[Closed] Time for an anti PC rant!

^. lol

There needs to be balance

Luckily for you that 97%* of sport on TV looks like it always did since the [s]1970s[/s] living memory.

Sleep easy. Your 'balance' is intact. No-one is mugging you with images of women playing footie.

*figure pulled out of the air.

Malvern Rider - Member

^. lol.

Solid.

The underlying issue is that a national broadcaster has a blatant political bias

I don't think it's that they've decided arbitrarily that they're going to show or report on more women's' sport, but that they've a duty under their charter to demonstrate equality, which is what? under 30 seconds at most at the end of news segment in a broadcast day of 24 hours, it amounts to, I dunno; 3 minutes tops maybe? That's what the OP and you have your knickers in a collective twist about here. If that's "blatant political bias" then you need to have a word with yourself.

So should all sports be treated equally in all facets of life? Should we categorise sports and sports broadcasting by how oppressed and marginalised the competitors are?

That actually hurt my head. Is there a monolithic level of extreme cynicism one can reach that makes it easier to think that way? Not convinced I want to go there but hey. Whatever gets you through. But to my wooly head it sounds like this:

P1. Look, women on TV where there should be a man. Bloody PC gone mad.
P2. They're playing football
P1. Oh, [i]they[/i] only show it because [i]they[/i] love to think that poooor little women are [i]oppressed[/i]
P2. I think they are just giving more diverse coverage?
P1. [i]d i v e r s i t y[/i] it sounds so innocent doesn't it. But we know what it means. It means preferential treatment for the handicapped and the weaker sex. OTT coverage for people not deserving of it. It's the [i] l i b e r a l a g e n d a[/i]
P2. Wow, I never thought of it in that way.
P1. Then you are asleep. I shall now sally forth once more to do battle against this rising tide of despicable prejudice against males. What next? A black ginger gay kid on prime time TV because he came second at Scrabble?
P2. It was women playing football
P1. You liberals make me sick.
P2. Maybe you're looking at things in black and white, like, you know, cognitive bias/projection? All people can do that sometimes. The world isn't 'liberal vs conservative'
P1. Then why are liberals taking over the balance?
P2. The 'balance'?
P1. Yep.
P2. Er, sorry I'm lost, think you need to find a 'liberal' version of yourself to argue with.
P1. No way. They have cognitive bias. Not worth it.
P2. I completely agree.

Just saw this:

Is the op complaining because it's being mentioned or the fact that it's being mentioned on national tv despite its relative obscurity? Let's not play dumb.

That's precisely why it should be mentioned.

But, but then that's back to creating [b]false-normal[/b]?

But, but then that's back to creating false-normal?

Normal is normal. Anything else just isn't. Why can't you lefties see this? Trying to make it what it isn't!

And we're back to women playing football being abnormal. Disabled toilets are used by a small minority of the population, should we get rid of those too? Think of all the extra space we could give to "normal" people then.

It's not political correctness gorn mayd, it's promoting something which [i]deserves to be promoted[/i] for heaven's sake. The world isn't going to end because a reporter goes "oh yeah, the women are doing quite well too" at the end of a sport's report.

Ninja edit there, but I see you.

In years to come there will be hardly any women who were born women in top level womens sport, they will have been replaced with women who were born men.

That's a huge issue bubbling away right there. Let's see which set of rights trumps the other.

Jesus wept! I thought I'd heard it all but since the last contributor joined this thread, I am finally convinced that all of this matters not a jot because we as a civilisation (if that is not utterly the wrong word) are doomed.

Pilot what are your views on trans women competing in womens sports?

Oh, and jimjam, if you can point out exactly where it is in the thread that the OP is compared with HW and where it is suggested by anyone other than yourself that you have mental health problems, I'd be interested to see it.

Rene, I think they have every right to compete. No one is going to going through all the physical pain and emotional stress of gender reassignment just to be a successful athlete. Trans people need to be given the same rights as everyone else in society. And anyway, how many trans people are there? 1% of the population? Less than that. The numbers are so small that in any event it just doesn't matter. Let's not make trans people the next whipping boys of society.

Pilot what are your views on trans women competing in womens sports?

Or as they're more commonly known, women.

I think they should have all the rights to equality including the right to compete, just not as women. Sure they are a small percentage now, but year on year that will increase. At which point does it become an issue? 10%, 20%?

I'll let women decide what makes a woman a woman, they don't need men to decide for them. I suggest anyone claiming to be a feminist actually go have a discusion with some real feminists about transgender issues and how they impact women.

I thin they should have all the rights to equality including the right to compete, just not as women.

Why? They are women.

Sure they are a small percentage now, but year on year that will increase.

Will it? On what are you basing this prediction?

'll let women decide what makes a woman a woman, they don't need men to decide for them

Ah. Irony.

I suggest anyone claiming to be a feminist actually go have a discusion with some real feminists about transgender issues and how they impact women.

I already have, I know many.

I suggest you talk to some trans women.

Why? They are women.

Sure they are a small percentage now, but year on year that will increase. At which point does it become an issue? 10%, 20%?

Question stands.

The Pilot - Member

Oh, and jimjam, if you can point out exactly where it is in the thread that the OP is compared with Harvey Weinstein

The Pilot - Member

I'm guessing a number of contributors to this thread are trolls but, even if they are or are not, it serves to demonstrate why everybody from Harvey Weinstein to the slightly too touchy-feely guy at the office can get away with what they do.

The Pilot - Member

and where it is suggested by anyone other than yourself that you have mental health problems, I'd be interested to see it.

The Pilot - Member

Jimjam, I think you need to seek professional help.

Question stands.

Gender is only a societal construct anyway. apparently. It won't be long before you can choose which competition you can enter.

Fanny playing footie eh. Whatever next? Do they do it in sexy outfits?

[img] [/img]

People with privilege and a sense of self-entitlement resenting time or attention spent on people different to them and on helping those people feel a more valued part of mainstream society...

Seems to be a bit of a theme these days... Sad.

Malvern Rider - Member

So should all sports be treated equally in all facets of life? Should we categorise sports and sports broadcasting by how oppressed and marginalised the competitors are?

That actually hurt my head. Is there a monolithic level of extreme cynicism one can reach that makes it easier to think that way? Not convinced I want to go there but hey. Whatever gets you through. But to my wooly head it sounds like this:

P1. Look, women on TV where there should be a man. Bloody PC gone mad.

I posed a question and you answered it with an insult, followed by a hypothetical debate of your own creation featuring a gross caricature that indicates how you view people who disagree with you.

Stoatsbrother - Member

People with privilege

Who's that then?

Because some rules have changed

And why do you think that might be?

and more will likely change in future.

Will they? What rules are likely to change? And again, what are you basing this on?

[b]countzero[/b] a male games teacher at a local private school showed clips of that league to young teenage girls last year. Do you think that was appropriate?

[b]jimjam[/b] the people who have run sport, televised it and systematically excluded women till recently. A period of positive discrimination might not be a bad idea...

And why do you think that might be?

Will they? What rules are likely to change? And again, what are you basing this on?

Who's that then?

Anyone with time to debate pointless bollocks like this is the very definition of privileged.

I'd say go and ride your bikes or something but you might see a woman riding a bike and have a ****ing aneurysm.

fin25 - Member

Who's that then?

Anyone with time to debate pointless bollocks like this is the very definition of privileged.

So equality, impartiality and discrimination are pointless bollocks? Perhaps you didn't notice we weren't just discussing football.

I'd say go and ride your bikes or something but you might see a woman riding a bike and have a **** aneurysm.

So another insult/slur.

Stoatsbrother - Member

jimjam the people who have run sport, televised it and systematically excluded women till recently. A period of positive discrimination might not be a bad idea...

Ok, so what does that look like? How much positive discrimination? Who decides? What's the ultimate aim?

Jimjam, how you think that that comment meant that I was comparing the OP to HW, I shall never know. But believe it if you want, makes no difference to me.
What I was saying is that if you treat women as so unimportant that you don't even report on them taking part in sport then a society in which characters such as HW (as the very worst example) can operate may be the result.

As for commenting on your mental health, I really wasn't, was thinking more about anger management issues. Perhaps understandable when you consider your reply

YEAH!!!! They do don't they! the guy in the office and Harvey Weinstein...they all get away with it. Horrible men. Dirty ****** men molesting and harassing women all over Hollywood and your office. It's a real problem.

But probably inappropriate so I apologise for that.

Because it was thought of as the right thing to do.

Bingo.

Wont they? What rules are not likely to change? And what are you basing this on?

I have no idea, you're the one making assertions, not me. I'm trying to ascertain whether there's any foundation to it or whether you're just making shit up. What rules are you afraid will change? Name one?

The Pilot - Member

What I was saying is that if you treat women as so unimportant that you don't even report on them taking part in sport then a society in which characters such as HW (as the very worst example) can operate may be the result.

But that's a completely irrelevant conflation of two separate issues. Harvey Weinstein could probably have done the same thing to young men if he was gay because he's a billionaire who held the keys to fame and fortune. See Bryan Singer.

As for commenting on your mental health, I really wasn't, was thinking more about anger management issues. Perhaps understandable when you consider your reply

You were, just have the honesty to own up to it. Mental health/anger issues - it's a difference without a distinction. My post was deliberately hyperbolic, owing to (imo) the absurdness of your above statement. I assumed that no one would take it literally.

More than 750 million television viewers watched the FIFA Women’s World Cup Canada 2015™, as the FIFA’s flagship women’s competition delivered all-time record viewing figures that underlined the global success of the event in a breakthrough year for women’s football.

BBC have capitalised on that and bought rights to England games, as I'd imagine they are quite cheap and thus promise a good return in terms of viewer numbers compared to other options.

Sure they are a small percentage now, but year on year that will increase. At which point does it become an issue? 10%, 20%?

Surely the amount of people who feel trapped in the wrong body is roughly the same as it always has been, it's just that you're aware of them now. I'd be happy to sacrifice a bit of sporting glory if it brings down the frankly shocking suicide rates currently seen in the trans community. Or is the integrity of sporting gender rules more important than people's actual lives?

Bingo.

I have no idea, you're the one making assertions, not me. I'm trying to ascertain whether there's any foundation to it or whether you're just making shit up. What rules are you afraid will change? Name one?

There are no standard set of rules for trans people in sport. It varies from sport to sport and even levels within sport. Some require testosterone testing and limits on the amount within the body, some don't. Some require complete reassignment and certification, some don't. It is a reasonable prediction that in time rules will change and become more relaxed again as they have already in the last couple of years.

It will really become interesting if people born male who have transitioned socially but in no other way are allowed to compete in womens sports. They are women after all aren't they?

Surely the amount of people who feel trapped in the wrong body is roughly the same as it always has been, it's just that you're aware of them now. I'd be happy to sacrifice a bit of sporting glory if it brings down the frankly shocking suicide rates currently seen in the trans community. Or is the integrity of sporting gender rules more important than people's actual lives?

Do you have a number for the amount of trans people participating in sport as women?

And what about the number of trans people participating as men?

It will really become interesting if people born male who have transitioned socially but in no other way are allowed to compete in womens sports. They are women after all aren't they?

I'm not transphobic but........

The line has to be drawn somewhere, because otherwise women's sport would cease to exist for anyone. The best solution (IME) would be categorisation in the Paralympics, things like testosterone limits would end up in the same mess as EPO era cycling.

Jimjam, I'm not going to comment on you telling me that I'm too dishonest to say what I really think. It really doesn't matter to me. I will say though that I think it speaks volumes that here you are, a man (I'm guessing), telling me, a woman, what I was really saying. Speaks volumes.

Perhaps we can agree on the fact that we both think that the other person talks absolute sh"te and agree to disagree on everything else.

It will really become interesting if people born male who have transitioned socially but in no other way are allowed to compete in womens sports. They are women after all aren't they?

You're way behind the times, the IOC changed their rules in 2016 to sort this out. Female to male - no restriction, male to female need to be able to demonstrate a testosterone level below a cut off point.

Do you have a number for the amount of trans people participating in sport as women?

And what about the number of trans people participating as men?

You don't think that as society and attitudes change, treatment becomes more widely available, legislation is brought in and sporting rules changed that this will show an increase in trans people playing sports?

You're way behind the times, the IOC changed their rules in 2016 to sort this out. Female to male - no restriction, male to female need to be able to demonstrate a testosterone level below a cut off point.

You don't think that as society and attitudes change, treatment becomes more widely available, legislation is brought in and sporting rules changed will show an increase in trans people playing sports?

Probably, it's not something I really think about that much. But I'm sure the relevant sporting authorities are thinking about it, so I don't have to.

Well I like thinking about things, what the consequences are and asking questions around them. I like to be able to do that freely.

It's not like authorities ever make big mistakes in policy is it?

Well I like thinking about things, what the consequences are and asking questions around them. I like to be able to do that freely.

And you can.

It's not like autrhorities ever make big mistakes in policy is it?

Doesn't keep me awake at night, as it's not something I can influence either way.

And you can.

Think about yes, but discuss? Not so much these days without being accused of something, threats made to your career, even life.

It's so hard when you're the victim.

The Pilot - Member

I will say though that I think it speaks volumes that here you are, a man (I'm guessing), telling me, a woman, what I was really saying. Speaks volumes.

No. What really is telling, what really does speak volumes is that you believe your gender in some way enhances the validity of your opinion. By stating your gender (which I was completely unaware of and disinterested in) you are attempting to gain high ground that you can't otherwise reach by the strength of your words alone.

Unless you are talking about a specific biological reality of being a woman as opposed to a man, if you have to qualify a statement with your gender then you can be sure that your statement is factually and intellectually worthless.

If you'd like to construct an argument, or add anything which furthers the debate, as opposed to making gross conflations and brandishing your gender like a badge of superiority I'd be happy to discuss it with you as an equal.

It's so hard when you're the victim.

Ah! That old chestnut.

Well what do you want me to do, hold a vigil for you?

Jimjam, your anger and aggression is getting offensive. I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. You make it very plain that you are completely unable to see anything from anybody else's point of view. You're all over the place with your views, contradicting yourself, making ridiculous points, utterly humourless, domineering, and going on and on and on.
You also seem to feel the need to appear super intelligent when it is patently obvious that you are anything but.
Come back with what you want. Or don't. I shall not reply to anything else you have to say. Like I say, odious little man.

Well what do you want me to do, hold a vigil for you?

Wow!

We have a long way to go, with so many dinosaurs amongst us.

The Pilot - Member

Jimjam, your anger and aggression is getting offensive.

Cite.

I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. You make it very plain that you are completely unable to see anything from anybody else's point of view. You're all over the place with your views,

I am unable to see other view points but my views are all over the place?

contradicting yourself, making ridiculous points, utterly humourless, domineering, and going on and on and on.

Back at you.

You also seem to feel the need to appear super intelligent when it is patently obvious that you are anything but.

Cite.

Like I say, odious little man.

So you started off with nothing to say, then started personal insults and when your trump card (being a woman) failed you're back to personal insults. Bravo.

Don't worry your pretty little head about unimportant things like free speech and being able to question things you might not agree with. Someone else will let you know what to think.

I'm assuming it wasn't the state making those death threats?
I'm also assuming you reported them to the police, as such things are a crime, you know, to protect free speech...

I'm a pretty independent thinker, actually, and have my fair share of unpopular opinions, for which I have often been threatened by others, including organs of the state. I don't go around crying about it though, it's not dignified. I often make myself feel better by reminding myself that some people have to suffer such threats to their life and safety based entirely on who they are (or appear to be) rather than some deliberately controversial shit they spouted on the internet.

Lucky us, right?

*opens thread*

*backs away slowly trying not to make eye contact*

*wonders if only reading the bike forum in future might be the best idea*

Still trying to figure out how not wanting woman's footy on the telly has anything to do with Harvey weinsteins crimes..

I actually agree with the op on this one... Take football as an example..noone is interested not because women are playing, it's because the standard is dire. I wouldn't watch men's Sunday league if they put it on TV either, for similar reasons..

It's nothing to do with sexism... I'd happily watch women play if the product was as good as the men's game.

I'm assuming it wasn't the state making those death threats?
I'm also assuming you reported them to the police, as such things are a crime, you know, to protect free speech...

I don't go around crying about it though, it's not dignified.

rather than some deliberately controversial shit they spouted on the internet.

Like I say, odious little man.

I know that quite a few feminists have been physically attacked and had their personal lives affected for speaking out about their concerns around trans rights.

Did they go to the police?
This is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a crime issue.

If you think I'm deliberately spouting shit on the internet to be controversial then you have got me wrong.

Apologies, just me then... 😳

That's really bad btw. I'm sure you'd object if someone referred to you as a "little woman". Generally, it's best to steer insults away from links with race, gender, colour etc.

^This

posed a question and you answered it with an insult, followed by a hypothetical debate of your own creation featuring a gross caricature that indicates how you view people who disagree with you.

Well that's not actually my intention or true. I was referring strictly to the argument that broadcasting women playing football is somehow 'PC gone mad'. Which is, is it not, your contention/s assessment of it? Plus, you seemed to miss the self-deprecating joke/irony at the end of my (slight) caricature/paraphrasing of yours and the OPs contentions? I am honestly not getting it, the whole 'normal balance' thing. Maybe you could rewrite my dialogue but re-word by way of a more reasonable debate concluding with your contention/resolution? If indeed your contention is 'grossly' opposed to my understanding of it?

Scotroutes I don't think the pilot cares as we appear to have driven another female forum member away. Well done chaps.

Malvern Rider - Member

I was referring strictly to the argument that broadcasting women playing football is somehow 'PC gone mad'. Which is, is it not, your contention/s assessment of it?

My assessment of it is that it's a blunt tool designed to effect change but the result will be a backlash and rejection (see the op as evidence of this). The upshot of that rejection could be people creeping toward the right, and white male identity politics as a response to feminist identity politics .

Plus, you seemed to miss the self-deprecating joke/irony at the end of my (slight) caricature/paraphrasing of yours and the OPs contentions?

I am honestly not getting it, the whole 'normal balance' thing. Maybe you could rewrite my dialogue but re-word by way of a more reasonable debate concluding with your contention/resolution? If indeed your contention is 'grossly' opposed to my understanding of it?

I'd rather talk to you, than construct an avatar of what I believe your opinion is in my own head. I believe in equality for everyone regardless of race, gender or sexual persuasion. I also believe that European western secular liberal society; although flawed, is the best society in human history. I don't want to see a wedge driven into this society along racial or gender lines created by the narrative that white males control everything.

There are a lot of white males with nothing who will bite you in the ass if you you drive them into a corner. Witness Brexit, LePenn Trump etc.

There are a lot of white males with nothing who will bite you in the ass if you you drive them into a corner. Witness Brexit, LePenn Trump etc.

So that's all white males's fault as well? 😉

I actually agree with the op on this one... Take football as an example..[b]noone is interested[/b] not because women are playing,

750 million people watched some of the last Women's world cup. That's a lot of no-ones. Pretty sure the BBC audience was higher than the average PL game for some England fixtures. Granted, there's the free vs paid angle, but still to dismiss it as zero interest is factually incorrect.

Anyone watching the second-half of the socialist wimmin of color underwater wheelchair-polo final?

So broadcasting women playing football is a [b]blunt tool designed to effect change but the result will be a backlash and rejection[/b] (see the op as evidence of this)

[b]The upshot of that rejection could be people creeping toward the right, and white male identity politics as a response to feminist identity politics?[/b]

If that's the 'anti-caricature' then how comes it makes my caricature look more like paraphrasing?

Or does 'blunt tool' not translate in context as 'PC gone mad?'

Why would 'white men' get angry and resentful of 'rejection' because women are occasionally being broadcast playing football? Is women playing football somehow militant feminism?

Sorry, watching Ex-Machina. Will reply tomorrow.

The upshot of that rejection could be people creeping toward the right, and white male identity politics as a response to feminist identity politics?

See the whole “Red-Pill” movement

Well worth watching the documentary movie (Netflix/Amazon) which does discuss some interesting issues like the differences in male vs female suicide rates, workplace fatalities, mental health and homelessness statistics.

Jeez, isn't there enough flippin' football on the telly already. 😐

'Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.' Threads like this are a salient and sobering reminder.

Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.' Threads like this are a salient and sobering reminder

I really struggle to see why people reach this conclusion based on the opinion that woman's football isn't worth watching.. Weird..

750 million people watched some of the last Women's world cup.

Do you know what the average attendance at a top level woman's game in the UK is.. The best team man city have around 2000 per game, only 4 in the top league in England average over 1000. So perhaps 750 million people at some point saw some of the world cup (I watched half the final, it was dire), but that is definitely not the norm.

Basically it's a lover average than the top tier of non league football.. And I'm assuming noone wants to see that on the BBC sports homepage either

I say again, 750 million people. Not no-one. 750 million. Not 0. Loads. Including you 🙂

How many matches were there?

So, we're just ignoring Jimjam's lack of basic comprehension? 8)

TV viewing figures for the 2014 (mens) World Cup?

3.2 Billion. 😯

750M vs 3.2B?

Think it's a fair estimate to say there are more than 4.3x the number of Male teams than Women's teams. The women are doing pretty well there, on the popularity front.

Exactly scuzz, it's showing there is an appetite for watching women's sport. The example from before that I had was the ashes where they have significantly increased the number of people attending and watching.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-23/womens-cricket-on-rise-say-australian-stars-perry-and-haynes/9186256

If you refuse to acknowledge it exists because people don't watch it then you will stay exactly there. It appears that is what a some people want.

I am very happy to see the peak of women's sport reported on in the same way the male game is, just like they do at the Olympics etc.

If you refuse to acknowledge it exists because people don't watch it then you will stay exactly there

Yep. It's a completely circular argument.

It's not popular so we won't show it.
So it stays unpopular.

We've had the reverse situation in the past. Snooker as a spectator sport didnt really exist until Pot Black.

Make the pitches smaller, make the goals smaller, make the balls smaller. Maybe even make the games a bit shorter. That'd be an easy way to improve women's football