Sexism, god help us (1 Viewer)

[CinnamonBoy]

ha ha, saw that. First thing that came to mind? Jeannie Longo!!

Chris Horner for me

 

[egg_]

So nobody can explain to me why the article is stupid? Balls.

@hugh @billygannon I can smell that ye have something to say on this and aren't saying it. So far the blather on this thread has more or less concurred with yer man's thesis

 

[Unicron]

Were you not all watching Kilcoole's Fionnuala Britton there running in the European Championship 10,000m Final?

Sexist pigs.

(She came 8th. A doped up Brit aged 40 won it)

No, the super cup is on.

 

[IFF]

Why is women's tennis so popular?

it seems to me that women's tennis is in terms of name recognition equal (or nearly equal) to mens tennis and this is pretty much the only sport i can think of where this is the case.

from 2012 on bbc

[video]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

we've had a wonderful amount of women's cycling on in the past 2 weeks (la course, commonwealth games time trial, commonwealth games road race, ridel london) so it is good to see that this year the uk tv has surpassed al jazeera for the amount of womens cycling that they have shown.

those 4 events have been very exciting and great to watch. it can be more aggressive than the mens events, but that is helped by the shorter distances involved (the ridelondon race was a criterium)

what is a problem in making womens racing longer is that there is no minimum wage for women in the peloton Teutenberg, Vos and Bronzini call for minimum wage in women's cycling | Cyclingnews.com which means you have professionals racing with amateurs who can not train full time because they need to eat and live and such. it is hard going.

 

[nooleen]

So nobody can explain to me why the article is stupid? Balls.

@hugh @billygannon I can smell that ye have something to say on this and aren't saying it. So far the blather on this thread has more or less concurred with yer man's thesis

i'm pretty sure hugh and billygannon explained
did you read their posts or just smell them?

 

[washingcattle]

So nobody can explain to me why the article is stupid? Balls.

@hugh @billygannon I can smell that ye have something to say on this and aren't saying it. So far the blather on this thread has more or less concurred with yer man's thesis

Look women's sport is pretty much like everything else, if you're a white middle class male and you try to discuss it then someone will accuse you of some sort of "ism" and god forbid you point out the obvious because that makes you even worse.

There are examples of women's sport which is better than mens for example


tennis.com - U.S. Open women’s final scores higher TV ratings than men's final

Or Gymnastics or lets say diving but even if you point that out then you're still a sexist because

STUDY: NBC More Likely To Cover Men's Olympic Events, Show Women In Sports With Minimal Clothing | ThinkProgress

Because that's right it's not that the sport is better it's just that men like the uniforms.

And to be fair, yeah, beach volleyball and gymnastics outfits are pretty fucking ridiculous.

It's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

The fact remains men watch more sport than women. In fact men probably watch more women's sport than women. The women that I know who watch sport watch mens sport like Football because it's the world game and the champions league or world cup are the highest level of that sport. No one wants to watch a lower level of a sport unless they have a personal connection to it. So for example I'll watch Rovers when I can but I'm not under any illusion that it's world class entertainment and unfortunately the same rule applies for a lot of women's sport. But woe betides the man who points that out.

 

[nooleen]

 

[hugh]

So nobody can explain to me why the article is stupid? Balls.

@hugh @billygannon I can smell that ye have something to say on this and aren't saying it. So far the blather on this thread has more or less concurred with yer man's thesis

Yes, it has hasn't it? What a surprise. I'll happily pm you my thoughts on it but for similar reasons to your reluctance to get into this on facebook, I don't really feel like getting into it here.

But that will be like ... tomorrow ... as I'm going to watch TV or something now ....

 

[Lili Marlene]

@egg_ either you're gonna have to tell us what it is your mates on Facebook are saying or you'll have to admit that you DO want to talk about all this feminism stuff on the internet in broader terms cos Billygannon and Hugh answered your exact question.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Well anyway, here is an exact answer:

The article is stupid because it says people who don't care about womens sports are not acting in a sexist way. In reality, not liking something based on the gender of its participants is, by definition, sexist. The end.

 

[Squiggle]

In my childhood and teens I loved playing sports, and was pretty good at several (rugby, fencing and soccer). I beat many guys, was considered at least an equal by most of my contemporaries... but I was actively discouraged by my elders, whether family, teachers, coaches or opposing coaches, as far as I can work out purely on the basis of my being female. I was asked to participate in other sports I hated instead - basketball, hockey and camogie. And though I wasn't the only girl actively playing these sports we were all made to either feel "special" or somehow wrong. Even the people supporting us did so in a condescending manner that was offensive. I could beat any guy on my college fencing team (and beat the irish olympic hopful at the open champs) but still felt like I was continuously being patted on the head.

Until women in sport are taken seriously and treated like equals (ha, until women are treated like equals in every aspect of life) there will always be an imbalance. And yermans article is basically saying "girls don't like sports" eh...

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

There's an awful lot of sexism accusations and counter-accusations and talk of patriarchy and shit charging round the internet, and most of it totally mystifies me. I'm not going to ask for a general explanation of what the fuck everyone is going on about, because it'd take forever and I don't have the energy

They are not difficult concepts. Women face difficulties in their lives and careers that, in general, men do not. Society has not evolved enough to treat women as equals and with respect.
You should only care about this if you have a mother, sister or any other women you love and want the best for.

 

[washingcattle]

Well anyway, here is an exact answer:

The article is stupid because it says people who don't care about womens sports are not acting in a sexist way. In reality, not liking something based on the gender of its participants is, by definition, sexist. The end.

What about not liking it because it's substandard ? Is that okay ?

In my childhood and teens I loved playing sports, and was pretty good at several (rugby, fencing and soccer). I beat many guys, was considered at least an equal by most of my contemporaries... but I was actively discouraged by my elders, whether family, teachers, coaches or opposing coaches, as far as I can work out purely on the basis of my being female. I was asked to participate in other sports I hated instead - basketball, hockey and camogie. And though I wasn't the only girl actively playing these sports we were all made to either feel "special" or somehow wrong. Even the people supporting us did so in a condescending manner that was offensive. I could beat any guy on my college fencing team (and beat the irish olympic hopful at the open champs) but still felt like I was continuously being patted on the head.

Until women in sport are taken seriously and treated like equals (ha, until women are treated like equals in every aspect of life) there will always be an imbalance. And yermans article is basically saying "girls don't like sports" eh...

Right now I'm not asking this to be a cunt. I'm really not. And I'm not asking so that I can go "HA told ya" or anything like that. I know you're probably just going to say I'm a sexist of course, but I don't actually care, After all I actually do watch women's sport, in fact I'd watch two monkeys kicking a ball at each other if it's on telly. So insofar as there's always a lot of moral outcry over "sexism" when it comes right down to it usually the ones shouting the loudest about sexism, have the least to say about the actual topic. You on the other hand seem to be in a position to answer from a position of personal experience.

As someone who excelled at sports you're in a perfect position to answer to one of the wider comments he made in the article so - how much time you dedicate to watching sport on TV ?because the article wasn't about sport as much as it was about TV coverage and viewing habits.

The second question is how much women's sport would you watch ?


Remember that 90% of musicians at the camden crawl are men thread ? This seems to be going the same way - lads saying yeah but more lads start bands so that's to be expected, lady's saying that's not fair but nearly all the lads were in bands and few of the lady's were so it remained "about sexism" rather than "about bands" which is pretty reductionist. I ask this because we have a sports forum here on thumped and the likes of @nooly (who's more than happy to post her "bang harder" gif there) or @Lili Marlene never seems to post in it.


And sorry lastly

I'm a bit confused by one thing in your post there by the way are you saying that your coach actually actively dissuaded you from playing a sport that they were the coach of ?

 

[Lili Marlene]

What about not liking it because it's substandard ? Is that okay ?

Well assuming that that is the case, the argument that the article is not even willing to engage in is that womens sports may be substandard because it's not supported, due to an inherent sexism in society. This feeds itself and leads to less women seeing a reason to be interested, which leads to less people involved, less people watching, a further lowering of standards etc.

I'm not even saying I'm making that argument because I think things are about a million times more nuanced than that. But he doesn't think that. He says "some things are pretty simple", people don't watch womens sports because "you can’t make people care". Which isn't a reason. And that's possibly why egg's friends say it's a stupid article.

 

[egg_]

Well anyway, here is an exact answer:

The article is stupid because it says people who don't care about womens sports are not acting in a sexist way. In reality, not liking something based on the gender of its participants is, by definition, sexist. The end.

Ah here - it's not ok to prefer hurling to camogie because that's sexist? Are you being serious? If that's true then sexism becomes meaningless

 

[Moods For Mallards]

Valiant effort to keep this thread focused on the article, @Lili Marlene. It won't be forgotten at the final judgement.

 

[BonsaiSuperstar]

Seems a bit weird to call the same sport something different for different genders, doesnt it?

 

[egg_]

i'm pretty sure hugh and billygannon explained
did you read their posts or just smell them?

hmmm
I still don't really get it
I guess I need things spelled out to me

 

[egg_]

He says "some things are pretty simple", people don't watch womens sports because "you can’t make people care". Which isn't a reason. And that's possibly why egg's friends say it's a stupid article.

Oh wait, here we go

Why isn't it a reason? People don't watch women's sports as much as men because they just aren't as interested in them?

Ah hang on ... so you're saying "that's not a sufficient reason - there must be some other underlying reason why more people don't like women's sports"

Am I getting somewhere now? And you reckon the ultimate reason is that women generally have a lower status in our society, whereas @washingcattle thinks it's more to do with physical differences between men and women.

Your ultimate reason - societal power structures (which might be changeable)
@washingcattle's ultimate reason - biology (which is not changeable)

Is that it?

 

[rettucs]

Seems a bit weird to call the same sport something different for different genders, doesnt it?

nowadays it is. Historically they were basically 2 different sports though with very different sets of rules and with different governing bodies.

When I started coaching camogie (mid-90s) I was gobsmacked by how antiquated some of the rules were (for example there was an ACTUAL rule that stated your underwear must be made in Ireland). Over the course of the next 5 years or so the game changed a lot. It became 15-a-side and the rules tended back towards the hurling rules a lot more.

At this stage the 2 sports are effectively the same (apart from the 3-catch rule and that stupid fucking rule that still allows camogie players handpass a goal). Any resistance to changing the name of the sport to hurling would come from the governing body of the game themselves. Still a load of antiquated old biddies.

True story. I used to attend county board meetings on behalf of the team(s) I coached. At these meetings the aul ones would break out their knitting and knit away til the meeting was over.

Sometimes the governing bodies could be doing more to help themselves, would be the moral of that story.