Sometimes I get asked the question of how old is too old to begin slaloming. The answer is, of course, NEVER. Anyone in reasonable shape with the desire to go skating can learn how to slalom. Anyone with doubts, of course, should ask a doctor, but there is absolutely no age limit to the sport.
In fact, in my experience, older skaters often turn out to be talented, as well as easy to teach. This is, of course, awesome.
I think this comes because a lot of people have always wanted to learn to skate, but they only get the time when they are a little older and their kids, if they have them, are grown up. When they finally do start, they are focused and ready to learn. As a result, they improve very quickly, and it's remarkable to see.
Anyone who wants to learn to slalom but feels like they might be "too old," I would encourage to abandon that sort of thinking and just do it. It's bad enough that the stereotype of ageism exists, and it's even worse when we start imposing this upon ourselves! Think about it...if everyone just tried to fit into the little boxes that stereotypes dictate we should, the world would be a very boring place full of extremely boring people.
Slalomers, fortunately, are hardly ever boring. :)
"Too old" and "Not flexible enough" are two of the reasons for NOT slaloming that I often hear. They are both invalid on their own. You don't have to be young or flexible to become a good slalom skater. You just have to really want it, and then go skating...often.
Speaking of which, I'm off to skate.
Happy skating, everybody!
xoxoxo
meg
Showing posts with label stereotypes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stereotypes. Show all posts
Monday, March 14, 2011
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Status Quo
In my Dutch lessons, we use a book called TaalRecht, and just in case you speak Dutch and want to check out the company website, it is here.
The book is very helpful for my learning and I am doing very well with it.
That being said, the content of the book is questionable at best.
I understand that the culture here is different in that people call it like they see it, instead of being so obnoxiously politically correct all the time like they are in the States. However, I am infuriated when we sit in class and are forced to do read an exercise called "Ik doe niet mee!" (translates to "I don't do along," or in this context, "I don't play along,") which talks about how girls don't play enough sports and therefore have health problems. Here is the original offending text, in Dutch, followed by a Google translation that I edited myself to be more accurate (because we all know Google translation likes to tell us some funny things sometimes).
"Ik doe niet mee!"
from TaalRecht 2.3 by An Wuyts and Ingrid Van Doninck
"Vrouwen doen niet genoeg aan sport. De belangrijkste reden die ze hiervoor opgeven is: gebrek aan tijd. Maar dit is volgens onderzoekers een zwak excuus. Als vrouwen meer tijd hadden, zouden ze nog niet meer gaan sporten."
"Daardoor is de conditie van vrouwen beneden alle peil. Vrouwen hebben veel meer last van kleine gezondheidsprobleempjes dan mannen. Ze gaan vaker naar de dokter en voelen zich niet goed in hun vel. Ze zijn sneller moe, hebben last van hoofdpijn en lusteloosheid. Als vrouwen meer aan sport zouden doen, dan waren hun kleine probleempjes zo verdwenen."
(omitted a paragraph here)
English Translation:
"I don't go along!"
"Women don't do enough sports. The main reason they give is this: lack of time. But this is a weak excuse according to researchers. If women had more time, they would still not work out."
"This is why the condition of women is worse. Women are suffering more from small health problems than men. They often go to the doctor and do not feel good in their skin. They quickly tire, have headaches and lethargy. If women would do more sports than they do now, these small problems would disappear."
(paragraph omitted)
"Girls between the ages of 16 to 25 are strongly influenced by what people around them do. Girls with a sporty sibling often make the game themselves. But if that brother or sister did not participate in sports, they would themselves as lazy as their friends. You ask girls why they exercise, the answer is often that they want to look good. But if that fails, the girls quickly stop."
(paragraph omitted)
To be fair, the last paragraph of this story, which I omitted, talks about how men also don't do enough sport. But the tone and message of this piece is thoroughly damaging, suggesting that women only care about fitness in terms of their looks, that unless they are inspired by a sporty sibling that they will always choose to be lazy, and that even in the case that women are bothered enough to begin sports, that if they don't see quick results in their figures that they will soon stop.
Without academic references backing these statements up, I refuse to accept them. And perhaps those studies do exist, but up until I see proof included next to every sentence, this kind of garbage talk does not belong in my textbook.
I have considered the fact that the authors of the textbook have inserted these sorts of opinion-statements in order to spark lively discussion in the class. In that case, bully for them, but then they need to be more overt about it, instead of simply including this sort of material without any clarifying information whatsoever. And the problem with the book, the way that it stands, is that nobody (except for me, and one other civic-minded classmate) ever raises a peep in protest. To my horror, other students in the class shrug and say "It's just a textbook. It's just an example."
Well, it's not just an example. Every classroom digesting this sort of input without question is perpetuating negative stereotypes through acceptance. "But girls DO do fewer sports than boys," you might say. Well, let's stop and ask why you think that is. It's because a generation after feminism, we still have pieces like this in our textbooks.
Would you want to read this to your daughter or niece? I certainly wouldn't.
Just in case you are wondering, I plan on writing to the publishers. In Dutch. And letting them know exactly what's on my mind. I bet I will learn more than a few new words in the process.
As always, thanks for reading.
xoxoxo
meg
I promise I will do another skating-instruction post soon...I've got a few cooking. But I just couldn't NOT write about this today.
The book is very helpful for my learning and I am doing very well with it.
That being said, the content of the book is questionable at best.
I understand that the culture here is different in that people call it like they see it, instead of being so obnoxiously politically correct all the time like they are in the States. However, I am infuriated when we sit in class and are forced to do read an exercise called "Ik doe niet mee!" (translates to "I don't do along," or in this context, "I don't play along,") which talks about how girls don't play enough sports and therefore have health problems. Here is the original offending text, in Dutch, followed by a Google translation that I edited myself to be more accurate (because we all know Google translation likes to tell us some funny things sometimes).
"Ik doe niet mee!"
from TaalRecht 2.3 by An Wuyts and Ingrid Van Doninck
"Vrouwen doen niet genoeg aan sport. De belangrijkste reden die ze hiervoor opgeven is: gebrek aan tijd. Maar dit is volgens onderzoekers een zwak excuus. Als vrouwen meer tijd hadden, zouden ze nog niet meer gaan sporten."
"Daardoor is de conditie van vrouwen beneden alle peil. Vrouwen hebben veel meer last van kleine gezondheidsprobleempjes dan mannen. Ze gaan vaker naar de dokter en voelen zich niet goed in hun vel. Ze zijn sneller moe, hebben last van hoofdpijn en lusteloosheid. Als vrouwen meer aan sport zouden doen, dan waren hun kleine probleempjes zo verdwenen."
(omitted a paragraph here)
"Meisjes in de leeftijdscategorie van 16 tot 25 worden sterk beinvloed door wat de mensen rondom hen doen. Meisjes met een sportieve broer of zus, doen vaak ook zelf aan sport. Maar als die broer of zus niet aan sport deed, zouden ze zelf even lui zijn als hun vrienden. Vraag je aan meisjes waarom ze sporten, dan is het antwoord vaak dat ze er goed willen uitzien. Maar als dat niet lukt, haken de meisjes snel af."
(omitted another paragraph here)
English Translation:
"I don't go along!"
"Women don't do enough sports. The main reason they give is this: lack of time. But this is a weak excuse according to researchers. If women had more time, they would still not work out."
"This is why the condition of women is worse. Women are suffering more from small health problems than men. They often go to the doctor and do not feel good in their skin. They quickly tire, have headaches and lethargy. If women would do more sports than they do now, these small problems would disappear."
(paragraph omitted)
"Girls between the ages of 16 to 25 are strongly influenced by what people around them do. Girls with a sporty sibling often make the game themselves. But if that brother or sister did not participate in sports, they would themselves as lazy as their friends. You ask girls why they exercise, the answer is often that they want to look good. But if that fails, the girls quickly stop."
(paragraph omitted)
To be fair, the last paragraph of this story, which I omitted, talks about how men also don't do enough sport. But the tone and message of this piece is thoroughly damaging, suggesting that women only care about fitness in terms of their looks, that unless they are inspired by a sporty sibling that they will always choose to be lazy, and that even in the case that women are bothered enough to begin sports, that if they don't see quick results in their figures that they will soon stop.
Without academic references backing these statements up, I refuse to accept them. And perhaps those studies do exist, but up until I see proof included next to every sentence, this kind of garbage talk does not belong in my textbook.
I have considered the fact that the authors of the textbook have inserted these sorts of opinion-statements in order to spark lively discussion in the class. In that case, bully for them, but then they need to be more overt about it, instead of simply including this sort of material without any clarifying information whatsoever. And the problem with the book, the way that it stands, is that nobody (except for me, and one other civic-minded classmate) ever raises a peep in protest. To my horror, other students in the class shrug and say "It's just a textbook. It's just an example."
Well, it's not just an example. Every classroom digesting this sort of input without question is perpetuating negative stereotypes through acceptance. "But girls DO do fewer sports than boys," you might say. Well, let's stop and ask why you think that is. It's because a generation after feminism, we still have pieces like this in our textbooks.
Would you want to read this to your daughter or niece? I certainly wouldn't.
Just in case you are wondering, I plan on writing to the publishers. In Dutch. And letting them know exactly what's on my mind. I bet I will learn more than a few new words in the process.
As always, thanks for reading.
xoxoxo
meg
I promise I will do another skating-instruction post soon...I've got a few cooking. But I just couldn't NOT write about this today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)