Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Just gonna leave this here and pop back in a bit, enjoy DiS.
"You could argue that the Fifa World Cup is also ageist and disablist (footballers are doomed to retire as soon as their wisdom teeth fully descend and disabled people are tacitly excluded – let's not forget that a former England coach was even sacked for his dodgy views) and there is a difference in football's relationship with women."
disabled people are tacitly excluded – let's not forget that a former England coach was even sacked for his dodgy views
Anyway, I think it#'s ridicuous. We have this discussion about tennis too- b the men's game and the women's game is usually quite different. Even players like serena (whoc has a masculine build) still don't play tennis like a man.
football is simila5r. ok so daley blind looks like a bit of a Pammy, but he is defintiely a boy.
I fucking hate the guardian.
is an awful lot smaller. nobody says 'like anybody would want to watch women's tennis'. football culture is obviously and inarguably more sexist than tennis culture
The prestige and enthusiasm reflects that. Nobody is saying for one minute that football hasn't taken it's fucking time in dragging itself into the modern ages in terms of female participation but it is doing it now and it's going to take a while.
Again, it's like any other historical example of inequality. It takes a long time for the transition to take place but it is taking place.
PO said 'football is similar' and i was pointing out that football is massively not similar, in terms of prestige and enthusiasm, quite evidently for cultural and not INHERENT BIOLOGICAL SPORTING PROWESS reasons like she seemed to be suggesting
pretty sure a coupla people ITT really do think the reason for the prestige gap is that women are just rubbish at football
if you look at the funding and sponsorship available across the board
she has huge tits and a great bum and lots of "feminine" features. She's just tall and muscular. Idk loads of make athletes are quite slight but not necessarily feminine
This is a steaming pile of nonsensical horseshite though.
Thinking of becoming a fascist chauvinist ignoramus just so I can sneer at mental think pieces by idiots
and how it leads to a similarly phallocentric international discourse
"Football fans themselves create a demand for the trafficking of women and girls into prostitution."
For FUCK's sake.
and men like watching other men play football, and what men like to do and like to watch is, de facto, culturally important.'
But yeah, surprised that we haven't seen any female punditry on the BBC and that they haven't utilised Jacqui Oatley commentating on any of the games.
Anchor for highlights ? Or is she presenting live coverage too?
Presumably she'll present the coverage of some of the live matches that happen simultaneously now though.
quite possibly including Oatley. Very much underrepresented though.
CBBC coverage too
but that's a properly fucking awful article
The standard is massively improving though and the interest is increasing as a reult.
The last Woman's World Cup got good terrestrial TV coverage and decent viewing figures and that will only increase.
The woman's domestic league here has recently received a complete overhaul/rebranding and gets good coverage on BT Sport.
In terms of the wider sporting world, the tennis is covered exactly the same because it's been played by women and men for a lot, lot longer than football has. Wisden recently voted a woman as one of their cricketers of the year.
It's like literally every other example of historical inequality in the world, progress is being made but it's going to take time.
And the fact no-one's going to want to invest because the men's game already has a gargantuan fanbase and is an inherently safer bet for that reason. If FIFA were to mandate that national FAs were to apportion their spending equally between the two it would stir things up a bit.
It's very galling to me that Utd don't have a woman's side. The likes of City and Arsenal are doing very well at investing in their ladies' sides and I think there's an argument to be made for forcing some level of investment in a female side for at least all the premier league clubs.
in women's competitive sport may not be that high and to be fair there's plenty of non-sexist reasoning that explains why that could be the case (funding, marketing, the take up of sport post-education of women etc).
It's absolute dogshite like this that gives men that drive white vans ammunition in their quest to call feminism hysterical, etc.
But genuine liberation would mean it wouldn't really matter if someone wrote a shit article for the guardian (which i haven't read yet so only going by what other people have said).
What about the thousands of people who write and say fantastic, cogent and insightful things about feminism? Do these anti-feminist men that drive white vans pay the slightest bit of attention when that happens? Er no cause they're sexist. its actual sexism that gives people ammunition.
about a lack of female representation in the football press and media, as well as at coaching and boardroom level, but comparatively little (virtually nothing, even) said about the far more fundamental segregation on the pitch itself. I guess in the case of the Guardian specifically it's because they're very good at writing about things at a distance, from a meta level, but rarely confer any insight on the subject itself. Like this piece, and most of their football editorials- they're thought provoking when it comes to considering how football is regarded or plays out in the media, but fucking awful at talking about football the game.
But the simple fact is it's played at a much, much lower level. As a player in an international team would you be happy being coached/managed by someone whose experience of the game was at conference level?
Some of the top managers have modest (or even no) professional playing experience.
being asked to lead a Premiership team though, is what I meant.
Almost immediately someone asks whether or not there are any female pundits featuring in TV coverage. No, but then there aren't any females featuring in THE BLOODY GAME ITSELF! Why isn't that a subject of reflective discussion?
I think we can accept that at the elite level women's football teams can't compete on the pitch with men's team - the difference in speed and physicality multiplied by 11 players is too great (before you've even considered the enormous gulf in nurturing of the game and talent within it)
but at the same time there is absolutely no logic in believing that women at the elite level lag behind men in tactical analysis & insight or 'man'-management or any number of other roles in the game and its extension into media etc
If you take the position that women cannot access the game itself at the requisite standard, it follows that they'll be excluded from the highest standard of education when it comes to analysis, insight and many of the other inner workings of the game.
Of course, this falls down somewhat when you consider the standard of analysis and insight we make do with in the press ...
take for instance the coverage in Sweden (and apparently this is true in Norway, Holland & a few other European countries)
Swedish coverage always has at least 2 women in a studio of 6 for analysis and usually they are ex-players or coaches all of which have won tournaments - Swedish Women players have recently won the European cup, got to the finals of the World Cup & Champions League - they're at the top of their game and have achieved much more than their Swedish male counterparts.
So why does 'it follow(s) that they'll be excluded from the highest standard of education when it comes to analysis, insight and many of the other inner workings of the game.' ?
Also, looking at this picture I wonder which part is cause and which part is effect - are Swedish women well represented in Men's football media because they are successful ? Or have they been successful because of their visible profile within coverage of the men's game raising interest in the women's game ? Or is it simply two sides of the same coin?
Whatever the answer all of it is a strong argument for increasing the role of women within the men's game
and personally I think the male analysts become better in a mixed gender studio - far less likely to fall back on 'banter' and all that nonsense
is in the elite male game- which women apparently cannot access.
Might bail out because as this goes on it looks more and more like I'm arguing from and for a perspective that I do not hold, but I'm struggling to make sense of your position. You originally state that it is accepted women cannot compete at the elite level with men ... So how is it possible for the Swedish women's team to have achieved more than their male counterparts? Isn't the case that the threshold for success is the women's game is simply much lower? That they'd have won nothing if it was a higher standard (i.e. men) they were competing at?
I'm not sure that I buy that women are unable to compete to the same standard as men, just as a rule. As things are, absolutely they can't, but that's not the same thing. We certainly don't know it for a fact.
"So how is it possible for the Swedish women's team to have achieved more than their male counterparts? Isn't the case that the threshold for success is the women's game is simply much lower?"
it is lower in terms of speed and power but in terms of tactics, psychology, motivation and experience how can it be lower? How can winning a tournament in front of 50,000 spectators be a lower experience than failing to qualify for a tournament in front of 45,000 spectactors ? Or even going out of a tournament in front of 60,000 ?
Pia Sundhage, the Swedish Women's coach, won 2012 Olympic gold medal (then coaching USA) in front of 80, 203 spectators at Wembley. It was her 2nd Olympic gold medal.
Why would you assume that Erik Hamren - the Swedish men's coach who failed to take Sweden to Brazil after losing to Portugal in the play-offs - 'has a higher standard of education in the game' than Pia Sundhage ?
Your final question seems odd, given that I've already mentioned the different thresholds for what constitutes success- does some who succeeds at a (ugh, sorry) lesser standard necessarily out-perform someone who fails at a higher one?
I think it's very, very unlikely that the female game, being so vastly under-funded and under-valued in comparison to the male game as it is, produces many people whose tactical or analytical competencies match those of people who participate in a higher standard of the game.
It's nothing to do with being male or female- it's do with funding and access. Why would women with little funding or access to, for example, UEFA's coaching badge training, generally be able to perform to the same standard as men who are privileged enough to have funding and access?
Biologically, that is. I don't accept women can't compete at the same standard men can as a biological inevitability. But access to the highest standards of football obviously opens up opportunity when it comes to other facets of the game.
I mention the attendance figures and ask the question because although collectively the men's game is far beyond the women's game as an industry and a cultural force and so on, an individual who has experienced winning at the top of their game will have an insight that is valuable and it is that insight, coupled with their ability to communicate and their love of the game which gives them skills as an analyst and a pundit.
"I think it's very, very unlikely that the female game, being so vastly under-funded and under-valued in comparison to the male game as it is, produces many people whose tactical or analytical competencies match those of people who participate in a higher standard of the game."
If you could understand Swedish (for example) I could dispel that prejudice within minutes simply by sitting you in front of SVT or TV4
your last paragraph is a bit circular too but taking on the logic; women (as a group) with little funding or access (as a group) would logically (as a group) would have difficulty (as a group) in performing to the same standard as men (as a group) who do have that access (as a group)
but individually it is a different story and it only requires a handful of individuals (and institutions to recognise their worth and give them backing) to break the mold and begin to help redress the balance
I'm not sure what prejudice you mean. I'm not sure recognising that people who generally face limited opportunities will struggle to reach the same standards as a far more privileged group really counts as a 'prejudice'. I'm even less certain that an isolated example would help 'dispel' it.
Good day to you.
but it's pretty much the textbook definition of prejudice - making judgements on individuals by extrapolating from your perception of the group to which they appear to belong
there is a huge structural bias against women's football within the 'greater' game of football - sure. But individuals throughout history have overcome such obstacles and to deny those individuals opportunity /because/ of the structural biases against them is a double damning
which is exactly why we applaud when Costa-Rica beat Italy and rightly so (or in the case of FIFA make them all take doping tests because they must have cheated because they haven't had the funding and access and they play the game at a lower level)
While there is a minority of female presenters, including veteran Dione de Graaff, who has been presenting football coverage for almost 20 years now, match commentators and post-match analysts are exclusively male, and are without exception former professional players or managers.
The same goes for the written media, where you may find some female reporters, but all the leading columnists are men.
Even though playing football is the second most popular sport in Holland (after hockey) for women, football in general is still a very male-dominated affair.
just wrote a long reply to this bit DiS lost it
basically, I stand corrected on Holland and also Sweden is not a gender utopia but even so is still a long way from the collective shrugging over the Scudamore emails and I think the visibility of women in media (particularly ex-coaches & players) is a key factor in that
She doesn't seem to know what sport is, or what feminism is, or even what sexism is. Straight up weird.
women's international tournaments are always really good. domestic standard seems quite a bit lower though (there aren't many foreign players in the English league are there). Also I don't think there's room in my life to start watching even more football right now
can't really remember her commentating on anything though. Think she only ever does the boring games i dont watch on motd
"You could argue that the Fifa World Cup is also ageist and disablist (footballers are doomed to retire as soon as their wisdom teeth fully descend and disabled people are tacitly excluded"
Is she suggesting football teams select middle aged, disabled or female players (Gerrard jokes aside) for the sake of inclusion? I can't see that taking off.
But that's the case in literally all media atm
she talked about the advertising side of the world cup, pervcam and the pundits. But alas she didn't.
go google yourself
but in doing so noticed the outstanding "do irons turn themselves of 71"
definitely depends on who it was
"The fact remains, however, that there are more pressing things to worry about over the soccer season than the state of Frank Lampard's admittedly shapely calves. This country is in crisis. Young people are in crisis, poor people are in crisis, unemployment stands at 2.5 million, the labour movement is still leaderless and directionless, and there's a brutal train of Tory public-service cuts coming over the hill."
Yeah sorry guys, please don't try and get any enjoyment from anything, we're all completely fucked and we need to focus really hard on that at all times and be devoid of any pleasure or escapism, okay? Cheers.
The X-Factor, pulled pork, holidays, the Lego Movie. Just rent-a-killjoy crap.
Makes a good fist of the commodification of football lark but it's not as if that point hasn't been made one or two times before... (and I'm not sure why being a concerned lefty and enjoying the World Cup are seen as mutually exclusive here).
I've been quite surprised at how many women I know have embraced this World Cup with fervent gusto. Don't remember that being the case 4 years ago!
I wish it would go away
Then it'll be build-up to the premier league.
if I stay indoors with the curtains closed and the light's off everything will be ok
I know it's a bit of a cliched argument, but it's very definitely avoidable.
of that bit in The IT Crowd where they're at a football match and saying how boring it is or something
from the outcry I was expecting it to a properly abysmal and embarrassing piece. it's only a few paragraphs long for crying out loud and she makes a few relevant points:
- the world cup isnt even stated as being the "men's world cup" as it goes without saying that men = default.
- british football is indeed deeply sexist. lol imagine disagreeing with that.
- the thing to do is just start actually supporting women's football (which I agree with - I went to see a few matches at the olympics. obviously a different style and the pace is really different but still some really good games. very very few women can afford to play professional or even semi-professional football)
it's not the most clear argument ever (might be more the sub-editing and title?) but who actually cares. once again, people have shown themselves to be way more interested in talking about what they don't like about someone else's anti-sexism than actually being anti-sexist themselves.
Literally every other thread on here is people complaining about something, usually an article. Should an article/journalist be beyond reproach just because their overarching viewpoint is one you agree with?
"Should an article/journalist be beyond reproach just because their overarching viewpoint is one you agree with?"
don't really know why you're asking that pal. even if "literally every other thread on here is people complaining about something, usually an article" (which is just plainly not true), then the point is still the same: it seems people would prefer to have conversations about how rubbish an article is and how bad this person is at talking about sexism in football (which is literally what people in this thread are doing - even to the point where several people have agreed that this article gives "ammunition" to anti-feminists who drive white vans (?)).
A considerable amount of people on here claim that they're pro-feminist or REALLY ON BOARD WITH 99% OF EQUALITY or some crap but then only ever have negative things to say about other people proposing feminist ideas. I'm totally fine with people being open about the fact that they're just really negative about everything and only express negativity and have nothing nice to say about any articles. just don't pretend you're better than the woman who wrote this article.
The advertising and culture behind the products/how they're sold, the heads of FIFA and FA organizations, the pundits and production itself, the officials and management, but instead she focused on the fact there are only healthy male players on the pitch which I just find really misses the point.
Her good points about how footballers get off lightly from doing sexists things and how a lot of football culture feeds into wider sexism deserves a much better grounding than "You could argue that the Fifa World Cup is also ageist and disablist (footballers are doomed to retire as soon as their wisdom teeth fully descend) and disabled people are tacitly excluded" Its far more nuanced than not having females on the pitch, it's about footballers conception of their own bodies and commodification of human beings. I don't know, it just irked me.
-the world cup isnt even stated as being the "men's world cup" as it goes without saying that men = default
-The FA isnt even stated as being the "The English FA" as it goes without saying that England = default
Come on, DD, let's make this the Football AND Sexism AND UK Politics thread! ;-)
It was Scots not the English that really invented football, so all the 'it's coming home' stuff is a lot of steaming crap. Not that we're any good at it mind you.
I'm quite happy for the SFA to just start calling themselves the FA. Go for it.
For the avoidance of doubt: ";-)"
doesn't have the same ring to it
the woman on the right is Swedish TV's foreign correspondent discussing how it's reckoned that the World Cup feeds into an economy of prostitution in Brazil that will likely see 150,000 underage girls prostituted to foreign visitors during the tournament
Just an unfortunate by-product of a lot of people visiting the country at once. Would it be any different if it were an Olympics?
I wouldn't have thought it would necessary to explain my point
but I guess it goes over a lot of peoples' heads
So what is the point, especially since you ended the post with a dismissive 'football'?
if you have a dearth of female and/or class representation in anything then the concerns and aspects of that thing that don't interest patriarchy or capitalist interests (or shame them in some way) don't get talked about
my point is that where you do get wider representation (Swedish coverage) you get wider debate and thus deeper analysis
and has consistently been shown to be a myth:
Which is not to downplay the seriousness of the problem even if it's hundreds of children affected rather than hundreds of thousands, but that article shows how such statistics can be misused/lead to counter-productive use of resources and - sadly - how some even have a vested interest in misleading others for their own benefit.
"”Barn säljer sig för en tallrik mat”" http://www.svt.se/sport/fotbolls-vm/barn-saljer-sig-for-en-tallrik-mat
Is it just loads of birds talking