Reasons feminism is still relevant READ OP BEFORE POSTING

GarIT · 02-12-2014 12:43PM

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 · 02-12-2014 12:48PM

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 · 02-12-2014 12:49PM

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.

02-12-2014 12:51PM

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

GarIT · 02-12-2014 12:52PM

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 · 02-12-2014 12:54PM

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 · 02-12-2014 12:56PM

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 · 02-12-2014 12:59PM

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 · 02-12-2014 12:59PM

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 · 02-12-2014 01:04PM

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 · 02-12-2014 01:05PM

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 · 02-12-2014 01:09PM

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 · 02-12-2014 01:09PM

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 · 02-12-2014 01:12PM

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 · 02-12-2014 01:12PM

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 · 02-12-2014 01:14PM

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 · 02-12-2014 01:16PM

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 · 02-12-2014 01:18PM

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 · 02-12-2014 01:25PM

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 · 02-12-2014 01:26PM

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?

GarIT · 02-12-2014 01:27PM

Neyite wrote: »

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.

As I said based on their level, all levels might need sponsorship but the lower levels should get less.

GarIT · 02-12-2014 01:29PM

kylith wrote: »

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

Twisted logic? Do you disagree that sports people should receive sponsorship relative to anything other than their skill level?

I can't read my own sig, on mobile :P why is it relevant?

Dial Hard · 02-12-2014 01:32PM

GarIT wrote: »

I am against women being restricted to the lower level female sports.

You're entirely missing the point, which is that female sports shouldn't be automatically seen as "lower level".

Anyway, your comment about weight classes in boxing being "absurd" has kind of caused me to dismiss pretty much anything you have to say about sport in general. The entire point of weight classes in boxing/MMA, handicaps in horse-racing etc. is to ensure there *is* some level of competition involved. There's no sport involved in someone the size of Evander Holyfield beating seven shades of shite out of someone the size of Barry McGuigan.

Suggesting that Katie Taylor should be capable of KO-ing Wladimir Klitschko to be considered at the top of her game is far more absurd if you ask me.

allym · 02-12-2014 01:37PM

GarIT wrote: »

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.

Then you clearly know nothing about boxing.

kylith · 02-12-2014 01:39PM

GarIT wrote: »

Twisted logic? Do you disagree that sports people should receive sponsorship relative to anything other than their skill level?

I can't read my own sig, on mobile :P why is it relevant?

I would agree that sports people should receive sponsorship based on their skill level. I disagree that women should automatically receive little to no sponsorship because they are not physically capable of direct competition against their male counterparts.

Your sig reads: Not everything in the world that makes sense is correct - Neil deGrasse Tyson

It may make sense (to you) that there should be no gender distinction in competition, and that only the top athletes should receive sponsorship*, but that does not mean that it is correct.

*Those being entirely male based on the lack of gender distinction you propose.

meeeeh · 02-12-2014 01:43PM

On the subject of sponsorship, you deserve as much sponsorship as you are able to generate. Companies do not do sponsorship as an act of charity, neither should they. If is in their interest they will do it if not they won't. Everything else falls on the shoulders of the state. If it is in states interest to encourage sport among women or subsidy less popular sports then so be it but let's not pretend sponsorship is anything but commercial exercise to increase brand recognition or improve brand perception.

iwantmydinner · 02-12-2014 01:50PM

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.

That's fine for something like showjumping.

It's insane to suggest it should be the case for rugby. Or boxing.

meeeeh · 02-12-2014 02:01PM

It's completely insane to suggest women and men should compete together. For example female volleyball or handball (the one played on the continent) is for me a lot more interesting to watch because it is based on technical skill, while men's is based on power. It is completely different way of playing. And it is ridiculous suggest the only way to decide which is better is to play together.

GarIT · 02-12-2014 02:25PM

Personally I'll only every watch the top level of sports, if you can't compete with the top person you're not at the top level regardless of why you cant compete at that level.

Someone else said that the lower levels are competitive sure they are, there were some fiercely competitive matches back as low as secondary school. A lot of people wont watch the lower levels and therefore they wont receive as much sponsorship, attention, respect or tv time. There's nothing wrong with that.

Lyaiera · 02-12-2014 02:28PM

GarIT wrote: »

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.

Ok. I thought you were arguing against the feminist nature of this thread, but it seems you just have no idea about the concepts that underpin sports and competition. Flyweights fighting heavyweights? You haven't a notion.

Reasons feminism is still relevant *READ OP BEFORE POSTING*

Comments

Reasons feminism is still relevant READ OP BEFORE POSTING