nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Strumms

cjmc wrote: »

Because the level Alex Scott played for 10years is still far far short/different from the professional men's game

but, in fairness look how many male commentators and pundits have forged successful and respected careers for years, commentating on world cups, premier league and major international tournaments without ever having graced those lofty echelons of the game themselves yet they still manage to color, inform and indeed entertain... Mark Bright no international caps can be seen for instance informing and informed on football from internationals down...

FunLover18

Blueshoe wrote: »

More than 10 years in the game. To be honest iv never heard of her. She might have been at the top of her level but that's on a par with sky sports hiring a pundit who played national League 3 for half a season on loan from a club in Gibraltar.

It's just tokenism. Clearly. But that's the way it is now. Hopefully there is no pay gap between her and Gary lineker

Ok but without belittling her career, where does she fall short from a punditry perspective?

anewme

Ironicname wrote: »

You didn't.

I'll ask again, are you in favour of "positive" discrimination?

I answered already on the topic at hand and quality of punditry. Take it or leave it.

Or maybe focus on the people who think women are best suited to shopping, embroidery and nagging, rather than making excuses fir them. These ingrained beliefs are the ones which need to be challenged at source in order to create a level playing field.

Ironicname

anewme wrote:

I answered already on the topic at hand and quality of punditry. Take it or leave it.

No you didn't. But you are unwilling to answer so I will leave it.

anewme wrote:

Or maybe focus on the people who think women are best suited to shopping, embroidery and nagging. These beliefs are the ones which need to be challenged at source in order to create a level playing field.

Stereotypes exist for both men and women and again, it's for a reason. Usually because they are activities that are USUALLY favoured by a specific sex. The MAJORITY of football players/supporters are male. That doesn't mean that some women don't like it. My daughter likes football but out of her whole class, she is the only one. The majority of women would be more interested in shopping than football. That isn't sexist.

What level playing field are you looking for? What laws or opportunities are not afforded to women that are to men?

Are you saying you want people to not acknowledge that females and males are different?

In fairness, you are doing little to disprove the nagging aspect. (Joke)

anewme

Ironicname wrote: »

No you didn't. But you are unwilling to answer so I will leave it.

Stereotypes exist for both men and women and again, it's for a reason. Usually because they are activities that are USUALLY favoured by a specific sex. The MAJORITY of football players/supporters are male. That doesn't mean that some women don't like it. My daughter likes football but out of her whole class, she is the only one. The majority of women would be more interested in shopping than football. That isn't sexist.

What level playing field are you looking for? What laws or opportunities are not afforded to women that are to men?

Are you saying you want people to not acknowledge that females and males are different?

In fairness, you are doing little to disprove the nagging aspect. (Joke)

Ive zero interest in shopping or football. You don"t have to pick either. It's not Daddy or Chips.

I've zero interest in nagging (joke or otherwise).

Stereotypes should be broken down. They dont add value.

Women are perfectly comfortable and competent to do the job of any of their male counterparts should they wish to do so. Spreading hate such as they sound like fishwives is done by those who feel threatened by a confident, competent woman. The majority of people( men or women) have no issue with this.

ArnoldJRimmer

If we're going to go down the road of people having to have played the game to a top level to be taken seriously in punditry, I'm interested to hear what relevance playing second division football for Millwall in the late 1960's has to the modern game. Or playing with Meath in the 1980's, on a team which contained a free taker who allegedly smoked 40 a day.

While there is a vast chasm in quality between womens and mens sports in a lot of cases, a recently retired camogie player is going to have more insight into modern coaching methods and tactics than some auld lad going on about a team needing 'more passion and hunger in the second half.'

Some female analysts are good, some not so much, but unless they question them about the various penis sizes of their team-mates, they are probably able to discuss the game at hand.

Ironicname

anewme wrote:

Women are perfectly comfortable and competent to do the job of any of their male counterparts should they wish to do so. Spreading hate such as they sound like fishwives is done by those who feel threatened by a confident, competent woman. The majority of people( men or women) have no issue with this.

The majority of women aren't comfortable or competent enough to do the job of the majority of men over various industries/jobs. And vice versa. Certain roles tend to suit a specific sex. Sure, everyone should be afforded the opportunity to interview for any position but they should not be given any favouritism for the sake of inclusivity or equality. THAT is sexism.

anewme

Ironicname wrote: »

The majority of women aren't comfortable or competent enough to do the job of the majority of men over various industries/jobs. And vice versa. Certain roles tend to suit a specific sex. Sure, everyone should be afforded the opportunity to interview for any position but they should not be given any favouritism for the sake of inclusivity or equality. THAT is sexism.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'certain roles tend to suit a specific sex."

Discrimination on the grounds of sex is illegal.

Ironicname

anewme wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'certain roles suit a specific sex.

As an example, men generally are more suited to manual labour due to the fact they are typically genetically stronger.

anewme wrote:

Discrimination on the grounds of sex is illegal.

I know. So what level playing field are you talking about? There are laws to ensure that there is a level playing field.

The Orb

FunLover18 wrote: »

But again I'll ask what I asked a previous poster, what aspect of the men's game would someone like Alex Scott struggle to comprehend? Where is she lacking in analytical ability?

I didn't talk about Alex Scott or her's or any other female pundit's comprehension or lack of. I did mention that comprehension or knowledge of the theory is not enough. My point is that the women panellists are tokens, they may comprehend the game but never ever played at anything approaching the level of the men. It's the same with rugby. I'm all for women playing rugby if they want, but the standard is frankly brutal and nothing like the men's game and in the interests of equality we have to pretend that it's a good watch. Give me a break.

StupidLikeAFox

Ironicname wrote: »

As an example, men generally are more suited to manual labour due to the fact they are typically genetically stronger.

That's a physical trait and has nothing to do with someone's ability to talk ****e about football

Ironicname

StupidLikeAFox wrote:

That's a physical trait and has nothing to do with someone's ability to talk ****e about football

I am aware of that. It was to clarify a statement that someone else did not understand. Wasn't directly related to the op.

Look, having a female footballer on television to talk about male football is hardly an affront and isn't a huge deal, but it does smack of tokenism and sexism.

It's a shame as I'm sure there are some women who would be a great fit and bring some great points to a discussion, but the whole "insisting that women are represented in every show" policy has (sometimes unfairly) made a lot of women mere tokens rather than worthwhile contributers.

A man or a woman shouldn't be given a job just to pander to any type of inclusive or progressive social movement. It's demeaning.

Just like the BBC having the "must be at least 1 female on a panel show" policy, that is sexism and insulting.

StupidLikeAFox

But why are you assuming that the women are there due to tokenism? You say you would be happy to have a woman talking ****e about sport on merit, maybe they are?

[Deleted User]

Women should be on womens sports, men should be on mens. It’s not that difficult.

chopperbyrne

They have Clinton Morisson on Soccer Saturday now. My four year old daughter would do a better job.

Bowlardo

chopperbyrne wrote: »

They have Clinton Morisson on Soccer Saturday now. My four year old daughter would do a better job.

Hold up there son. Clinton is one of our own

JRant

Raconteuse wrote: »

I think it would be worth drilling it down a bit - and considering that maybe it's not tokenism in all cases.

You'd turn it off just because members of your own sex are among the pundits? Bit extreme.

Also your bit about ability contradicts the previous bit about "no matter how knowledgeable they may be". If they are knowledgeable and able to deliver well on TV, isn't that the ability bit covered?

Joanne Cantwell and Jacqui Hurley are very knowledgeable about GAA I believe, so what's the problem in their cases?

I like Jacqui, she's an excellent sports analyst. Cantwell, I can't really warm too. She is far too abrasive for the anchor role on the Sunday game.

Brian?

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!!!

Some of the greatest managers ever never played at the top of the game. Mourinho got his start as an interpreter.

If they have a great knowledge of the game, let them at it.

Every female pundit I've seen on RTE is better than Ray Houghton and Jim Beglin.

My 7 year old son would make a better pundit than most of the line up on BBC.

Brian?

chopperbyrne wrote: »

They have Clinton Morisson on Soccer Saturday now. My four year old daughter would do a better job.

I saw him a few weeks ago. He's wooojus.

Dyr

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.

Cantwell is absolutely brutal and always was brutal.

I don't want to hear a camogie player giving me their opinion on a hurling match any more than I want to hear a minor hurler or some lad who last played when the sunday game was in black and white

RTE is absolutely woeful at this stuff and the fact they thought the biggest change they needed to make was have some mná na héireann on panels tells you why they're woeful

Dyr

anewme wrote: »

I answered in my post if you read it.

A pundits job is to engage the public.

Do you work for RTE?

Pundits should understand whats going on out on the pitch to a greater degree than the viewer and be able to explain. The big drawback with watching stuff on telly is you literally dont see the bigger picture, you dont see whats happening outside the cameras field. Good pundits fill that void and can point out things the average joe doesnt understand.

Brian?

Ironicname wrote: »

Competing at that level. There are countless more men that have played at the level she hasn't and she would be included purely for "progressive" reasons ahead of those men. She would be exceptionally qualified to speak about women's football.

The pundits I see that have played at that level are generally muck at being pundits.

I can't think of one pundit (Brian Kerr aside)I genuinely enjoy listening to anymore. There's a few I can tolerate because they speak their minds. Mostly it's bland nonsense.

Give me an intelligent woman with a point to make over some numpty who used to play for Spurs ant day .

Brian?

Bambi wrote: »

Do you work for RTE?

Pundits should understand whats going on out on the pitch to a greater degree than the viewer and be able to explain. The big drawback with watching stuff on telly is you literally dont see the bigger picture, you dont see whats happening outside the cameras field. Good pundits fill that void and can point out things the average joe doesnt understand.

I haven't seen a pundit do that in years. All they do these days is talk about refereeing decisions or whether the team selection was right.

greenspurs

Soccer republic - Siobhan Madigan does voice over on some of the matches, but for some reason she 'pretends' to be there live.
All the other voice over/commentators, do the 'normal' way of commentating on a edited piece, but for some reason , she does it as if whats going to happen is a surprise to her.
Its annoying, because I do like her as a broadcaster and presenter...

Silentcorner

Brian? wrote: »

Some of the greatest managers ever never played at the top of the game. Mourinho got his start as an interpreter.

If they have a great knowledge of the game, let them at it.

Every female pundit I've seen on RTE is better than Ray Houghton and Jim Beglin.

My 7 year old son would make a better pundit than most of the line up on BBC.

Stunning and brave!!!!

Right...this is just about appearing virtuous to the like's of you I see....

El_Duderino 09

The snooker coverage and commentary is very variable. It's almost all former pros with some current players who are knocked out early in tournaments.

The only woman pundit it Reane Evans (best ever woman snooker player by a long way) and she has interesting views but is a complete personality vacuum. With that said, the other pros on Quest are Jimmy white, Ronnie o Sullivan and Neil Foulds and they are all terrible. Genuinely terrible. Ronnie and Jimmy are massive names and are or were top pros. But they can't talk about the sport for toffee.

I think that simply being the very best isn't enough. They also need to be able to talk about it.

There was a similar thread about Ronan O Gara analysing he rugby. He's a current professional head coach of a top tier French club. He has all the knowledge and insights but he isn't good at the TV side of analysis.

I know some people love the men vs women aspect, but actually it's about having people with the golden combination of both the knowledge and insights AND can chat about it on TV.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

People quite often forget, that punditry is used by ex-players to get their face on TV with a view to getting employment opportunities... (In fact, this is pretty much the only reason why we're seeing so much of Roy Keane's grumpy mug with such frequency!:P)

Now, while you might not care if some rich ex-player gets a managerial job or not... this is MEN'S sport, so they do have the right to become pundits with this motivation in mind. But if some token woman is taking up a seat as one of these pundits, this will have an impact on some of these ex-players and whether or not they will be successful in becoming a manager or coach in the future!

And what is it really motivated by anyway? So a few self-hating soyboy men can score some PC brownie points, and feel all sophisticated and ultra-progressive around their equally deluded brain-dead buddies on the golf course! These women are merely pawns in their pointless little game!

Jim Root

can't turn on sports tv these days without seeing Alex scott.

Brian?

Silentcorner wrote: »

Stunning and brave!!!!

Right...this is just about appearing virtuous to the like's of you I see....

No. It’s about an intense dislike for Ray and Jim.

[Deleted User]

Jim Root wrote: »

can't turn on sports tv these days without seeing Alex scott.

And long may it continue.