Please stop telling us that women&#x27;s sport is as good as men&#x27;s - it isn&#x27;t! Discuss

Lol, how immature.
You even quote the Daily 'Fail' :rofl:

hilarious

Reply 2

OP

Original post by Nirvana1989-1994

Lol, how immature.
You even quote the Daily 'Fail' :rofl:

hilarious

Just being the Daily 'Heil' doesn't make it trash journalism.... DL raises a good point in some respects imho.... somewhat controversial though

Reply 3

Original post by brimstone131

Just being the Daily 'Heil' doesn't make it trash journalism.... DL raises a good point in some respects imho.... somewhat controversial though

No, it makes it exactly that. Trash tabloid journalism masquerading as an actual factual newspaper.

Reply 4

OP

Original post by Nirvana1989-1994

No, it makes it exactly that. Trash tabloid journalism masquerading as an actual factual newspaper.

I'm not sure it advertises as a factual newspaper... hence why in newsagents they pay for placement among the tabloids :colone:

And no, not everyhting in print is trash.... I'll concede virtually everything printed by Katie Hopkins and suchlike is dire, but you can't dismiss all thats written in there as garbage fgs

Reply 5

Crumpet1

19

Gymnastics. That is all.

Reply 6

Original post by brimstone131

I'm not sure it advertises as a factual newspaper... hence why in newsagents they pay for placement among the tabloids :colone:

And no, not everyhting in print is trash.... I'll concede virtually everything printed by Katie Hopkins and suchlike is dire, but you can't dismiss all thats written in there as garbage fgs

It sure pretends to be, going on like whatever it prints is absolute fact.

Have they really hired Katie Hopkins? :s-smilie:

Reply 7

OP

Original post by Crumpet1

Gymnastics. That is all.

Fair point

Reply 8

Amefish

Wow, a Daily Mail article without a photo of a scantily clad woman!... although still misogynistic.

In reference to the subject of the article, though, my personal opinion is that women's sport is just as bad as men's sport :smile:

while sport can be fun to play, it is really overrated in terms of the media coverage it gets, how much people are paid, etc. I really don't think it deserves its own special segment on the national news every day.

Reply 9

OP

Original post by Nirvana1989-1994

It sure pretends to be, going on like whatever it prints is absolute fact.

Have they really hired Katie Hopkins? :s-smilie:

Yeah she writes a regualr column and 'opinion' pieces.... though what qualifies her to have a valued opinion worth sharing is beyond me.

I agree to a point, some of the ways they craft headlines for attention, then followed by a completely different fact in the piece is incredible...... sometimes they even disappear if they're too controversial aha

Reply 10

Original post by brimstone131

Yeah she writes a regualr column and 'opinion' pieces.... though what qualifies her to have a valued opinion worth sharing is beyond me.

I agree to a point, some of the ways they craft headlines for attention, then followed by a completely different fact in the piece is incredible...... sometimes they even disappear if they're too controversial aha

Oh god..

Yeah

Reply 11

shadowdweller

Volunteer Section Leader

21

I fail to see anything remotely convincing in that article :dontknow:

Reply 12

username1221160

19

It's true, so let's not beat around the politically correct bush.

Take football for example. Women don't dive enough or feign injury frequently enough to be able to compete with their male counterparts.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 13

OP

Original post by shadowdweller

I fail to see anything remotely convincing in that article :dontknow:

Although I don't agree with a a lot of his ideas, he raises a good point..... having watched the womens cricket final the other week, the standard of cricket, for a world cup final, was disappointing. One catch, straight to a fielder was dropped, and another that was an easy catch, was remarked by the commentator as an incredible catch. The bowling was unexciting, and a 'fast' bowler was bowling at the pace of an U14 boys school team, and the quality of batting was questionable. As much as I would want cricket, and women's sport to succeed, I could expect a county U16 team to have beaten the England side.

The coverage, both pre and post match was huge, and to some extent too much maybe? For the following week, it seemed as if the media couldn't write enough... more so than when most men's teams win a world event

Reply 14

OP

Original post by Quantex

It's true, so let's not beat around the politically correct bush.

Take football for example. Women don't dive enough or feign injury frequently enough to be able to compete with their male counterparts.

You've got a point there - I'd partly prefer to watch women's football for that reason

You and DL are right... it's true.... it seems to be the incessant need for equality that makes it seem like women's sport is being promoted above men's in some cases...... i'd be willing to have a reasoned debate with the other side when all sports can be done by men as well..... there is not one olympic sport men do that women can't, yet men can't do all of the women's disciplines

Reply 15

generallee

Original post by Nirvana1989-1994

No, it makes it exactly that. Trash tabloid journalism masquerading as an actual factual newspaper.

The trash comes from you.

There is a debate to be had on the subject of women's sport. It is a reasonable debate, with legitimate opinions on both sides. Lawson makes a contribution with which one can agree or disagree furnishing reasons.

You are unwilling for his side of the debate to be made. You attempt to discredit his argument, even his right to express it, tacitly, by attacking the medium in which he makes it, the Daily Mail.

This is true of anything which the Daily Mail might campaign for as a right of centre newspaper, or in this case simply an opinion piece by a columnist.

Argue your corner, disagree to your heart's content. That is what we do in a democracy with a free press.

But don't think you can get away with attempting to stop any discussion or expression of views by this shallow and tawdry tactic of smearing the vehicle in which the opinion is expressed. It has no basis in logic and is profoundly undemocratic, fascist even.

Reply 16

Graduate_Medic

14

In terms of talent and skill, women can be equal to their male counterparts. In terms of power and strength, biology has determined that men will win that - but that's precisely why we don't make women and men compete against each other. If you want to watch SKILL, GRIT and TALENT watching women is just as good as watching men.

Obvious drawback - there are less resources, money and coaching talent driving development in women's sport so skill and talent can be lesser than men's sports AT THE MOMENT. But as this is changing, so will the quality of women's sports increase.

For example, (male) rugby veterans have told me they love watching women's elite rugby even though it's only just turned professional because the women are more tactical and skillful than the men because they don't have brawn/smashing power to rely on so much. My (male) MMA teacher also loves watching female UFC fights because he says women have a higher tolerance for physical pain which is interesting to see play out in the final rounds.

Original post by brimstone131

Although I don't agree with a a lot of his ideas, he raises a good point..... having watched the womens cricket final the other week, the standard of cricket, for a world cup final, was disappointing.

This is because - unsurprisingly - less money and coaching talent is poured into women's sports than men's because traditionally all the focus has been on men's sports. It also means the talent pool to recruit from for women's elite teams is smaller and less diverse than men's teams. It's a cyclic relationship: as coverage grows, resources will grow, interest from talented women will grow, and the overall quality will improve.

Reply 17

generallee

Coming on to the subject of the article, surely this is a subjective matter. The games are different. In tennis I prefer the woman's version but that is aesthetic. There is a grace and beauty which as a heterosexual male I respond to. There is no doubt that it is inferior in strength and speed however and no woman in history could beat a man currently in the top echelons.

Netball and women's hockey are similarly appealing, because of the grace and beauty of the players.

Where I think Lawson is right is that in sports like Football and Cricket the difference in quality is embarrassing. I find the female versions of both sport unwatchable, for the same reasons that I find the lower reaches of the male versions of the game. Watching the best you get spoilt. Having seen Ronaldo and Messi you get generate the same excitement over a journeyman striker in non League football.

Others disagree, but not enough. And that is why the BBC's PC campaign for women's versions of these games will have limited success. Football, for example, is a global sport. Wherever you go in the world you can discuss the Premier League. The money it generates is astonishing as is the viewership. That will never be the case for the female version of the game. You won't get into a cab in Vietnam or Mexico City and spend the time discussing Arsenal FC Ladies' latest signing.

Not going to happen.

Reply 18

OP

Original post by Graduate_Medic

This is because - unsurprisingly - less money and coaching talent is poured into women's sports than men's because traditionally all the focus has been on men's sports. It also means the talent pool to recruit from for women's elite teams is smaller and less diverse than men's teams. It's a cyclic relationship: as coverage grows, resources will grow, interest from talented women will grow, and the overall quality will improve.

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand this, and accept that while in their infancy, women's sports will be inherently less skilled and talented. Having listened to LBC on Thursday, debating a similar issue, one problem I can see that some people could have with the pursuance of women's sports is that the funding will be drawn from the same 'pot' - therefore reducing the amount made available to the men's discipline.... I'm not saying this isn't fair, but I can see that it becomes diffilcult to justify why the pressure on funding professional female sport can come at the expense of male sport's quality and talent.

I've seen this firsthand.... my local rugby club, which I played for until the U18's, used to fund the mens 1st XV about 1.4million per year...... now they have introduced a women's team too, the funding available to the men has reduced to 0.8 million per year, and because of the inevitable fall in standards due to less money, less lucrative sponsors are attracted, meaning the pot is smaller for everyone. I don't necessarily object to the women's team, hell I support them if i'm around, but I feel saddened to see what just a few years ago was a top level men's team, signing players full time, now barely able to afford 5 full time players, the rest part time, languishing 3 leagues below what they were.

Reply 19

HabibSyed