Women's football does it have a future?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm really not getting the hatred for women's football. The last world cup was great. England made the semis and that was a great game. Were really unlucky to lose that match. Viewing figures were pretty decent as I recall.
I'm all for promoting it. Lots of young girls love football and wear their teams shirts. If they can be encouraged to actually play, even better.
I recall when Gabby Logan (Yorath as she was then) first pitch up on TV covering football, there was similar outrage. The we had the Keys and Gray episode mocking Sian Massey. It's all b
ks. Anyone who likes football or plays football is OK in my book. Even if they have different genitalia to my own.
People don't tend to like social engineering.I'm all for promoting it. Lots of young girls love football and wear their teams shirts. If they can be encouraged to actually play, even better.
I recall when Gabby Logan (Yorath as she was then) first pitch up on TV covering football, there was similar outrage. The we had the Keys and Gray episode mocking Sian Massey. It's all b
ks. Anyone who likes football or plays football is OK in my book. Even if they have different genitalia to my own. Challo said:
amgmcqueen said:
technodup said:
Challo said:
Must be a troll or someone with attitudes to women stuck in the dark ages.
Because I think women's football is ste?It is s
te. It's pretty universally agreed it's ste. The only bad attitude here is wanting it promoted (at public cost via the BBC) purely because it's women, and therefore 'deserving'. Even though it's patently ste.Let's be honest it's crap. People like to see the best humans in the world compete at physical sports.
It's not about the skill or the entertainment it's purely because it's women playing.
MiggyA said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm really not getting the hatred for women's football. The last world cup was great. England made the semis and that was a great game. Were really unlucky to lose that match. Viewing figures were pretty decent as I recall.
I'm all for promoting it. Lots of young girls love football and wear their teams shirts. If they can be encouraged to actually play, even better.
I recall when Gabby Logan (Yorath as she was then) first pitch up on TV covering football, there was similar outrage. The we had the Keys and Gray episode mocking Sian Massey. It's all bks. Anyone who likes football or plays football is OK in my book. Even if they have different genitalia to my own.
People don't tend to like social engineering.I'm all for promoting it. Lots of young girls love football and wear their teams shirts. If they can be encouraged to actually play, even better.
I recall when Gabby Logan (Yorath as she was then) first pitch up on TV covering football, there was similar outrage. The we had the Keys and Gray episode mocking Sian Massey. It's all b
ks. Anyone who likes football or plays football is OK in my book. Even if they have different genitalia to my own. Downward said:
Challo said:
amgmcqueen said:
technodup said:
Challo said:
Must be a troll or someone with attitudes to women stuck in the dark ages.
Because I think women's football is ste?It is s
te. It's pretty universally agreed it's ste. The only bad attitude here is wanting it promoted (at public cost via the BBC) purely because it's women, and therefore 'deserving'. Even though it's patently ste.Let's be honest it's crap. People like to see the best humans in the world compete at physical sports.
It's not about the skill or the entertainment it's purely because it's women playing.
footnote said:
For how long has men's football and men's sports generally benefited from promotion by the BBC?
Men's football was huge before TV came along. Look at the size of the crowds before TV coverage even existed. It has been Sky that has turned it into the commercial product it is now. The BBC don't really have much influence over football now as they don't have much rights.
Driver101 said:
footnote said:
For how long has men's football and men's sports generally benefited from promotion by the BBC?
Men's football was huge before TV came along. Look at the size of the crowds before TV coverage even existed. It has been Sky that has turned it into the commercial product it is now. The BBC don't really have much influence over football now as they don't have much rights.
Of course, men's football (men's occupations generally) always took priority over women's because it was a man's world.
Men could go out watching football on their days off because the structure of society was that a woman's place was in the home.
Men's interests were given priority and assumed dominance over women's.
Football is culturally significant because it keeps men off the streets at the weekend perhaps, when they could otherwise be out causing trouble.
Because it suited the governing classes to promote spare time occupations which gave idle hands and more importantly, idle minds, something else to do other than think about why they were poor and why were the bosses rich... perhaps?
In the 70s and 80s football was plagued with hooliganism and perceived widely as a 'yobs' interest.
The BBC and ITV were the only tv broadcast media and for anybody alive then the BBC was the hub of football news - perhaps it still is on Saturday evenings.
Since the beginning of radio and tv (which was the BBC) they have promoted men's football through the constant reporting of men's football events - it's all-pervasive, embedded in the culture.
Women constitute more than half the population, probably pay more than half the license fee, yet their interests have not been recognised in the same way.
All the BBC and other media do is report (with still less than equal prominence) football events that are happening.
Factual reporting of football matches regardless of whether the players are male or female - in what way does that disadvantage men?
What's the problem?
It's only what men's football has always had and if people don't make an effort to change then they never will change.
There's no hardship for 'men' in this.
footnote said:
I don't think that gives the full picture though.
Of course, men's football (men's occupations generally) always took priority over women's because it was a man's world.
Men could go out watching football on their days off because the structure of society was that a woman's place was in the home.
Men's interests were given priority and assumed dominance over women's.
Football is culturally significant because it keeps men off the streets at the weekend perhaps, when they could otherwise be out causing trouble.
Because it suited the governing classes to promote spare time occupations which gave idle hands and more importantly, idle minds, something else to do other than think about why they were poor and why were the bosses rich... perhaps?
In the 70s and 80s football was plagued with hooliganism and perceived widely as a 'yobs' interest.
The BBC and ITV were the only tv broadcast media and for anybody alive then the BBC was the hub of football news - perhaps it still is on Saturday evenings.
Since the beginning of radio and tv (which was the BBC) they have promoted men's football through the constant reporting of men's football events - it's all-pervasive, embedded in the culture.
Women constitute more than half the population, probably pay more than half the license fee, yet their interests have not been recognised in the same way.
All the BBC and other media do is report (with still less than equal prominence) football events that are happening.
Factual reporting of football matches regardless of whether the players are male or female - in what way does that disadvantage men?
What's the problem?
It's only what men's football has always had and if people don't make an effort to change then they never will change.
There's no hardship for 'men' in this.
The BBC have dedicated a lot of effort over the last few years and I can't see it going anywhere. I read about clubs in financial distress and crowds are getting lower. What is the point in focussing so hard on something with little interest and can't fund itself? Is it not the case that maybe the BBC realise that it would be unfair on the licence fee payers to focus even more on a sport than has so little interest? Of course, men's football (men's occupations generally) always took priority over women's because it was a man's world.
Men could go out watching football on their days off because the structure of society was that a woman's place was in the home.
Men's interests were given priority and assumed dominance over women's.
Football is culturally significant because it keeps men off the streets at the weekend perhaps, when they could otherwise be out causing trouble.
Because it suited the governing classes to promote spare time occupations which gave idle hands and more importantly, idle minds, something else to do other than think about why they were poor and why were the bosses rich... perhaps?
In the 70s and 80s football was plagued with hooliganism and perceived widely as a 'yobs' interest.
The BBC and ITV were the only tv broadcast media and for anybody alive then the BBC was the hub of football news - perhaps it still is on Saturday evenings.
Since the beginning of radio and tv (which was the BBC) they have promoted men's football through the constant reporting of men's football events - it's all-pervasive, embedded in the culture.
Women constitute more than half the population, probably pay more than half the license fee, yet their interests have not been recognised in the same way.
All the BBC and other media do is report (with still less than equal prominence) football events that are happening.
Factual reporting of football matches regardless of whether the players are male or female - in what way does that disadvantage men?
What's the problem?
It's only what men's football has always had and if people don't make an effort to change then they never will change.
There's no hardship for 'men' in this.
Just like all sports the higher the level the sport is played at the more people will watch. Women's football will never be that popular as the simple fact is the quality is poor. It's maybe fun at times, but if you watch a game of women's football from a tactical point of view it's infuriating. The games where the top women's teams have played young boys teams they've been absolutely thumped.
Season on season the amount of women attending premier league games has gone up and up. I read that the 2014/15 season that 26% of attendees were women. Clearly times have changed with more women interested in football and it's no longer just a man's game. On the other side I read that the attendance levels at women's games is dropping.
I see no point in the BBC trying even harder to further promote something that looks as if it's already peaked. I see no point that the interest of equality mean the BBC should be forced to show women's football.
It says a lot that even women are voting with their feet and paying more attention to the men's game than their own.
footnote said:
Women constitute more than half the population, probably pay more than half the license fee, yet their interests have not been recognised in the same way.
Because they (mostly) have different interests. There is plenty of drama type stuff, that song contest is on there at the moment which are things that appeal to women. Also, I doubt women pay more than half the licence fee.
Driver101 said:
The BBC have dedicated a lot of effort over the last few years and I can't see it going anywhere. I read about clubs in financial distress and crowds are getting lower. What is the point in focussing so hard on something with little interest and can't fund itself? Is it not the case that maybe the BBC realise that it would be unfair on the licence fee payers to focus even more on a sport than has so little interest?
Just like all sports the higher the level the sport is played at the more people will watch. Women's football will never be that popular as the simple fact is the quality is poor. It's maybe fun at times, but if you watch a game of women's football from a tactical point of view it's infuriating. The games where the top women's teams have played young boys teams they've been absolutely thumped.
Season on season the amount of women attending premier league games has gone up and up. I read that the 2014/15 season that 26% of attendees were women. Clearly times have changed with more women interested in football and it's no longer just a man's game. On the other side I read that the attendance levels at women's games is dropping.
I see no point in the BBC trying even harder to further promote something that looks as if it's already peaked. I see no point that the interest of equality mean the BBC should be forced to show women's football.
It says a lot that even women are voting with their feet and paying more attention to the men's game than their own.
It's certainly interesting that women are watching men's football in increasing numbers and it may well be that women's football remains a minority interest for the reasons you describe.Just like all sports the higher the level the sport is played at the more people will watch. Women's football will never be that popular as the simple fact is the quality is poor. It's maybe fun at times, but if you watch a game of women's football from a tactical point of view it's infuriating. The games where the top women's teams have played young boys teams they've been absolutely thumped.
Season on season the amount of women attending premier league games has gone up and up. I read that the 2014/15 season that 26% of attendees were women. Clearly times have changed with more women interested in football and it's no longer just a man's game. On the other side I read that the attendance levels at women's games is dropping.
I see no point in the BBC trying even harder to further promote something that looks as if it's already peaked. I see no point that the interest of equality mean the BBC should be forced to show women's football.
It says a lot that even women are voting with their feet and paying more attention to the men's game than their own.
But, none of us actually know how long it took for football/men's football to develop from its starting point to what it is today - well, we know how when it started and where we are now.. but it presumably took a significant period to go from initial beginnings to amateur/jumpers for goalposts to the establishment of organised leagues and eventually the professional level.
But the main difficulty for women's football is that it is competing with the established form - men's football.
When men's football came along, people had nothing to compare it with - nobody to say - 'this is crap' - whereas the women (as with any new arrival in any sphere) will always be compared unfavourably at first - it's just the way people react to new things.
I would argue though, that if we only wanted the BBC to cover sports (or any subject) which was the most 'popular' we just end up in a tyranny of the majority situation - where we only see football, we only get to watch Strictly Come Dancing, we only get Downton Abbey etc etc
I think there's a duty, an obligation, in the 'education' part of the BBC charter to give everything a fair go - and that may mean a number of years - until women players come through and see what happens.
I mean, most of the Olympic sports attract half a pub's worth, cricket not much more and we all have to put up with that.
RicharDC5 said:
footnote said:
Women constitute more than half the population, probably pay more than half the license fee, yet their interests have not been recognised in the same way.
Because they (mostly) have different interests. There is plenty of drama type stuff, that song contest is on there at the moment which are things that appeal to women. Also, I doubt women pay more than half the licence fee.
And the reason women don't pay more than half the license fee is what?
Because they only have 'pin money' from their husbands?
Or they live with their parents until they get married?
Don't have jobs or their own tellys?
I can't work out your reasoning there. It sounds like you're implying something - but I don't know quite what.
footnote said:
RicharDC5 said:
footnote said:
Women constitute more than half the population, probably pay more than half the license fee, yet their interests have not been recognised in the same way.
Because they (mostly) have different interests. There is plenty of drama type stuff, that song contest is on there at the moment which are things that appeal to women. Also, I doubt women pay more than half the licence fee.
And the reason women don't pay more than half the license fee is what?
Because they only have 'pin money' from their husbands?
Or they live with their parents until they get married?
Don't have jobs or their own tellys?
I can't work out your reasoning there. It sounds like you're implying something - but I don't know quite what.
I don't see why women not 'living with their parents until married off' would mean that they pay more towards the licence fee.
Edited by RicharDC5 on Sunday 14th May 15:41
RicharDC5 said:
I'm implying that they tend to be more interested in drama and celebrity rather than sports.
I don't see why women not 'living with their parents until married off' would mean that they pay more towards the licence fee.
Well, they might be or they might not. I would take othing for granted in the 'sweeping generalisation' area.I don't see why women not 'living with their parents until married off' would mean that they pay more towards the licence fee.
Edited by RicharDC5 on Sunday 14th May 15:41
I can't understand your sentence structure on the license fee point - you initially said you didn't believe women could have paid more than half of the license fee despite them being more than half of the population.
I have no facts/stats (and to be honest it doesn't really matter) but in the general spirit of 'making assumptions' - I can't work out why you would doubt that women pay more than half the license fee given they are more than half the population?
Why wouldn't they?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But a university 1st 11 would beat the England women's football team pretty easily.
Last year the Australian women's team lost 7-0 to a team of 15-year-old boys.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/sp...
footnote said:
Well, they might be or they might not. I would take othing for granted in the 'sweeping generalisation' area.
I can't understand your sentence structure on the license fee point - you initially said you didn't believe women could have paid more than half of the license fee despite them being more than half of the population.
I have no facts/stats (and to be honest it doesn't really matter) but in the general spirit of 'making assumptions' - I can't work out why you would doubt that women pay more than half the license fee given they are more than half the population?
Why wouldn't they?
You only need to look at what is marketed to women to get a good idea. Advertisers follow the money.I can't understand your sentence structure on the license fee point - you initially said you didn't believe women could have paid more than half of the license fee despite them being more than half of the population.
I have no facts/stats (and to be honest it doesn't really matter) but in the general spirit of 'making assumptions' - I can't work out why you would doubt that women pay more than half the license fee given they are more than half the population?
Why wouldn't they?
You counteracted my point about women not paying more by listing things from the 1950's which is totally irrelevant. I've looked and there are 1 million more women than men in the UK, so you are probably right about them paying more after all.
RicharDC5 said:
You only need to look at what is marketed to women to get a good idea. Advertisers follow the money.
You counteracted my point about women not paying more by listing things from the 1950's which is totally irrelevant. I've looked and there are 1 million more women than men in the UK, so you are probably right about them paying more after all.
Utilitarianism is not always the best basis for decision-making - advertisers are not arbiters of right/wrong or what a publicly funded, public service broadcaster should spend money on. Such a broadcaster may well have different objectives, governed by ethics and the public interest, to a profit driven business.You counteracted my point about women not paying more by listing things from the 1950's which is totally irrelevant. I've looked and there are 1 million more women than men in the UK, so you are probably right about them paying more after all.
With my '1950s' points (these views of womens roles are often still held today) I was attempting to make the point (obviously badly) that you appeared to be adopting a position founded on stereotypical sexist values.
footnote said:
RicharDC5 said:
You only need to look at what is marketed to women to get a good idea. Advertisers follow the money.
You counteracted my point about women not paying more by listing things from the 1950's which is totally irrelevant. I've looked and there are 1 million more women than men in the UK, so you are probably right about them paying more after all.
Utilitarianism is not always the best basis for decision-making - advertisers are not arbiters of right/wrong or what a publicly funded, public service broadcaster should spend money on. Such a broadcaster may well have different objectives, governed by ethics and the public interest, to a profit driven business.You counteracted my point about women not paying more by listing things from the 1950's which is totally irrelevant. I've looked and there are 1 million more women than men in the UK, so you are probably right about them paying more after all.
With my '1950s' points (these views of womens roles are often still held today) I was attempting to make the point (obviously badly) that you appeared to be adopting a position founded on stereotypical sexist values.
Wanting people do do things which you agree with due to your own ideology is not always the best basis for decision making either. I wouldn't say watching sport or documentaries is a better use of peoples down time than watching the Kardashians. You appear to be the one saying what women should or should not be doing.
RicharDC5 said:
footnote said:
RicharDC5 said:
You only need to look at what is marketed to women to get a good idea. Advertisers follow the money.
You counteracted my point about women not paying more by listing things from the 1950's which is totally irrelevant. I've looked and there are 1 million more women than men in the UK, so you are probably right about them paying more after all.
Utilitarianism is not always the best basis for decision-making - advertisers are not arbiters of right/wrong or what a publicly funded, public service broadcaster should spend money on. Such a broadcaster may well have different objectives, governed by ethics and the public interest, to a profit driven business.You counteracted my point about women not paying more by listing things from the 1950's which is totally irrelevant. I've looked and there are 1 million more women than men in the UK, so you are probably right about them paying more after all.
With my '1950s' points (these views of womens roles are often still held today) I was attempting to make the point (obviously badly) that you appeared to be adopting a position founded on stereotypical sexist values.
Wanting people do do things which you agree with due to your own ideology is not always the best basis for decision making either. I wouldn't say watching sport or documentaries is a better use of peoples down time than watching the Kardashians. You appear to be the one saying what women should or should not be doing.
You're the one saying women enjoy light entertainment over sport
You're the one saying women prefer celebrity based programmes.
I think you've entirely misunderstood the thrust of the original argument.
And on what basis did you conclude that women wouldn't have paid more than half the license fee before you checked the numbers?
footnote said:
How do you reach that conclusion? You're the one suggesting your individual observation of women in your vicinity can be considered representative of 'women' in general.
Because that is what appears to be (mostly) marketed towards women in magazines, on tv etc, and from women I have met.
You're the one saying women enjoy light entertainment over sport
It certainly appears that way.
You're the one saying women prefer celebrity based programmes.
See above.
I think you've entirely misunderstood the thrust of the original argument
You wanting women's football to be over-promoted because it isn't fair that the male sport is more popular for some made up historical reasons
And on what basis did you conclude that women wouldn't have paid more than half the license fee before you checked the numbers?
I thought the population was roughly 50/50
Because that is what appears to be (mostly) marketed towards women in magazines, on tv etc, and from women I have met.
You're the one saying women enjoy light entertainment over sport
It certainly appears that way.
You're the one saying women prefer celebrity based programmes.
See above.
I think you've entirely misunderstood the thrust of the original argument
You wanting women's football to be over-promoted because it isn't fair that the male sport is more popular for some made up historical reasons
And on what basis did you conclude that women wouldn't have paid more than half the license fee before you checked the numbers?
I thought the population was roughly 50/50
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff