|
|
Post by antonio on Aug 13, 2018 6:00:52 GMT
Well just watching the BBC sports news and a picture of the British ladies 100m relay team is shown with the presenters comments of "they were awesome, golden girls, fabulous performance ect.ect.".
Later after other athletics news, "Oh the British men's relay won too". Its the same for women's football, it's as though they are on an equal level of performance when realistically they are not. Women have now forced their way into commentary boxes on nearly every sport you watch. Yet when you see women's hockey and netball it's not a mans voice you hear commentating.
Are women just jealous and are the media giving certain women's sports more credit than they deserve?
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 13, 2018 6:40:22 GMT
BBC probably bought the rights to it so now they plug it for all it is worth on all their shows. Like when they report about what's happening on one of their stupid dancing shows on the Six O'clock news. They became utterly shameless about that Sh#t some years ago now.
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Aug 13, 2018 8:26:19 GMT
Well just watching the BBC sports news and a picture of the British ladies 100m relay team is shown with the presenters comments of "they were awesome, golden girls, fabulous performance ect.ect.". Later after other athletics news, "Oh the British men's relay won too". Its the same for women's football, it's as though they are on an equal level of performance when realistically they are not. Women have now forced their way into commentary boxes on nearly every sport you watch. Yet when you see women's hockey and netball it's not a mans voice you hear commentating. Are women just jealous and are the media giving certain women's sports more credit than they deserve? Womens sports should be given the same level of coverage as mens, and the same levels of funding. If a bit of positive discrimination helps to make up for years of being disadvantaged, then, why not... |
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Aug 13, 2018 9:31:27 GMT
Try telling the Premier league that. I saw a clip of a women's football match earlier last week, it was a case of spot the supporter. Surely it has to relate to the quality and popularity of each sport. Also you make no mention of who should be commentating, for me, men for men's and women for women's would be my preference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 9:34:11 GMT
Try visiting a Judo club and then decide whether women should be taken seriously in sport. Some of them are brilliant. It's quite funny seeing a 16 stone bloke being whirled through the air and then slammed to the deck and pinned down by a little nine stone female.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 13, 2018 11:21:31 GMT
Well just watching the BBC sports news and a picture of the British ladies 100m relay team is shown with the presenters comments of "they were awesome, golden girls, fabulous performance ect.ect.". Later after other athletics news, "Oh the British men's relay won too". Its the same for women's football, it's as though they are on an equal level of performance when realistically they are not. Women have now forced their way into commentary boxes on nearly every sport you watch. Yet when you see women's hockey and netball it's not a mans voice you hear commentating. Are women just jealous and are the media giving certain women's sports more credit than they deserve? Womens sports should be given the same level of coverage as mens, and the same levels of funding. If a bit of positive discrimination helps to make up for years of being disadvantaged, then, why not... As long as the funding isn't coming out of my pocket then I'm fine with that.
Not sure exactly how women have been disadvantaged in football? The reason women's football does not have the same amount of money and coverage as men's is that by comparison very few people are interested in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Aug 13, 2018 11:39:16 GMT
Womens sports should be given the same level of coverage as mens, and the same levels of funding. If a bit of positive discrimination helps to make up for years of being disadvantaged, then, why not...
Not sure exactly how women have been disadvantaged in football? The reason women's football does not have the same amount of money and coverage as men's is that by comparison very few people are interested in it.
It has had very little coverage in the past...hence few people were interested. Womens international cricket has experienced sharp increases in attendances since TV coverage has started. Watching snooker was not popular until TV started covering it. Chicken...or egg. |
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Aug 13, 2018 11:40:56 GMT
Also you make no mention of who should be commentating, for me, men for men's and women for women's would be my preference. Either. You don't have to have a penis to commentate on mens football. Like you don't need to be a hifi designer to comment on hifi. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 13, 2018 12:20:38 GMT
I've no interest in seeing women commentating on men's football. They've never played the game so they are completely unqualified to do so.
Likewise I would not have a problem if commentating on women's football was a completely female preserve.
Equality for the sake of equality is idiotic and just serves to annoy people and, ironically, entrench sexist attitudes in much the same way as positive racial discrimination is a poster-boy for racism.
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Aug 13, 2018 13:00:05 GMT
I've no interest in seeing women commentating on men's football. They've never played the game so they are completely unqualified to do so. Likewise I would not have a problem if commentating on women's football was a completely female preserve. Equality for the sake of equality is idiotic and just serves to annoy people and, ironically, entrench sexist attitudes in much the same way as positive racial discrimination is a poster-boy for racism. Positive discrimination is a way to accelerate the redress of previous injustices - it's a good thing when considered in the wider context. |
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Aug 13, 2018 13:37:25 GMT
What are these previous 'injustices'?
Have you seen women's cricket, it reminds me of men's cricket except only underarm bowling is allowed.
Are women just jealous of men's sports, I don't see an orderly queue of men lining up to play netball. I've no problem with women playing football, cricket rugby but let's not put it on par with the mens equivalent.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 13, 2018 15:03:12 GMT
I've no interest in seeing women commentating on men's football. They've never played the game so they are completely unqualified to do so. Likewise I would not have a problem if commentating on women's football was a completely female preserve. Equality for the sake of equality is idiotic and just serves to annoy people and, ironically, entrench sexist attitudes in much the same way as positive racial discrimination is a poster-boy for racism. Positive discrimination is a way to accelerate the redress of previous injustices - it's a good thing when considered in the wider context. No, it's just replacing an injustice to one side with an injustice to the other. The more able candidate gets passed over due to the requirment to hire an ethnic minority or a woman. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 15:48:37 GMT
I don't see an orderly queue of men lining up to play netball. No; they just call it 'basketball' instead and get paid shedloads to play it. Same with rounders and baseball. |
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Aug 13, 2018 17:26:13 GMT
Positive discrimination is a way to accelerate the redress of previous injustices - it's a good thing when considered in the wider context. No, it's just replacing an injustice to one side with an injustice to the other. It's very easy for a middle-aged white male to hold that view... |
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Aug 13, 2018 17:29:38 GMT
Positive discrimination is a way to accelerate the redress of previous injustices - it's a good thing when considered in the wider context. The more able candidate gets passed over due to the requirment to hire an ethnic minority or a woman. It doesn't work like that. If there are 2 or more candidates suitable for the job then positive discrimination is applied. No-one who is unable to do the job is appointed because of PD. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 13, 2018 18:36:03 GMT
Both candidates may be suit the stated requirements but they are unlikely to be identical in ability and the results they achieve in the post will reflect that.
And being a white middle-aged male yourself have you not noticed that these days we are at the back of the queue? Why? Because our ancestors had the whip hand back in the dim and distant? It's absurd.
Not that I want or need anything from them so I'm not in the queue at all but when I see ideology trump common sense then I'll say it.
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Aug 13, 2018 19:08:10 GMT
And being a white middle-aged male yourself have you not noticed that these days we are at the back of the queue? I notice we are not automatically at the front of the queue and, thinking beyond only my own short term gain, I reckon that's a good thing. When I hear the complaints from other white middle aged men then it only reinforces my opinion that positive discrimination is needed. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 13, 2018 19:14:43 GMT
We are okay but a lot of white middle aged men and women reckon they are getting screwed. Who do you think voted for Brexit?
And don't give me a load of guff about the Daily Mail. If you think the only reason people feel that way is because they read it in a newspaper then I don't see the point in discussing it further.
|
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Aug 14, 2018 7:25:26 GMT
And just so you don't think I am anti female, I was disgusted to hear Jamie Carragher on Sky football on Sunday. Spitting on a young girl whilst driving was despicable behaviour. His comments afterward telling everyone he wanted people to see the real side of him. A week or so later a couple of 'buddies' in the news and thanking them for taking away some of the heat. Yes we've seen the real side of you Jamie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 9:09:10 GMT
And being a white middle-aged male yourself have you not noticed that these days we are at the back of the queue? I think we're well ahead of blokes with different skin colours, and most women. Most major organisations are still headed by white middle-aged males. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 14, 2018 17:28:40 GMT
And being a white middle-aged male yourself have you not noticed that these days we are at the back of the queue? I think we're well ahead of blokes with different skin colours, and most women. Most major organisations are still headed by white middle-aged males. Most white middle-aged men are not the head of anything let alone a major organization. I've always been puzzled as to why facts like this are plucked out to try to justify positive discrimination. I don't see that they do anything of the sort. British white males have had 1600 years since the Romans left to get to where they are in this country. You've got a non-white percentage population of what? 10% at most and they've only been here at that percentage level for 20 years. Immigration in numbers started in about 1955 so at best they've had 60 years to establish themselves in positions of senior authority. Trying to artificially accelerate that process by defining racial differences in law only causes resentment and creates problems for the people you are trying to help. I don't believe there is any such thing as 'different races'. People look different, that's all. We're all the same damn species. But once the Law and then by extension, society, says there is such a thing as 'different races' people start getting fixated on it. If you treat everyone equally then no-one has any cause for complaint. Just because you treated some people less than equally in the past, and consequently created a load of issues, doesn't mean you fix them by treating them as better than equal now and creating a whole load more. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 14, 2018 17:36:11 GMT
And don't give me a load of guff about the Daily Mail. If you think the only reason people feel that way is because they read it in a newspaper then I don't see the point in discussing it further. Looks like it was going to be some guff about the Daily Mail. Oh well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 19:25:19 GMT
I think we're well ahead of blokes with different skin colours, and most women. Most major organisations are still headed by white middle-aged males. Most white middle-aged men are not the head of anything let alone a major organization. I've always been puzzled as to why facts like this are plucked out to try to justify positive discrimination. I don't see that they do anything of the sort. British white males have had 1600 years since the Romans left to get to where they are in this country. British white women have had as long. Of the FTSE 100 companies, only seven have female CEOs. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,108
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Aug 14, 2018 19:40:37 GMT
Cba arguing about it or debating it but I hate the very notion of positive discrimination. I also hate the lefty liberal nutters who have peddled it and made it part of life today. People like Corbyn are the enemy AFAIC.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 14, 2018 20:13:53 GMT
Most white middle-aged men are not the head of anything let alone a major organization. I've always been puzzled as to why facts like this are plucked out to try to justify positive discrimination. I don't see that they do anything of the sort. British white males have had 1600 years since the Romans left to get to where they are in this country. British white women have had as long. Of the FTSE 100 companies, only seven have female CEOs. Not really. Until World War 1 the vast majority of women did not work or did menial or traditional work only. They have had a little over 100 years at best. And they've managed two Prime Ministers in that time already. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 20:52:34 GMT
Having worked for women and had them work for me in engineering, my experience is this. I'd say most women probably work a bit harder than their male colleagues, are probably more efficient and tend to do things 'by the book'.
However, it seems to me that when something out of the ordinary happens and the Sh#t hits the fan, their 'by the book' ways let them down and they either don't know how to handle a major situation that requires immediate and decisive action or just panic. And yes, I have seen this and been obliged to step in and rescue situations.
Just my opinion of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 14, 2018 21:00:53 GMT
Agree that, although there are exceptions of course. And men who do it too. IME in business a lot of women have their primary concern as 'Not getting into trouble' and this can colour their judgement especially when a quick decision is needed or a rule or procedure needs to be bent, broken or ignored in order to prevent a worse calamity. Those who are not like that seem to be the ones who rise above junior management.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,108
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Aug 14, 2018 22:39:51 GMT
Having worked for women and had them work for me in engineering, my experience is this. I'd say most women probably work a bit harder than their male colleagues, are probably more efficient and tend to do things 'by the book'. However, it seems to me that when something out of the ordinary happens and the Sh#t hits the fan, their 'by the book' ways let them down and they either don't know how to handle a major situation that requires immediate and decisive action or just panic. And yes, I have seen this and been obliged to step in and rescue situations. Just my opinion of course. I’ve seen huge areas of the public sector where the vast majority of managers were women. I’m generalising but I found lots of them to be irrational, emotional, vindictive and unable to function logically. They often used rules and regulations as weapons against people they disliked, especially other females they were jealous of. The vast majority simply could not or would not separate emotion from logic. They also held grudges and carried resentment forever. I’d say most were unfit for/incapable of handing the roles they were in and I hated dealing with them. In my experience the over-promotion of women into management roles in civil and public services is one of the reasons why they are often dysfunctional. Just my opinion, but it is based on first hand experience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 22:50:17 GMT
Cba arguing about it or debating it but I hate the very notion of positive discrimination. I also hate the lefty liberal nutters who have peddled it and made it part of life today. Yebbut you hate everyone, even children. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 23:03:04 GMT
I actually like women a lot, but in the right scenario. i.e., on the end of my knob! (Sorry, I probably shoudn't say that and I'm sure it's a very wrong attitude, but I'm trying to be honest and it was what was in my mind  ) |
|
)