Token women commentators in men’rt

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

Not every one is. Of course not. But there are more than enough that can. And they should be considered before someone put there because of their vagina and some equality quota.

Here is a great idea. why dont the tv stations make their decision based on the merits of the individuals involved and not their genitalia? On that basis who is Alex scott keeping out of a job?

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

explain to me how playing football at the top level translates readily into being able to talk about it intelligently?

Playing at the top level gives you a unique insight. Now, not every person who has played at the top level will be able to translate their experience into punditry, but a huge amount can.

Nobody has said that every person who has played in the premiership would automatically be a great pundit, you seem to be using that as your argument.

Silentcorner

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

explain to me how playing football at the top level translates readily into being able to talk about it intelligently?

It doesn't readily translate....they are much sought after gigs, most footballers who retire in their mid thirties would love an income stream like punditry, it is competitive to get those gigs, the barrier should be at least the fact that you have played at the highest level....

It's amazing that nobody has pointed out the fact that these token women are on those panels to raise awareness of womens sport, we all know it, they didn't work their way up through radio shows or podcasts...instead, it's about how poor/inarticulate/unintelligent ex professional football men are.

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

Here is a great idea. why dont the tv stations make their decision based on the merits of the individuals involved and not their genitalia? On that basis who is Alex scott keeping out of a job?

I agree with that. Unfortunately television stations dont.

BBC have a diversity quota, ensuring that no panel shows can be all male.

Are you asking me to name every other person who would be better qualified than Alex Scott? That's a ridiculous question.

ohnonotgmail

Silentcorner wrote: »

It doesn't readily translate....they are much sought after gigs, most footballers who retire in their mid thirties would love an income stream like punditry, it is competitive to get those gigs, the barrier should be at least the fact that you have played at the highest level....

It's amazing that nobody has pointed out the fact that these token women are on those panels to raise awareness of womens sport, we all know it, they didn't work their way up through radio shows or podcasts...instead, it's about how poor/inarticulate/unintelligent ex professional football men are.

should the barrier not be who is the best at doing the job?

Deebles McBeebles

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I can practically guarantee you that Alex Scott makes a better pundit than Wayne Rooney.

While true, its a bit like saying she would make a better footballer than Stephen Hawking.

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

should the barrier not be who is the best at doing the job?

Absolutely. But nobody should be given an advantage due to "positive" discrimination or quota filling.

That is racist and sexist.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

sbsquarepants wrote: »

So obvious in fact that it's hard to see!

So what is it then exactly, does oestrogen render them incapable of looking at other people playing a game and comprehending what's going on? Do they just get distracted by their own tits? What?

You do understand there is a difference between actually doing a thing and talking about other people doing it....don't you?

That's why they have their own sport - it's called women's professional football!

I've no problem with Alex Scott being a pundit on women's football... if she was any good at it, I might even tune in to listen to her opinions on the game!

If you're trying to drag me into somehow denigrating women, you'll be waiting next to that fishing rod all day without a bite... I have no intrinsic issue with women. Just women being hired instead of men in MEN'S professional football.

Raconteuse

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

The problem is there shouldn't be any obligation to hire women, in a sport that is only for men. But the PC culture is putting pressure on people, to give equal opportunities to women in a sector of society that is a gender-specific workplace!

Look, I'm not offended when I see a woman talking about men's football... and occasionally you do get someone like Daglish, who is worth her place based on her knowledge! But does she deserve to be there over a man? Not in this industry she doesn't...

Of course people will think I'm sexist for saying that... but I'm not. It's just people's pre-set mentality from how we operate in practically every other area of society!

And the token women being hired, who are clearly just eye-candy in most cases... that's irritating if you are a genuine fan of the sport. (I say that as someone who is very much a fan of women btw;))

Women were hired in the 90s. Nobody gave a sh1t and nobody went on about tokenism.

I couldn't care less if no woman ever gets hired for Sky Sports football again, and I don't think they should feel obliged to hire them, but I'm asking what's wrong with it being done when they know their stuff and deliver well?

There are women who do broadcast training in college and volunteer in every community station they can find, and take minimum wage crappy jobs making tea in local radio and so on until they make it (which is not all of them) and their sole interest is sport. They certainly don't just want to be hired because of their sex. But if they apply for a sports journalism job and get it due to their experience, hard work and qualification, isn't that how it should work?

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

Absolutely. But nobody should be given an advantage due to "positive" discrimination or quota filling.

That is racist and sexist.

you have not show that to be the case.

sbsquarepants

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

If you're trying to drag me into somehow denigrating women, you'll be waiting next to that fishing rod all day without a bite... I have no intrinsic issue with women. Just women being hired instead of men in MEN'S professional football.

If i'm trying to drag you into denigrating women?:D

No, i'm just asking you why you are denigrating women?

Is it just football you have an issue with or is it all sports?

Do you think Katie Taylor could somehow manage to discuss mens boxing even though Tyson Fury could kick her ass?

Raconteuse

If you disagree with people being hired based on their sex (I think most people do) then staying consistent would mean disagreeing with people NOT being hired based on their sex.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Raconteuse wrote: »

Women were hired in the 90s. Nobody gave a sh1t and nobody went on about tokenism.

I couldn't care less if no woman ever gets hired for Sky Sports football again, and I don't think they should feel obliged to hire them, but I'm asking what's wrong with it being done when they know their stuff and deliver well?

There are women who do broadcast training in college and volunteer in every community station they can find, and take minimum wage crappy jobs making tea in local radio and so on until they make it (which is not all of them) and their sole interest is sport. They certainly don't just want to be hired because of their sex. But if they apply for a sports journalism job and get it due to their experience, hard work and qualification, isn't that how it should work?

And why not go into a women's sport, and help to build that sport up and give it exposure?

If they're great at their job, then they would surely be an incredible asset for women's sport?

Again, I don't see why men's professional sport should be under any obligation or pressure to hire women - no matter how qualified you think they are, or how knowledgeable they are!

I would feel the same about women's sport. I would give opportunities to women, over men every time if possible. (Obviously women's sport is still in the growth phase in most cases - so unfortunately it is still necessary for men to help run it right now)

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

you have not show that to be the case.

Probably not to your satisfaction but do you agree that some women in television are given positions based on their sex and quotas that need to be filled rather than their ability?

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

Probably not to your satisfaction but do you agree that some women in television are given positions based on their sex and quotas that need to be filled rather than their ability?

for the women being discussed here i dont think it is the case. They are well able to do the job to the same standard as the men who do it.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If i'm trying to drag you into denigrating women?:D

No, i'm just asking you why you are denigrating women?

Is it just football you have an issue with or is it all sports?

Do you think Katie Taylor could somehow manage to discuss mens boxing even though Tyson Fury could kick her ass?

Where did I denigrate women?

By saying they don't belong in a male only sport? If this was a mixed gender sport, I would have no issue with women being involved in any aspect of the sport... but it's not!

Raconteuse wrote: »

If you disagree with people being hired based on their sex (I think most people do) then staying consistent would mean disagreeing with people NOT being hired based on their sex.

It's different in a gender-specific sport/work-place...

There is nothing wrong with favouring men over women in men's sport. It's not the same as most other areas of life - it's quite a unique scenario.

ohnonotgmail

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Where did I denigrate women?

By saying they don't belong in a male only sport? If this was a mixed gender sport, I would have no issue with women being involved in any aspect of the sport... but it's not!



It's different in a gender-specific sport/work-place...

There is nothing wrong with favouring men over women in men's sport. It's not the same as most other areas of life - it's quite a unique scenario.

so it is ok to be sexist in favour of men but not ok to be sexist in favour of women?

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so it is ok to be sexist in favour of men but not ok to be sexist in favour of women?

How is favouring men in men's sport sexist?

Ironicname

Raconteuse wrote:

If you disagree with people being hired based on their sex (I think most people do) then staying consistent would mean disagreeing with people NOT being hired based on their sex.

Absolutely.

ohnonotgmail wrote:

so it is ok to be sexist in favour of men but not ok to be sexist in favour of women?

No. It's about suitability. Men who have played the sport at the highest level and who are good talkers are vastly more suitable to be a pundit on television programmes regarding their aport than a woman who hasn't played at that level.

FunLover18

Ironicname wrote: »

Absolutely. But nobody should be given an advantage due to "positive" discrimination or quota filling.

That is racist and sexist.

Instead they should be at a disadvantage because of their gender? No one has yet identified this mythical insight that only men who have played at the top level have? What about either on the premier league games yesterday would Alex Scott have not been able to analyse properly because she hasn't played at a high enough standard in her career?

andekwarhola

From an Irish perspective, I've never had any issue with the contributions of people like Ruth Fahy, Joanne Cantwell or Marie Crowe to domestic football media.

lertsnim

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.

Joanne works off a script.

Ironicname

FunLover18 wrote:

Instead they should be at a disadvantage because of their gender? No one has yet identified this mythical insight that only men who have played at the top level have? What about either on the premier league games yesterday would Alex Scott have not been able to analyse properly because she hasn't played at a high enough standard in her career?

Jesus. No.

They shouldn't be given priority over men which is the case in television at the moment.

If you think that it's "mythical" that people who have experience at the top level of the sport would have a specific insight which would be valuable and interesting to viewers, then you are being willfully disingenuous.

Alex Scott may be knowledgeable but so are plenty of bar stool analysts.

andekwarhola

lertsnim wrote: »

Joanne works off a script.

Didn't know that. Sack her immediately.

lertsnim

andekwarhola wrote: »

Didn't know that. Sack her immediately.

I wouldn't sack her. Your response is not proportional at all.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Ironicname wrote: »

No. It's about suitability. Men who have played the sport at the highest level and who are good talkers are vastly more suitable to be a pundit on television programmes regarding their aport than a woman who hasn't played at that level.

It is this, yes.

But surely it is also sexism against men, when you hire a woman over a man in men's football... especially when the likely reason is to fill a quota?

I don't even really agree with positive discrimination out in mainstream society... I think it's demeaning to women in many cases tbh. But to do it in a male-only gender specific sport?

It's tough enough getting a job in professional football... without also being discriminated against because you don't have a vagina! (Sorry we've reached our male quota - better luck next time!:p)

FunLover18

Ironicname wrote: »

Jesus. No.

They shouldn't be given priority over men which is the case in television at the moment.

If you think that it's "mythical" that people who have experience at the top level of the sport would have a specific insight which would be valuable and interesting to viewers, then you are being willfully disingenuous.

Alex Scott may be knowledgeable but so are plenty of bar stool analysts.

She has over 100 international caps and she has several league titles with Arsenal, she's played at the highest level of women's football, the standard may be different, you're the one being willfully disingenuous by comparing that to a bar stool analyst. You handily called it a specific insight without being specific at all, what insight can she not offer?

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

FunLover18 wrote: »

She has over 100 international caps and she has several league titles with Arsenal, she's played at the highest level of women's football, the standard may be different, you're the one being willfully disingenuous by comparing that to a bar stool analyst. You handily called it a specific insight without being specific at all, what insight can she not offer?

I don't know if you watch the sport?

Her insight on the game isn't anything special imho. She has very mundane and bang average opinions on most things! (She also talks in cliches, like many people tbf)

But if you think she is such a great asset as a pundit, why not devote those skills in the women's game... the game she played as a pro? She's not really needed in the men's game, but perhaps she could be a major asset to the women's game?

Just a suggestion!

Ironicname

FunLover18 wrote:

She has over 100 international caps and she has several league titles with Arsenal, she's played at the highest level of women's football, the standard may be different, you're the one being willfully disingenuous by comparing that to a bar stool analyst. You handily called it a specific insight without being specific at all, what insight can she not offer?

She has no idea what it is like to play football at the elite men's level. She has an abundance of experience in women's football but while the rules are the same, the game is completely different regarding the pressure, the crowd, the expectations on players, how they deal with it etc.

Women's football is wildly inferior to men's football and they are miles apart in terms of skill, pressure and tactics.

sbsquarepants

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

How is favouring men in men's sport sexist?

It's not.

Punditry however is not a mens sport, it's just talking on the telly.

Suggesting she could actually replace Trent Alexander Arnold would be fairly silly.

Suggesting she could mange to competently discuss his performance seems somewhat less so!