[Closed] Time for an anti PC rant!

You're thinking of Subbuteo again, aren't you?

That's a game that requires the deftest of touches.

[quote=davidtaylforth ]make the goals smaller

and circular and put them on poles at the ends of the [s]court[/s] pitch - that would probably make it a sport more suitable for women.

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.

Not at the world cup there isn't!

Also.. The 750 mill figure.. Not so impressive when you actually put it in context..

'According to figures from FIFA and KantarSport, 764 million in-home TV viewers watched at least one minute of match action from Canada. Some 555.6 million people tuned in for at least three minutes during the competition'..

So 200 million of that only watched for less than 3 minutes. I wonder why.. I wonder how many watched a whole game.

As I already pointed out.. Average attendance shows there is very little appetite for the woman's game compared to the men's.

As I already pointed out.. Average attendance shows there is very little appetite for the women's game compared to the men's.

It's a very bit participation sport around the world.

[quote=mikewsmith ]How would you generate interest
I think this the question that's already been asked in this thread though - who decides what "we" should be generating interest in? Why football?

A cynic might suggest that the flurry of TV programs that came along about decorating, renovating, buying and selling houses was social engineering designed to get us to spend money in certain ways. Or that all these historical costume dramas depicting a certain class structure are being made to remind the proletariat of their place.

Makes you think!

I think this the question that's already been asked in this thread though - who decides what "we" should be generating interest in? Why football?

The simple answer is that people will complain about anything. Though is people are spotting in and complaining about it then awareness is increasing and the move to equality getting it right.

Football (on TV or elsewhere) not generally being on my radar - I don't/cannot see the fuss. Saying that, not quite sure I'd see the fuss if it was, say, mountain biking and someone dared show a few segments of women's mtb on the box. My constitution is strong.

Back to footie. A little Googling informs me that women's football was pulling in over 60,000 people to a match (Goodison Park) back in the 1920s. This was a novelty back then.

The FA soon after banned women's football for 50 years. The 'natural balance' was seen to be restored? It wasn't supported again until 1993. I'd argue that it's still a regarded as 'novelty' now. What a surprise eh?

From wikipedia (corroborated with other sources)

Dick, Kerr's Ladies F.C. was one of the earliest known women's association football teams in England. The team remained in existence for over 48 years from 1917 to 1965 playing 828 games, winning 758, drawing 46, and losing 24. During its early years, matches attracted anywhere from 4,000 to over 50,000 spectators per match.

In 1920, Dick, Kerr's Ladies defeated a French side 2–0 in front of 25,000 people that went down in history as the first international women's association football game. The team faced strong opposition by the Football Association (FA), who banned the women from using fields and stadiums controlled by FA-affiliated clubs for 50 years (the rule was finally repealed in 1971)

Make of it what you will, but it seems that the complaining is still here, albeit with slightly different flavours-of-the-day (ie women are rubbish at football and they only get any airtime at all because of leftie man-hating social engineers pulling the strings ('positive discrimination' is the phrase)

So even if men have gotten a 50yr head-start in the sport, seems some men are still insecure/angry enough to play 'whack-a-mole' when women's football rears it's head again?

Maybe, gents, you know, maybe if we ban the broadcasting of women's football on grounds of 'inflaming the Right' - then it will just die a natural death? 😉

But women's football being broadcast is not a new thing, apparently it was featured regularly on Pathé Newsreels.

Afterthought: As I type this it strikes me that I've maybe stepped back in time. Or it's forever a time-loop for women in football. Seriously wtf, opposers? I assume that your argument sounds 'reasonable' to yourselves. Why is that?

I heard today there was a game of rugby league played by some working class blokes, I'm truly disgusted that the news outlets continue to promote such an abomination of a game on national TV.

Oh and at least the womens cricket team seem close to the Ozzies in terms of skill 😉

mikewsmith - Member
I heard today there was a game of rugby league played by some working class blokes, I'm truly disgusted that the news outlets continue to promote such an abomination of a game on national TV.

Disgusting, poor people getting paid to play Rugby, that'll never catch on, devalues the game, purity, blah blah....

Oh, hang on.
🙂

And more women's sport on the TV please.
And equal prize money too.

A cynic ...

...Makes you think!

Oh, cynics make me think all of the time. Coming from a family of dyed-in-the-wool cynics on the male side.

I'm often one myself. Sometimes we are correct. Sometimes (more often) we are unconsciously looking to confirm our prejudices. More often still is psychological projection. It is the lifeblood of the cynic.

Unfortunately, bigots and cynics tend to flock together. Often in the same brain.

My cynicism is oddly offset by self-doubt. I'm skeptical of my cynicism! This leads to lengthy thoughts. Annoyingly lengthy. Skepticism at least can be healthy. Cynicism? Not so much. In general, I'm in two minds:

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Unfortunately, bigots and cynics tend to flock together. Often in the same brain.

I always thought that cynics tend to over-think things

On the surface I would agree*. But so, arguably, do bigots**. Neither prefer taking positive motives/assertions at face value, but will habitually accept negative assertions as fact, and with little or no detective work. Everything is pre-judged. Everything magically dovetails with their existing prejudice/s. They of course see it the opposite way, ie 'my prejudice is informed by the way things are'.

Literacy varies from person to person. Although bigots by nature/necessity tend to be less concerned with educating themselves beyond a certain level.

*At least as far as it takes for us to selectively filter and 'establish' what we already [s]suspect[/s] prefer to believe - and that is that everything comes about for negative/selfish reasons.

** At least as far as it for takes them to selectively filter and 'establish' what they already [s]know[/s] prefer to believe about those with differing beliefs/opinions/nationalities/skin-tone/gender etc

Seriously Malvern Rider, I was going to reply to your post on the last page but I see that in the space of three posts you've managed to create another dialogue with yourself where everyone who disagrees with your opinion is a bigot, a misogynist and a racist.

When you lower the bar for what constitutes racism, bigotry and misogyny to the point where everyone who questions your world view is a racist, misogynist and a bigot then you force people to decide whether they are "all in" or "all out". You've got someone questioning the relevance of a news item and you've gotten all the way to bigotry - ie racists. Again. Just like everyone who voted for Trump was a racist...everyone who voted for Brexit was a racist....

The purpose of the news is to report important issues. How do we gauge's what's important? Something that effects a lot of people, something that a lot of people are interested in, or something that's remarkable or terrible? Sound about right?

Does women's football satisfy any of those categories? Not really at present. So why are they showing it? Because they have a decided to ignore what is newsworthy and have a go at social engineering instead to satisfy their own charter. People smell a rat and they question it. How about next time the op (or someone like him decides he'll watch RT instead of the BBC, and instead of the BBC website he'll use the Dailymail. Is that a net gain or a net loss?

[quote=jimjam ]Seriously Malvern Rider, I was going to reply to your post on the last page but I see that in the space of three posts you've managed to create another dialogue with yourself where everyone who disagrees with your opinion is a bigot, a misogynist and a racist.

cite

Just like everyone who voted for Trump was a racist...everyone who voted for Brexit was a racist....

Which of course is demonstrably untrue. But it neatly ignores the notion that a lot of them were. It may well be more true to say that most racists (who bothered to / were able to vote) voted for those things.

The purpose of the news is to report important issues.

Aside from the fact that the news reports really quite unimportant things all the time (and fail to report many other important things), is sports results really "news"? I suppose it could be seen as such, but is it not just another form of entertainment?

Look at music as a parallel. Should all radio stations only ever play the Top 40? That's what's popular. Or is there space for an "unsigned bands" slot, for a country & western hour, for playing obscure album tracks people might not have heard?

Why must we only cater for what's "popular" instead of being a bit more diverse? If 95% of football fans are into men's football and 5% are into women's football, is it not then right to give women's football 5% of airtime rather than 0% on the football shows? And the OP wasn't even talking about showing game footage, he was objecting to anyone even discussing it.

The purpose of the news is to report important issues. How do we gauge's what's important? Something that effects a lot of people, something that a lot of people are interested in, or something that's remarkable or terrible? Sound about right?

Does women's football satisfy any of those categories? Not really at present.

750 million is a lot of people though, so it's clearly something that a lot of people are interested in.

The BBC’s latest rights acquisition will see them capture all the drama and excitement of the FIFA Women’s World Cup France 2019 - broadcasting extensive coverage of every game across TV, radio and online.
Taking place on International Women’s Day, today’s announcement follows on from the huge success of the BBC’s coverage of the 2015 tournament in Canada, which saw England’s Lionesses reach the semi-finals. With an impressive peak TV audience of 2.4 million late into the night for England’s game against Japan, the tournament reached more than 12 million people on TV alone, unprecedented figures for women’s football in the UK.

Obviously Women's football is still a minority sport, but I'd guess that compares pretty favourably to some others.

750 million is a lot of people though, so it's clearly something that a lot of people are interested in.

That figure is so inaccurate it is not worth quoting

Indeed, those numbers have already been shown to be totally irrelevant.. It counts 200 million folks who either stumbled across it whilst channel surfing and immediately switched over, or watched 90 seconds and got bored!

How is it irrelevant, 750 million people IS a lot of people. You'd like it to be irrelevant because your claim that no-one watches Womens football is a lie.

Cougar - Moderator

The purpose of the news is to report important issues.

Aside from the fact that the news reports really quite unimportant things all the time (and fail to report many other important things), is sports results really "news"? I suppose it could be seen as such, but is it not just another form of entertainment?

Why must we only cater for what's "popular" instead of being a bit more diverse? If 95% of football fans are into men's football and 5% are into women's football, is it not then right to give women's football 5% of airtime rather than 0% on the football shows?

You don't have to make an analogy with music - of course you can have different flavors of news. The obvious example here would be the U.S with CNN and Fox, but they aren't the state broadcaster, and viewers aren't taxed to watch.

And the OP wasn't even talking about showing game footage, he was objecting to anyone even discussing it.

I thought he asked who it was aimed at since neither he or his daughters or his wife were remotely interested.

Because they have a decided to ignore what is newsworthy and have a go at social engineering instead to satisfy their own charter

Though I agree that the media can be an agent of social engineering, I really don't see that here. I think maybe they just want to promote one of the few sports they still have the rights to broadcast, or maybe one of the producers is well into it, who gives a shit?
Seriously, the amount some of you care about this is a bit odd. Which might be why your imaginations are running away a bit.

I thought he asked who it was aimed at since neither he or his daughters or his wife were remotely interested.

Massive cross section, there. I mean, if four or five people aren't interested it stands to reason that literally no-one could possibly give a shit.

Correlating pessimism with bigotry is a bit silly, pessimism can be born from realising and reading about ten thousand years of recorded human stupidity, bigotry anf violence - and realising that people have and always will be shits to each other.

Optimism producess fluffy bollocks like Lennons "Imagine".

How is it irrelevant, 750 million people IS a lot of people. You'd like it to be irrelevant because your claim that no-one watches Womens football is a lie.

It's irrelevant as, as I have already pointed out, the 750 million figure is for how many viewers watched one minute or more of the tournament. As I have already shown 200 million of that number watched less than 3 min in total.I imagine that a significant number of the remaining 500 million didn't watch much of it either. I was one of them, watched half a game as there was nothing else on TV.. Doesn't mean I have any interest in the woman's game whatsoever.

Obviously some people watch it, but rather than focus on the headline figure for the biggest tournament in woman's football why not focus on the attendances at top tier English games.. The figures I have already highlighted.

So you're happy that lots of people are interested now? Good. Whether it's 750 million or 500 million or whatever, it is still a lot of people. FWIW, there's a reason the links end up on the home page of BBC Football. They'll be aiming to raise the profile of the womens game in time for the next world cup.

Malvern Rider bla bla calling anyone who responds a racist, misogynist, bigot, etc.

+1 cite?

Please don't dodge my direct and perfectly respectful response/query:

Here again:

So broadcasting women playing football is [b]a 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?

Q1. Or does 'blunt tool' not translate in context as 'PC gone mad?'

Q2. Why would 'white men' get angry and resentful of 'rejection' because women are occasionally being broadcast playing football?

Surely if women's football is not the norm it is more news worthy than yet another tedious premier league game where 22 disinterested millionaires try to get through a match without over exerting or injuring themselves or conceding a goal made only slightly bearable when one of them recalls his childhood enthusiasm for a minute and actually tries to score.
I seriously fail to see the naysayers point, if you are that offended by being reminded of the fact girls also play what you perceive to be a boys game turn off the TV, and avoid all sources of fresh information.

Malvern Rider - Member

So broadcasting women playing football is 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?

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

I'll give you an example. There's a tv show featuring a character called "Steve". Steve is watching the news. Upon seeing the feature about women's football Steve says -

[b]"Look, women on TV where there should be a man. Bloody PC gone mad."[/b]

or Steve says
[b]
"Reporting on women's football when their is little or no interest in is a blunt tool designed to effect change but the result may be a backlash and rejection of this broadcaster.

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

One is a caricature designed to imply that anyone who rejects the coverage of women's football as a reactionary neanderthal. The other isn't.

+1 cite?

I'll just be quoting your own words back to you if you want.

So you're happy that lots of people are interested now? Good. Whether it's 750 million or 500 million or whatever, it is still a lot of people. FWIW, there's a reason the links end up on the home page of BBC Football. They'll be aiming to raise the profile of the womens game in time for the next world cup

Im saying that the figure of 750/500/ however many million is no indication of how many folks have any interest in it..

I see you have completely failed to address the issue of low attendance at the top tier of UK woman's football which is a far better indicator of UK Interest than how many folks may or may not have seen a few minutes of the games on telly.

I agree on your second point.. It is to raise interest. I have no issues with that. My issue is that unsurprisingly anyone who agrees with the op is labeled a bigot or dinasaur.

I'll just be quoting your own words back to you if you want.

Yes please, it seems my attempts at communication (and tongue-in cheek satire) have failed to date. I'll take that, and am happy to discuss candidly, and clarify. Seems I failed primarily for (my woolly and admittedly cynical head) sensing yours and OP's reactions as 'PC gone mad' rather than the more 'correct':

"Reporting on women's football when their is little or no interest in is a blunt tool designed to effect change"

I have to say, I find a little women's football on TV resulting in a 'rejection' - driving 'right wing, white male identity politics' is a hell of a weird and overblown 'backlash'? You must see why I would question that?

Isn't Steve one a caricature of a Neanderthal and Steve 2 a caricature of the professionally offended desperately looking to take umbrage and the totally innocuous ?

Malvern Rider - Member

I have to say, I find a little women's football on TV resulting in a 'rejection' - driving 'right wing, white male identity politics' is a hell of a weird and overblown 'backlash'? You must see why I would question that?

I can see why you would question it if I was arguing that it was a root or major cause, which I'm not. I'm saying it [i]could[/i] be a contributing factor which validates someone's perception that the BBC has a liberal bias, or it could drive them to other news outlets.

So basically stop showing it or talking about it and hope it goes away? Other than that I can't really see why you get upset. What is the popularity figure or measure that a sport must achieve without being mentioned once on TV before its allowed to be mentioned on TV.

Using long words and discussions about social engineering still doesn't change your point.

it could be a contributing factor which validates someone's perception that the BBC has a liberal bias, or it could drive them to other news outlets.

As mystifying and controversial as I find that 'imaginary' scenario - let us entertain it. ie - mentioning women's football (and/or other women's sport) on the BBC is a 'straw' that sends the proverbial camel galloping to break it's back via 'identity politics' ?

What should the BBC do to 'redress the balance' back to 'normal'. Increase coverage of men's football or drop mentions of women's? (Wasn't it you that used the phrase 'creating a false normal'?)

And yes, again, please cite what I wrote that made you accuse me of:

you've managed to create another dialogue with yourself where everyone who disagrees with your opinion is a bigot, a misogynist and a racist.

This debate is ****ing weird, even by STW standards.

[quote=jimjam ]I'll just be quoting your own words back to you if you want.

Well that's the normal response to a challenge to cite, so off you go then, because I also seem to have missed the post which justified the following:

[quote=jimjam ]Seriously Malvern Rider, I was going to reply to your post on the last page but I see that in the space of three posts you've managed to create another dialogue with yourself where everyone who disagrees with your opinion is a bigot, a misogynist and a racist.

what they said , cite, but especially this bit

This debate is **** weird, even by STW standards.

Gerti -

Did it occur to the OP that Men's football was probably crap to watch 50 years ago? Give us women a chance to catch up on the skills level, we're a few decades behind!!!

Yes, have a go by all means, but just do it without the fake, transparent, man-goading, [s]politically correct[/s] blunt-tool* 'assistance' from the Beeb. Gottit?

* While being careful of offending The 'anti-PC' brigade - apparently it's not 'correct' to infer that someone is making an 'anti-PC' rant. 'Anti-blunt-tool' is the [s]PC[/s] less offensive term 😉

Last few women's games I've watched were better viewing for me than most of the men's games I've watched for a decade or so, due to the lack of falling over at the slightest touch, rolling around on the floor clutching body parts and general faux injuries/clashes.

5-0 looking for a 6th

What you get up to in the privacy of your own bedroom is not our concern.