one.

I believe the shorts rule could protect them from compromising photos that could end up distributed online as soft porn, as has been previously discussed on this thread. Wouldn’t you agree it’s important to try and protect them from that exploitation?

 

[MILgymFAM]

There is absolutely no need for IGC to even have photos online, it is a money making concept. It could be done away tomorrow if the real fear is that it is problematic. The other camp my kids attended for many years offers no such service and the kids still had a blast. Maybe it is helicopter parents demanding to "see" their kids daily that contribute to the "need" for these galleries too.

I’ve never seen a Camp that doesn’t offer photos online (and my girls have been to over a dozen different ones combined), but that’s almost besides the point here. IGC is trying to push the idea along that shorts are ok. I think it’s an idea that needs a good hard push even taking abuse and photos out of the conversation, because it should have been a competition option all along. That said, unless usag is going to ban every person at meets from ever taking a photo, IGC dropping the recommendation and the photo gallery is meaningless. I know that a dad at a local gym is a pedophile. He’s no longer on probation and does come to meets. His daughter is the same level as my daughter. What is to stop him from snapping pics of my daughter in her leo that inexplicably rides up in the front? She’s pulls it down dozens of times per meet, but I guarantee that irresponsible photos of her would still be easy to snap. USAG isn’t going to ban parents from photography anytime soon. I guess I just don’t think shorts will become a viable OPTION for girls until some coaches/teams/camps start really pushing it. Personally, I appreciate IGC and if we weren’t too poor for their camp, I would send my girl on principal to support them.