I noticed some text in this article that I, as a woman, found annoying at best and at worst, disturbing, considering the emphasis on the history of women being excluded from these events.
To include pertinent details for one athlete while omitting them for another is a subtle, yet powerful, way to imply that one athlete's achievement holds a higher value than another.
My case in point is in the second paragraph: "The winner in the Men's Open class was Uhr Rosar of Slovenia, with a jump of 98 meters. On the women's side, the Open class was won by Nejka Zupančič of Slovenia."
Why do we know how far Mr. Rosar jumped but not Ms. Zupančič?! If you did not have access to her metrics, then the appropriate thing to do would be to state so in the article.
It is a glaring omission that does a profound injustice to not only Ms. Zupančič, but the entire sport of women's jumping. The important role acknowledgement plays as a factor in authentication, relevance, and recognition cannot be overstated.
Jane Kolias
Putney
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.