'Is it anti-feminist to watch the World Cup?'

[PorkChop]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... men-sexism

I think this is a horrible article.

Men's football is loved in Britain simply because the players are men, and men like watching other men play football, and what men like to do and like to watch is, de facto, culturally important.

No, it's because men's football is vastly superior to women's football. If women's football was better, it would receive much more exposure than it does. Even international women's football is at a Conference standard at best. I'd love to see a world where women's football is as exciting as men's football, but that's just not the world we live in.

The author of this article is a buffoon.

[Daz]

"Men's football is loved in Britain simply because the players are men, and men like watching other men play football, and what men like to do and like to watch is, de facto, culturally important."

I also adore musicals and the theatre cause I'm a complex individual with a wide range of interests, that aren't defined by my gender. It's bollocks like this that give real feminists and bad name.

[saucernips]

God I fucking hate feminists.

Let's preach about equality whilst segregating an entire gender. Sluts.

[Hanley!]

No, it's because men's football is vastly superior to women's football. If women's football was better, it would receive much more exposure than it does.

Not defending the article in general, but I think this comment is probably a bit naive. It's not just about the quality. If women's football became more entertaining than men's football consistently for the next several years, how long do you think it would take for it to become even nearly as important or popular? Would it even happen?

I can't personally comment on how entertaining different variations of football are, because it's the one sport where I'd rather watch school kids play it than the professionals.

[PorkChop]

No, it's because men's football is vastly superior to women's football. If women's football was better, it would receive much more exposure than it does.

Not defending the article in general, but I think this comment is probably a bit naive. It's not just about the quality. If women's football became more entertaining than men's football consistently for the next several years, how long do you think it would take for it to become even nearly as important or popular? Would it even happen?

I can't personally comment on how entertaining different variations of football are, because it's the one sport where I'd rather watch school kids play it than the professionals.

If overnight, women's football became as skilled as men's, I genuinely don't think it would take long for it to become nearly as popular.

Compare it to pro wrestling. People criticise women's wrestling not because they're women, but because a vast majority of them aren't very good. If women's wrestling suddenly became as consistently entertaining as men's wrestling, people would tune in. People watch wrestling to be entertained, regardless of the gender of the entertainer. This is how I personally feel about football - if we had a female Cristine Ronaldo or Lucy Messi, I'd watch it because I'd be entertained. I wouldn't refuse to because they're women, like the author suggests.

[SortaCreative]

I love how when a comment is made about gender bias men seem to take it personally. The articles title is just click bait but the content isn't all that bad.... in places....

"Men's football is loved in Britain simply because the players are men, and men like watching other men play football, and what men like to do and like to watch is, de facto, culturally important."

I also adore musicals and the theatre cause I'm a complex individual with a wide range of interests, that aren't defined by my gender. It's bollocks like this that give real feminists and bad name.

When talking about why it's culturally important, it's not really about why something is popular or what it is but the fact that is is popular and that it is linked to gender stereotypes and bias. On the flip side, men who don't want Footie, in certain circles, are seen as less male.

Why do you take it so personally? When looking at something through the lens or gender and gender inequality it's not about whether or you happen to like Marmite and are a special snowflake with unique personal interests. Gender doesn't work like that, by it's very definition and it's nature it is a generalisation. All people of a certain category are called THIS and all people of a certain category are called THAT.

Gender doesn't take into account the fact that you adore musicals and theatre or the fact that you're a complex individual. Because gender isn't about you, personally. And yet, you take it so personally. Football is sexist. I can still enjoy the World Cup and Football in general and say that.

God I fucking hate feminists.

Let's preach about equality whilst segregating an entire gender. Sluts.

Calm the fuck down.

[SortaCreative]

Compare it to pro wrestling. People criticise women's wrestling not because they're women, but because a vast majority of them aren't very good. If women's wrestling suddenly became as consistently entertaining as men's wrestling, people would tune in. People watch wrestling to be entertained, regardless of the gender of the entertainer. This is how I personally feel about football - if we had a female Cristine Ronaldo or Lucy Messi, I'd watch it because I'd be entertained. I wouldn't refuse to because they're women, like the author suggests.

And yet you pick two institutions that have been historically sexist towards women. You might ask well, why isn't there a female Ronaldo or Messi because gender bias and stereotyping dictates that really shouldn't be. Football isn't for girls. Wrestling isn't for girls. At a basic level - that is why. That's really basic though and there is alot more too it.

Here's another interesting pattern that males tend to do when it comes to gender. The "WELL I DON'T DO THAT" defense. This isn't about you. I wish people were able to detach themselves personally from gender and look at it as a theory and discuss it rationally. Because i'm sorry to say that Football and the WWE aren't sexist.... would just be foolish.

[Chewy]

Breathing is anti feminist.

[Twister]

As a woman, I watch football because I like football. I watch both men's and women's football, but more the men's game simply because it is more readily available. It has nothing to do with gender, I don't prefer to watch men's football, I prefer to watch any football than no football at all (bit like wrestling). Men's football is more popular because it gets more exposure and is of a higher standard than the women's game. Because it started at a time where it wasn't the norm for women to get involved in sports and as a result Women's football is lagging behind.

[Daz]

Here’s my thing sir, this argument isn’t about generalizations of genders it’s about feminism, and more specifically being anti-feminist. Feminism in a nutshell is about supporting and championing equality for women. To say a sporting event has it out for the equality for women is quite frankly ludicrous to me.

The article itself proves it’s idiocy within the first paragraph or two, comparing the World Cup to the Olympics and bemoaning it because there are no female athletes to root for. Well you wouldn’t stick a female sprinter in the Men’s 100m would you?

It doesn’t even try to hide the fact it’s directed towards my gender, with claims like – “Men's football is loved in Britain simply because the players are men, and men like watching other men play football, and what men like to do and like to watch is, de facto, culturally important. “

I cringe when I read things like this, because it is such a horrible inaccurate generalisation. She claims what men like to watch is culturally important, whilst in the same thought lumping us all together and lambasting us for holding a certain opinion … an opinion that is so wide of the mark I’s unbelievable (Just to point out, this was also what my theatre thing was in reference to). My enjoyment from football comes not from the gender of the players, but an investment in a particular team, the skill of the players involved, watching great goals and seeing tactical changes and strategy unfold. There’s no “simply because the players are men” about it. I’ve watched and enjoyed women’s football but the “simple” fact is, it isn’t up to the same standard of men’s football. Mainly because it started much later and is playing catch up and because the coaching isn’t up to the same level. You can argue the reasoning behind that may be sexist and or prejudicial but that has fuck all to do with the average man sitting watching football in his local … meaning her generalization is for nought.

If every team in England had a female counterpart, and that female counterpart was equally good or perhaps even better in some instances, it would be as widely regarded as the men’s game.

I also have a problem with this “So do we women sideline ourselves by boycotting the games or do we take up space and holler along because it is fun and exciting?”

Implying that women can’t actually enjoy the game of football themselves, and can only get caught up in the excitement is absolutely ridiculous. The article itself is assigning a personal agenda and making the argument of sexism personal to the writer (And she’s female, so it’s not just men who take gender bias personally) …. Which again devalues her point and makes the whole feminist agenda look a little bit silly in the process. Women do support football, women can enjoy football, and to make it personal to myself again, I know plenty of women who hold season tickets at Carrow Road because they love the game. If Norwich City had a female team on level pegging with the men’s, they wouldn’t abandon ship and it wouldn’t become an Us vs. Them, either or, sort of affair as the article likes to portray.

She then brings up Ched Evans and the fact football players have raped women in the past, implying all football fans defended him. Poppycock. It’s an outrageous segue and claim, and has absolutely nothing to do with the point she set out to make. It’s an absolutely horrible article and when idiotic shit like this gets put out there, I do take it personally. Not because I’m a man, or a fan of football, but because I do support women’s equality, and I find stuff such as this more damaging to it than anything some drunk football fan could say.

[SortaCreative]

I'm not going to try and defend the article because like I said earlier, it's only good in places. You made some good points on where the article falls down and I’d agree wholeheartedly.

But regardless, I think the implications of the quite narrow and shallow points the article makes are worth some kind of merit. The topics it opens up for discussion are worth some kind of discussion and my responses in this thread aren't really concerned with the article but with the response it generated here.

The problem with the whole Feminism debate in recent years if the fact that it stopped being about cultural gender bias and how ways of thinking and discrimination were perpetuated by society and became an argument about what men and women should and shouldn't do. Because this argument is now stuck in the minutia of “is football anti-feminism” or (one I read a while back) “is sex always rape” we don't get anywhere in terms of having a real conversation about what is actually sexist and what needs to change. Instead you have a thread about why people watch football, why people don't watch football and when people would start to watch football. Yes the article is at fault for even bringing up such a stupid way of trying to make the point that Football, the World Cup being the most popular extension of Football right now, is sexist. It was and to some extent still is.

It frustrates me to see, as I pointed out above, the same reactions to “Feminist” articles. Rather than rationally engage with it (like admittedly you did Daz) I often see men on the interwebs just lash out at women and continue to perpetuate the utter garbage and nonsense ways of thinking that don't help the situation at all.

Let's preach about equality whilst segregating an entire gender. Sluts.

Yeah. Just like that.

The fact is the people that write these arguments probably aren't feminists anyway. Or atleast they probably haven't read the theory, they don't understand how it intrinsically works and how something subtle and implicit can perpetuate backward ideologies and ways of thinking. Unfortunately there's no test you have to take to become a “feminist”, so we're lumped with the nutjobs who thinking holding open a door is the biggest sin ever committed.

Well you wouldn’t stick a female sprinter in the Men’s 100m would you?

But there is the female equivalent at the same time or roughly at the same time, usually of the same standard. Presented in the same way, with very little bias (maybe a little coming in from media where certain athletes, of both genders, are celebrities in their given sports). The World Cup is the Men's 100m with no real equivalent. Wouldn't you agree with that? You guys have given some reasons as to why there might not be the equivalent though:

People criticise women's wrestling not because they're women, but because a vast majority of them aren't very good.

If women's football was better, it would receive much more exposure than it does.

I watch both men's and women's football, but more the men's game simply because it is more readily available. It has nothing to do with gender

The fact is gender does have a huge part in why Women's football isn't readily available and isn't very good. In the most basic terms it's because blue is for boys, pink is for girls, football is for boys and ballet is for girls. What I said saying before about gender theory not really being about whether or not you like blue (or football) but how blue (or football) is linked to masculinity. Watching football, liking football is an overtly masculine pass time. Yes it's improved a fuck ton in recent times but that's the stereotype.

To answer the question “is it anti feminist to watch the World Cup?”

My answer would be no. It is not anti feminist to watch the world cup. But the World Cup, what it represents, how the media represents it are sexist. Maybe not “anti-feminist”, but they are sexist. Quick examples would be: WAGS, the camera shots to beautiful women (why don't they ever show the fuglies?). And it's okay for someone to say something is sexist and to still enjoy it. I would argue one has to be critical of the things we enjoy.

[SlightlyJames]

Of course it fucking isn't.

[Twister]

I watch both men's and women's football, but more the men's game simply because it is more readily available. It has nothing to do with gender

The fact is gender does have a huge part in why Women's football isn't readily available and isn't very good. In the most basic terms it's because blue is for boys, pink is for girls, football is for boys and ballet is for girls. What I said saying before about gender theory not really being about whether or not you like blue (or football) but how blue (or football) is linked to masculinity. Watching football, liking football is an overtly masculine pass time. Yes it's improved a fuck ton in recent times but that's the stereotype.

Ah yes, I see your point, I guess it does have something to do with gender when you think about the reasons why men's football is of a higher standard than women's. What I meant was, whether it's men playing, women playing, or a team of cross-dressers vs a team of dwarves, I'd still watch because I like the sport, not the gender of the people who play it. If that makes sense.