Token women commentators in men’rt

Omackeral

Autumn Itchy Smallpox wrote: »

Agreed on the one who tries to commentate on Soccer Republic as if the game is presently going on, wtf is that

Siobhan Madigan. And yes, that’s absolutely woeful. It’s easily the worst thing about Soccer Republic. Her voice is nails on a chalkboard as it is (shosh for shot) but that commentating as if she’s watching live is the pits.

shootermacg

Ironicname wrote: »

That's on you then.

You are saying that you don't understand how a woman's experience isn't the same as a man's experience.

They are different.

I don't care how many sub par games a woman played in a sub par league. I'd rather hear from a elite professional who has experience in the game they are discussing.

So would you think Katie Taylor's opinion on boxing wouldn't be valid? I'd love to see you go just one round with her.

Omackeral

shootermacg wrote: »

So would you think Katie Taylor's opinion on boxing wouldn't be valid? I'd love to see you go just one round with her.

I’d rather go a round with Katie than listen to her commentate.

Ironicname

shootermacg wrote:

So would you think Katie Taylor's opinion on boxing wouldn't be valid? I'd love to see you go just one round with her.

I'd love to see her go one round with an elite male boxer.

Her opinion on women's boxing is exceptionally valid.

Deebles McBeebles

andekwarhola wrote: »

By rough around the edges, you mean managing to get fired for sexually harassing women?

Gray was fired for making sexist comments, very different to sexually harassing women. That's not to downplay what he said but its a lot lower on the disgusting behaviour scale.

Granadino

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

So just to be clear, you would rather listen to Michael Owen talk about a soccer game than literally any woman in the world?

The dullest person I've seen on tv...

Assetbacked

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

The people hiring Alex Scott care about being PC. (or someone is making sure that they appear like they do!)

Gray and Keyes are arseholes. Linking their demise to the hiring of Alex Scott as some sort of PC decision is just wrong. Most fans prefer to see Alex Scott over Gray and Keyes in the studio, weighing up the positives and negatives, it's not a PC thing.

ButtersSuki

Granadino wrote: »

The dullest person I've seen on tv...

Gary Mabbutt is worse.

But Alan Quinlan doing sportsnews on Newstalk is so bad it's good (from a comedic perspective).

keano_afc

Purely depends on the pundit. I like Alex Scott, but Sue Smith is absolutely painful. Definite tokenism in her case.

sbsquarepants

Ironicname wrote: »

I'd love to see her go one round with an elite male boxer.

Her opinion on women's boxing is exceptionally valid.

Why the hell would she go a round with an elite male? That's just idiotic.

But why do you think she couldn't wrap her head around the intricacies of mens boxing enough to discuss it?

Omackeral wrote: »

I’d rather go a round with Katie than listen to her commentate.

So would i - but that's proving the point that competing is just not the same as punditry.
Katie is a top level competitor - but that her voice is more painful than her punches!

ThewhiteJesus

keano_afc wrote: »

Purely depends on the pundit. I like Alex Scott, but Sue Smith is absolutely painful. Definite tokenism in her case.

100% had she a normal haircut aswell she'd have zero chance

ohnonotgmail

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Why the hell would she go a round with an elite male? That's just idiotic.

But why do you think she couldn't wrap her head around the intricacies of mens boxing enough to discuss it?

Well, as the OP and others have said at great length, because the genders are not mixed and the men fight at a higher level, a woman is simple not capable of understanding what is going on in a mens boxing match. I really thought that was clear by now.

sbsquarepants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a woman is simple not capable of understanding what is going on in a mens boxing match. I really thought that was clear by now.

Not in any way clear to me i'm afraid.

Some women would not be capable of understanding it perhaps. A lot more wouldn't be capable of discussing it coherently even if they did understand it. Just like a lot of men.

There is a huge difference in talking about something and actually doing it at an elite level - that's what really should be clear!

ohnonotgmail

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Not in any way clear to me i'm afraid.

Some women would not be capable of understanding it perhaps. A lot more wouldn't be capable of discussing it coherently even if they did understand it. Just like a lot of men.

There is a huge difference in talking about something and actually doing it at an elite level - that's what really should be clear!

apologies. this place really needs a sarcasm tag.

sbsquarepants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

apologies. this place really needs a sarcasm tag.

Sorry, my bad.

It's just so hard to tell sometimes!

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

apologies. this place really needs a sarcasm tag.

Funnily enough, it was the first time I agreed with you.

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

Funnily enough, it was the first time I agreed with you.

you'd have to be really special to think that katie wouldn't understand what is going on in a mens boxing match.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Michael Owen is a perfect example - amazing as a player, less than useless as a pundit. Punditry is not football. It's discussing football.

An unintelligible gobshíte can make a great footballer (Wayne Rooney for example) To be a pundit requires an entirely different set of skills and there is no reason whatsoever why a woman wouldn't be able do it at least as well as a man - it clearly depends on the woman and the man.

Punditry is football - it's a big part of it. They literally wouldn't have any reason for being there, in that studio, unless there was a match to talk about.

So yes, punditry is a very big part of the sport.

Michael Owen is certainly boring, but he does understand the game. As does Wayne Rooney... but not every player will make a top pundit. There are plenty of one's that are very capable - Alex Scott is not actually required, based on some imaginary lack of male options. She is there because they want a female on the panel... not because she's a great pundit. Simple as that.

It doesn't really matter if a woman can do as good a job... this is men's professional football. Men should be given priority for these roles. It is sexism against men, to show favouritism towards women in the men's game!

And why is nobody concerned that someone like Alex Scott is choosing the men's game over the women's game? Why not throw all her energy into the women's game... and help that sport to get to a higher level of awareness? That's the game that actually gave her the platform to even be on TV in the first place, not the men's game!

There is nothing sexist about wanting to listen to a TV panel made up entirely of men, during a men's football match... it's actually a completely rational and reasonable thing to look for in gender-specific game!

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

you'd have to be really special to think that katie wouldn't understand what is going on in a mens boxing match.

She would understand the technical aspect absolutely. But men's boxing, like men's football, is a much different animal to women's boxing.

Greyfox

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if a woman can do as good a job... this is men's professional football. Men should be given priority for these roles...

There is nothing sexist about wanting to listen to a TV panel made up entirely of men, during a men's football match...

Yes male players should be given priority but if a woman happens to know what their talking about they should be allowed to do the job without people saying they don't want to listen to a woman. Saying a women shouldnt be a pundit on men's football is very clearly a sexist statement.

sbsquarepants

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Punditry is football - it's a big part of it. They literally wouldn't have any reason for being there, in that studio, unless there was a match to talk about.

So yes, punditry is a very big part of the sport.

If they were part of the sport they'd be on the pitch. They are talking in a studio for the entertainment / education of viewers.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

And why is nobody concerned that someone like Alex Scott is choosing the men's game over the women's game? Why not throw all her energy into the women's game... and help that sport to get to a higher level of awareness? That's the game that actually gave her the platform to even be on TV in the first place, not the men's game!

Because it's better quality i suppose.
The very same reason why 200 million will tune in to watch el classico and only 9 people could be arsed to watch ragball rovers play alcos united on some pissing wet Sunday afternoon in Coolock.

With bigger viewer figures, comes a higher profile and bigger pay cheques. The woman is doing a job, she wants to be paid as much as possible for it i'm sure. Wouldn't you?

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

There is nothing sexist about wanting to listen to a TV panel made up entirely of men, during a men's football match... it's actually a completely rational and reasonable thing to look for in gender-specific game!

Sounds a bit misogynistic do you not think?

Maybe even a tad gay? (Not that there's anything wrong with that, just not my particular cupán tae)

Why don't we get all the boys over to mine and we can all drink cosmos and watch the boys run around in their shorts, then when it's all over we can listen to some more boys talk about it.

Given the choice i'll opt for Alex!

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

She would understand the technical aspect absolutely. But men's boxing, like men's football, is a much different animal to women's boxing.

And i'm sure you can tell me in what ways it is different. Why dont you educate us all?

Silentcorner

The amount of people who care about being accused of sexism or being a misogynist is growing smaller by the day....

razorblunt

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Gray was fired for making sexist comments, very different to sexually harassing women. That's not to downplay what he said but its a lot lower on the disgusting behaviour scale.

Andy Gray had his shirt tucked out at the front and asked Charlotte Jackson to "tuck that in for me love".

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Greyfox wrote: »

Yes male players should be given priority but if a woman happens to know what their talking about they should be allowed to do the job without people saying they don't want to listen to a woman. Saying a women shouldnt be a pundit on men's football is very clearly a sexist statement.

No it's not...

Saying a man can't get on a TV panel, in the men's game, because one of the seats has to be reserved for a female... that would be sexist!

And that is very likely what's happening.

Those jobs are very well paid, and quite handy jobs. I can guarantee you, there is a very long que of ex-players who would jump at the chance to take her seat in that studio if they were asked... but they've reached their quota, so hard luck chaps! (Maybe consider a sex change to improve your chances!:pac:)

sbsquarepants

Silentcorner wrote: »

The amount of people who care about being accused of sexism or being a misogynist is growing smaller by the day....

True.

The number of people stupid enough to claim that NOT excluding women is sexist is also falling.

I have no time for feminism (or many other isms to tell you the truth) I'm not PC in the slightest, but stating that you can't manage to both talk about football and own a fanny - is just retarded.

Greyfox

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

No it's not...

Those jobs are very well paid, and quite handy jobs. I can guarantee you, there is a very long que of ex-players who would jump at the chance to take her seat in that studio if they were asked... but they've reached their quota, so hard luck chaps! (Maybe consider a sex change to improve your chances!:pac:)

It is sexist. As Eamon Dumphy and Mourinho have shown you don't have to be a past player at a high level to know your football. Yes its highly desirable but not essential as there are other skills that are also required. Maybe the other ex-players would be better or maybe they will be rubbish like Henry, truth is most ex-players just repeat the same generic comments anyway.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Greyfox wrote: »

It is sexist.

No it's not...

It can't be sexist, to show favouritism towards men in men's professional football... that is completely illogical.

And Alex Scott is bang average, so it's not like you could even make an argument based on her being better than all the male alternatives! (And I would still say she should be in the women's game, helping her own sport, even if she was that good... )

ohnonotgmail

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

No it's not...

It can't be sexist, to show favouritism towards men in men's professional football... that is completely illogical.

And Alex Scott is bang average, so it's not like you could even make an argument based on her being better than all the male alternatives! (And I would still say she should be in the women's game, helping her own sport, even if she was that good... )

To say that a woman is not capable of doing the same job as a man because she happens to be a woman is the definition of sexist.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

To say that a woman is not capable of doing the same job as a man because she happens to be a woman is the definition of sexist.

I never said she wasn't capable... I said she had no actual entitlement to be there. (capable or otherwise) Unlike most other areas of life, where she probably would have that entitlement if she was qualified.

There's nothing wrong with favouring men, and excluding women, in men's professional sport. It's perfectly natural actually. There is nothing sexist about it.

Most areas of life, it is right and proper that you afford equal opportunities to both sexes... but we are not talking about those other areas. We are talking about the very unique world of gender-specific sports!

ohnonotgmail

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

I never said she wasn't capable... I said she had no actual entitlement to be there. (capable or otherwise) Unlike most other areas of life, where she probably would have that entitlement if she was qualified.

There's nothing wrong with favouring men, and excluding women, in men's professional sport. It's perfectly natural actually. There is nothing sexist about it.

Most areas of life, it is right and proper that you afford equal opportunities to both sexes... but we are not talking about those other areas. We are talking about the very unique world of gender-specific sports!

So that is even more sexist than before.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So that is even more sexist than before.

Nope, nothing even remotely sexist in what I said...

If you believe that women have the right to equal opportunities in men's professional football... then why does women's professional football even exist?

By extension, you must also believe then, that women should be given equal opportunities to compete out on the pitch too? Why stop at the TV studios? If you want to use your logic, then you cannot exclude the game itself... that would not be true equality of opportunity!

ohnonotgmail

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Nope, nothing even remotely sexist in what I said...

If you believe that women have the right to equal opportunities in men's professional football... then why does women's professional football even exist?

By extension, you must also believe then, that women should be given equal opportunities to compete out on the pitch too? Why stop at the TV studios? If you want to use your logic, then you cannot exclude the game itself... that would not be true equality of opportunity!

It is a job in tv not a job in sport.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is a job in tv not a job in sport.

You're wrong. It is a job in sport.

The TV program doesn't exist, unless there is a match to watch... so it is all part of the sport.

Women have no entitlement to equal employment opportunities in men's professional football... that's why it's called MEN'S professional football. There is nothing sexist about favouring men. It's completely natural.

sbsquarepants

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

If you believe that women have the right to equal opportunities in men's professional football... then why does women's professional football even exist?

You really do struggle with the thin line separating watching something on telly from actively taking part don't you! Bizarre.

Actually - Sian Massey, the female lines "man". Do you think she can manage to tell if a player is offside for example, despite an alarming lack of Y chromosomes.

She plays a much more important role in the sport than anyone merely talking about it for money.

sbsquarepants

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

You're wrong. It is a job in sport.

The TV program doesn't exist, unless there is a match to watch... so it is all part of the sport.

.

It also doesn't exist without TV cameras - are they part of the sport?

Electricity?

Where does this sport end

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You really do struggle with the thin line separating watching something on telly from actively taking part don't you! Bizarre.

I'm not struggling with anything. It's very clear to me - men's football is for men. Women's football is for women!

You do seem a bit confused by this though!

It's actually very simple really. And nothing sexist about it....

ahnowbrowncow

It isn't that difficult to comprehend, the best person for the job should get the role.

Playing at the top level in men's football would be similar to having a Phd in a maths. Playing at the top level in women's football would be the equivalent of a level 6/7 diploma.

Being a pundit would then be equivalent to an engineering role, having a higher level maths would be very beneficial but wouldn't automatically make you the best candidate as there is more criteria than that for the position.

But with all else being equal the person with the Phd should be given the role. This is not happening with football punditry, the person with a lower level qualification is getting the position far more often than would be statistically expected and people are questionning this and gender quotas is the most obvious reason.

sbsquarepants

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

I'm not struggling with anything. It's very clear to me - men's football is for men. Women's football is for women!

You do seem a bit confused by this though!

It's actually very simple really. And nothing sexist about it....

What about Sian Massey then?

Can she manage to process the mindwarping difference between an offside man as opposed to an offside woman?

Is there a material difference to sticking out a size 10 boot to trip someone as opposed to size 5?

Should men with small feet be made play with the ladies just to be on the safe side?

Skylinehead

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

I never said she wasn't capable... I said she had no actual entitlement to be there. (capable or otherwise)

Yeah, nobody does. What a bizarre point.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yeah, nobody does. What a bizarre point.

Actually, plenty of people do... so it's not so bizarre to point it out!

But outstanding contribution btw!

JohnnyFlash

I’d be a follower of national hunt racing, and I’ve never felt that having women pundits on RTÉ or ITV was ever a token gesture. Just very knowledgeable people about the sport.

As an aside, there’s a very good chance Rachel Blackmore will be top jockey at Cheltenham. Again, there’s no allowances being made for her being a woman. She’s just one of the top 5 jump jockeys on the planet through innate talent.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I’d be a follower of national hunt racing, and I’ve never felt that having women pundits on RTÉ or ITV was ever a token gesture. Just very knowledgeable people about the sport.

As an aside, there’s a very good chance Rachel Blackmore will be top jockey at Cheltenham. Again, there’s no allowances being made for her being a woman. She’s just one of the top 5 jump jockeys on the planet through innate talent.

How is that in any way comparable to a sport like football, where mixed genders are not permitted to compete together?

This is a thread about token women in men's sport?

I'm sure there are some token women in horse racing, but you can't really call it exclusively a men's sport. (Even if it might be dominated more by men)

Greyfox

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with favouring men, and excluding women, in men's professional sport. It's perfectly natural actually. There is nothing sexist about it.

"excluding women" in a job a woman can do is the same thing as telling a woman she can't deliver post as a man normally does that job. Your deciding a woman isn't fit for the job BECAUSE she's a woman.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

If you believe that women have the right to equal opportunities in men's professional football... then why does women's professional football even exist?

A football player and a pundit are very different jobs, one is same sex and the other isn't

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

I'm not struggling with anything. It's very clear to me - men's football is for men. Women's football is for women!

Yeah because no women watch men's football

Having a woman football player on to talk about men’s football is about as relevant as having a golfer on to talk about it. And vice versa.

It’s all just box ticking.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Greyfox wrote: »

"excluding women" in a job a woman can do is the same thing as telling a woman she can't deliver post as a man normally does that job. Your deciding a woman isn't fit for the job BECAUSE she's a woman.

A postman/woman is not a gender-specific career.

Men's professional football is a gender-specific sport/career.

(It's really not that complicated - the clue is in the name of the sport - MEN'S professional football)

A football player and a pundit are very different jobs, one is same sex and the other isn't

They're both part of the same sport. So they're not very different.

One cannot exist without the other - no football game = no punditry! Again very simple.

Yeah because no women watch men's football

Yeah, and no men watch women's gymnastics when the olympics come around every 4 years... :rolleyes:

You're really not doing anything to further your points here. You're just spinning your wheels...

Greyfox

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Having a woman football player on to talk about men’s football is about as relevant as having a golfer on to talk about it.

Its been pointed out already the fact that its possible to know your football without playing at the highest level. e.g Dumphy

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

A postman/woman is not a gender-specific career.

Men's professional football is a gender-specific sport/career.

They're both part of the same sport. So they're not very different.

Punditry is also not gender specific but you don't seem to understand this. Again a football player and a pundit is not the same thing. Their different jobs, I take it when women play football male cameramen, refs, linesman, presenters, researchers and security guards should be banned from working on women's football?

Ironicname

sbsquarepants wrote:

Maybe even a tad gay? (Not that there's anything wrong with that, just not my particular cupán tae)

If you had been on the other side of the argument, you'd have been labelled all types of "phobe" for that comment by some posters here.

Luckily enough you are on "their side" so they've let it slide.

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

To say that a woman is not capable of doing the same job as a man because she happens to be a woman is the definition of sexist.

Not many men on the loose women panel. Are they sexist?

Girly Gal

It's obvious that having female pundits in mens soccer or GAA is tokenisim, there really is no other reason to have female pundits for male team sports, there is already plenty of male pundits to do the job, it's strange that people can't acknowledge this.

I really wasn't in favour of this, however, some female pundits have acquitted themselves well, others haven't, that's the same for the men.

I think what it really comes down to is that the words of male pundits carry more weight than female pundits even if they say the same thing. As the male pundits are seen as having being there and done it, while the female pundits are not seen in the same light (fairly or unfairly).

The reality is the standard of punditry (male or female) in most sports has fallen drastically in the last decade. Whether people like it or not female pundits are here to stay. Just accept it and move on.