Reasons feminism is still relevant *READ OP BEFORE POSTING*

kylith

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I can understand why you personally might find it distasteful but what is the link between that and feminism being relevant?

You really don't see anything sexist about "Sure, you can play the sport if you want, as long as you do it with your tits hanging out"? I don't see men being expected to play AF in a jockstrap.

Rosy Posy

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Again, I can understand that but feminism is about choice and if some women willing participate in that sport, then so be it. Some women may not like it but the mantra "my body, my choice" still applies.

About the surfers, it sucks and there is no quick fix solution for that.

The fact that the league was originally conceived by a man for an audience of 'mostly beer drinking college students of 21 and up', and that some players have complained that the mandatory uniforms are actually a safety hazard makes it seem to me like it's less a case of empowerment than a case of 'if you want to participate in televised professional sport you're going to have to do it in a bra and knickers'. I agree that these women shouldn't be judged for their apparel or forced to cover up to meet some imaginary standard of feminism- hell, my sport of choice is roller derby and I'm down with fishnets and booty shorts, but IMHO the tone of the LFL is totally different- voyeuristic and degrading.

LenaClaire

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Again, I can understand that but feminism is about choice and if some women willing participate in that sport, then so be it. Some women may not like it but the mantra "my body, my choice" still applies.

About the surfers, it sucks and there is no quick fix solution for that.

If women had the choice between playing football with clothes and football without clothes for a paying job (not saying they have to pay the same, just enough to be part time job even) then I would consider that okay.

However, if you are female, and want to get paid to play football, your only option is to play in a bra and underwear.

DoYouEvenLift

Rosy Posy wrote: »

For me, anyway, it's making a mockery of women in sport. To my mind, the statement it's making is that women's primary function is to look good and have their bodies on show, rather than women's sport being about what they can do with their bodies. It's insulting to women who want to be taken seriously as athletes.

I've heard similar criticisms from female pro surfers who apparently get pressured to surf in bikinis rather than wetsuits. Also sponsorship deals tend to go to more attractive female surfers whereas sponsorship deals for male surfers tend to be awarded on the merit of their surfing skill.

Some of the top female surfers could just show up in wetsuits on the day of a competition and then encourage the rest to followfollow in the future? Since they're the top surfers and already have the skills and sponsorships behind them they could be the ones to change it, especially if the rest backed them...if suddenly they lost their sponsorship deals etc. and those deals went to surfers who still wore bikinis then they could show that it's all rigged.

Rosy Posy wrote: »

The fact that the league was originally conceived by a man for an audience of 'mostly beer drinking college students of 21 and up', and that some players have complained that the mandatory uniforms are actually a safety hazard makes it seem to me like it's less a case of empowerment than a case of 'if you want to participate in televised professional sport you're going to have to do it in a bra and knickers'. I agree that these women shouldn't be judged for their apparel or forced to cover up to meet some imaginary standard of feminism- hell, my sport of choice is roller derby and I'm down with fishnets and booty shorts, but IMHO the tone of the LFL is totally different- voyeuristic and degrading.

Why don't all the players refuse and stop playing in that league and assemble their own? Over time, if the league is considered good by spectators, it will grow supporters and followers and they'll be able to use it as leverage to get televised and grow even more and then players will get paid. Similar to women's GAA here in Ireland which is now really picking up.

Rosy Posy

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Some of the top female surfers could just show up in wetsuits on the day of a competition and then encourage the rest to followfollow in the future? Since they're the top surfers and already have the skills and sponsorships behind them they could be the ones to change it, especially if the rest backed them...if suddenly they lost their sponsorship deals etc. and those deals went to surfers who still wore bikinis then they could show that it's all rigged.






Why don't all the players refuse and stop playing in that league and assemble their own? Over time, if the league is considered good by spectators, it will grow supporters and followers and they'll be able to use it as leverage to get televised and grow even more. Similar to women's GAA here in Ireland which is now really picking up.

Sadly the answer afaics is money. The big surf brands sponsor these women- the sponsorship deal is, in essence, wear what we tell you. If they renege on the deal they don't get paid and have to give up on the dream of pro surfing.

Women in the LFL have been fined for wearing non uniform clothing, even when it's protective. The sad fact is that as a televised professional sport there's no other option for women atm. There are plenty of regular women's football leagues but no one is interested in marketing it for TV and therefore making it a paying thing unless they're in their knickers. I do think that there are some women working from within the league to reform it and hope that once it becomes popular people may begin appreciating it for the athleticism and they can gradually introduce more practical uniforms. I still think that it's a sad indicator of women's position in society that this has to happen in such a roundabout way.

iwantmydinner

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Some of the top female surfers could just show up in wetsuits on the day of a competition and then encourage the rest to followfollow in the future? Since they're the top surfers and already have the skills and sponsorships behind them they could be the ones to change it, especially if the rest backed them...if suddenly they lost their sponsorship deals etc. and those deals went to surfers who still wore bikinis then they could show that it's all rigged.






Why don't all the players refuse and stop playing in that league and assemble their own? Over time, if the league is considered good by spectators, it will grow supporters and followers and they'll be able to use it as leverage to get televised and grow even more and then players will get paid. Similar to women's GAA here in Ireland which is now really picking up.

If those thing worked, the women would be doing them. Seriously, give them some credit.

Neyite

iwantmydinner wrote: »

If those thing worked, the women would be doing them. Seriously, give them some credit.

I agree. Wasn't Katie Taylor (and another American boxer who's name I forget) at risk of not being allowed to compete in the Olympics because they refused to wear a skirt in the ring? They (the committee) backed down, but only just, and at the last minute too, and they took an awful risk to stand by their principles.

Its kinda hard to stick your head above the parapet as a woman in sport or showbiz (Jessica Ennis / Emma Watson) because unfortunately, death and rape threats seem to quickly follow.

And why should they have to fight to wear the correct clothing for their sport? Why cant they just be allowed to concentrate on competing?

iwantmydinner

Neyite wrote: »

I agree. Wasn't Katie Taylor (and another American boxer who's name I forget) at risk of not being allowed to compete in the Olympics because they refused to wear a skirt in the ring? They (the committee) backed down, but only just, and at the last minute too, and they took an awful risk to stand by their principles.

Its kinda hard to stick your head above the parapet as a woman in sport or showbiz (Jessica Ennis / Emma Watson) because unfortunately, death and rape threats seem to quickly follow.

And why should they have to fight to wear the correct clothing for their sport? Why cant they just be allowed to concentrate on competing?

Sure shouldn't they just be grateful they're being allowed compete?

GarIT

If the women have a problem with the bikini football league why don't they play in the numerous other female leagues? These women are choosing to play in their underwear by choice. If the players and the fans are happy I don't see a problem. Nobody has been forced to participate, the Katie Taylor example shouldn't have happened but if people are paid to show up in bikinis they have a choice of taking the money or not.

There are many benefits to this too. It brings in extra fans and sponsorship that wouldn't otherwise exist. The example was given that other women's football isn't televised, this shows that there isn't a market for women's exclusive sports to be aired on tv, if there was an audience it would be aired. Allowing the women compete in their underwear creates an audience that wouldn't otherwise exist.

There are plenty of similar examples in men too. Most F1 drivers make money off appearance based sponsorships.

On another note I think segregation in sports is wrong, there should be no separate men's or women's sports/leagues.

Neyite

GarIT wrote: »

If the women have a problem with the bikini football league why don't they play in the numerous other female leagues? These women are choosing to play in their underwear by choice. If the players and the fans are happy I don't see a problem. Nobody has been forced to participate, the Katie Taylor example shouldn't have happened but if people are paid to show up in bikinis they have a choice of taking the money or not.

There are many benefits to this too. It brings in extra fans and sponsorship that wouldn't otherwise exist.

There are plenty of similar examples in men too. Most F1 drivers make money off appearance based sponsorships.

But nobody is forcing F1 drivers to compete in Speedos in exchange for money. Sports stars depend on sponsorship deals to earn in their career. If we said to Lewis Hamilton, "here, you only get your money, if you wear this thong, when competing, if you don't like it, do go-karting or something. Dont expect to compete at the top level of your career unless you do it practically naked every time we say so" there would be uproar from followers of the sport.

GarIT

Neyite wrote: »

But nobody is forcing F1 drivers to compete in Speedos in exchange for money. Sports stars depend on sponsorship deals to earn in their career. If we said to Lewis Hamilton, "here, you only get your money, if you wear this thong, when competing, if you don't like it, do go-karting or something. Dont expect to compete at the top level of your career unless you do it practically naked every time we say so" there would be uproar from followers of the sport.

I have to take issue with your first line, nobody is forcing women to compete in their underwear either. They are free to try and get sponsorship based on their skill if they wish. Show me a sport where women only can compete in their underwear or not at all and I'll agree with you.

There wouldn't be be, generally with men it is suits. Males sportsmen are often offered money to pose in very little clothing most don't take it, some e.g. David Beckham do. Other than the Katie Taylor example most women aren't forced to dress a certain way to compete. My points with F1 is that men often get to compete based on their appearance not their skill. Jenson Button has been staying in the sport for years based on a Japanese modeling deal.

If there was no bikini football would there be women's football televised at all though, there just isn't the sponsorship there, the people who watch for the half naked women bring quite a bit of sponsorship and money to the sport.

I think the fairest thing would be to get rid of the women's leagues and change the already popular men's leagues to unisex.

Paddy Cow

kylith wrote: »

You really don't see anything sexist about "Sure, you can play the sport if you want, as long as you do it with your tits hanging out"? I don't see men being expected to play AF in a jockstrap.

Rosy Posy wrote: »

The fact that the league was originally conceived by a man for an audience of 'mostly beer drinking college students of 21 and up', and that some players have complained that the mandatory uniforms are actually a safety hazard makes it seem to me like it's less a case of empowerment than a case of 'if you want to participate in televised professional sport you're going to have to do it in a bra and knickers'. I agree that these women shouldn't be judged for their apparel or forced to cover up to meet some imaginary standard of feminism- hell, my sport of choice is roller derby and I'm down with fishnets and booty shorts, but IMHO the tone of the LFL is totally different- voyeuristic and degrading.

LenaClaire wrote: »

If women had the choice between playing football with clothes and football without clothes for a paying job (not saying they have to pay the same, just enough to be part time job even) then I would consider that okay.

However, if you are female, and want to get paid to play football, your only option is to play in a bra and underwear.

No body is forcing these women to play and it's not their only career option in life. It's not something I would do or watch, however I wouldn't judge anyone who chooses to participate. They could refuse to play, band together and form their own league, which would receive a lot less attention and they could dress however they like. However, they want to be on telly and are willing to dress like that to do so. That is their choice.

Plenty of women use their bodies to further their careers - pop stars, actors, porn stars, models etc. If you enter a career knowing full well that your body is going to be a big selling point, then you can't claim it's sexist. It would be like entering an academic career and then claiming their is too much pressure to be academic and it's elitist.

Just to add, there are also pop stars and actors who don't "flaunt" their sexuality, so it is possible to have a career without doing it. You may not agree with me but I think feminism has given women the choice to use their sexuality in their careers if they wish. Like I've said, it's not something I'd do but each to their own.

kylith

GarIT wrote: »

There are many benefits to this too. It brings in extra fans and sponsorship that wouldn't otherwise exist. The example was given that other women's football isn't televised, this shows that there isn't a market for women's exclusive sports to be aired on tv, if there was an audience it would be aired. Allowing the women compete in their underwear creates an audience that wouldn't otherwise exist.

You make it sound like these women have begged to be permitted to play it their underwear.

Do you really see nothing wrong with people having so little respect for female athletes that the sport can't even get shown on telly unless the women are all but naked?

Your post reeks of 'This isn't a problem because men like to see women run around with their jubblies wobbling'.

GarIT wrote: »

There are plenty of similar examples in men too. Most F1 drivers make money off appearance based sponsorships.

The difference there is that men's appearance based sponsorships depend on them appearing at events, whereas women's sponsorships depend on what they look like.

DoYouEvenLift

iwantmydinner wrote: »

If those thing worked, the women would be doing them. Seriously, give them some credit.

But have they even tried, and if so what did they do and how far did they take it? If all of them refused to put up with the demands and stopped playing completely for even just a couple of seasons then the people marketing it would be losing out on the money made from it and would have no choice but to either let it die out altogether or negotiate with the players and from there, once they have some leverage, could negotiate further over time...but the hardest part of doing this, I can imagine, would be the fact they'd more than likely all be replaceable by other women willing to put up with it for the money just like all other sports and forms of entertainment.

GarIT wrote: »

If the women have a problem with the bikini football league why don't they play in the numerous other female leagues? These women are choosing to play in their underwear by choice. If the players and the fans are happy I don't see a problem. Nobody has been forced to participate, the Katie Taylor example shouldn't have happened but if people are paid to show up in bikinis they have a choice of taking the money or not.

There are many benefits to this too. It brings in extra fans and sponsorship that wouldn't otherwise exist. The example was given that other women's football isn't televised, this shows that there isn't a market for women's exclusive sports to be aired on tv, if there was an audience it would be aired. Allowing the women compete in their underwear creates an audience that wouldn't otherwise exist.

There are plenty of similar examples in men too. Most F1 drivers make money off appearance based sponsorships.

On another note I think segregation in sports is wrong, there should be no separate men's or women's sports/leagues.

Dunno about that but would be interesting to see it done at least experimentally. In sports like golf, baseball etc. maybe but I don't really think that women could compete against men in contact sports like rugby and American football without genuine physical health and safety concerns.

kylith

GarIT wrote: »

There wouldn't be be, generally with men it is suits. Males sportsmen are often offered money to pose in very little clothing most don't take it, some e.g. David Beckham do. Other than the Katie Taylor example most women aren't forced to dress a certain way to compete. My points with F1 is that men often get to compete based on their appearance not their skill. Jenson Button has been staying in the sport for years based on a Japanese modeling deal.

If there was no bikini football would there be women's football televised at all though, there just isn't the sponsorship there, the people who watch for the half naked women bring quite a bit of sponsorship and money to the sport.

I think the fairest thing would be to get rid of the women's leagues and change the already popular men's leagues to unisex.

Jensen Button propping up his career with a modelling contract does not compare to women being unable to participate in some sports at a professional level unless they wear nothing but a bra and knickers. Come back to me when Beckham et al aren't allowed on a pitch if they're not wearing a posing pouch and we can talk.

GarIT

kylith wrote: »

Jensen Button propping up his career with a modelling contract does not compare to women being unable to participate in some sports at a professional level unless they wear nothing but a bra and knickers. Come back to me when Beckham et al aren't allowed on a pitch if they're not wearing a posing pouch and we can talk.

There has been one example where a woman wasn't allowed compete based on their appearance. The other examples were loosing sponsorship. As I said I agree if a woman isn't allowed compete that is wrong, but if a woman is offered sponsorship based on what she wears she has a choice whether or not to take it so that's fine.

If clothed women's football isn't being shown on tv there is clearly a reason for it, the tv networks will show whatever will make them money. If the tv stations wont show it, their must be a lack of people following the sport, which could be a result of many reasons but most likely one of these, either the skill level isn't up to the same standard of the men's leagues or the league is being badly marketed, which would be the leagues own fault.

I wouldn't say Button is propping up his career, his career depends on it, he wouldn't be allowed drive if he wasn't bringing in the Japanese sponsorship.

iwantmydinner

Oh my god, it's almost as if another thread on feminism and the problems experienced by women in male-dominated spheres has been overtaken by men explaining the "solutions" to us nice and slowly. Almost.

DoYouEvenLift

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Oh my god, it's almost as if another thread on feminism and the problems experienced by women in male-dominated spheres has been overtaken by men explaining the "solutions" to us nice and slowly. Almost.

Only women can provide and discuss possible solutions to problems experienced by women. Got it!

GarIT

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Dunno about that but would be interesting to see it done at least experimentally. In sports like golf, baseball etc. maybe but I don't really think that women could compete against men in contact sports like rugby and American football without genuine physical health and safety concerns.

This is an interesting point, as you say the women often aren't physically capable of competing with men. Maybe this is a root cause of why they are not getting sponsored for their skill level, maybe it just isn't up there with their male counterparts, so they therefore don't get sponsored for there skill.

If they can't compete with men because the sport would be too physical or too intense they obviously don't deserve the same sponsorship or attention/tv time as men.

jaja321

GarIT wrote: »

There are many benefits to this too. It brings in extra fans and sponsorship that wouldn't otherwise exist. The example was given that other women's football isn't televised, this shows that there isn't a market for women's exclusive sports to be aired on tv, if there was an audience it would be aired. Allowing the women compete in their underwear creates an audience that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Has it been tried?

DoYouEvenLift

GarIT wrote: »

This is an interesting point, as you,say the women often aren't physically capable of competing with men. Maybe this is a root cause of why they are not getting sponsored for their skill level, maybe it just isn't up there with their mail counterparts, so they therefore don't get sponsored for there skill.

If they can't compete with men they obviously don't deserve the same sponsorship or attention/tv time as men.

Just can't imagine there are many women who would be able to compete against men in a sport where lots of them are like this

iwantmydinner

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Only women can provide and discuss possible solutions to problems experienced by women. Got it!

Is that the sound of my point sailing right over your head?! Yes, yes it is.

GarIT

jaja321 wrote: »

Has it been tried?

Women's soccer was shown on RTE for a while but was scrapped because nobody watched it, they still show the occasional international game. Sky tried showing the women's premier league but that was cancelled due to no interest too.

I've no idea about American football or American tv. I'm sure it has been considered though and if it's not shown it must have been found to not be viable.

GarIT

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Just can't imagine there are many women who would be able to compete against men in a sport where lots of them are like this

Nothing stopping the women getting up to a professional level of competing. Rugby is a physically demanding sport, if you don't have the physical prowess and muscle mass you just can't compete to the same level and therefore shouldn't get sponsored.

DoYouEvenLift

GarIT wrote: »

Women's soccer was shown on RTE for a while but was scrapped because nobody watched it, they still show the occasional international game. Sky tried showing the women's premier league but that was cancelled due to no interest too.

I've no idea about American football or American tv. I'm sure it has been considered though and if it's not shown it must have been found to not be viable.

Women's GAA, which would kind of be most relevant to Irish, has a large fan base now and the finals are shown on TV. Women's rugby is also growing, the reception for the Irish team was stronger than ever this year.

GarIT

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Is that the sound of my point sailing right over your head?! Yes, yes it is.

To be fair your point wasn't well made, I thought the same too. To me it reads that you think men shouldn't be allowed discuss/debate/explain their opinions here.

kylith

GarIT wrote: »

This is an interesting point, as you say the women often aren't physically capable of competing with men. Maybe this is a root cause of why they are not getting sponsored for their skill level, maybe it just isn't up there with their male counterparts, so they therefore don't get sponsored for there skill.

If they can't compete with men because the sport would be too physical or too intense they obviously don't deserve the same sponsorship or attention/tv time as men.

"If you can't physically compete with a man you don't deserve sponsorship and to play the sport you love at professional level".

So, women should give up any thoughts of being professional athletes and go back to flower arranging, baking cakes, and having babies?

GarIT

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Women's GAA, which would kind of be most relevant to Irish, has a large fan base now and the finals are shown on TV. Women's rugby is also growing, the reception for the Irish team was stronger than ever this year.

Yep, its great isn't it, so that's two sports where this discussion isn't relevant.

jaja321

GarIT wrote: »

Women's soccer was shown on RTE for a while but was scrapped because nobody watched it, they still show the occasional international game. Sky tried showing the women's premier league but that was cancelled due to no interest too.

I've no idea about American football or American tv. I'm sure it has been considered though and if it's not shown it must have been found to not be viable.

Maybe, maybe not. They said the same about women's boxing.

Maybe more women would watch if they the female players didn't have to wear that crap.

GarIT

kylith wrote: »

"If you can't physically compete with a man you don't deserve sponsorship and to play the sport you love at professional level".

So, women should give up any thoughts of being professional athletes and go back to flower arranging, baking cakes, and having babies?

I didn't say anything like that. I said if you are not competing at the top level you can complain about not being sponsored like the top level. Women are welcome to do whatever they want, just like men. They just shouldn't complain that their sport doesn't get the same attention as men's when they themselves admit they aren't at the same level as the men.

GarIT

jaja321 wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. They said the same about women's boxing.

Maybe more women would watch if they the female players didn't have to wear that crap.

Nobody has to wear anything except the Katie Taylor example which everyone agrees shouldn't have happened.

jaja321

GarIT wrote: »

Nobody has to wear anything except the Katie Taylor example which everyone agrees shouldn't have happened.

My point being that it was said it needed to be sexed up in order for people to watch, and they were proven wrong.

strobe

jaja321 wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. They said the same about women's boxing.

Maybe more women would watch if they the female players didn't have to wear that crap.

There are several female American football leagues that are equivalent to the male leagues (WFA, IWFL, etc) . Women and men do watch them, the games are televised and some leagues are professional, others semi pro.

The lingerie football league is it's own thing. It's not meant to be and doesn't present itself as the female equivalent of the male leagues.

It's not a case that women wishing to play American football, to do so professionally, or to do so in televised games have to do so in the LFL. A false dilemma is being presented.

Yeah I think it's a different thing and there is a genuine women's league isn't there

GarIT

jaja321 wrote: »

My point being that it was said it needed to be sexed up in order for people to watch, and they were proven wrong.

No it wasn't, you said nothing like that.

I don't see how they were proven wrong, in the one sport where I am aware it is 'sexed up' the 'sexed up' version is much more popular.

Nobody said women had to wear little to be watched, they just said they get more money when they do.

As the above poster said, the 'sexed up' version is a different sport, and isn't the only option, nobody is forced into it.

kylith

GarIT wrote: »

I didn't say anything like that. I said if you are not competing at the top level you can complain about not being sponsored like the top level. Women are welcome to do whatever they want, just like men. They just shouldn't complain that their sport doesn't get the same attention as men's when they themselves admit they aren't at the same level as the men.

You didn't just say something like that, you said that.

GarIT wrote: »

If they can't compete with men because the sport would be too physical or too intense they obviously don't deserve the same sponsorship or attention/tv time as men.

For a lot of athletes sponsorship is the only way that they can play professionally. No sponsorship, no sports career. If women don't deserve the same sponsorship as men because they cannot physically compete with men then women will not be able to play sport professionally.

jaja321

strobe wrote: »

There several female American football leagues that are equivalent to the male leagues (WFA, IWFL, etc) . Women and men do watch them, the games are televised and some leagues are professional, others semi pro.

The lingerie football league is it's own thing. It's not meant to be and doesn't present itself as the female equivalent of the male leagues.

It's not a case that women wishing to play American football, to do so professionally, or to do so in televised games have to do so in the LFL. A false dilemma is being presented.

Fair enough then.

jaja321

GarIT wrote: »

No it wasn't, you said nothing like that.

I don't see how they were proven wrong, in the one sport where I am aware it is 'sexed up' the 'sexed up' version is much more popular.

Nobody said women had to wear little to be watched, they just said they get more money when they do.

As the above poster said, the 'sexed up' version is a different sport, and isn't the only option, nobody is forced into it.

I was talking about women's boxing - and the whole Katie Taylor skirt thing - they were trying to make female boxers wear skirts to sex up the sport so people would watch. Those people were proven wrong.

I think we are misunderstanding eachother.

GarIT

kylith wrote: »

You didn't just say something like that, you said that.

For a lot of athletes sponsorship is the only way that they can play professionally. No sponsorship, no sports career. If women don't deserve the same sponsorship as men because they cannot physically compete with men then women will not be able to play sport professionally.

I said women shouldn't play sport?

You are making this out to be a women's issue, it's the same for anybody, if you cant compete at the top level you don't get sponsorship and you can compete professionally, that's the same for men and women. If a man cant physically with another man at the top level they don't get sponsorship.

Neyite

GarIT wrote: »

I have to take issue with your first line, nobody is forcing women to compete in their underwear either. They are free to try and get sponsorship based on their skill if they wish. Show me a sport where women only can compete in their underwear or not at all and I'll agree with you.

Beach Volleyball. Men can wear shorts with a side length of up to 20 cm length,from waist to hem, and a close fitting tank top. The side length of a womans suit is 7cm for the two piece and full leg to hip exposed on the one piece suit - which is a swimsuit. Same size and shape as underwear.

wrote:

There wouldn't be be, generally with men it is suits. Males sportsmen are often offered money to pose in very little clothing most don't take it, some e.g. David Beckham do. Other than the Katie Taylor example most women aren't forced to dress a certain way to compete. My points with F1 is that men often get to compete based on their appearance not their skill. Jenson Button has been staying in the sport for years based on a Japanese modeling deal.

They can wear what they like in advertising deals with clothing brands - that is their choice. But when you only can compete in your sport in attire that regulations demand expose much more skin and cleavage, when at the same time the men in that sport get to cover up more, then there is a problem for me.

Upthread it was mentioned that female surfers either have to wear bikinis while competing at the behest of her sponsors instead of a wetsuit, which is far more appropriate attire or lose out on sponsorship deals. There is no similar requirement for the men that they sponsor.

wrote:

If there was no bikini football would there be women's football televised at all though, there just isn't the sponsorship there, the people who watch for the half naked women bring quite a bit of sponsorship and money to the sport.

I think the fairest thing would be to get rid of the women's leagues and change the already popular men's leagues to unisex.

I didn't know that bikini football existed before your post. Wiki says it was founded in 2009 as Lingerie Football. Its all about appearance though - garters? clear visors instead of face masks? smaller shoulder pads?

Is it not just a case that this is one area of womens sport where they are actually honest and saying 'we dont really give a crap about your ability, we just want to see you playing sports wearing fcuk all' and this is what is encroaching in other areas of sport?

GarIT

jaja321 wrote: »

I was talking about women's boxing - and the whole Katie Taylor skirt thing - they were trying to make female boxers wear skirts to sex up the sport so people would watch. Those people were proven wrong.

I think we are misunderstanding eachother.

In the instance of Katie Taylor it wasn't that they wanted to sex it up, Katie Taylor wanted to wear something other than the official designated attire, its like a footballer not wanting to wear a jersey and wear a tshirt instead. Except in Katie's case she had a valid grievance against the sports attire and the rules were changed to be more appropriate.

Neyite

GarIT wrote: »

In the instance of Katie Taylor it wasn't that they wanted to sex it up, Katie Taylor wanted to wear something other than the official designated attire, its like a footballer not wanting to wear a jersey and wear a tshirt instead. Except in Katie's case she had a valid grievance against the sports attire and the rules were changed to be more appropriate.

No. They wanted her to wear a gendered piece of clothing. A skirt.

A closer example would be forcing QPR or Celtic (just them, mind. Not the rest.) to wear kilts because its traditional attire and the footballers wanting to stick to the shorts they have always worn, which are practical and are comfortable, when playing their sport.

kylith

GarIT wrote: »

I said women shouldn't play sport?

You are making this out to be a women's issue, it's the same for anybody, if you cant compete at the top level you don't get sponsorship and you can compete professionally, that's the same for men and women. If a man cant physically with another man at the top level they don't get sponsorship.

You said that if women can't compete with men they don't deserve sponsorship. The knock on effect being that if they can't get sponsored they can't afford equipment. If they can't afford the equipment they can't compete professionally.

Your opinion that women who can't compete with men don't deserve sponsorship would, if carried out, lead to approximately zero female professional athletes because very, very, very few women would stand a chance in direct competition against men.

jaja321

GarIT wrote: »

In the instance of Katie Taylor it wasn't that they wanted to sex it up, Katie Taylor wanted to wear something other than the official designated attire, its like a footballer not wanting to wear a jersey and wear a tshirt instead. Except in Katie's case she had a valid grievance against the sports attire and the rules were changed to be more appropriate.

They wanted them to wear skirts to differentiate them from men. That was the reason they gave. Some even used the word 'feminine'. You can take from what what you will.

Dial Hard

GarIT wrote: »

You are making this out to be a women's issue, it's the same for anybody, if you cant compete at the top level you don't get sponsorship and you can compete professionally, that's the same for men and women. If a man cant physically with another man at the top level they don't get sponsorship.

Sorry, but that is complete and utter tosh. They're competing at the top level available to them - just because it's not at the same level as a physically bigger and stronger man, you think they don't deserve sponsorship?

So, I assume you think that, say, a welterweight boxer doesn't deserve sponsorship because he wouldn't be able to compete professionally against a heavyweight?

Didn't think so.

GarIT

Neyite wrote: »

Beach Volleyball. Men can wear shorts with a side length of up to 20 cm length,from waist to hem, and a close fitting tank top. The side length of a womans suit is 7cm for the two piece and full leg to hip exposed on the one piece suit - which is a swimsuit. Same size and shape as underwear.



They can wear what they like in advertising deals with clothing brands - that is their choice. But when you only can compete in your sport in attire that regulations demand expose much more skin and cleavage, when at the same time the men in that sport get to cover up more, then there is a problem for me.

Upthread it was mentioned that female surfers either have to wear bikinis while competing at the behest of her sponsors instead of a wetsuit, which is far more appropriate attire or lose out on sponsorship deals. There is no similar requirement for the men that they sponsor.



I didn't know that bikini football existed before your post. Wiki says it was founded in 2009 as Lingerie Football. Its all about appearance though - garters? clear visors instead of face masks? smaller shoulder pads?

Is it not just a case that this is one area of womens sport where they are actually honest and saying 'we dont really give a crap about your ability, we just want to see you playing sports wearing fcuk all' and this is what is encroaching in other areas of sport?

Fair enough the volleyball rules should be changed.

Jenson Button wouldn't be allowed compete in F1 if he didn't have his sponsorship money from posing topples in Japan.

David Beckham wouldn't get his underwear sponsorship deals if he didn't pose in his underwear. He has the choice of not posing in his underwear and not taking the sponsorship just as many women do. For some women it may mean they cant afford to compete otherwise but that is their own fault for bot being able to achieve sponsorship based on their skill.

Mixed leagues would allow the top of both genders to compete at as high a level as they can achieve. The combined viewership would lead to increased sponsorship for both sides.

You cant excluded most of the top athletes (men) from a sport and then complain that it isn't watched or sponsored. If you're not at the top you don't get sponsored like the top.

GarIT

kylith wrote: »

You said that if women can't compete with men they don't deserve sponsorship. The knock on effect being that if they can't get sponsored they can't afford equipment. If they can't afford the equipment they can't compete professionally.

Your opinion that women who can't compete with men don't deserve sponsorship would, if carried out, lead to approximately zero female professional athletes because very, very, very few women would stand a chance in direct competition against men.

Does that matter? We should be watching the top level of athletes, and only the top level of athletes should get sponsorship, their gender shouldn't matter. People should receive sponsorship based on their skill level not their gender.

GarIT

Dial Hard wrote: »

Sorry, but that is complete and utter tosh. They're competing at the top level available to them - just because it's not at the same level as a physically bigger and stronger man, you think they don't deserve sponsorship?

So, I assume you think that, say, a welterweight boxer doesn't deserve sponsorship because he wouldn't be able to compete professionally against a heavyweight?

Didn't think so.

What do you mean didn't think so, of course I think a boxer not competing at the top level shouldn't receive sponsorship. I think the weight classing in boxing is absurd, you can either fight the best or you cant, only fighting people your own weight is stupid.

I have also argued that the top level of all sports should be available to women. I am against women being restricted to the lower level female sports.

Neyite

GarIT wrote: »

Does that matter? We should be watching the top level of athletes, and only the top level of athletes should get sponsorship, their gender shouldn't matter. People should receive sponsorship based on their skill level not their gender.

All athletes need to get sponsorship from the very bottom up Our local U7 girls GAA have sponsored jerseys and fund-raise for their sport.

kylith

GarIT wrote: »

Does that matter? We should be watching the top level of athletes, and only the top level of athletes should get sponsorship, their gender shouldn't matter. People should receive sponsorship based on their skill level not their gender.

There may be a twisted logic to that, but have a read of your own sig there, will you?