Stupid and insulting article in Daily Mail (again)

[LauraHW]

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!

[Huguenot]

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?

[pk]

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?

[LauraHW]

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?!

[Voyageur]

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.

[Huguenot]

2,450,000 women read the Daily Mail - that's around 15% more than the male readers.

It suggest that a diet of racism, homphobia, gender stereotyping and welfare baiting is more appealing to the so-called 'fairer' sex.

Crazy eh? ;-)

[Jeremy]

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.

[bon3yard]

Yowser, its almost unheard of for The Mail to pass up the opportunity of digging out dear old Auntie and her Commie agenda. The worlds spinning off its axis, up is down, black is white etc.

[Sue]

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 :))

[Otta]

"storm in a B cup" heh heh.

[Annette Curtain]

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

[LauraHW]

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?

[LauraHW]

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?

[Huguenot]

Sure, except the publishing industry (excluding national press) is dominated by women and they would cover it if it sold.

It doesn't, so they don't.

[Annette Curtain]

Was Deta Hedman nominated ?

NO.

It's a travesty, as she's ranked the World number 1

NETTE:)-D

[Annette Curtain]

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

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

[ibilly99]

Cue the next DM article to get enraged at - this could go on for quite a bit !

[ruffers]

The Daily Mail Headline Generator may help?

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[Huguenot]

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.

[Alan Medic]

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.

[Huguenot]

"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

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[Otta]

It has always been hard for

female sportswomen to get sponsorship

and recognition

Just smiling at the term "female sportswomen" ;-)

[Huguenot]

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.