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

OP

Original post by summer1311

Engage us in meaningful debate, please.

Reply 42

inthedark1

19

Original post by brimstone131

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.

Why not invest in female quality and talent? It just seems you are blaming equality in sports for loss of male funding but shouldnt the female funding really have been there in the first instance? I watched a documentary on womens football in the 50's it attracted many spectators and was a regular event and provided much entertainment within towns among the workingclass but due to the FA banning it and doctors stating thst the game was too 'jittery' for womens physique and fertility to handle the game lost spectators. You should watch the documentary its interesting ive forgot what its called though I'l try to find it. Theres also one on running where women were banned from doing the marathon as apparantly it was too dangerous for them.

Reply 43

AndrewSCO

I didn't read the daily mail article so don't exactly know what it says and whether or not I'm getting what people are actually debating. But men are physically superior to women on average and have a better standard at most sports (not all) but the more physically demanding sports. Anyone who denies that isn't thinking clearly. I'm all for equality and when it comes to intelligence etc it's dead equal, but physically men are superior and women's sport isn't as good as men's. It's a biological fact

Reply 44

OP

Original post by inthedark1

Why not invest in female quality and talent? It just seems you are blaming equality in sports for loss of male funding but shouldnt the female funding really have been there in the first instance? I watched a documentary on womens football in the 50's it attracted many spectators and was a regular event and provided much entertainment within towns among the workingclass but due to the FA banning it and doctors stating thst the game was too 'jittery' for womens physique and fertility to handle the game lost spectators. You should watch the documentary its interesting ive forgot what its called though I'l try to find it. Theres also one on running where women were banned from doing the marathon as apparantly it was too dangerous for them.

I'm blaming equality for loss of funding because it comes out of the same pot.... Take England Rugby for example.... some money yes comes from the RFU, but being centrally contracted, most of the funding comes from advertising, sponsorship and sales (merchandising and tickets).... I'm looking at where the money comes from vs where the money goes, and seeing as it was estimated in 2015 that the england rugby funding was 85% from the men's side, the male side didn't receive 85% of the funding. The debate over the recent non-renewal of the womens contracts is the first event i've seen in the opposite direction, and I'd say in the right direction.

I would agree that womens sports had setbacks, for frankly ridiculous reasons, but I don't see why it seems that in the name of equality, women's sport seems to be increasingly over-advertised and promoted. I fully support female participation, but why then do we still have female only sports?

Reply 45

Kraggor

19

Original post by Jack22031994

Womens beach volleyball is better than mens :wink:

Seriously though, I like watching all sport regardless whether its men or women. At least the womens England football team actually win unlike the mens team :tongue:

It's always the beach volleyball :biggrin:

It's just such an interesting and in depth sport to watch dont you think? I love analysing it over and over watching hundreds of matches watching each of thei movements :tongue:

But, womens sport is just the same as mens sport it is as good as the person sees it to be watching it lol.

Gender doesn't define how good something is in most cases

Reply 46

OP

Original post by Kraggor

Gender doesn't define how good something is in most cases

It's not the gender you're right. It's the skillset that each gender in the professional discipline has. Anyone can identify a 'good shot' in cricket, a 'great tackle' in rugby, a 'great serve' in tennis or a 'great intercept' in basketball.... it seems though that watching professional women's sport, these are less common, and if anything the pace of women's sport seems to be slower and less exciting - thats all

Reply 47

Kraggor

19

Original post by brimstone131

It's not the gender you're right. It's the skillset that each gender in the professional discipline has. Anyone can identify a 'good shot' in cricket, a 'great tackle' in rugby, a 'great serve' in tennis or a 'great intercept' in basketball.... it seems though that watching professional women's sport, these are less common, and if anything the pace of women's sport seems to be slower and less exciting - thats all

I fully understand your point especially with me being gentically more agressive in nature but it is subjective maybe a good sport to someone is slower paced, for example people who are more interested in sports like golf or curling. These are intended to be slower pace and some people might prefer that to fast action or loud noises etc.

And depends how you define "good", I see it as how passionate and fun a sport provides me and just because the participants maybe good at the sport doesnt mean that sport is good to me.
Like I don't enjoy football or find it a good sport (except friendly playing with friends is fun) even when I see good plays and a "good" match to me it is not.

Reply 48

It's****ingWOODY

It's because, currently, males are just better at most sports. That's not me being sexist - physiologically, males are just better-built to perform at some sports than women, hence world records in many sports being held exclusively by men even though women have ample opportunity to beat it. There's a reason we don't have mixed gender sports in most cases - men would be at an unfair advantage. We just don't like to watch sports when they're not performed at such a high level.

Reply 49

Graduate_Medic

14

Original post by brimstone131

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.

I understand why that makes you torn. Still, I think overall it's for the better for society. Too few women are engaging in physical activity. We have a cancer/heart disease/diabetes/obesity crisis. Equality/equity in sport will help.

Reply 50

math42

While the article is frequently reliant on anecdotal evidence, it's a good opinion piece and raises some pertinent points. I largely agree. I wonder if those who are heavily critical have even read it...he takes care on numerous occasions to note that the women at the top of women's sports are very skilled. But in most cases they cannot compete with men for simple biological reasons, and, again in most cases, men's sports will always offer higher quality for this reason alone. This shouldn't be an offensive statement.

All this being said, as someone who sucks at sport in general, the true size of disparities is often lost on me, and, for instance, I do enjoy watching women's tennis for reasons beyond the typically male one; as an example, that match between Konta and Vekic was genuinely gripping. But McEnroe's statement that the top women would be nowhere near the top globally is factual and shouldn't be offensive imo.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 51

Wheel123

Original post by brimstone131

Despite DM, Dominic Lawson always writes exceptionally well, interesting article. I know it's sports orientated, but I think it covers more than just sport

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4745054/Stop-telling-women-s-sport-good-men-s.html

There is less skill involved because transgenders are now competing in and winning women's championships using their muscular advantage.

Reply 52

Graduate_Medic

14

Original post by Wheel123

There is less skill involved because transgenders are now competing in and winning women's championships using their muscular advantage.

Sport governing bodies have been working on policies to address this the past few years. It's not a simple matter though, so I guess that's why it's taking a long time.

Reply 53

OP

Original post by Graduate_Medic

I understand why that makes you torn. Still, I think overall it's for the better for society. Too few women are engaging in physical activity. We have a cancer/heart disease/diabetes/obesity crisis. Equality/equity in sport will help.

True - maybe long run, more participation = more funding = better success rates..... I'm not really blaming the creation of the women's team for it,but I think it promotes equality at the expense of success - a very difficult thing to balance.

Reply 54

Sinfre

4

Women's sport allows a woman to participate in the particular discipline she enjoys. That's more important than anything else. These days we see a lot of women participate in extreme sports.

Reply 55

justme13

7

athlete's pay should align with how much revenue they generate. Now the Man City men's football club obviously generated more $$ compared to the female one

Reply 56

Dheorl

17

He uses a sport for comparison that, at it's best, is still deadly boring to watch. The mere fact that the quality of the game is judged off a couple of catches spread over hours of play just enforces this.

To me the events of women in the velodrome can be just as dramatic as those of the men. In fact the same applies to virtually any race event. When you have no reference point for the speed they're going, a woman blasting past everyone to finish a bunch finish in a staged bike race is just as impressive as a man doing it. Same with running, same with rowing. Usain bolt who he mentions by name is impressive not because of his absolute speed (very few people watching could tell you if he was going 27mph or 31mph) but his relative speed to those competing against him. That an his general attitude, something which unfortunately if displayed by a woman would be likely be criticised.

Same applies to many sports. Sure, people like watching big hits in rugby, but the plays that get the most cheers is a player getting the ball half way down the field and blasting past the opposing team leaving them in their dust. This is equally feasible in both men and women's sports. Sure, in mens sports the passes may be slightly smoother, as with the catches he mentions in cricket, but I believe this is as much as anything because of the training time and quality and competition time that men have compared to the women. Currently they're in a bit of a catch 22. They're not as fun to watch, so they get less money, so their training isn't as good so they're less fun to watch...

Reply 57

the bear

c'mon guys, who is ever going to pay to watch men's mud wrestling ? :rolleyes:

Reply 58

IrrationalRoot

Obviously men's sport is of significantly higher quality in virtually all cases. That goes without saying. Anyone who argues most likely feels offended by this fact for whatever reason. Not sure why, it's like getting 'offended' by the fact that women are generally physically weaker than men.

Reply 59

Tubbz