Men and women

[BARBaggies82]

As far as I am concerned men and women playing football are two different sports.

I cannot stand the women's game. It's slow, cumbersome and it is never, EVER, going to be in the same league as the mens game....

....so WHY do the BBC, Sky sports et al lump the two into the same category on their apps and websites?
I have no interest in the women's world cup but I have to trawl through all that crap before I can read anything about the men's game.

Sort it out

[Leicesterbaggie]

Totally agree. I was watching ‘BBC News at One’ last week. The Women’s Worid Cup was the second item on, before various conflicts across the world etc. What was the final item on? The Ashes and by that I mean the real Ashes, the men’s game. As you say ‘82, sort it out.

[Omegstrat6]

I think that women's football has improved enormously over the past few years and will only continue to do so. I totally agree that it's not of the overall standard of the men's game yet but it is starting to getting there. Whilst I haven't been watching many of the current World Cup games, I did enjoy the Euros last year. The more family orientated atmosphere and encouraging more girls into the sport are both surely good things?

Of course, there are always going to be big differences between the men's and women's game just as there is in tennis for example. That's down to physical differences and will never change but I don't think that many would say that women's tennis is rubbish so why would they think that women's football couldn't continue to improve its standards and be equally enjoyable?

[mickd1961]

You’re wasting your breath.

I have a female cousin who’s never shown the slightest in football but her 13 year old daughter ( who without doubt is going to “bat” for the other side ) loves it and plays for her local village.

My cousin now spouts on about football on FB like she’s a genius on the game.

I take the p I s s about women’s football and she tells me the ladies would beat the men’s England team……yes, she’s that stupid.

She’s also in charge of “diversity” at the institution she now works at having been the same at a university previously.

They’d be better letting the ladies play on a smaller pitch with smaller goals, women are about 11% to 15% less physically capable than men so make their playing circumstances fit their physical ability.

How about this as a sign of the times…..

My local football club Stourbridge FC have hamstrung the men’s side by giving them the same budget as 4 seasons ago ( this should ensure a relegation fight ) whilst upping the budget for the women’s side by 65% despite that side operating at a £35k loss last season.

My local lot are tripping over themselves to do all the PC box ticking.

PS. An interesting article I read yesterday showing our top female players and their partners….. they were nearly all gay.

There must be some correlation in regards to so many female players being lesbian, just curious really, I wonder if it’s down to higher levels of testosterone?

If anyone knows I’d be interested?

[Omegstrat6]

Totally agree. I was watching ‘BBC News at One’ last week. The Women’s Worid Cup was the second item on, before various conflicts across the world etc. What was the final item on? The Ashes and by that I mean the real Ashes, the men’s game. As you say ‘82, sort it out.

I stick by my comments but admit that the pushing of the Women's World Cup above other reporting (of different sporting events or otherwise) smacks of either active discrimination at best or a woke agenda at worst. It deserves decent coverage but not the level of top billing it seems to be getting.

[baggieal]

Enjoy watching the girls! More quality and passion than some men ie Grant, Reach and a few others. Seen some cracking goals on a one on one but yet we don’t have a proven striker ourselves who can do this.

Credit to the girls for improving! Equal pay though? No!

[BARBaggies82]

Enjoy watching the girls! More quality and passion than some men ie Grant, Reach and a few others. Seen some cracking goals on a one on one but yet we don’t have a proven striker ourselves who can do this.

Credit to the girls for improving! Equal pay though? No!

No Al!

Even Grant is 3 times at least more capable than the best bird playing for England the moment, whoever that is!!

I still get some dafties still say to me "ooohh they're much better than the men....they won the euros".....when in reality Heath Hayes FC would comfortably beat England WFC.

[baggieal]

No Al!

Even Grant is 3 times at least more capable than the best bird playing for England the moment, whoever that is!!

I still get some dafties still say to me "ooohh they're much better than the men....they won the euros".....when in reality Heath Hayes FC would comfortably beat England WFC.

You are right of course but there’s the odd one who lets say has more grace with the ball at their feet than say Dike! Physical strength though is another thing!

Girls playing though and doing well still is a huge bonus for girls sport in general regardless of what anyone may think!

[soulman101]

Give a couple of years and their will be a non gender World cup

[Omegstrat6]

I've just looked it up (because I just knew it would have increased since I last checked) but according to one PhD source there are now 81 recognized genders. So either anyone can play anyone else in one World Cup Soulman -or we have 81 different competitions 😂

In all seriousness though, a lot of the problem is down to semantics because the definition of the word "gender" is different now to what it was in our day. Prior to around 2000 it was still primarily associated with the physical genitalia you had (ie dick, fanny or both) but has now come to be intrinsically linked with both an individual's feelings about their ***uality and also their roles within a society. Why they couldn't simply have stuck with the old definition I don't know because it was so much easier and less confusing! That way there would be only 3 genders (male, female and hermaphrodite) but possessing any of those physical genitalia would not define someone's ***uality and you could still talk about that as well as gender roles in society and individuals could still aim to transgender. What we meant by "***uality" is now encompassed by the new meaning of "gender" though.

To be fair, reading through Chris Drew's list is quite interesting because it covers a lot of roles played in various societies by shamans and the like, but, of course, in our day this wouldn't be talked of in terms of pure gender. Proof that, as with too many things, "progress" isn't always a good thing.