Reasons feminism is still relevant READ OP BEFORE POSTING

kylith · 02-12-2014 10:00AM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I can understand why you personally might find it distasteful but what is the link between that and feminism being relevant?

You really don't see anything sexist about "Sure, you can play the sport if you want, as long as you do it with your tits hanging out"? I don't see men being expected to play AF in a jockstrap.

Rosy Posy · 02-12-2014 10:08AM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Again, I can understand that but feminism is about choice and if some women willing participate in that sport, then so be it. Some women may not like it but the mantra "my body, my choice" still applies.

About the surfers, it sucks and there is no quick fix solution for that.

The fact that the league was originally conceived by a man for an audience of 'mostly beer drinking college students of 21 and up', and that some players have complained that the mandatory uniforms are actually a safety hazard makes it seem to me like it's less a case of empowerment than a case of 'if you want to participate in televised professional sport you're going to have to do it in a bra and knickers'. I agree that these women shouldn't be judged for their apparel or forced to cover up to meet some imaginary standard of feminism- hell, my sport of choice is roller derby and I'm down with fishnets and booty shorts, but IMHO the tone of the LFL is totally different- voyeuristic and degrading.

LenaClaire · 02-12-2014 10:10AM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Again, I can understand that but feminism is about choice and if some women willing participate in that sport, then so be it. Some women may not like it but the mantra "my body, my choice" still applies.

About the surfers, it sucks and there is no quick fix solution for that.

If women had the choice between playing football with clothes and football without clothes for a paying job (not saying they have to pay the same, just enough to be part time job even) then I would consider that okay.

However, if you are female, and want to get paid to play football, your only option is to play in a bra and underwear.

DoYouEvenLift · 02-12-2014 10:19AM

Rosy Posy wrote: »

For me, anyway, it's making a mockery of women in sport. To my mind, the statement it's making is that women's primary function is to look good and have their bodies on show, rather than women's sport being about what they can do with their bodies. It's insulting to women who want to be taken seriously as athletes.

I've heard similar criticisms from female pro surfers who apparently get pressured to surf in bikinis rather than wetsuits. Also sponsorship deals tend to go to more attractive female surfers whereas sponsorship deals for male surfers tend to be awarded on the merit of their surfing skill.

Some of the top female surfers could just show up in wetsuits on the day of a competition and then encourage the rest to followfollow in the future? Since they're the top surfers and already have the skills and sponsorships behind them they could be the ones to change it, especially if the rest backed them...if suddenly they lost their sponsorship deals etc. and those deals went to surfers who still wore bikinis then they could show that it's all rigged.

Rosy Posy wrote: »

The fact that the league was originally conceived by a man for an audience of 'mostly beer drinking college students of 21 and up', and that some players have complained that the mandatory uniforms are actually a safety hazard makes it seem to me like it's less a case of empowerment than a case of 'if you want to participate in televised professional sport you're going to have to do it in a bra and knickers'. I agree that these women shouldn't be judged for their apparel or forced to cover up to meet some imaginary standard of feminism- hell, my sport of choice is roller derby and I'm down with fishnets and booty shorts, but IMHO the tone of the LFL is totally different- voyeuristic and degrading.

Why don't all the players refuse and stop playing in that league and assemble their own? Over time, if the league is considered good by spectators, it will grow supporters and followers and they'll be able to use it as leverage to get televised and grow even more and then players will get paid. Similar to women's GAA here in Ireland which is now really picking up.

Rosy Posy · 02-12-2014 10:37AM

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Some of the top female surfers could just show up in wetsuits on the day of a competition and then encourage the rest to followfollow in the future? Since they're the top surfers and already have the skills and sponsorships behind them they could be the ones to change it, especially if the rest backed them...if suddenly they lost their sponsorship deals etc. and those deals went to surfers who still wore bikinis then they could show that it's all rigged.

Why don't all the players refuse and stop playing in that league and assemble their own? Over time, if the league is considered good by spectators, it will grow supporters and followers and they'll be able to use it as leverage to get televised and grow even more. Similar to women's GAA here in Ireland which is now really picking up.

Sadly the answer afaics is money. The big surf brands sponsor these women- the sponsorship deal is, in essence, wear what we tell you. If they renege on the deal they don't get paid and have to give up on the dream of pro surfing.

Women in the LFL have been fined for wearing non uniform clothing, even when it's protective. The sad fact is that as a televised professional sport there's no other option for women atm. There are plenty of regular women's football leagues but no one is interested in marketing it for TV and therefore making it a paying thing unless they're in their knickers. I do think that there are some women working from within the league to reform it and hope that once it becomes popular people may begin appreciating it for the athleticism and they can gradually introduce more practical uniforms. I still think that it's a sad indicator of women's position in society that this has to happen in such a roundabout way.

iwantmydinner · 02-12-2014 10:59AM

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Some of the top female surfers could just show up in wetsuits on the day of a competition and then encourage the rest to followfollow in the future? Since they're the top surfers and already have the skills and sponsorships behind them they could be the ones to change it, especially if the rest backed them...if suddenly they lost their sponsorship deals etc. and those deals went to surfers who still wore bikinis then they could show that it's all rigged.

Why don't all the players refuse and stop playing in that league and assemble their own? Over time, if the league is considered good by spectators, it will grow supporters and followers and they'll be able to use it as leverage to get televised and grow even more and then players will get paid. Similar to women's GAA here in Ireland which is now really picking up.

If those thing worked, the women would be doing them. Seriously, give them some credit.

Neyite · 02-12-2014 11:16AM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

If those thing worked, the women would be doing them. Seriously, give them some credit.

I agree. Wasn't Katie Taylor (and another American boxer who's name I forget) at risk of not being allowed to compete in the Olympics because they refused to wear a skirt in the ring? They (the committee) backed down, but only just, and at the last minute too, and they took an awful risk to stand by their principles.

Its kinda hard to stick your head above the parapet as a woman in sport or showbiz (Jessica Ennis / Emma Watson) because unfortunately, death and rape threats seem to quickly follow.

And why should they have to fight to wear the correct clothing for their sport? Why cant they just be allowed to concentrate on competing?

iwantmydinner · 02-12-2014 11:29AM

Neyite wrote: »

I agree. Wasn't Katie Taylor (and another American boxer who's name I forget) at risk of not being allowed to compete in the Olympics because they refused to wear a skirt in the ring? They (the committee) backed down, but only just, and at the last minute too, and they took an awful risk to stand by their principles.

Its kinda hard to stick your head above the parapet as a woman in sport or showbiz (Jessica Ennis / Emma Watson) because unfortunately, death and rape threats seem to quickly follow.

And why should they have to fight to wear the correct clothing for their sport? Why cant they just be allowed to concentrate on competing?

Sure shouldn't they just be grateful they're being allowed compete?

GarIT · 02-12-2014 11:36AM

If the women have a problem with the bikini football league why don't they play in the numerous other female leagues? These women are choosing to play in their underwear by choice. If the players and the fans are happy I don't see a problem. Nobody has been forced to participate, the Katie Taylor example shouldn't have happened but if people are paid to show up in bikinis they have a choice of taking the money or not.

There are many benefits to this too. It brings in extra fans and sponsorship that wouldn't otherwise exist. The example was given that other women's football isn't televised, this shows that there isn't a market for women's exclusive sports to be aired on tv, if there was an audience it would be aired. Allowing the women compete in their underwear creates an audience that wouldn't otherwise exist.

There are plenty of similar examples in men too. Most F1 drivers make money off appearance based sponsorships.

On another note I think segregation in sports is wrong, there should be no separate men's or women's sports/leagues.

Neyite · 02-12-2014 11:44AM

GarIT wrote: »

If the women have a problem with the bikini football league why don't they play in the numerous other female leagues? These women are choosing to play in their underwear by choice. If the players and the fans are happy I don't see a problem. Nobody has been forced to participate, the Katie Taylor example shouldn't have happened but if people are paid to show up in bikinis they have a choice of taking the money or not.

There are many benefits to this too. It brings in extra fans and sponsorship that wouldn't otherwise exist.

There are plenty of similar examples in men too. Most F1 drivers make money off appearance based sponsorships.

But nobody is forcing F1 drivers to compete in Speedos in exchange for money. Sports stars depend on sponsorship deals to earn in their career. If we said to Lewis Hamilton, "here, you only get your money, if you wear this thong, when competing, if you don't like it, do go-karting or something. Dont expect to compete at the top level of your career unless you do it practically naked every time we say so" there would be uproar from followers of the sport.

GarIT · 02-12-2014 11:52AM

Neyite wrote: »

But nobody is forcing F1 drivers to compete in Speedos in exchange for money. Sports stars depend on sponsorship deals to earn in their career. If we said to Lewis Hamilton, "here, you only get your money, if you wear this thong, when competing, if you don't like it, do go-karting or something. Dont expect to compete at the top level of your career unless you do it practically naked every time we say so" there would be uproar from followers of the sport.

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.

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.

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.

Paddy Cow · 02-12-2014 11:58AM

kylith wrote: »

You really don't see anything sexist about "Sure, you can play the sport if you want, as long as you do it with your tits hanging out"? I don't see men being expected to play AF in a jockstrap.

Rosy Posy wrote: »

The fact that the league was originally conceived by a man for an audience of 'mostly beer drinking college students of 21 and up', and that some players have complained that the mandatory uniforms are actually a safety hazard makes it seem to me like it's less a case of empowerment than a case of 'if you want to participate in televised professional sport you're going to have to do it in a bra and knickers'. I agree that these women shouldn't be judged for their apparel or forced to cover up to meet some imaginary standard of feminism- hell, my sport of choice is roller derby and I'm down with fishnets and booty shorts, but IMHO the tone of the LFL is totally different- voyeuristic and degrading.

LenaClaire wrote: »

If women had the choice between playing football with clothes and football without clothes for a paying job (not saying they have to pay the same, just enough to be part time job even) then I would consider that okay.

However, if you are female, and want to get paid to play football, your only option is to play in a bra and underwear.

No body is forcing these women to play and it's not their only career option in life. It's not something I would do or watch, however I wouldn't judge anyone who chooses to participate. They could refuse to play, band together and form their own league, which would receive a lot less attention and they could dress however they like. However, they want to be on telly and are willing to dress like that to do so. That is their choice.

Plenty of women use their bodies to further their careers - pop stars, actors, porn stars, models etc. If you enter a career knowing full well that your body is going to be a big selling point, then you can't claim it's sexist. It would be like entering an academic career and then claiming their is too much pressure to be academic and it's elitist.

Just to add, there are also pop stars and actors who don't "flaunt" their sexuality, so it is possible to have a career without doing it. You may not agree with me but I think feminism has given women the choice to use their sexuality in their careers if they wish. Like I've said, it's not something I'd do but each to their own.

kylith · 02-12-2014 12:07PM

GarIT wrote: »

There are many benefits to this too. It brings in extra fans and sponsorship that wouldn't otherwise exist. The example was given that other women's football isn't televised, this shows that there isn't a market for women's exclusive sports to be aired on tv, if there was an audience it would be aired. Allowing the women compete in their underwear creates an audience that wouldn't otherwise exist.

You make it sound like these women have begged to be permitted to play it their underwear.

Do you really see nothing wrong with people having so little respect for female athletes that the sport can't even get shown on telly unless the women are all but naked?

Your post reeks of 'This isn't a problem because men like to see women run around with their jubblies wobbling'.

GarIT wrote: »

There are plenty of similar examples in men too. Most F1 drivers make money off appearance based sponsorships.

The difference there is that men's appearance based sponsorships depend on them appearing at events, whereas women's sponsorships depend on what they look like.

DoYouEvenLift · 02-12-2014 12:09PM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

If those thing worked, the women would be doing them. Seriously, give them some credit.

But have they even tried, and if so what did they do and how far did they take it? If all of them refused to put up with the demands and stopped playing completely for even just a couple of seasons then the people marketing it would be losing out on the money made from it and would have no choice but to either let it die out altogether or negotiate with the players and from there, once they have some leverage, could negotiate further over time...but the hardest part of doing this, I can imagine, would be the fact they'd more than likely all be replaceable by other women willing to put up with it for the money just like all other sports and forms of entertainment.

GarIT wrote: »

If the women have a problem with the bikini football league why don't they play in the numerous other female leagues? These women are choosing to play in their underwear by choice. If the players and the fans are happy I don't see a problem. Nobody has been forced to participate, the Katie Taylor example shouldn't have happened but if people are paid to show up in bikinis they have a choice of taking the money or not.

There are many benefits to this too. It brings in extra fans and sponsorship that wouldn't otherwise exist. The example was given that other women's football isn't televised, this shows that there isn't a market for women's exclusive sports to be aired on tv, if there was an audience it would be aired. Allowing the women compete in their underwear creates an audience that wouldn't otherwise exist.

There are plenty of similar examples in men too. Most F1 drivers make money off appearance based sponsorships.

On another note I think segregation in sports is wrong, there should be no separate men's or women's sports/leagues.

Dunno about that but would be interesting to see it done at least experimentally. In sports like golf, baseball etc. maybe but I don't really think that women could compete against men in contact sports like rugby and American football without genuine physical health and safety concerns.

kylith · 02-12-2014 12:10PM

GarIT 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.

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.

Jensen Button propping up his career with a modelling contract does not compare to women being unable to participate in some sports at a professional level unless they wear nothing but a bra and knickers. Come back to me when Beckham et al aren't allowed on a pitch if they're not wearing a posing pouch and we can talk.

GarIT · 02-12-2014 12:17PM

kylith wrote: »

Jensen Button propping up his career with a modelling contract does not compare to women being unable to participate in some sports at a professional level unless they wear nothing but a bra and knickers. Come back to me when Beckham et al aren't allowed on a pitch if they're not wearing a posing pouch and we can talk.

There has been one example where a woman wasn't allowed compete based on their appearance. The other examples were loosing sponsorship. As I said I agree if a woman isn't allowed compete that is wrong, but if a woman is offered sponsorship based on what she wears she has a choice whether or not to take it so that's fine.

If clothed women's football isn't being shown on tv there is clearly a reason for it, the tv networks will show whatever will make them money. If the tv stations wont show it, their must be a lack of people following the sport, which could be a result of many reasons but most likely one of these, either the skill level isn't up to the same standard of the men's leagues or the league is being badly marketed, which would be the leagues own fault.

I wouldn't say Button is propping up his career, his career depends on it, he wouldn't be allowed drive if he wasn't bringing in the Japanese sponsorship.

iwantmydinner · 02-12-2014 12:20PM

Oh my god, it's almost as if another thread on feminism and the problems experienced by women in male-dominated spheres has been overtaken by men explaining the "solutions" to us nice and slowly. Almost.

DoYouEvenLift · 02-12-2014 12:24PM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Oh my god, it's almost as if another thread on feminism and the problems experienced by women in male-dominated spheres has been overtaken by men explaining the "solutions" to us nice and slowly. Almost.

Only women can provide and discuss possible solutions to problems experienced by women. Got it!

GarIT · 02-12-2014 12:26PM

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Dunno about that but would be interesting to see it done at least experimentally. In sports like golf, baseball etc. maybe but I don't really think that women could compete against men in contact sports like rugby and American football without genuine physical health and safety concerns.

This is an interesting point, as you say the women often aren't physically capable of competing with men. Maybe this is a root cause of why they are not getting sponsored for their skill level, maybe it just isn't up there with their male counterparts, so they therefore don't get sponsored for there skill.

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.

jaja321 · 02-12-2014 12:29PM

GarIT wrote: »

There are many benefits to this too. It brings in extra fans and sponsorship that wouldn't otherwise exist. The example was given that other women's football isn't televised, this shows that there isn't a market for women's exclusive sports to be aired on tv, if there was an audience it would be aired. Allowing the women compete in their underwear creates an audience that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Has it been tried?

DoYouEvenLift · 02-12-2014 12:31PM

GarIT wrote: »

This is an interesting point, as you,say the women often aren't physically capable of competing with men. Maybe this is a root cause of why they are not getting sponsored for their skill level, maybe it just isn't up there with their mail counterparts, so they therefore don't get sponsored for there skill.

If they can't compete with men they obviously don't deserve the same sponsorship or attention/tv time as men.

Just can't imagine there are many women who would be able to compete against men in a sport where lots of them are like this

Paul+O+Connell.jpg

iwantmydinner · 02-12-2014 12:31PM

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Only women can provide and discuss possible solutions to problems experienced by women. Got it!

Is that the sound of my point sailing right over your head?! Yes, yes it is.

GarIT · 02-12-2014 12:33PM

jaja321 wrote: »

Has it been tried?

Women's soccer was shown on RTE for a while but was scrapped because nobody watched it, they still show the occasional international game. Sky tried showing the women's premier league but that was cancelled due to no interest too.

I've no idea about American football or American tv. I'm sure it has been considered though and if it's not shown it must have been found to not be viable.

GarIT · 02-12-2014 12:35PM

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Just can't imagine there are many women who would be able to compete against men in a sport where lots of them are like this

Nothing stopping the women getting up to a professional level of competing. Rugby is a physically demanding sport, if you don't have the physical prowess and muscle mass you just can't compete to the same level and therefore shouldn't get sponsored.

DoYouEvenLift · 02-12-2014 12:37PM

GarIT wrote: »

Women's soccer was shown on RTE for a while but was scrapped because nobody watched it, they still show the occasional international game. Sky tried showing the women's premier league but that was cancelled due to no interest too.

I've no idea about American football or American tv. I'm sure it has been considered though and if it's not shown it must have been found to not be viable.

Women's GAA, which would kind of be most relevant to Irish, has a large fan base now and the finals are shown on TV. Women's rugby is also growing, the reception for the Irish team was stronger than ever this year.

GarIT · 02-12-2014 12:38PM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Is that the sound of my point sailing right over your head?! Yes, yes it is.

To be fair your point wasn't well made, I thought the same too. To me it reads that you think men shouldn't be allowed discuss/debate/explain their opinions here.

kylith · 02-12-2014 12:38PM

GarIT wrote: »

This is an interesting point, as you say the women often aren't physically capable of competing with men. Maybe this is a root cause of why they are not getting sponsored for their skill level, maybe it just isn't up there with their male counterparts, so they therefore don't get sponsored for there skill.

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.

"If you can't physically compete with a man you don't deserve sponsorship and to play the sport you love at professional level".

So, women should give up any thoughts of being professional athletes and go back to flower arranging, baking cakes, and having babies?

GarIT · 02-12-2014 12:39PM

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Women's GAA, which would kind of be most relevant to Irish, has a large fan base now and the finals are shown on TV. Women's rugby is also growing, the reception for the Irish team was stronger than ever this year.

Yep, its great isn't it, so that's two sports where this discussion isn't relevant.

jaja321 · 02-12-2014 12:41PM

GarIT wrote: »

Women's soccer was shown on RTE for a while but was scrapped because nobody watched it, they still show the occasional international game. Sky tried showing the women's premier league but that was cancelled due to no interest too.

I've no idea about American football or American tv. I'm sure it has been considered though and if it's not shown it must have been found to not be viable.

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.

GarIT · 02-12-2014 12:42PM

kylith wrote: »

"If you can't physically compete with a man you don't deserve sponsorship and to play the sport you love at professional level".

So, women should give up any thoughts of being professional athletes and go back to flower arranging, baking cakes, and having babies?

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.

Reasons feminism is still relevant *READ OP BEFORE POSTING*

Comments

Reasons feminism is still relevant READ OP BEFORE POSTING