Tonight:
9°c
Of the various silly, obtuse and downright sexist arguments I have heard over the past several weeks about whether women's boxing should be included in the 2012 Olympics in London — it got the nod just yesterday — Frank Warren's is my pick of the crop.
Warren, the infamous boxing promoter whose brood has included some of Britain's best fighters, Nigel Benn, Ricky Hatton and Joe Calzaghe among them, said that women should not be allowed to fight, because “in this world, everybody is equal. But boxing is a tough sport … I wouldn't want my daughter boxing.”
My father doesn't like the fact I do Muay Thai boxing, either. But I'm sure he'd like it much less if someone tried to attack me on the street and I didn't have the front to deliver a quick jab between the eyes and make a run for it.
Having the confidence to do this rather than cower in tears was the reason I began Muay Thai, and my enthusiasm for it comes as a surprise to most people who know me. I'm a pacific, yoga-loving feminist, but decided I needed to become less of a wimp after several unpleasant, but ultimately harmless, confrontations on work trips abroad.
I soon discovered that the discipline and mental stamina required of the training is easily as effective a de-stresser as yoga. As a workout, you'll find little else that exercises so many muscle groups so consistently.
Still, I can't escape the fact that the actual fighting bit makes me wince a little — 28 years of misunderstanding boxing as raw violence and a socially acceptable red rag to thugs is a hard preconception to overcome.
Scenes like those of the women I watched sparring earlier this week help, though. It was a mixed-level class and the two were well matched: both small and strong. They stood out from the men because of the creativity they brought to their sparring.
I'm not saying male boxers don't think: if they didn't, they wouldn't even make it to the ring. But women grow up knowing they cannot rely on their strength, and, when they box, it shows.
As well as a general distaste for the notion of women boxers, Warren has pointed out that a woman might spar during the early months of pregnancy, unaware of her condition. Indeed she might, Frank. And yes, there could be serious repercussions. But using a woman's capacity to get pregnant as a reason to exclude her from a sport is a low blow indeed.
All women who play sports to a high level risk being in the preliminary stages of pregnancy during intense periods of training. Plenty of women I know threw back a bottle and a half of red the night before they found out they were pregnant. Should we avoid alcohol too, just in case?
Refusing women the chance to compete in Olympic boxing is sexual discrimination, plain and simple. The truth is, lots of people just feel women should stick to non-contact sports.
As for your average amateur boxing enthusiast, people will always battle anger and aggression, so far better they punch it out in a gym than at home on their partner. If more women were encouraged to train in boxing, maybe they would have the confidence to stand up to would-be attackers, at home or on the street.
For me, it's more about an attitude than the desire to break someone's jaw. The attitude that women are too weak to box at Olympic level suggests they are, well, too weak. And that would have been the wrong message to send out as we prepare for the capital's biggest ever sports event.
Reader views (4)
Boxing is morally repugnant for the reason it's purpose is to damage the opponent. Any sport be it Muay thai boxing, Tai Kwon Do or Wushu where the purpose is to rain blows on the cranium of the opponent is dangerous. Pursuing it as a career is just foolish. We should be looking to insist male boxers wear headguards at least, not encourage 'the weaker sex' to do it too. What next - kiddie kuffs ? TV constantly shows women beating the stuffing out of blokes which is just as silly as showing men beating the stuffing out of each other for ten minutes without serious injury. Anyone who has been punched in the face will remember that feeling forever and seek not to glorify it but to avoid it.
- Squiz, Islington
Boxing should be banned.
- Frank, Home Counties, England.
Nowhere in your article is the phrase "brain damage." That is what all boxers risk, "creative" or not. "Creative" means the ability to produce a piece of music or literature, not different ways to injure people.
You ask, "Should we avoid alcohol too, just in case?" If your friend regularly, unthinkingly knocks back a bottle and a half a night, then, yes, she ought to avoid it, in order not to make her tiny brain even less effective.
You do not need to know boxing to defend yourself. Self-defence is all one needs. And how much of this trouble might be avoided by behaving in a sensible and discreet way? From what you write, I wouldn't trust you to know what that is.
This article is an example of women's claiming "discrimination" and "sexism" if they are not allowed to be as vicious as men, or if they are prevented from making money, no matter how. It is the argument of a bully and a whore. This is not feminism. It is a debasement of women.
- Rosleinrot, London UK
Any Friday night outside a nightclub will demonstrate that today’s women (or "girls" as they like to be called nowadays) are not the sweet, gentile flowers that they choose to be when it suits.
But that is not the point.
PEOPLE in general believe in equality of opportunity, sure, but when it comes to women fighting on the front line in battle, that is close quarter blood and guts stuff, most would NATURALLY BE repulsed by the idea.
Why?
You notice I used the word NATURALLY.
The revulsion response to women and violence is hard wired by hundreds of thousands of generations of evolution, where men are hunters and women child bearers - it makes no sense to endanger the offspring, so women nurtured whilst men did violence to animals and each other.
This is not to say women didn’t ever fight for status, they almost certainly did, and it could be argued that this is why women want to beat each other in the ring, in the name of sport, today.
But in reality, they are wanting equality to do all that men do because men do it, whether it goes against their NATURE or not - which really means that, for all the changes brought upon by feminism, they are still wanting to compete with men!
Now if they were to argue that ALL violent contact sport was WRONG on grounds of exploitation, as they do with beauty pageants and pornography, then perhaps the argument would make more sense - but of course, this is sport, and PERSONAL glory and therefore deemed beyond all that, is it not?
- Darius Midwinter, London UK
