ohnonotgmail wrote: » explain to me how playing football at the top level translates readily into being able to talk about it intelligently?
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?
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.
sbsquarepants wrote: » I can practically guarantee you that Alex Scott makes a better pundit than Wayne Rooney.
ohnonotgmail wrote: should the barrier not be who is the best at doing the job?
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?
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;))
Ironicname wrote: » Absolutely. But nobody should be given an advantage due to "positive" discrimination or quota filling. That is racist and sexist.
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.
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?
ohnonotgmail wrote: you have not show that to be the case.
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?
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?
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.
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.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » so it is ok to be sexist in favour of men but not ok to be sexist in favour of women?
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.
ohnonotgmail wrote: so it is ok to be sexist in favour of men but not ok to be sexist in favour of women?
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.
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?
lertsnim wrote: » Joanne works off a script.
andekwarhola wrote: » Didn't know that. Sack her immediately.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » How is favouring men in men's sport sexist?
sbsquarepants wrote: Suggesting she could mange to competently discuss his performance seems somewhat less so!
