Token women commentators in men’rt

ThewhiteJesus

For me it ruins the pundit side of things, I get horse racing as the jockeys are both genders, but why other sports ? It’s incomparable

The Phantom Jipper

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

For me it ruins the pundit side of things, I get horse racing as the jockeys are both genders, by why other sports ? It’s incomparable

I actually don't mind it at all. Rarely do I watch Match of the Day or a Champions League match and find that I'm being giving unique insights by the likes of Alan Shearer or Jim Beglin etc, so why not hear some other voices every once in a while. If you go in thinking these people are "token" women, I suspect that probably colours how you perceive what they're saying from the start.

Omackeral

They should stick to women'rt

ThewhiteJesus

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

I actually don't mind it at all. Rarely do I watch Match of the Day or a Champions League match and find that I'm being giving unique insights by the likes of Alan Shearer or Jim Beglin etc, so why not hear some other voices every once in a while. If you go in thinking these people are "token" women, I suspect that probably colours how you perceive what they're saying from the start.

I like women’s sport I watch their golf and occasionally football, but the game is different in both cases due to strength and durability, women’s pundits for women’s sport and men’s for men’s makes more sense imo

Silentcorner

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

I actually don't mind it at all. Rarely do I watch Match of the Day or a Champions League match and find that I'm being giving unique insights by the likes of Alan Shearer or Jim Beglin etc, so why not hear some other voices every once in a while. If you go in thinking these people are "token" women, I suspect that probably colours how you perceive what they're saying from the start.

It's not a gender thing though...if you are into the punditry you will want to hear from people who have lived at the highest level of the game....women aren't anywhere near that.....

If they included an amateur or a 15 year bloke it would be the same....but because it's a woman we aren't supposed to question it.

That is of course, if you are into punditry!!!

dobman88

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

For me it ruins the pundit side of things, I get horse racing as the jockeys are both genders, but why other sports ? It’s incomparable

Joanne Cantwell and Jacqui Hurley the 2 best sports broadcasters in RTE imo. Watch Allianz League Sunday tonight and then watch the Sunday game during the summer when Des Cahill is hosting. Absolutely no comparison, Joanne miles better. Jacqui Hurleys knowledge would put most people to shame and it's a pity shes not used more on telly.

super_furry

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

I like women’s sport I watch their golf and occasionally football, but the game is different in both cases due to strength and durability, women’s pundits for women’s sport and men’s for men’s makes more sense imo

You're silly. 'rt

anewme

What is r t?

ThewhiteJesus

dobman88 wrote: »

Joanne Cantwell and Jacqui Hurley the 2 best sports broadcasters in RTE imo. Watch Allianz League Sunday tonight and then watch the Sunday game during the summer when Des Cahill is hosting. Absolutely no comparison, Joanne miles better. Jacqui Hurleys knowledge would put most people to shame and it's a pity shes not used more on telly.

100% tokens

anewme

anewme wrote: »

What is r t?

Russia Today.

FunLover18

Silentcorner wrote: »

It's not a gender thing though...if you are into the punditry you will want to hear from people who have lived at the highest level of the game....women aren't anywhere near that.....

If they included an amateur or a 15 year bloke it would be the same....but because it's a woman we aren't supposed to question it.

That is of course, if you are into punditry!!!

What does it matter the difference in sports, most sports journalists don't even play the sport they write about, certainly not at the top level, most film critics don't make films. The "token" females pundits are way more qualified to talk about these sports than 99% of the lads watching them.

anewme

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Russia Today.

What has that to do with horse racing and football and golf ?

The Phantom Jipper

Silentcorner wrote: »

It's not a gender thing though...if you are into the punditry you will want to hear from people who have lived at the highest level of the game....women aren't anywhere near that.....

If they included an amateur or a 15 year bloke it would be the same....but because it's a woman we aren't supposed to question it.

That is of course, if you are into punditry!!!

But that isn't borne out by reality. I can mainly only speak to soccer punditry but generally it tends to revolve around "what a goal that was" level of insights. Playing the game at a high level has helped very few of these people to provide interesting, cogent analysis. I want to learn things about the game, I don't care if that comes from a Champions League winner or some woman I've never heard of who played for Arsenal ladies.

Wheety

The female pundits on BBC for the 2018 World Cup knew what they were talking about. Obviously did their research compared to their male counterparts.

Leg End Reject

'rt - representative token

Henceforth, this is how I wish to be identified.

Silentcorner

FunLover18 wrote: »

What does it matter the difference in sports, most sports journalists don't even play the sport they write about, certainly not at the top level, most film critics don't make films. The "token" females pundits are way more qualified to talk about these sports than 99% of the lads watching them.

Why are they more qualified? Who are they more qualified than, professionals many of whom have spent over 30 years surviving in a highly competitive professional environment?

And this isn't about journalists, this is about punditry....and credibility!

dobman88

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

100% tokens

I disagree. If they weren't better than the alternative then yes I could see how it would be a token gesture but they're far better at what they do and.are there on merit.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

'rt - representative token

Henceforth, this is how I wish to be identified.

Ahhh more sexist bull**** for the sake of it.

(Just for a change)

PsychoPete

If they have played the sport then them being pundits etc is fine with me. Theres plenty of ex men players that do punditry that shouldn't be allowed near a studio

Token or not, they're no worse than their male colleagues. That Alex Scott is one of the better soccer pundits around. Hardly high praise but the point stands.

Weepsie

What about women's sports that have had male commentators?

What about pundit or commentators that havnt played? What do they add?

ThewhiteJesus

PsychoPete wrote: »

If they have played the sport then them being pundits etc is fine with me. Theres plenty of ex men players that do punditry that shouldn't be allowed near a studio

My point is men’s physical sport and females physical sport is different, games like darts snooker and horse racing the exceptions, but even then there is no contest really it’s the natural law

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

Ahhh more sexist bull**** for the sake of it.

(Just for a change)

I just made that up!

Weepsie

Silentcorner wrote: »

Why are they more qualified? Who are they more qualified than, professionals many of whom have spent over 30 years surviving in a highly competitive professional environment?

And this isn't about journalists, this is about punditry....and credibility!

Jamie Redknapp has never said an insightful thing in his 10 year pundit career.

Experience and insight are very different things

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I just made that up!

It probably is some some bull**** rubbish like that though.

Silentcorner

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

But that isn't borne out by reality. I can mainly only speak to soccer punditry but generally it tends to revolve around "what a goal that was" level of insights. Playing the game at a high level has helped very few of these people to provide interesting, cogent analysis. I want to learn things about the game, I don't care if that comes from a Champions League winner or some woman I've never heard of who played for Arsenal ladies.

Would you expect a 15 year old boy or an Amateur to have the same knowledge of the game as a man who played over 20 years at the highest level of the game do you think....should there be more 15 year old's on the punditry couch?

I don't even understand why token presenters are included...wouldn't women in sport be much better served if we could actually watch women play and form a culture around a sport that we don't see every single week of every single year....I'd be all for that!!!

FunLover18

Silentcorner wrote: »

Why are they more qualified? Who are they more qualified than, professionals many of whom have spent over 30 years surviving in a highly competitive professional environment?

And this isn't about journalists, this is about punditry....and credibility!

I said who they were more qualified than. The lads watching, you and me, the ordinary Joe. They're not women they've plucked off the street. Of course it's completely pointless discussing qualifications because there's no such thing for punditry (AFAIK) all that matters is whether they know what they're talking about and even that in itself is completely subjective. I've no doubt there's a level of tokenism to it but so long as they justify their place on the panel I don't see why not. Men's and women's football are not that different anyway.

Charlie19

anewme wrote: »

What is r t?

Ridiculous thread.

PsychoPete

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

My point is men’s physical sport and females physical sport is different, games like darts snooker and horse racing the exceptions, but even then there is no contest really it’s the natural law

The physical game might be on a different level. If the female pundits are watching a male game then they are seeing exactly what male pundits are seeing and giving their opinion which is exactly what the male pundits are doing

Silentcorner

FunLover18 wrote: »

I said who they were more qualified than. The lads watching, you and me, the ordinary Joe. They're not women they've plucked off the street. Of course it's completely pointless discussing qualifications because there's no such thing for punditry (AFAIK) all that matters is whether they know what they're talking about and even that in itself is completely subjective. I've no doubt there's a level of tokenism to it but so long as they justify their place on the panel I don't see why not. Men's and women's football are not that different anyway.

I'd even doubt that....women's football is at the under 15 boys level.

It's not fair to suggest that we all ignore that fact, I'd love to see more women's sport on TV but to shoehorn a few token presenters onto a TV show is doing very little...except raise topics like this...we all know they are token.

Is that what women are becoming...mere tokens?

FunLover18

Silentcorner wrote: »

Would you expect a 15 year old boy or an Amateur to have the same knowledge of the game as a man who played over 20 years at the highest level of the game do you think....should there be more 15 year old's on the punditry couch?

I don't even understand why token presenters are included...wouldn't women in sport be much better served if we could actually watch women play and form a culture around a sport that we don't see every single week of every single year....I'd be all for that!!!

Are you really comparing the likes of Alex Scott to a 15 year old boy?

Silentcorner

FunLover18 wrote: »

Are you really comparing the likes of Alex Scott to a 15 year old boy?

Well until a professional women's team can beat an under 15 boys team...then ya!


By the way..who is Alex Scott!

Andrew00

Watching the Sunday Game now and they have a woman as a pundit. The two other lads on the panel arent even looking at her whilst they talk to eachother about hurling

JRant

Brian Kerr /end thread

Doesn't matter what bits a commentator has, if they're not Brian Kerr then they're not worth listening too. Should be classified as a national treasure at this stage.

The Phantom Jipper

Silentcorner wrote: »

Would you expect a 15 year old boy or an Amateur to have the same knowledge of the game as a man who played over 20 years at the highest level of the game do you think....should there be more 15 year old's on the punditry couch?

I don't even understand why token presenters are included...wouldn't women in sport be much better served if we could actually watch women play and form a culture around a sport that we don't see every single week of every single year....I'd be all for that!!!

Who is saying 15 year olds should be TV pundits?

FunLover18

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'd even doubt that....women's football is at the under 15 boys level.

It's not fair to suggest that we all ignore that fact, I'd love to see more women's sport on TV but to shoehorn a few token presenters onto a TV show is doing very little...except raise topics like this...we all know they are token.

Is that what women are becoming...mere tokens?

They're not shoehorning them in, they have professional athletes who have played the game.

Silentcorner

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Who is saying 15 year olds should be TV pundits?

Exactly.

JRant

Sure, weren't RTE trying to get that domestic abuser Han Solo in the their panel for the last soccer tournament. Sure she won a world cup with the US women's team but could she do it on a cold wet Tuesday night against Stoke?

Skylinehead

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

My point is men’s physical sport and females physical sport is different, games like darts snooker and horse racing the exceptions, but even then there is no contest really it’s the natural law

A lot of football managers never played high level football. Sarri for example was a banker. There's a difference between playing football and managing it, never mind simply talking about it.

Hoboo

JRant wrote: »

Sure, weren't RTE trying to get that domestic abuser Han Solo in the their panel for the last soccer tournament. Sure she won a world cup with the US women's team but could she do it on a cold wet Tuesday night against Stoke?

It was domestic violence against two family members and the charges were dropped.

JRant

Andrew00 wrote: »

Watching the Sunday Game now and they have a woman as a pundit. The two other lads on the panel arent even looking at her whilst they talk to eachother about hurling

So two people who have played the game versus someone who hasn't, sounds like camoige from the ditch.

Not that it matters in my opinion but 2 different games all the same.

anewme

Is this a sexist anti woman thread?

It reads very like that.

kowloon

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

My point is men’s physical sport and females physical sport is different, games like darts snooker and horse racing the exceptions, but even then there is no contest really it’s the natural law

Really dodgy phrase that.

JRant

Hoboo wrote: »

It was domestic violence against two family members and the charges were dropped.

Ah, that's grand so. Sure let's have any auld sod on, sure if they give their other half a few slaps, it's grand once charges aren't pressed.

JRant

anewme wrote: »

Is this a sexist anti woman thread?

It reads very like that.

This should be the Brian Kerr appreciation thread. Sadly it's morphed into something else, something woejus as the great man would say.

The Phantom Jipper

Silentcorner wrote: »

Exactly.

Exactly what?

ThewhiteJesus

anewme wrote: »

Is this a sexist anti woman thread?

It reads very like that.

It’s not meant that way, I like women’s sport as I have mentioned above

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

Is this a sexist anti woman thread?

It reads very like that.

Well it does if you view it through a feminist lens....but then everthing does when you have those lens on.

Look, we all enjoyed watching the Woman's hockey team reach the World Cup final...wouldn't it make more sense to show and promote more Women's hockey on tv it was refreshing to see a sport you don't often see...it was even better to watch the success....to encourage a new league perhaps with it's own culture...

Nobody has an issue with watching or listening to women in sport, we all watched Sonia O'Sullivan, we watch the Olympics etc.

What seems to be happening is that pundits are being recruited because of their genitals not because they can bring something to the discussion....that is neither fair on the individual nor the viewer or women....

The biggest problem women have in sport is that other women don't bother going to the matches...a few token pundits ain't going to change that in any meaningful way.

cj maxx

If you haven't played the sport your commenting on you shouldn't be there.
It's not anti-women.

anewme

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well it does if you view it through a feminist lens....but then everthing does when you have those lens on.

Look, we all enjoyed watching the Woman's hockey team reach the World Cup final...wouldn't it make more sense to show and promote more Women's hockey on tv it was refreshing to see a sport you don't often see...it was even better to watch the success....to encourage a new league perhaps with it's own culture...

Nobody has an issue with watching or listening to women in sport, we all watched Sonia O'Sullivan, we watch the Olympics etc.

What seems to be happening is that pundits are being recruited because of their genitals not because they can bring something to the discussion....that is neither fair on the individual nor the viewer or women....

The biggest problem women have in sport is that other women don't bother going to the matches...a few token pundits ain't going to change that in any meaningful way.

You mean when people refuse to accept a sexist lens as is evident here.

I always find it funny on boards when women refuse to be second class citizens that they must be feminists.

Stop trying to pigeonhole people into boxes to suit yourself and your narrative.

If you genuinely appreciate football as a sport , you will know who Alex Scott is, the fact you refuse to acknowledge her, even asking, "who is this", shows your real Agenda.

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

You mean when people refuse to accept a sexist lens as is evident here.

I always find it funny on boards when women refuse to be second class citizens that they must be feminists.

Stop trying to pigeonhole people into boxes to suit yourself and your narrative.

If you appreciate football as a sport , you will know who Alex Scott is, the fact you refuse to acknowledge her, even asking, "who is this", shows your real Agenda.

What are you on about...agenda...I'm expressing an opinion...it might not be to your taste but that is life.

You brought sexism into this, I understand why, but you are wrong, I accept that calling you a feminist may also be wrong...I do apologise.

I love football as a sport, I had no idea who Alex Scott was until I googled her, I don't have to have an agenda to not know who she is, I don't watch women's football, I tried once but the standard was shocking, the atmosphere was terrible, it just wasn't for me.

As I pointed out, I spent my life consuming sport like others, I vividly remember following Sonia O'Sullivan as she was at the pinnacle of a global sport and she excelled....I am not going to watch women play a sport that does not compare in any meaningful way just like I didn't watch the other male Irish athletes at the time because they were no where near the pinnacle of their sport.

I'd love to see more women's sport on tv...I'd love to see more women go to watch sport...I don't know what more to say!