Don't mean to start a men vs women thing, but...

[HuskyJohn]

Queen makes some important points and the light sarcasm is justified. If we look at historical trends and changes involving prejudice within our culture and others, it often takes a very long time for any kind of real movement of the kind we hope for. Racial and sexual orientation are but two examples. In these cases as well as access to organized sports, laws have needed changing for speed up the process and promote social justice.

I mentioned in an earlier post that money is key in the fact that commentators make note of male star athletes three times as much as female stars. There is no reason why this can’t change over time and I hope it will. Sports are not just fun to watch and participate in; they should become more important for the population as a whole for obvious health reasons as well. That is clearly true for men and women.

 

[Icebear]

I can't imagine why on earth women (who actually will out number men, viewing the Olympics) aren't better fans of women's sports.

It couldn't have anything to do with history - what with, for example, women's competitive high school basketball being wiped out in the mid-30's. I mean, if THAT doesn't tell women to watch women's sports, I don't know what does?

It couldn't have anything to do with what's on TV - what with, for example, the majority of sports broadcast being of the male type. I mean, why wasn't every woman a UConn fan BEFORE Rebecca Lobo got on TV?

It couldn't have anything to do with coverage -- I mean, if you look hard enough you'll find a blog or two that covers women's athletics. Sure, ESPN won't send Mechelle Voepel to cover the US team, but really, won't you be just as satisfied with AP Doug? He's pretty good. And working hard will keep him out of trouble.

It couldn't have anything to do with missing role models. I mean, women have had forty years of Title IX, fer cryin' out loud. Granted, most universities and high schools aren't in compliance, but honestly, how long does it take to catch up to 100+ years of men's athletics?

It couldn't have anything to do with free time. I mean, really, I understand that in most (hetero) couples both work full time jobs and the woman is still does the greater part of the childcare and housekeeping, but really, if the WANTED to be sports fans they'd find the time.

There goes the sarcasm meter again, blown to smithereens. Good thing that I was able to swing a volume discount given the nature and propensities of our posters

 

[HuskyNan]

FWIW, the last time we took a census it showed 60-65 percent of posters on this board were men.

And the average age 60+. Hence many of the outmoded attitudes.

 

[alexrgct]

FWIW, the last time we took a census it showed 60-65 percent of posters on this board were men.

I was going to make this exact point without knowing the stats. Even on this forum, which is a women's sports forum, there is more male participation that female. And if men make up the sports audience to a large degree (something that is changing, but only incrementally), a reality of that is that men generally prefer watching men play sports. So do a lot of women for that matter.

Saying that we still have a fundamentally patriarchal social structure is something of an overstatement...or at least if its still true, it won't be a generation from now. There are more women entering med school than men, more younger women getting their careers off the ground than men, more girls succeeding in primary and second classrooms than boys, and heck, more women representing the US in the Olympics. Meanwhile, men face increasing pressure to focus on their appearance. However, I get the point about cosmetics. If I were going to make a point about something women spend too much money on, it would be shoes. Which men really don't care about, btw.

 

[HuskyNan]

I was going to make this exact point without knowing the stats. Even on this forum, which is a women's sports forum, there is more male participation that female. And if men make up the sports audience to a large degree (something that is changing, but only incrementally), a reality of that is that men generally prefer watching men play sports. So do a lot of women for that matter.

That poll is about 10 years old and from 3 boards ago. We don't know the exact number now.

What women want from TV viewing is different than what men want, generally speaking. The reason that the announcers on ESPN ramble on about a player's grandmother or her favorite class in college is because the casual female viewer likes it. Women aren't into the big dunks and extreme physicality of men's basketball, for example, they like relating to the young women on the teams, seeing them as daughters or granddaughters and forming emotional attachments to them. It's what women do, we try to relate to other women on a personal basis. That's why networks show those biographical snippits during the Olympics - we'll root for the Russian girl that lost her mom when she was a baby over the American girl because we care about her.

That men don't get this, or worse look down on our need to relate to other people as individuals, is a big problem for networks and newspapers. They understand we don't necessarily want "hard" news all the time but they risk alienating male fans and women who prefer information without frills. ESPN actually doesn't get enough credit for at least trying to bridge the divide (good article on ESPN & its attempt to attract women)

As for the board, well, it has become a more hospitable place in recent years (I hope) but there was a loooong stretch of time where the Boneyard wasn't an easy place for women to reside. The period when men's & women's fans shared the board was the worst. Fishy still teases with his references to "chicks's hoops", a holdover from the condescending attitudes of the men's team fans. As the board evolved, the attitudes improved gradually but posters could still be subjected to name calling or sneering comments from people that saw themselves as "real" sports fans. It was even worse if someone was a newbie to basketball - the more knowledgeable fans would laugh them off the board. Women didn't see any need to reside in a hostile atmosphere where they couldn't connect with other people.

Add to that the constant flame wars that would pop up with the LV fans, as well as fans of other programs, from time to time, and women just didn't want to be here. It was likewise on other sites. That's why I decided to be a tyrant for a while and really put my foot down, creating the Boneyard rules demanding civility and hesitating less to boot out the arrogant, condescending, sarcastic bozos that made the Boneyard a hostile place. It's helped, but you can't change a culture overnight. As the article linked above notes, it's a complicated issue.

 

[Bestiarius]

"USA stuffs Turkey" would have been better.

Or, "Women gobble up another victory."

 

[alexrgct]

That poll is about 10 years old and from 3 boards ago. We don't know the exact number now.

What women want from TV viewing is different than what men want, generally speaking. The reason that the announcers on ESPN ramble on about a player's grandmother or her favorite class in college is because the casual female viewer likes it. Women aren't into the big dunks and extreme physicality of men's basketball, for example, they like relating to the young women on the teams, seeing them as daughters or granddaughters and forming emotional attachments to them. It's what women do, we try to relate to other women on a personal basis. That's why networks show those biographical snippits during the Olympics - we'll root for the Russian girl that lost her mom when she was a baby over the American girl because we care about her.

That men don't get this, or worse look down on our need to relate to other people as individuals, is a big problem for networks and newspapers. They understand we don't want "hard" news but they risk alienating male fans and women who prefer information without frills. ESPN actually doesn't get enough credit for at least trying to bridge the divide (good article on ESPN & its attempt to attract women)

As for the board, well, it has become a more hospitable place in recent years (I hope) but there was a loooong stretch of time where the Boneyard wasn't an easy place for women to reside. The period when men's & women's fans shared the board was the worst. Fishy still teases with his references to "chicks's hoops", a holdover from the condescending attitudes of the men's team fans. As the board evolved, the attitudes improved gradually but posters could still be subjected to name calling or sneering comments from people that saw themselves as "real" sports fans. It was even worse if someone was a newbie to basketball - the more knowledgeable fans would laugh them off the board. Women didn't see any need to reside in a hostile atmosphere where they couldn't connect with other people.

Add to that the constant flame wars that would pop up with the LV fans, as well as fans of other programs, from time to time, and women just didn't want to be here. It was likewise on other sites. That's why I decided to be a tyrant for a while and really put my foot down, creating the Boneyard rules demanding civility and hesitating less to boot out the arrogant, condescending, sarcastic bozos that made the Boneyard a hostile place. It's helped, but you can't change a culture overnight. As the article linked above notes, it's a complicated issue.

I think women who like sports aren't, as a general rule, as into basketball as football, baseball, tennis, and Gymanstics/ice skating at the Olympics (which, btw, is the one sporting event that really caters to female viewers).

In addition to the human interest vs. competitive (and quantitative/analytical) question, there's the fact that a lot of women who consume sports do so in a more social and casual fashion. For instance, if you go south of the Mason-Dixon, there are a TON of women who like college football, but very few who would post on a CFB message board. Message boards are just very conducive to competition, analysis, and quantitative stuff.

Personally, I don't mind the human interest stuff, but during the Olympics, it gets ridiculous. Everyone has a dead grandmother or a sick uncle who is inspiring them to compete.

 

[ursusminor]

And the average age 60+. Hence many of the outmoded attitudes.

Not even so much outmoded as, in some cases, unaware. (This is why I can't keep my mouth shut but should be less defensive.) Life is a gendered experience; even going to the bathroom is different. When it comes to more subtle social/cultural constructs, it can be very difficult for a man to fully understand exactly what is motivating stereotypical women-only behavior. Heck, it can be difficult for women to pinpoint what is driving them to behave that way. That's not anybody's fault, it's just the way it is.
I don't think the cosmetics comment was meant to be more than a gentle tease, or perhaps an exasperated expression of perceived waste, which is a reasonable interpretation from the perspective of a (middle-aged?) man. I am a 24-year old female who has worried before that forgetting my make-up (I pretty much never wear any) might have hurt my chances in a job interview. For some women in some industries, that's as important as remembering your pants, but I can't expect everyone on this board to know that.

 

[Waquoit]

If we look at historical trends and changes involving prejudice within our culture and others, it often takes a very long time for any kind of real movement of the kind we hope for. Racial and sexual orientation are but two examples.

But you know once things reach critical mass, change comes pretty quickly. Now it seems like forever, but it wasn't too long ago that people could smoke in a office setting. Can you imagine that today? The gay marriage train is out of the station and it ain't coming back. I was thinking about this today while reading about Sally Ride, a true hero. Did anyone else here know she was gay and was in a relationship for over 25 years. Does it really matter now? Back then it did.

 

[alexrgct]

I'd say that the order of speed of change has been:

1. Gay rights (pretty incredible since Stonewall if you think about where we were and where we are)

2. Gender (where we are compared to the 1950s is pretty dramatically different.

3. Race (institutionalized racism was eliminated in pretty dramatic fashion from 1947-1965, but economic enfranchisement has been extremely slow to happen...and 9/11 didn't help for Arabs and other Muslims).

The advantage, if you want to call it that, that gay people had was a smaller group with, again relatively speaking, a more homogenous set of discrimination and health issues that needed/need to be addressed. Race is way more complicated, and, from a gender perspective, half the population is not going to have anything remotely resembling a homogenous set of issues and priorities. You won't even get consensus that there was ever a problem with patriarchy, traditional gender roles, etc., or that there is now.

 

[vtcwbuff]

There is a huge difference between social reform and market reform. Perhaps the government should impose Title IX type restrictions on the media. Maybe require equal media coverage for men's and women's sports? Force the NBA to cough up the money to make WNBA pay scales equal to that of NBA players?

My old man outdated thinking still believes that the onus is on women. If women's sports are struggling than shame on women for not supporting it. Businesses flourish when there is demand for their product.

If somebody was offended by my cosmetic spending - prove me wrong. Those that think women dress for men are soooo wrong. That may be true for the woman looking for a mate, but most women dress for other women because in truth most men don't care.

A true last Friday evening conversation at my house. We were about to leave for dinner.

Wife - do these shoes look OK?
Me - You're asking me?
She - You see anyone else here?
Me - Nobody will be looking at your shoes.
She - Women will.

We met another couple at the restaurant. The first words out of the other woman's mouth were "Ooooh, I love your shoes."

 

[ursusminor]

My old man outdated thinking still believes that the onus is on women. If women's sports are struggling than shame on women for not supporting it. Businesses flourish when there is demand for their product.

We have already discussed some reasons why women may not be interested in sports, and why we are hopeful that the situation will change in the future. Women have long been taught that they are not supposed to be interested in sports, and that will take time to change.

If somebody was offended by my cosmetic spending - prove me wrong. Those that think women dress for men are soooo wrong. That may be true for the woman looking for a mate, but most women dress for other women because in truth most men don't care.

The point is not that men do or don't care. The point is that women are judged - yes, by other women - from the perspective of a male gaze. That is to say, if I think another woman looks good, that means I think that a man would find her attractive. I may think a woman's comfy clothes look sloppy even if it's exactly the same thing I chose to wear that day, for the same reason (comfort), because it's not up to the standard of looking attractive to men. It's messed up because half the time we don't even realize why we're thinking that way. It's not about who is doing the judging; it's about how the standard is set.

 

[alexrgct]

More of the same.

A recent study by Univ of Del -- article linked at womenshoopsblog.wordpress.com -- found differences in how sportscasters talked about athletes depending on race, gender and nationality.

The gender-based study published in the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media found:

• When female athletes succeed, commentators tend to focus on luck and less on physical ability.
• When female athletes fail, physical ability and commitment are noted.
• When male athletes succeed, commentators applaud their skill and commitment to the sport.
• When male athletes fail, it is not necessarily about their failure, but about how their competitors succeeded.
• In 2010, 75 percent of the most-mentioned athletes were male.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618161903.htm

While interesting, I don't know a) how signigicant the study actually is, or b) the tangible impact.

"Tend" is a term that is based on statistically significant differences in studies like this. The link between statistically significant difference and real-world difference can be tenuous. From there lies the question of to what extent any of these differences account for the variability in how women playing sports or "women's sports" are perceived.

The last bullet point is the most striking and easily measurable/connectable of them all...but honestly, I was surprised to read it was only 75-25 in favor of male athletes. Twenty-five years ago, it would have been more like 90-10, if that. So while the intent of the statistic is leave the reader a bit dismayed, I'm actually encouraged.

 

[alexrgct]

We have already discussed some reasons why women may not be interested in sports, and why we are hopeful that the situation will change in the future. Women have long been taught that they are not supposed to be interested in sports, and that will take time to change.

I don't entirely agree with that. I think the distinction is more HOW women consume sports. Many, many women consume sports; they just do so less maniacally, with fewer dollars, and, generally with a focus on men's sports (in large part very few places have a women's sport followed to the extent to create a community around them).

 

[ursusminor]

I don't entirely agree with that. I think the distinction is more HOW women consume sports. Many, many women consume sports; they just do so less maniacally, with fewer dollars, and, generally with a focus on men's sports (in large part very few places have a women's sport followed to the extent to create a community around them).

I was also speaking of women playing sports, and as I discussed a page or two ago, a lot of women, particularly those who are now over 40, would have been discouraged from playing sports when they were kids. That mindset has not entirely gone away, although it has been greatly reduced. I think this has a lot to do with the lack of fan interest.

 

[arty155]

And the average age 60+. Hence many of the outmoded attitudes.

Says you, Whippersnapper!!

 

[vtcwbuff]

We have already discussed some reasons why women may not be interested in sports, and why we are hopeful that the situation will change in the future. Women have long been taught that they are not supposed to be interested in sports, and that will take time to change.


The point is not that men do or don't care. The point is that women are judged - yes, by other women - from the perspective of a male gaze. That is to say, if I think another woman looks good, that means I think that a man would find her attractive. I may think a woman's comfy clothes look sloppy even if it's exactly the same thing I chose to wear that day, for the same reason (comfort), because it's not up to the standard of looking attractive to men. It's messed up because half the time we don't even realize why we're thinking that way. It's not about who is doing the judging; it's about how the standard is set.

Your points are your opinion from your perspective. Mine is different and probably a lot simpler and closer to reality. Men and women are different. We have different interests, not because we are taught different interests by a male dominated society, although that happens, but primarily because we are wired different. Most of the teaching that made women's interests what they are was done by evolution.


However, all that bears no relevance. Stand on a street corner in Hartford with a pocketful of 50 dollar bills (do it in broad daylight). Offer a bill to each woman that passes with just one condition. Spend it on tickets at Gample or spend it in Bucklands Mall. How many additional tickets do you think will be sold?

 

[pinotbear]

Your points are your opinion from your perspective. Mine is different and probably a lot simpler and closer to reality. Men and women are different. We have different interests, not because we are taught different interests by a male dominated society, although that happens, but primarily because we are wired different. Most of the teaching that made women's interests what they are was done by evolution.


However, all that bears no relevance. Stand on a street corner in Hartford with a pocketful of 50 dollar bills (do it in broad daylight). Offer a bill to each woman that passes with just one condition. Spend it on tickets at Gample or spend it in Bucklands Mall. How many additional tickets do you think will be sold?

Stand on that same corner and make the same offer to each man that passes. How many additional tickets do you think will be sold?
I will say, you'll probably get more dirty looks from the women, and perhaps an inquiry from a passsing gendarme as to your purpose.

"Mine is different"..no problem so far.."and probably a lot ..closer to reality". Assumption there, VTC.

 

[vtcwbuff]

"Stand on that same corner and make the same offer to each man that passes. How many additional tickets do you think will be sold?"

My guess is that more men than women would take the ticket option. Just as there are more men than women on the BY and more men than women at the games. Besides, I don't know any guy that enjoys shopping at a mall. It might be different if Home Depot were offered as an option.

 

[Waquoit]

Women have long been taught that they are not supposed to be interested in sports, and that will take time to change.

I'll call BS on that.

 

[OneTrickPony]

FWIW...most of the attendance at Houston Comet games during their 4-year run of WNBA Championships and most of the attendance at the Atlanta Dream games I've attended...including the WNBA Final last year...were women! I'll be surprised if this bucks the trend anywhere but UCONN or TENN...

 

[alexrgct]

I was also speaking of women playing sports, and as I discussed a page or two ago, a lot of women, particularly those who are now over 40, would have been discouraged from playing sports when they were kids. That mindset has not entirely gone away, although it has been greatly reduced. I think this has a lot to do with the lack of fan interest.

That's an interesting question- what is the correllation between playing and following/consuming? Or perhaps, more specifically, what is the correllation between wishing at some point you could play and following/consuming? Your average guy at a bar or in the stands at a football game never played a down of competitive football in his life. Of course, he may have grown up with fantasies of being able to play in a way a woman would likely not have.

 

[alexrgct]

FWIW...most of the attendance at Houston Comet games during their 4-year run of WNBA Championships and most of the attendance at the Atlanta Dream games I've attended...including the WNBA Final last year...were women! I'll be surprised if this bucks the trend anywhere but UCONN or TENN...

This wouldn't surprise me, but if you went to a Falcons or Texans game, you'd see way more women than you did at the basketball games. And they'd be more likely to have purchased associated merchandise.

 

[OneTrickPony]

This wouldn't surprise me, but if you went to a Falcons or Texans game, you'd see way more women than you did at the basketball games. And they'd be more likely to have purchased associated merchandise.

No doubt

 

[UConnChapette]

I was also speaking of women playing sports, and as I discussed a page or two ago, a lot of women, particularly those who are now over 40, would have been discouraged from playing sports when they were kids. That mindset has not entirely gone away, although it has been greatly reduced. I think this has a lot to do with the lack of fan interest.

I am female, over 40 (heck, over 50). I spent the first 12 years of my life in Southern California. I played softball for many years. I LOVED running more than just about anything, and beat the boys regularly throughout elementary school, and not by a nose either. I beat them badly. I was fast, so much so that my 7th grade gym teacher was suggesting I get a track coach and started looking into setting me up with one. Then - my father ruined my life and destroyed my dreams by getting transferred to the middle of nowheresville. Nebraska for cripes sake! Track coaches don't live in Nebraska! My most fervent dream was to run the 100 and 200 meters in the Olympics - but it was not to be. Even if I HAD a track coach (and assuming I could have competed against the likes of Evelyn Ashford and Valerie Brisco-Hooks), the 1980 Olympics were boycotted.

My parents encouraged my participation in sports.. And I love to watch most sports today. I have no interest in American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance. My sister had no interest in sports (she liked music and ballet) To this day, she doesn't watch sports - except the Super Bowl. But she loves AI and SYTYCD. Our interests from childhood followed us into adulthood. So, there may be something to your assertion.

3 days to the Olympics! Can't wait!!!