Jump to content

Recommended Posts

LauraHW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd like to raise the profile of this appalling

> and utterly insulting article in the

> Daily Mail today.

>

> I'm so incensed I don't even know where to start!



why do you want to 'raise the profile' of something appalling and insulting?

Name and shame pk. Because my confused and angry logic was telling me that the more people know about this person purporting to be a journalist then maybe people power can hound him from his just for being such a complete tosser. A stupid pipe dream I know but hey ho. Besides this is an open forum isn't it? Perhaps good to just generate a bit of discussion?!

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ha ha, the Daily Mail doing what it does best.

>

> There is an interesting challenge in there - why

> do women's magazines (written, published and read

> by women) give so little attention to sportswomen

> if it's so important to them?


I am no fan of tabloids, but I agree that there is an interesting conundrum there - provocatively written, but that is the way of tabloids.

The article is basically saying that women in sports don't get the coverage they deserve - and that this is not suprising given that the female-oriented media is geared towards fashion and celebrity gossip. As Voyageur said, the tone is provocative, but much of the actual content makes sense to me.

LauraHW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd like to raise the profile of this appalling

> and utterly insulting article in the

> Daily Mail today.

>

> I'm so incensed I don't even know where to start!


xxxxxx


But most of the Mail is appalling - don't read it if you don't want to be appalled :))

Actually


Poo-poo and all that.


However, I strangely enjoyed clicking through some of the other stuff on there.


Who'd have thought Kate Middleton has her hair blow dried. Seriously, she does.



I must check it out more often.



NETTE:-S

It's the S&M streak in me....


For me the main tone of the article wasn't saying that women's sport doesn't get the coverage it needs and deserves (which is doesn't). It was saying that women's sport is basically unimportant and the nation only cares for male sport. If you're a true sports fan I think gender is irrelevant. Girls taking part in sport is at an all time low, we have a growing obesity crisis. Sports journalism is dominated by male journalists and coverage of male sport with very little attention given to women's sport. I'm sure the journos in question would say there are just responding to their target audience but how do you start to generate interest in something without giving it any exposure?

It's the S&M streak in me.... I can't help but regularly read the DM website whilst pouring lemon juice into paper cuts.


For me the main tone of the article wasn't saying that women's sport doesn't get the coverage it needs and deserves (which is doesn't). It was saying that women's sport is basically unimportant and the nation only cares for male sport. If you're a true sports fan I think gender is irrelevant. Girls taking part in sport is at an all time low, we have a growing obesity crisis. Sports journalism is dominated by male journalists and coverage of male sport with very little attention given to women's sport. I'm sure the journos in question would say there are just responding to their target audience but how do you start to generate interest in something without giving it any exposure?

Actually Laura


I think you love the mail but hate yourself for it


( and who could blame you, my vice is The National Inquirer btw )


However, had it not been for the mail on-line how would I have known this vital & juicy nugget of info



  Quote
Cheryl is planning to host a Christmas lunch for Nicola and their fellow Girls Aloud bandmates over the festive period.



Cheryl is going all out. She has already ordered all the food and is determined to cook everything herself.


'She?s doing the full works, turkey with all the trimmings, and the lunch table will be laid with crackers and other traditional Christmas decorations.'




Really, my day is now complete.



NETTE:-S

I don't find myself enraged at the article because it poses some very valid questions. It has always been hard for female sportswomen to get sponsorship and recognition on a par with male counterparts, even for those at the top of their game, and the question as to why women in general are not as interested in sport as men is equal to the question as to why are men mainly only interested in sport played by other men? Since when did sport require gender specific audiences? Women who watch sport have no issue with watching male sportsmen so why should any man who likes sport have any issue with watching women play football or cricket and so on? It's that assumption made by the article that irks me.


In America for example, women's football is more popular than the mens game, and their league is a lucrative professional one as a result.


In the UK the FA banned womens league football in 1921 because it was selling more tickets than the men's game (although the official reason was that it was considered unsuitable for women). It wasn't until 1972 that the ban was lifted and in 2008 the FA apologised for it.


I do think there is an institutionalised misogyny within sport in the UK....and that is reflected by the media.....unless a woman breaks a world record or wins a medal of course (cue that famous quote by Charlotte Whitton that says a woman has to be twice as good to be half as recognised for it).


The article talks about this years women's world cup. The BBC had to be badgered into showing the England quarter final on a terrestrial channel. They didn't show any other games. That I think is just shameful. We also have a rather fine ladies cricket team too. They are the current world cup holders. But who knows that?


The media and TV could do a lot to raise the profile of women's sports....it just chooses not to.

Aren't you simply in danger of over analysing this?


A century ago society had no respect for men either - sending 10 million teenage boys over the top of the trenches as cannon fodder. So frankly some weasley decision about football not being right and proper for women is not worth getting fussed about. Women got off lucky.


Isn't the reality that this is simply genetic imperative?


Whether it's Athens 3,000 years ago or the FA Cup, men are sexually competing in a regulated environment.


Male viewers get a vicarious thrill by projecting themselves onto their heroes (you ever seen that study in Italy where births follow local football team success 9 months removed?).


Female viewers aspire to obtain these alpha males, and take their satisfaction from their boyfriend's second-place reflected glory.


Women's sport can be 'intellectually' satisfying, but it's never likely to have the gut physical attraction of male sport because society simply doesn't work like that.


Instead women compete in lipstick, powder and paint. So it's Cosmo and Company magazine that gets their interest.


Sure, not every person fits this 'norm' but don't expect what gets you out of (or into) bed to be the same for everyone else.


I simply don't give a monkeys about female sport. There's the odd individual I identify with, but broadly I don't see the point.

Is there any sport which both men and women compete in that women are better at? Probably not, which may explain why men's sports gets more coverage.If I ever watch women's sport it's mostly because there are pretty girls playing. I've noticed that when being encouraged to watch women's football the female pundits will say that we shouldn't compare it to men's football, it's a different sort of game. It's is different only because it not played as well. Women's tennis could capture my attention in the past but nowadays all that grunting puts me right off.


As for the women's football game in the US being lucrative and more popular than the men's game there, it isn't. There are currently only 5 teams who play in front of crowds which average 3-5,000. It's loss making and in danger of going out of business.

"In the UK the FA banned womens league football in 1921 because it was selling more tickets than the men's game (although the official reason was that it was considered unsuitable for women). It wasn't until 1972 that the ban was lifted and in 2008 the FA apologised for it."


Well, since we're on the subject I'd like to pick up on this assertion. There is no evidence that the FA banned ladies teams from its club grounds because they were successful (they didn't actually 'ban' women's league football as they had no such jurisdiction).


The banned them because they were part of the massive gender politics issues of the time - baring their legs and organising themselves into financially successful tournaments was seen as an outrageous challenge to the male establishment authority. The FA wanted women back in the home and out of the workplace.


In particular women's football was seen as supportive of the working classes and the unions, both of which were in a major fight against the establishment after their efforts in the Great War.


There's a fabulous history of it here.


Women didn't really help the cause by deliberately cocking a snook at the establishment by snogging on the field either ;-)


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Fdickkerrs2kiss.jpg

Been on the wiki again H? lol.


The FA did ban womens football from League grounds which effectively banned the playing of league football and formation of any kind of league on a par with the mens game (it killed the womens game). There are many books on the subject which I have read because hey ho...I was involved in women's league footy at the highest level for quite a few years (so no need for wiki here). Yes gender politics of the time played a role but would it have really mettered if no-one had gone to see the games as opposed to a crowd of 53,000 attending a game?


1920: The first women?s international game. Preston-based Dick Kerr?s Ladies beat a French XI 2-0. Attendance: 25,000.


1920: The biggest crowd to date for a women?s game. On Boxing Day, 53,000 watch Dick Kerr's Ladies beat St Helen's Ladies 4-0.


1921: The FA bans women from playing on Football League grounds. ??the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged."


There is more than one view on the subject, not just the wiki H view.


And to say that sending men to war was a sign of no respect towards men on an equal par with the ills of a patriarchal and misogynist society is just nonsense. Even you should be able to see that......although it can be conceeded that life was pretty grim for working class men and the poor just as much as it was dismissive of the rights of women.


Again to suggest womens sports are never going to get the same response as male sport because of some genetic imperitive is based on no evidence.....I think attitude and culture has everything to do with it. How many men even bothered to watch a women's world cup football game. Of all the men who I know did watch women's football for the first time this year (catching a world cup game), they were all very suprised at the level. It's really insulting to suggest that the best international football is somehow inferior to men's football and only shows the ignorance of those who say such a thing.

Well if you'd read my post you'd have seen that I didn't use wiki, and I did include my sources.


You'll also see that women's football wasn't banned for being popular, and it didn't kill the game.


You seem to be insisting that the big crowds PROVE that women's football was banned for being popular. That's not logical. It only proves that it was banned in spite of being popular.


You seem to be using these crowds as an assertion for the quality of women's football - which is making quite a leap.


In an era where women were arrested for baring their legs in public it's far more likely that the appeal of the game was driven by many other factors.


Your point on 'culture' is exactly the same as mine. In our culture women's sport has limited appeal. QED. If you're hard done by, it's by our culture not by a male conspiracy.


The women's World Cup was shown on BBC2 on a Saturday at 5pm for 3.2 million viewers. It got all the coverage you crave, and virtually no-one watched it.


Women in general don't watch it, don't read about it, and don't give a toss about it.


Myself I don't even care if it's quality, I don't have a view. I simply don't give a monkey's about women's sport unless there's someone I particularly have interest in.


Incidentally - sponsorship and recognition are not entitlements that are being withheld: they are the result of, and proportionate to, public interest and engagement. If people are not interested you're not recognised and you don't get don't get sponsorship.


You'll also see that I wasn't comparing sending men to war with women's emancipation. I was only comparing it with the fuss over women's football and the Football Association. You've tried to change my argument in order to 'beat' it - that's dishonest.


I was simply demonstrating that people in general weren't well respected by the establishment during that era.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
    • Sadly, the price we now all pay for becoming a soft apologetic society.
    • Exactly the same thing happened to me a few years back; they were after my Brompton. Luckily there were only 3 of them so I managed to get away and got a woman to call the police, then they backed off, but not after having hit me in the back of the head first. Police said next time just give them what they want, but I sure as hell wasn't just going to hand over my bike to them!
    • In case anyone is renovating or stripping out an old kitchen, I am looking for a base kitchen unit or carcass to house an oven for a temporary set up kitchen.   Also looking for a run of worktop at least 180 cm long if anyone is disposing of something like this, I would be happy to collect.   thanks   Mila
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...