|
Post by stokeykez on Feb 20, 2019 0:05:38 GMT
Alex Scott is a brilliant pundit, sue Smith ain't bad. Love Georgie gingham on talksport on a satdee, cannot fuckin stand Jackie Oakley...dreadful
|
|
|
Post by samba :) on Feb 20, 2019 0:13:31 GMT
The woman they keep putting on sky with souness is shite, souness knows it aswell.
|
|
|
Post by stokieoldboy on Feb 20, 2019 0:14:23 GMT
I have no problem with women commentators, refereeing,or them running the line, if that's what they choose to do,but my feeling is.they should stick with Womens football, and not the mans game,me personally I think it has to stop now, if not the mans game is going to be run by females,every season we see more creeping into the mens game, and if I was Gary lineker I would be worried about losing my job to a woman,i know I may come across as been sexist, but I'm not,i have every respect for what they choose do as a profession,i guess Im just old fashioned geezer,
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Feb 20, 2019 0:36:02 GMT
I have no problem with women commentators, refereeing,or them running the line, if that's what they choose to do,but my feeling is.they should stick with Womens football, and not the mans game,me personally I think it has to stop now, if not the mans game is going to be run by females,every season we see more creeping into the mens game, and if I was Gary lineker I would be worried about losing my job to a woman,i know I may come across as been sexist, but I'm not,i have every respect for what they choose do as a profession,i guess Im just old fashioned geezer, Genuine question....is this irony? (please be irony)
|
|
|
Post by bertieb on Feb 20, 2019 6:53:34 GMT
I never said it, read the post again. And it is nothing to do with accents. I have read it and it is everything to do with the attributes of a female voice. " Even my missus said it doesn't sound right and IT SHOULD BE A BLOKE". You wouldn't post " it doesn't sound right and it should be a white" would you? Still wasn't me who said it, I was commenting on what my wife said(you know, another woman!) In relation to it not sounding right after so many years of men commentating, or is she sexist, no one is saying they arent knowledgeable, no one is saying it is wrong and as for trying to turn it into a race argument,pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Feb 20, 2019 8:51:28 GMT
Women should be commentating on women's football, not men's.
This isn't sexist.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 20, 2019 9:10:08 GMT
The woman they keep putting on sky with souness is shite, souness knows it aswell. Souness himself is utterly shite, he may as well wear a massive badge that says 'Yer Da' on it. He's a Scottish Pejic.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Feb 20, 2019 9:13:50 GMT
The woman they keep putting on sky with souness is shite, souness knows it aswell. Souness himself is utterly shite, he may as well where a massive badge that says 'Yer Da' on it. He's a Scottish Pejic. Not heard him comment on Pogba’s performance at Stamford Bridge this week....
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Feb 20, 2019 9:50:10 GMT
Nothing against women but I believe to get paid for criticising and judging you need to have been part of the action at some time, that goes for management too. It’s easy to say what should have been but I find it a little unfair when you don’t have the background or experience to judge. It’s like criticising a sports difficulty and skill when you’ve never played it. I find the ex players van be dull. Better insight comes from good journalists.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Feb 20, 2019 10:40:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Feb 20, 2019 11:26:47 GMT
I rarely watch any pundits but all of the female ones I've seen have been relatively attractive, I've never seen the female equivalent of Steve Bruce doing any punditry..
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Feb 20, 2019 18:02:01 GMT
I have read it and it is everything to do with the attributes of a female voice. " Even my missus said it doesn't sound right and IT SHOULD BE A BLOKE". You wouldn't post " it doesn't sound right and it should be a white" would you? Still wasn't me who said it, I was commenting on what my wife said(you know, another woman!) In relation to it not sounding right after so many years of men commentating, or is she sexist, no one is saying they arent knowledgeable, no one is saying it is wrong and as for trying to turn it into a race argument,pathetic. l To be honest I don't care whether it was you or you wife. What I find pathetic is that anyone in 2019 thinks that certain jobs in the media should only be fulfilled by men. And whether you like it or not drawing a comparison with race on such a position is perfectly valid.
|
|
|
Post by Edward Tattsyrup on Feb 20, 2019 18:07:25 GMT
Still wasn't me who said it, I was commenting on what my wife said(you know, another woman!) In relation to it not sounding right after so many years of men commentating, or is she sexist, no one is saying they arent knowledgeable, no one is saying it is wrong and as for trying to turn it into a race argument,pathetic. l To be honest I don't care whether it was you or you wife. What I find pathetic is that anyone in 2019 thinks that certain jobs in the media should only be fulfilled by men. And whether you like it or not drawing a comparison with race on such a position is perfectly valid. I quite agree. Particularly the slim, busty attractive types that Sky Sports go for.
|
|
|
Post by tony1234 on Feb 20, 2019 18:42:53 GMT
Sorry to be political, but that's what this issue is There is no reason to promote women with these tokenist schemes - there is no such things as the pay gap, pretty much, once you take into account "choice" . The only reason that women are portrayed as disadvantaged is because those with a political agenda decided to look at, by and large, the only couple of metrics where women were worse off, which was total pay and how many are in Boardrooms. Out of that warped analysis comes the notion that in every area of life, women need to be artificially elevated to privileged jobs, irrespective of their lack of experience, ability, etc. When you look across the piece though, there are lots of good reasons to promote men from poorer backgrounds before you promote women to these jobs. www.essex.ac.uk/news/2019/01/03/new-measure-for-gender-inequality-suggests-many-disadvantages-for-menThe thread is about female pundits and sexism in football. The majority of football pundits ARE men from poorer backgrounds (albeit enriched by their playing contracts). People who don't like female pundits will inevitably claim their presence is due to quotas or diversity targets - and in some cases that may be true. However for a whole host of reasons attracting more girls/women to sport in general and football in particular can only be a good thing - and if employing female presenters helps to make the sport more inclusive then in my opinion it should be applauded. <iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="8.28000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 33.83999999999992px; height: 8.28000000000003px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_10186546" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="8.28000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 8.28px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1622px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_6218479" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="8.28000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 8.28px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 350px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_95410238" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="8.28000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 8.28px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1622px; top: 350px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_92426551" scrolling="no"></iframe> What are the host of reasons?
|
|
|
Post by bertieb on Feb 20, 2019 20:07:25 GMT
Still wasn't me who said it, I was commenting on what my wife said(you know, another woman!) In relation to it not sounding right after so many years of men commentating, or is she sexist, no one is saying they arent knowledgeable, no one is saying it is wrong and as for trying to turn it into a race argument,pathetic. l To be honest I don't care whether it was you or you wife. What I find pathetic is that anyone in 2019 thinks that certain jobs in the media should only be fulfilled by men. And whether you like it or not drawing a comparison with race on such a position is perfectly valid. fuck me you are hard work, where did my post say that certain jobs should be for men only? No where! I stated that my wife said it didn't SOUND right,not that it wasn't right, mainly because we have been used to the male voice over the years. So no the comparison with race isn't valid, nothing was said about race or accents at all. Probably less respect for women in your username than anything that I have posted.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 20, 2019 20:20:28 GMT
Kelly Cates, best football presenter on the radio.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Feb 20, 2019 21:10:01 GMT
Women should be commentating on women's football, not men's. This isn't sexist. Men should only comment on men's punditry, not women's.
|
|
|
Post by Beloved Monkfish on Feb 21, 2019 8:20:28 GMT
I have no problem with women commentators, refereeing,or them running the line, if that's what they choose to do,but my feeling is.they should stick with Womens football, and not the mans game,me personally I think it has to stop now, if not the mans game is going to be run by females,every season we see more creeping into the mens game, and if I was Gary lineker I would be worried about losing my job to a woman,i know I may come across as been sexist, but I'm not,i have every respect for what they choose do as a profession,i guess Im just old fashioned geezer, "I'm not racist, and I've got a black friend, but..."
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Feb 21, 2019 8:57:55 GMT
The thread is about female pundits and sexism in football. The majority of football pundits ARE men from poorer backgrounds (albeit enriched by their playing contracts). People who don't like female pundits will inevitably claim their presence is due to quotas or diversity targets - and in some cases that may be true. However for a whole host of reasons attracting more girls/women to sport in general and football in particular can only be a good thing - and if employing female presenters helps to make the sport more inclusive then in my opinion it should be applauded. <iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="8.28000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 33.83999999999992px; height: 8.28000000000003px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_10186546" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="8.28000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 8.28px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1622px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_6218479" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="8.28000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 8.28px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 350px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_95410238" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="8.28000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 8.28px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1622px; top: 350px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_92426551" scrolling="no"></iframe> What are the host of reasons? Health, inclusivity, revenue, positive role models, aspirational opportunity to name but a few.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Feb 21, 2019 10:16:52 GMT
l To be honest I don't care whether it was you or you wife. What I find pathetic is that anyone in 2019 thinks that certain jobs in the media should only be fulfilled by men. And whether you like it or not drawing a comparison with race on such a position is perfectly valid. fuck me you are hard work, where did my post say that certain jobs should be for men only? No where! I stated that my wife said it didn't SOUND right,not that it wasn't right, mainly because we have been used to the male voice over the years. So no the comparison with race isn't valid, nothing was said about race or accents at all. Probably less respect for women in your username than anything that I have posted. Yes I am hard work - it's what I do😁. The username is an ironic charicature. If you don't get that and you're old enough think Les Dawson's "Cosmo Smallpiece" or more recently Viz's "Finbarr Saunders" - if you still don't get it I'm not bothered. Anyway at least you're aligned with our Prime Minister in your household so I'll leave you to sort out the boy jobs and the girl jobs. You're on the bins today I think. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Feb 21, 2019 10:23:28 GMT
I rarely watch any pundits but all of the female ones I've seen have been relatively attractive, I've never seen the female equivalent of Steve Bruce doing any punditry.. Sue Smith 😬
|
|
|
Post by tony1234 on Feb 21, 2019 13:42:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Feb 21, 2019 13:51:37 GMT
Best words written on this thread! ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif)
|
|
|
Post by tony1234 on Feb 21, 2019 13:54:15 GMT
Do You formatting to deliberately make replies difficult Sarg?
To your pt Sarg, "Health, inclusivity, revenue, positive role models, aspirational opportunity to name but a few. " (are the benefits of diversity quotas)
Anyhow:- 1. Practical point - There is nothing stopping people attaining those health and economic benefits in countless ways. So that's not true. (And there is certainly no evidence that discrimiating against men achieves net social benefit is there?)
2. Moral point - Its a question of taste I guess, but personally, I can't justify discriminating against one identity group to fund/give privellege to another; just like I couldn't justify banning or curtailing people from Asian backgrounds from opening Indian restaurants, or reducing the opportunities for women working as health care professionals.
3. Economic - If you really wished to spend more raising aspirations, the key differential is between low participation neighbourhoods or lower socio-economic households, particularly kids from care backgrounds, and not between men and women, Women earn more than men in earlier careers until they choose different lifestyle choices, including but not exclusively, parenthood.
4. Career point - Scandanavia have tried more than anywhere else to socially-engineer quotas. However, the more they tried the more genders reverted to stereotypical roles (v few female engineers for instance). Rather than spending time, money and energy of virtue signalling and tokenism, why not promote role models on the basis that they have achieved self-actualisation through their choices, whatever their career and identity? To try and nudge people to take career paths on the basis of unrealistic idealism, at the cost of personal purpose and fulfillment, is what the Left too often do: treat people as their toys through which to realise a vision that serves no one well and ends up costing tax payers, employers but most importantly, the subjects of the social engineering.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Feb 21, 2019 14:36:06 GMT
Do You formatting to deliberately make replies difficult Sarg? To your pt Sarg, "Health, inclusivity, revenue, positive role models, aspirational opportunity to name but a few. " (are the benefits of diversity quotas) Anyhow:- 1. Practical point - There is nothing stopping people attaining those health and economic benefits in countless ways. So that's not true. (And there is certainly no evidence that discrimiating against men achieves net social benefit is there?) 2. Moral point - Its a question of taste I guess, but personally, I can't justify discriminating against one identity group to fund/give privellege to another; just like I couldn't justify banning or curtailing people from Asian backgrounds from opening Indian restaurants, or reducing the opportunities for women working as health care professionals. 3. Economic - If you really wished to spend more raising aspirations, the key differential is between low participation neighbourhoods or lower socio-economic households, particularly kids from care backgrounds, and not between men and women, Women earn more than men in earlier careers until they choose different lifestyle choices, including but not exclusively, parenthood. 4. Career point - Scandanavia have tried more than anywhere else to socially-engineer quotas. However, the more they tried the more genders reverted to stereotypical roles (v few female engineers for instance). Rather than spending time, money and energy of virtue signalling and tokenism, why not promote role models on the basis that they have achieved self-actualisation through their choices, whatever their career and identity? To try and nudge people to take career paths on the basis of unrealistic idealism, at the cost of personal purpose and fulfillment, is what the Left too often do: treat people as their toys through which to realise a vision that serves no one well and ends up costing tax payers, employers but most importantly, the subjects of the social engineering. Not sure I deliberately formatted anything in any way Captain - so must just be a natural. Anyway Captain I think you have misconstrued the point that I was making. I am not advocating diversity quotas (the words in parenthesis above have been inserted by your goodself captain). Sports participation amongst women in the uk is approximately half that of men and there are a variety of reports available on health and economic benefits of such participation. What I therefore am hoping for is the greater participation of women in sport and if a greater presence in the media can help achieve that it can only be to the good. However there are other ways to achieve it than quotas or positive discrimination. This thread is about sexism in football - which from a number of the comments on this thread has been amply demonstrated is alive and well and in itself may only serve to discourage female engagement. If perhaps as responsible men and football fans we could just tone down our excesses then that in itself might be a small step towards a less hostile environment that may encourage more women to put themselves forward for positions that should be available to all and allow the sport/industry to tap into a wider and more verse talent pool.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 21, 2019 15:06:12 GMT
Just so we're clear, we're saying that the use of erudite, insightful female pundits is endangering the traditional research-averse, mealy-mouthed knuckle dragging male ex-pro, and this is A Bad Thing?
|
|
|
Post by tony1234 on Feb 21, 2019 15:14:27 GMT
Do You formatting to deliberately make replies difficult Sarg? To your pt Sarg, "Health, inclusivity, revenue, positive role models, aspirational opportunity to name but a few. " (are the benefits of diversity quotas) Anyhow:- 1. Practical point - There is nothing stopping people attaining those health and economic benefits in countless ways. So that's not true. (And there is certainly no evidence that discrimiating against men achieves net social benefit is there?) 2. Moral point - Its a question of taste I guess, but personally, I can't justify discriminating against one identity group to fund/give privellege to another; just like I couldn't justify banning or curtailing people from Asian backgrounds from opening Indian restaurants, or reducing the opportunities for women working as health care professionals. 3. Economic - If you really wished to spend more raising aspirations, the key differential is between low participation neighbourhoods or lower socio-economic households, particularly kids from care backgrounds, and not between men and women, Women earn more than men in earlier careers until they choose different lifestyle choices, including but not exclusively, parenthood. 4. Career point - Scandanavia have tried more than anywhere else to socially-engineer quotas. However, the more they tried the more genders reverted to stereotypical roles (v few female engineers for instance). Rather than spending time, money and energy of virtue signalling and tokenism, why not promote role models on the basis that they have achieved self-actualisation through their choices, whatever their career and identity? To try and nudge people to take career paths on the basis of unrealistic idealism, at the cost of personal purpose and fulfillment, is what the Left too often do: treat people as their toys through which to realise a vision that serves no one well and ends up costing tax payers, employers but most importantly, the subjects of the social engineering. Not sure I deliberately formatted anything in any way Captain - so must just be a natural. Anyway Captain I think you have misconstrued the point that I was making. I am not advocating diversity quotas (the words in parenthesis above have been inserted by your goodself captain). Sports participation amongst women in the uk is approximately half that of men and there are a variety of reports available on health and economic benefits of such participation. What I therefore am hoping for is the greater participation of women in sport and if a greater presence in the media can help achieve that it can only be to the good. However there are other ways to achieve it than quotas or positive discrimination. This thread is about sexism in football - which from a number of the comments on this thread has been amply demonstrated is alive and well and in itself may only serve to discourage female engagement. If perhaps as responsible men and football fans we could just tone down our excesses then that in itself might be a small step towards a less hostile environment that may encourage more women to put themselves forward for positions that should be available to all and allow the sport/industry to tap into a wider and more verse talent pool. Apologies for the formatting accusation :-) It went very strange. But the overt promotion and selection of women on the basis of their identity, is exactly that: Diversity quotas! That's precisely what it is and what it means! If women wanted to participate then there is nothing stopping them. Are you telling me that half of the female population is unaware of the existence of gyms, sports clubs, trainers, fields, parks, balls and bikes? The wider point you make - that women's health should be promoted at the expense of discrimination against men is a double whammy though: Despite doing exercise, men live shorter lives, shorter healthy lives and have lower access to healthcare. You've actually discriminated - inadvertently - by selecting a criteria (i.e. sports participation) that favours giving privelleges to women over men but is itself unrepresentative and unfair. So, you are discriminating twice against men - by reducing employment opportunities and unfairly allocating health resources to women when men need them more. I agree on your final pt that football can be an unpleasant atmosphere. But why on earth might you think a women is going to dislike being surrounded by unpleasant and intimidating thuggery or abuse, but men are content to be?! Men should be far more worried, given that younger men are disproportionately the subject of violence and unprovoked violence at that. Just because a tiny proportion of men are idiots, does not mean that we all get whats coming to us, surely?
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Feb 21, 2019 15:23:27 GMT
I have no problem with women commentators, refereeing,or them running the line, if that's what they choose to do,but my feeling is.they should stick with Womens football, and not the mans game,me personally I think it has to stop now, if not the mans game is going to be run by females,every season we see more creeping into the mens game, and if I was Gary lineker I would be worried about losing my job to a woman,i know I may come across as been sexist, but I'm not,i have every respect for what they choose do as a profession,i guess Im just old fashioned geezer, So you think Phil Neville should be sacked then? Do you think women should be allowed to attend men's football?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Feb 21, 2019 16:16:30 GMT
Not sure I deliberately formatted anything in any way Captain - so must just be a natural. Anyway Captain I think you have misconstrued the point that I was making. I am not advocating diversity quotas (the words in parenthesis above have been inserted by your goodself captain). Sports participation amongst women in the uk is approximately half that of men and there are a variety of reports available on health and economic benefits of such participation. What I therefore am hoping for is the greater participation of women in sport and if a greater presence in the media can help achieve that it can only be to the good. However there are other ways to achieve it than quotas or positive discrimination. This thread is about sexism in football - which from a number of the comments on this thread has been amply demonstrated is alive and well and in itself may only serve to discourage female engagement. If perhaps as responsible men and football fans we could just tone down our excesses then that in itself might be a small step towards a less hostile environment that may encourage more women to put themselves forward for positions that should be available to all and allow the sport/industry to tap into a wider and more verse talent pool. Apologies for the formatting accusation :-) It went very strange. But the overt promotion and selection of women on the basis of their identity, is exactly that: Diversity quotas! That's precisely what it is and what it means! If women wanted to participate then there is nothing stopping them. Are you telling me that half of the female population is unaware of the existence of gyms, sports clubs, trainers, fields, parks, balls and bikes? The wider point you make - that women's health should be promoted at the expense of discrimination against men is a double whammy though: Despite doing exercise, men live shorter lives, shorter healthy lives and have lower access to healthcare. You've actually discriminated - inadvertently - by selecting a criteria (i.e. sports participation) that favours giving privelleges to women over men but is itself unrepresentative and unfair. So, you are discriminating twice against men - by reducing employment opportunities and unfairly allocating health resources to women when men need them more. I agree on your final pt that football can be an unpleasant atmosphere. But why on earth might you think a women is going to dislike being surrounded by unpleasant and intimidating thuggery or abuse, but men are content to be?! Men should be far more worried, given that younger men are disproportionately the subject of violence and unprovoked violence at that. Just because a tiny proportion of men are idiots, does not mean that we all get whats coming to us, surely? OK fella - a few points and then I've said enough. Of course they know about gyms and bikes etc - but you assume in that that everybody acts exclusively as an individual - they don't. They also act in peer groups and if the activity is not trendy amongst the peer groups then the individual is less likely to engage. It's therefore about creating or encouraging a critical mass and I'm not suggesting for a moment that it should be encouraged at the expense of men - but as well as - if there are more participants in general then there's more demand, more gyms, more bikes sold, more jobs and hence the economic benefits to which I refer. That's just basic marketing - look for where there is greatest growth potential. I don't support quotas - my only reference to it was it is often used as a lazy criticism by people opposed to someone's appointment. I've seen on here (though not on this thread) the opinion expressed that Alex Scott only got the job on BBC/Sky because she was "black and female and therefore ticked two boxes in one". Ignoring the fact that she is competent, informed and articulate. The environment around football can - as we have agreed - be unpleasant and intimidating. If you are a bloke in that environment you are at least one of the peer group who at least gets the alpha male testosterone bollox. If you are a woman you're a minority so it's doubly unpleasant. Bringing it down to basics I wouldn't like to have to say to - for example - a daughter showing an interest in becoming a sports journalist (a career which it's hard enough for anyone to make a living in) - don't bother girl doesn't matter how good you are - all the best jobs only go to men. Because right now that's what happens. I take your points about the enthusiasm with which (particularly) young men seek to kill each other these days and life stats (though the earlier reference point about the tendency towards mutual self destruction doesn't exactly help boost the average) - but you can analyse any strata of society and conclude that in some respect it's hard done to. So - and I say this as a straight, white, middle aged male - we blokes haven't done too badly over the years - so rather than whining about our own lot cutting someone else a bit of slack isn't too much to ask and actually shows a bit of class. Enjoy the rest of your day.
|
|
|
Post by tony1234 on Feb 21, 2019 16:32:50 GMT
Apologies for the formatting accusation :-) It went very strange. But the overt promotion and selection of women on the basis of their identity, is exactly that: Diversity quotas! That's precisely what it is and what it means! If women wanted to participate then there is nothing stopping them. Are you telling me that half of the female population is unaware of the existence of gyms, sports clubs, trainers, fields, parks, balls and bikes? The wider point you make - that women's health should be promoted at the expense of discrimination against men is a double whammy though: Despite doing exercise, men live shorter lives, shorter healthy lives and have lower access to healthcare. You've actually discriminated - inadvertently - by selecting a criteria (i.e. sports participation) that favours giving privelleges to women over men but is itself unrepresentative and unfair. So, you are discriminating twice against men - by reducing employment opportunities and unfairly allocating health resources to women when men need them more. I agree on your final pt that football can be an unpleasant atmosphere. But why on earth might you think a women is going to dislike being surrounded by unpleasant and intimidating thuggery or abuse, but men are content to be?! Men should be far more worried, given that younger men are disproportionately the subject of violence and unprovoked violence at that. Just because a tiny proportion of men are idiots, does not mean that we all get whats coming to us, surely? OK fella - a few points and then I've said enough. Of course they know about gyms and bikes etc - but you assume in that that everybody acts exclusively as an individual - they don't. They also act in peer groups and if the activity is not trendy amongst the peer groups then the individual is less likely to engage. It's therefore about creating or encouraging a critical mass and I'm not suggesting for a moment that it should be encouraged at the expense of men - but as well as - if there are more participants in general then there's more demand, more gyms, more bikes sold, more jobs and hence the economic benefits to which I refer. That's just basic marketing - look for where there is greatest growth potential. I don't support quotas - my only reference to it was it is often used as a lazy criticism by people opposed to someone's appointment. I've seen on here (though not on this thread) the opinion expressed that Alex Scott only got the job on BBC/Sky because she was "black and female and therefore ticked two boxes in one". Ignoring the fact that she is competent, informed and articulate. The environment around football can - as we have agreed - be unpleasant and intimidating. If you are a bloke in that environment you are at least one of the peer group who at least gets the alpha male testosterone bollox. If you are a woman you're a minority so it's doubly unpleasant. Bringing it down to basics I wouldn't like to have to say to - for example - a daughter showing an interest in becoming a sports journalist (a career which it's hard enough for anyone to make a living in) - don't bother girl doesn't matter how good you are - all the best jobs only go to men. Because right now that's what happens. I take your points about the enthusiasm with which (particularly) young men seek to kill each other these days and life stats (though the earlier reference point about the tendency towards mutual self destruction doesn't exactly help boost the average) - but you can analyse any strata of society and conclude that in some respect it's hard done to. So - and I say this as a straight, white, middle aged male - we blokes haven't done too badly over the years - so rather than whining about our own lot cutting someone else a bit of slack isn't too much to ask and actually shows a bit of class. Enjoy the rest of your day. Your points are good, and I don't wish to bicker with someone who I believe to have a good heart! I guess, fundamentally, I see the gap we need to tackle as a society as social capital - so totally and emphatically agree with your point about peer groups etc.... and if there is anyone that needs cutting slack its people from poorer backgrounds, problematic upbringings etc. I rather see too much feminism as opportunistic, when both men and women's lot has been equally constrained by economic realities over the past century. But ultimately, and you - have a good one - and thanks for being civil about this! Its nice to engage with someone with a different perspective without calling each other names!!
|
|