People keep saying or defending that football is a misogynistic sport but I am yet to hear examples of this.
what I have said in the OP is not that women should be excluded but their involvement in the men's game is disproportionate. I do not have a contempt for women but have expressed the view that the women being pushed forward in to these roles in the men's game is not on the basis of merit but on the basis that they are women. I get iritated by stupid male pundits and now we also have stupid female pundits who have not even played at the same level or anywhere near it. BUT I will judge on what I see and give credit where it is due and some do a decent job.
I think your efforts to distance yourself from the discrimination of women honours you, but that perhaps you could take the extra step of analysing where those ideas about women in football are coming from.
You have said yourself that it’s stupid pundits that irritate you, whether male or female, but you felt impelled to create an article specifically about one gender. Your final paragraph suggests it isn’t just their over-representation but their very presence that needs calling into question, and not only as pundits. You need to sort out those contradictions in your own view before you brush aside the idea that your prejudice might be ingrained.
The whole affirmative action debate deserves a discussion all of its own.
Just eatching Fox Sports n they have a female pundit who is grate
Very knowledgabul both 4 info n analysis n is witty to
comment by #4zA La Fica Napules - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
Just eatching Fox Sports n they have a female pundit who is grate
Very knowledgabul both 4 info n analysis n is witty to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox sports, as in Fox News same company? If so what’s the sport? Lynching black people? Shoot the Mexican?
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by #4zA La Fica Napules - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
Just eatching Fox Sports n they have a female pundit who is grate
Very knowledgabul both 4 info n analysis n is witty to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox sports, as in Fox News same company? If so what’s the sport? Lynching black people? Shoot the Mexican?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. The same owners as Sky. You know, the company that funds your league.
If you think Fox News is bad try Australian Sky.
Home of the Truly Demented.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 21 hours ago
I think your efforts to distance yourself from the discrimination of women honours you, but that perhaps you could take the extra step of analysing where those ideas about women in football are coming from.
You have said yourself that it’s stupid pundits that irritate you, whether male or female, but you felt impelled to create an article specifically about one gender. Your final paragraph suggests it isn’t just their over-representation but their very presence that needs calling into question, and not only as pundits. You need to sort out those contradictions in your own view before you brush aside the idea that your prejudice might be ingrained.
The whole affirmative action debate deserves a discussion all of its own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what bothers me about this topic.....No one has any issue with women dominating coverage of female football, in fact in some cases is 100% female. And most if not all would agree that this is right. Why should women watching women's football have men commentating on it? This position on the womens game underpins the drive to have women take ownership of their game.
When the reverse is put forward, I get labelled as having ingrained prejudice. Can one not hold a view that one prefers their football to be analysed by experts in that field. That seems to acceptable for the women's game.
As with many issues these days, people too quick to label as misogynistic, prejudice, left wing, right wing racist, sexist etc
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 21 hours ago
I think your efforts to distance yourself from the discrimination of women honours you, but that perhaps you could take the extra step of analysing where those ideas about women in football are coming from.
You have said yourself that it’s stupid pundits that irritate you, whether male or female, but you felt impelled to create an article specifically about one gender. Your final paragraph suggests it isn’t just their over-representation but their very presence that needs calling into question, and not only as pundits. You need to sort out those contradictions in your own view before you brush aside the idea that your prejudice might be ingrained.
The whole affirmative action debate deserves a discussion all of its own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what bothers me about this topic.....No one has any issue with women dominating coverage of female football, in fact in some cases is 100% female. And most if not all would agree that this is right. Why should women watching women's football have men commentating on it? This position on the womens game underpins the drive to have women take ownership of their game.
When the reverse is put forward, I get labelled as having ingrained prejudice. Can one not hold a view that one prefers their football to be analysed by experts in that field. That seems to acceptable for the women's game.
As with many issues these days, people too quick to label as misogynistic, prejudice, left wing, right wing racist, sexist etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re acting as if they’re two completely different games.
Last time I checked, the women’s game also uses a spherical ball, features 22 players, has the same rules, and sees the same tactical approaches used, innovations adopted and even trends followed as the men’s game.
The women’s game has, generally from top to bottom, both male and female managers, coaches, scouts, fitness and conditioning staff, medics and physios. It isn’t a women’s preserve.
Maybe TV coverage of the women’s game in the UK is predominantly or even overwhelmingly fronted by women. I wouldn’t know.
But if that is the case, it doesn’t make the UK the norm in my experience. In Europe, the US and Brazil, at least, the women’s game is widely covered on TV by both women and men. I’d expect that’s the way the UK will go too, if that isn’t currently the case.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 8 seconds ago
But Alex Scott is more knowledgeable than the male pundits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not IMO, she is not fit to break down the male game as it levels and levels above what she has experienced. IMO a pundit should have been involved in the game their are breaking down at the level they are referring to.
That doesnt mean that anything that she says will be wrong as that would also infer that we cannot judge and break down the game. But it should be done by someone that KNOWS and has experienced rather than people like Scott and me putting out the most educated guess we can as neither of us has any experience of the level being commented on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is such a nonsense argument.
So we shouldn’t listen to academic economists unless they’ve actually worked in monetary policy at the BoE; or epidemiologists unless they’ve staffed an infectious diseases ward; or war historians unless they were on the battlefield or in the war room at the time?
Gibberish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think youve hit the nail on the head.
Ther is a difference between theory and reality.
Yes, we can all sit here and talk a good game, say how to best defend against Salah or Ronaldo, but unless you have really been in that situation you do not have a complete understanding.
Politicians are often criticised on not being in touch with the people, some with privileged upbringing etc, yet they are making policy for the common man...and there is merit in this criticism.
Economics is almost entirely theory, reality can often be different..as you will see from many of the economic forecasts that are made.
The standard of women's football is League 2 at best. If you had a former League 2 player disagreeing with say Rio Ferndinand on how best to defend against Harry Kane, whose opinion would you give more weight. Sure there are idiots male pundits whose judgement you question regardless, but the point is that experience and the level one has played at contributes to the a pundits informed view and also how it is received.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In thay case you can't have any male pundits commenting on how to defend against Salah unless they actually played against Salah. Even then if Salah scored past their team then the clearly don't have experience of actually stopping Salah so they aren't qualified to talk about it.
Why should we listen to a former men's player telling us how to stop Salah if they actually proved that they couldn't? They are just espousing theory, which is your issue with women.
In fact, any male pundits who hasn't played for a decade or more is hugely out of touch with what it takes to be a modern player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are just being an idiot and also ignoring what i have also said about the relative quality of the mans & women's game. Rio Ferdinand may not have ever played against Salah but he has played against high level premier league and international players of his time .
You are making the case that no one should be a pundit because no one is perfect, which is a pointless debate!
Rather than singling out individual players, we are talking about the absolute quality and level of player they have had to face which is informing their judgement and opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You shouldn't accuse others of being an idiot when you can't even put together a coherent argument, you sexist tool.
'Women cannot comment on the game because it is hypothetical for them to know how to best defend against Salah because they haven't played against him'.
Also you
'Men can comment on the game even if they haven't played against Salah and their thoughts are hypothetical.
Really showing yourself up here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy using quotations, but not actually quoting me directly or even referencing my comment accurately.
Dont bother replying!
My OP has said the forcing of women into these positions irritates me and I have given my reasons.
The OP is not generally about male pundits but I have expressed the view that many experienced players can be equally as poor or worse than female pundits.
What I have said is that the male and female games are played at such vastly different levels that I WOULD PREFER to hear a seasoned male player with experience at that level to give his views on the mens game than a female equivalent.
For the same reason as women will want to hear and see other women presenting, analysing and commenting on the womens game. If a woman expressed this view, the response would be "well of course you do, why should men be commentating on the female game when there are plenty of qualified females to do so". A bloke says they prefer male pundits and they're sexist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't use quotations. You don't even know what quotation marks are. I did reference your comment correctly because your entire position was based on a nonsense double standard.
Where is your evidence that women are being "forced" into these positions? Maybe they actually want to do it?
Sign in if you want to comment
Women In Football
Page 13 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 11/6/22
People keep saying or defending that football is a misogynistic sport but I am yet to hear examples of this.
what I have said in the OP is not that women should be excluded but their involvement in the men's game is disproportionate. I do not have a contempt for women but have expressed the view that the women being pushed forward in to these roles in the men's game is not on the basis of merit but on the basis that they are women. I get iritated by stupid male pundits and now we also have stupid female pundits who have not even played at the same level or anywhere near it. BUT I will judge on what I see and give credit where it is due and some do a decent job.
posted on 12/6/22
I think your efforts to distance yourself from the discrimination of women honours you, but that perhaps you could take the extra step of analysing where those ideas about women in football are coming from.
You have said yourself that it’s stupid pundits that irritate you, whether male or female, but you felt impelled to create an article specifically about one gender. Your final paragraph suggests it isn’t just their over-representation but their very presence that needs calling into question, and not only as pundits. You need to sort out those contradictions in your own view before you brush aside the idea that your prejudice might be ingrained.
The whole affirmative action debate deserves a discussion all of its own.
posted on 12/6/22
Just eatching Fox Sports n they have a female pundit who is grate
Very knowledgabul both 4 info n analysis n is witty to
posted on 12/6/22
comment by #4zA La Fica Napules - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
Just eatching Fox Sports n they have a female pundit who is grate
Very knowledgabul both 4 info n analysis n is witty to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox sports, as in Fox News same company? If so what’s the sport? Lynching black people? Shoot the Mexican?
posted on 12/6/22
21st Century Fox
posted on 12/6/22
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by #4zA La Fica Napules - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
Just eatching Fox Sports n they have a female pundit who is grate
Very knowledgabul both 4 info n analysis n is witty to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox sports, as in Fox News same company? If so what’s the sport? Lynching black people? Shoot the Mexican?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. The same owners as Sky. You know, the company that funds your league.
If you think Fox News is bad try Australian Sky.
Home of the Truly Demented.
posted on 12/6/22
Comcast own Sky now.
posted on 14/6/22
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 21 hours ago
I think your efforts to distance yourself from the discrimination of women honours you, but that perhaps you could take the extra step of analysing where those ideas about women in football are coming from.
You have said yourself that it’s stupid pundits that irritate you, whether male or female, but you felt impelled to create an article specifically about one gender. Your final paragraph suggests it isn’t just their over-representation but their very presence that needs calling into question, and not only as pundits. You need to sort out those contradictions in your own view before you brush aside the idea that your prejudice might be ingrained.
The whole affirmative action debate deserves a discussion all of its own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what bothers me about this topic.....No one has any issue with women dominating coverage of female football, in fact in some cases is 100% female. And most if not all would agree that this is right. Why should women watching women's football have men commentating on it? This position on the womens game underpins the drive to have women take ownership of their game.
When the reverse is put forward, I get labelled as having ingrained prejudice. Can one not hold a view that one prefers their football to be analysed by experts in that field. That seems to acceptable for the women's game.
As with many issues these days, people too quick to label as misogynistic, prejudice, left wing, right wing racist, sexist etc
posted on 14/6/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 21 hours ago
I think your efforts to distance yourself from the discrimination of women honours you, but that perhaps you could take the extra step of analysing where those ideas about women in football are coming from.
You have said yourself that it’s stupid pundits that irritate you, whether male or female, but you felt impelled to create an article specifically about one gender. Your final paragraph suggests it isn’t just their over-representation but their very presence that needs calling into question, and not only as pundits. You need to sort out those contradictions in your own view before you brush aside the idea that your prejudice might be ingrained.
The whole affirmative action debate deserves a discussion all of its own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what bothers me about this topic.....No one has any issue with women dominating coverage of female football, in fact in some cases is 100% female. And most if not all would agree that this is right. Why should women watching women's football have men commentating on it? This position on the womens game underpins the drive to have women take ownership of their game.
When the reverse is put forward, I get labelled as having ingrained prejudice. Can one not hold a view that one prefers their football to be analysed by experts in that field. That seems to acceptable for the women's game.
As with many issues these days, people too quick to label as misogynistic, prejudice, left wing, right wing racist, sexist etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re acting as if they’re two completely different games.
Last time I checked, the women’s game also uses a spherical ball, features 22 players, has the same rules, and sees the same tactical approaches used, innovations adopted and even trends followed as the men’s game.
The women’s game has, generally from top to bottom, both male and female managers, coaches, scouts, fitness and conditioning staff, medics and physios. It isn’t a women’s preserve.
Maybe TV coverage of the women’s game in the UK is predominantly or even overwhelmingly fronted by women. I wouldn’t know.
But if that is the case, it doesn’t make the UK the norm in my experience. In Europe, the US and Brazil, at least, the women’s game is widely covered on TV by both women and men. I’d expect that’s the way the UK will go too, if that isn’t currently the case.
posted on 14/6/22
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 8 seconds ago
But Alex Scott is more knowledgeable than the male pundits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not IMO, she is not fit to break down the male game as it levels and levels above what she has experienced. IMO a pundit should have been involved in the game their are breaking down at the level they are referring to.
That doesnt mean that anything that she says will be wrong as that would also infer that we cannot judge and break down the game. But it should be done by someone that KNOWS and has experienced rather than people like Scott and me putting out the most educated guess we can as neither of us has any experience of the level being commented on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is such a nonsense argument.
So we shouldn’t listen to academic economists unless they’ve actually worked in monetary policy at the BoE; or epidemiologists unless they’ve staffed an infectious diseases ward; or war historians unless they were on the battlefield or in the war room at the time?
Gibberish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think youve hit the nail on the head.
Ther is a difference between theory and reality.
Yes, we can all sit here and talk a good game, say how to best defend against Salah or Ronaldo, but unless you have really been in that situation you do not have a complete understanding.
Politicians are often criticised on not being in touch with the people, some with privileged upbringing etc, yet they are making policy for the common man...and there is merit in this criticism.
Economics is almost entirely theory, reality can often be different..as you will see from many of the economic forecasts that are made.
The standard of women's football is League 2 at best. If you had a former League 2 player disagreeing with say Rio Ferndinand on how best to defend against Harry Kane, whose opinion would you give more weight. Sure there are idiots male pundits whose judgement you question regardless, but the point is that experience and the level one has played at contributes to the a pundits informed view and also how it is received.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In thay case you can't have any male pundits commenting on how to defend against Salah unless they actually played against Salah. Even then if Salah scored past their team then the clearly don't have experience of actually stopping Salah so they aren't qualified to talk about it.
Why should we listen to a former men's player telling us how to stop Salah if they actually proved that they couldn't? They are just espousing theory, which is your issue with women.
In fact, any male pundits who hasn't played for a decade or more is hugely out of touch with what it takes to be a modern player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are just being an idiot and also ignoring what i have also said about the relative quality of the mans & women's game. Rio Ferdinand may not have ever played against Salah but he has played against high level premier league and international players of his time .
You are making the case that no one should be a pundit because no one is perfect, which is a pointless debate!
Rather than singling out individual players, we are talking about the absolute quality and level of player they have had to face which is informing their judgement and opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You shouldn't accuse others of being an idiot when you can't even put together a coherent argument, you sexist tool.
'Women cannot comment on the game because it is hypothetical for them to know how to best defend against Salah because they haven't played against him'.
Also you
'Men can comment on the game even if they haven't played against Salah and their thoughts are hypothetical.
Really showing yourself up here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy using quotations, but not actually quoting me directly or even referencing my comment accurately.
Dont bother replying!
My OP has said the forcing of women into these positions irritates me and I have given my reasons.
The OP is not generally about male pundits but I have expressed the view that many experienced players can be equally as poor or worse than female pundits.
What I have said is that the male and female games are played at such vastly different levels that I WOULD PREFER to hear a seasoned male player with experience at that level to give his views on the mens game than a female equivalent.
For the same reason as women will want to hear and see other women presenting, analysing and commenting on the womens game. If a woman expressed this view, the response would be "well of course you do, why should men be commentating on the female game when there are plenty of qualified females to do so". A bloke says they prefer male pundits and they're sexist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't use quotations. You don't even know what quotation marks are. I did reference your comment correctly because your entire position was based on a nonsense double standard.
Where is your evidence that women are being "forced" into these positions? Maybe they actually want to do it?
Page 13 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13