This article talks about all sorts of hypotheses why men don't watch women's sports. Is it the marketing? The lack of known stars? Prejudice?
I must scratch myself and admit to the un-PC feeling that he's closest to the mark at the end of the article (even though he's being sarcastic):
quote: They aren't good enough
The holy grail of complaints about women's sports, and an excuse that sounds especially curious on a weekend when ABC is broadcasting 12-year-old boys playing baseball in prime time. Argue that the third baseman from Saugus, Mass., wouldn't stand a chance against Jeff Suppan, let alone Pedro Martinez, and you're likely to get a puzzled stare, or in the Boston area, a bottle of Sam Adams upside the head. Women aren't as fast, don't jump as high and don't kick as hard as their male counterparts.
After all, who would want to watch UConn-Duke women battle for No. 1 when the Bulls and Warriors are about to tip off.
And the little league world series example is pretty stupid, because I bet their ratings aren't all that high either. If they are, it's probably as a novelty; I bet there wouldn't be much interest in televising a whole season of little league baseball.
Thinking about the WNBA, the impression I have is that the women's game is more of a finesse game than a power game, when compared to the NBA. If you like that, you might want to watch the WNBA. (I know that the finesse vs. power thing absolutely holds true for men and women bowlers). But I also believe that the WNBA players could not thrive in the NBA. I believe that a coed league would necessarily become an all-male league, or at least a mostly-male league. I believe this is true about most sports that are played in men's leagues and women's leagues. And so people who want to see what they consider to be the best overall players at each sport will not watch the women's leagues.
posted
It is true, I think, in most physical sports.
Is there a sport where women are better than men? I don't mean to be sexist, but is there truly a sport that both sexes do where the women as a whole perform better than men?
posted
Women's tennis is pretty good. One of the few female sports i can watch. I don't know how they'd hold up to the men, but i think it'd be better comparitively than other sports.
I agree with Ic though. Men are just better at sports. It's a fact. I don't care if I'm watching women or men, i just want to see good quality play. that happens to be men more than women, so I watch men's sports mostly. I can enjoy some women's sports, like tennis or track. Not sure what else.
posted
Men are better at tennis, but the women are actually more entertaining to watch. Tennis is more fun when it's a game of finesse rather than who's got the fastest serve.
Not that I wouldn't mind having a faster serve myself.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
you're right, i guess it's just a women's sport that i enjoy watching. Where as most other ones I can't even stand to watch at all.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the lack of success of the women's sports leagues isn't just prejudice.
Women's tennis is entertaining to watch, showcasing talented, athletic, professional women.
Some of the women's Olympic sports are must see because they involved amazing, beautiful athletic feats -- gymnastics, diving, swimming, some of the track sports, speed skating, etc.
Even women's world cup soccer can be entertaining when the top 4-5 teams play each other.
But the WNBA and women's college basketball doesn't rise to the same levels as the sports I mention above.
The finesse thing gets thrown out there, but have any of you actually seen WNBA games? There's some finesse involved, but the women are such poor shooters and rebounders that the flow of the game is terrible. Lack of good shooters plagues the NBA as well, but at least the amazing athleticism of some of the players keeps the game interesting -- and when NBA teams do pass and shoot well it's at a speed and level that the WNBA can't yet touch.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I was speaking tongue-in-cheek the first time, but I got myself thinking. A sport is usually defined as such because in some way it involves physical exertion. As a very general rule with many many exceptions, men excel over women at physical exertion.
I think to Scott's Homecoming series, specifically The Ships of Earth:
quote:The competition in archery among the men became rather fierce; the women noticed but mentioned only among themselves that the men cared about no targets but the ones placed far enough away that Sevet's and Hushidh's smaller bows could not accurately reach them. "Let them have their game," said Hushidh. "It would be too humiliating for any of them to be beaten by a woman."
I'll have to spend more time thinking about this.
Maybe there are sports where women would have the upper hand against men -- gymnastics comes to mind as a possibility. But in cases like that, men's and women's events are separated. Why? A man cannot do a floor routine, and a woman cannot do the rings? (I'm not knowledgeable here, so it's quite possible that there are men's floor routines and women's rings, but I've never seen them.)
Maybe most sports have been designed by men, and so are more tailored to a man's performance?
Maybe it's far more innate, and the level of competition is related to the level of testosterone. Maybe sports are a culturally accepted manner for men to act out more primitive instincts -- instincts more often found in men than in women.
Ok, I'm through rambling for now, but I'm not through thinking about this.
Diving. Gymnastics, certain evens. Men do the strenght, women do the agility.
That said, most sports require strength, speed, and explosion. THese are all areas where a peak male body outperforms a peak female body, simply because of pysiology. Women can't sprint as fast as men because of the differences in hips, even if a woman were able to acheive the raw power of, say, Maurice Green.
I watch baseball, and football, and occassionally track and field. I don't really like softball, because its a toned down version of baseball, that removes the hardest element of the game... hitting a little stinkin round thing. Granted, the softball moves faster sometimes. BUT, hitting a baseball isn't about speed. Its about change of pace, location, spin. A major league hitter can hit ANY fastball if it moves straight. By making the ball twice as large, you take away a large part of the pitchers advantage.
Football, can you honestly see women playing that game?
Track, both men and women are enjoyable to watch.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will admit to watching women's gymnastics when the Olympics come around. Even though they are in separate events, I am just as impressed with what the women can do as I am the men. It blows my mind what kind of strength is involved with the rings and the pommel horse for the men, but doing a backflip on a 4" beam is no less impressive.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:A man cannot do a floor routine, and a woman cannot do the rings? (I'm not knowledgeable here, so it's quite possible that there are men's floor routines and women's rings, but I've never seen them.)
Men do, indeed, do floor routines in gymnastics, but they are different in flavor than women's routines - men do more strength moves, while women perform to music (I've never seen men do this). Women do not do rings, probably because of upper body strength issues. (I don't know this, but I would imagine that is the primary reason.)
I honestly don't think of it as male athletes being "better" than women athletes. I think of it more as the two just being different. And it depends on the sport as to whether I would rather watch men or women play. I would rather watch men's gymnastics and figure skating, but I prefer women's to men's volleyball, for example. On the other hand, I don't have a preference between watching men and women in tennis. I prefer men's baseball to women's softball, but only because I like baseball itself better than softball. I don't like or watch football or golf at all, and I don't know anything about soccer, so I can't comment on those sports.
quote: A British sociology expert is claiming women in sport are catching up with their male counterparts and could soon be competing alongside them in the same events. New research based on women's marathon running records from the early 1960's to the present day, reveals the best time achieved by women is on average improving annually by more than twice that of men. Corinne Fallows reports.
The research suggests that women are only just beginning to realise their full athletic potential. The statistics appear to show the difference between the sexes is narrowing. In marathon running, women's best times have improved by more than 2 minutes and 47 seconds per year, compared with just 66 seconds for men. Professor Ellis Cashmore of Staffordshire University in the British Midlands claims the improvement is partly down to changes in social attitudes which have brainwashed women into believing they're inferior to men. But all that, he says, is about to change.
Ellis Cashmore said:
The greater the skill component is in sport, then the more chance women have of catching up. Obviously sports such as powerlifting, weightlifting that require pure braun, women are never going to catch up in those areas but I think the gap will close in a great many other areas and of course those are most of the mainstream sports that we know and love.
Professor Cashmore says women have already proved they can outperform men in endurance sports such as swimming and cycling. He says the Olympic games' of the next millennium, could see men and women competing in the same events, with women, walking away with the medals.
quote: Yet as breakthroughs among elite women athletes grow more and more astounding, it begins to appear that strength and physical skill -- for all women -- is only a matter of learning and training. Men don't have a monopoly on physical prowess; when women and men are matched in size and level of training, the strength gap closes. In some areas, women are actually equipped to outperform men, due partly to differences in body structure, and partly to the newly discovered strengthening benefits of estrogen.
I didn't like where this thread was going. So, there, chew on that. It's the men of the society that have spent so long repressing women that now, they just need some time to catch up. Given a choice between watching football players of the 50's and today, you can bet your bippy that today's players could kick the asses of the 50's players. And the baseball players. Ha! I doubt the 1920's players could come close to what they do today. And women's gymnastics? Look at what was considered revolutionary for Olga Korbut and then look at what they do today. Women will catch up. And quicker than the men think. Then what excuse will you have?
Personally, I think, right now, it's a combination of factors. Women's sports (are there any popular ones?) aren't as exciting and the sports that are exciting aren't popular. The other factor is conditioning. We didn't grow up watching women's sports. Y'all did grow up watching baseball and football. If you think about it though, does anyone really want to start watching rugby? If you didn't grow up with it, you don't really care. Which is where women's sports are today.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't disagree with anything that you've said.
But my basic point is that, if you need two separate heirarchies, two seperate governing bodies, etc., that indicates to me that presently, at least, the women can't compete on an equal footing with the men. And, therefore, the main reason more people don't watch "women's" sports, such as women's basketball, women's soccer, ladies' golf, ladies' bowling, etc., is that as a consumer of professional sports, you want to watch the best possible talent play. Otherwise, why not just go watch the local high school? And the women's leagues simply don't have, currently, the best talent at each sport.
As far as what will happen when the talent gap is bridged, let's wait and see what happens then.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think in certain extreme ironman events, women performed just as well or better than men due to their ability to endure pain.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love tennis, men's and women's. Is anyone else watching the US Open? Where has Martina Hingis been lately? She was always my favorite player in the WTA. Now I have to cheer for Kim Clijsters.
On the men's side, I'm rooting for Agassi all the way.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and as for women vs. men in tennis, I don't think it's really a contest. Unless the men were forced to serve nicely.
Besides the Williams sisters, and maybe four or five others, none of the women really have the service game which is necessary to win matches against a competent male opponent.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: THese are all areas where a peak male body outperforms a peak female body, simply because of pysiology. Women can't sprint as fast as men because of the differences in hips, even if a woman were able to acheive the raw power of, say, Maurice Green.
I would also like to say that I believe there is a mental factor. I've met very few women with a desire to crush their opponent in physical sports or games, or whatever you want to call it. I will go so far as to say that in most head to head, open, competitions men have a mental attitude different from women that lends itself to winning over their opponent.
Women can beat men if they have more skill, no question. However, if the man and woman are evenly matched, I believe there is a much greater likelihood of the man winning, not only because of his physical dominance, but because of his mental attitude as well. Many men want to dominate. They want to destroy. I don't believe this attitude is as present in as strong a level in women.
Yes, there are exceptions to the general rule. No, I don't know whether it's nature or nurture. Yes, I am generalizing from my own experiences. No, I'm not talking about 'life'. Women are fully capable of being better than men at work or school or any place else, as long as it doesn't require openly competing.
I would also like to say that women will frequently succeed where men can't because they are better able to get along with other people, because they don't look at everything in terms of winning and losing.
quote:Women can beat men if they have more skill, no question. However, if the man and woman are evenly matched, I believe there is a much greater likelihood of the man winning, not only because of his physical dominance, but because of his mental attitude as well. Many men want to dominate. They want to destroy. I don't believe this attitude is as present in as strong a level in women.
Yes, but isn't this the point of competition? If you have a man and a woman competing against each other in an athletic competition, the purpose is for one to beat the other. What you're saying is that men have "the will to win" more then women do. I don't know if I agree. That would mean that the only differences come down to men pushing themselves harder than women. In training and in formal competition. I can agree with this assesment to a point. From personal experience i remember doing X-C, Swimming, and track in highschool, and I definitely noticed that comparitively the guys always either had to or did work harder. In general...this by no means encompasses all. But at the same time, when watching some of the top female competitors in the state, while still slower than the top men in the state, I could *see* that drive in them. I could see them pushing themselves to their limits. So while it wasn't present as much as it was with the guys, it was still there.
And if what you say is true. Why is that the case? Even if in life men want to dominate more than women, when you are competing in an athletic event where the sole purpose *is* to dominate, or at least win(everyone is there to win and anyone that says differently is lieing), why wouldn't a women change her thinking knowing that that's what it takes to win? Is it a can't or won't?
quote:I would also like to say that women will frequently succeed where men can't because they are better able to get along with other people, because they don't look at everything in terms of winning and losing.
Well if you are talking about solo competition like running or swimming or biking, etc...then what you say is irrelavent. If you are talking in terms of teams working together like soccer, volleyball, etc...then i'm not sure. In general you may be correct. I can't prove or disprove that. But I would hope that when you get to professional or Olympic level competition that the participents have realized that to win, you have to win as a team. What i'm saying is that if it is a learned attribute, somebody at that level have better damn well learned it by now.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, I don't think it's sexism. Women's sports have trouble catching on for the same reason that new comic book companies have trouble catching on.
The people who like that sort of thing have already decided what names, faces, teams, etc. that they like, and they don't have the time or money to pick up new ones. All these new upstart companies don't have name recognition, and don't have a fan base to draw from.
For instance, a baseball team has some older, popular players who draw the crowd, with younger people in the line-up who are developing. By the time the older guys retire, the fans all recognize the younger guys, and are coming to see them.
So if you have a team of all new people, like the WNBA, or the XFL, or whatever, people aren't that quick to latch on to it.
What the WNBA needs is the same thing as what the XFL neededed--some name recognition. They either need to bring in some blidingly popular players as coaches, or they need to get more WNBA stars out there in ways that will win people over. (Not just shooting free throws on saturday morning cartoon shows.)
What people have to remeber is the modern sports empire isn't built on athleticism so much as loyalty. People who are rabidly loyal to this or that team. The trick to creating a new, successful sports enterprise is only about talent or athleticism or whatever to the degree that these things are able to foster fan loyalty.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The best women's swimming times of today are far far better than the world record men's times of the 20s and 30s, for instance. Women's times are still falling much faster than men's. Who knows what will happen when training and social factors truly become equal for men and women?
I'm struck by the fact that top women competitors so often say they train with men. Are women being held back because they aren't invited into the highest levels of competition available in their school, league, region, whatever for their whole lives long?
The iditarod was won by a woman again and again. Swimming ultra long distances has always been dominated by women.
I don't buy the idea that men don't care to watch the WBA because the level of play is not as good. If level of play was all that mattered, why would anyone ever watch college sports instead of professional? There's a lot more that goes into it than just level of play.
Why did the world cup women's soccer team lose funding? Why did they get punished by the soccer governing body here in the U.S. for being too good, for taking too much attention away from the men's team? (I forget the exact details of that but they got treated quite badly.)
[ August 28, 2003, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not all about excellence. I know quite a few people who appreciate college basketball more than they like the pros, and I love women's tennis, and can't get enthused about men's tennis.
I think sports are both the striving towards physical excellence and the asthetic of that achievement, that's why fans can watch high school baseball and the 1992 dream team.
The sport itself is some sort of medium. I don't know what this medium is supposed to show, but I think the answer to these questions-- I think there are two-- will explain why women's sports, even though there may be played not quite as well, are in some ways more compelling to watch, than the sport played as physically successfully as possible.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The dispute between the Women's Soccer team and the U.S. Soccer Federation is an excellent illustration of the huge disparity that still exists in funding for female and male athletics and the persistent pay gap in the workforce. Twenty members of the U.S. Women's Soccer team refused to play in an Australian tournament in January and demanded to be paid the same amount as the players on the Men's Soccer team. The Women's Soccer team in their 1996 agreement with the U.S. Soccer Federation were to be paid $3,150 per month for the most experienced players and about $250 for every game, while the Men's Soccer team received $5,000 per month and an additional $2,000 for the 18 players who were going to Australia (Washington Post, Jan. 24).
Also, please realize that it's only been 31 years since Title IX was enacted. That means that the first generation of females that were even allowed to participate in a lot of sports are just now hitting their mid-thirties. What do you think will happen to the generation of young girls that are coached by women who grew up under Title IX? I still think that women's sports will be taking huge leaps in the next couple of decades, unless of course, Bush messes with Title IX.
aka, do you remember anything more about the story you were talking about? I'd love to find out more about it.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, I don't think anyone is really arguing that point. I think we were specifically discussing the state of sports today and why I don't watch the WNBA today, not 20 years from now.
So while some people may agree or disagree with you, you aren't refuting anybody. Or maybe i just missed something.
But I think your points are interesting. I agree that women are progressively improving in sports faster then men. But I wonder whether there will come a point where that progression will be maxed out physically. Will those female marathon runners eventually plateau? and if so at what point? I must say, i'm very suprised and impressed that the women's world record is now at 2:15. The men's is only 10 minutes faster i think. And while 10 minutes isn't all that much in a marathon, at that level, those 10 minutes are impossibly hard to cut down on.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider, the point I'm trying to make, and probably poorly, is that women were screwed in the sports department for so long that now, when women's sports are becoming more popular to participate in, they aren't commercially viable for companies like ESPN to air because no one watches them. Football wasn't all that popular either in the beginning. However, that didn't stop them from airing it. I think women should be given the same chance. So, in about 30 years, if women's sports are still struggling to find an audience, I'd consider allowing stations to stop airing them.
Seriously, I think there needs to be some type of affirmative action for women's sports. If Bush gets his way, a lot of the progress will be lost. The big poopy head.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, after talking to my wife, I have decided that there's at least one gender-based reason that I agree with.
Sports is more of a fantasy-fulfillment for guys. Lots of guys get the same sort of escapist fantasy wish fulfillment from watching sports that, say, a sci-fi reader would get from reading about battle school. Women don't really have that with sports--at least not as many to as great a degree. So women's sports don't have that same degree of connectedness for guys. Since they can't project themselves out there as easily, it's not as interesting.
And most women don't have the same love for sports--some are even actively opposed to it, since it keeps the lawn from getting mowed on sundays --so there's less of a fan base to draw from.
---------------------------------
And this really isn't about women's sports. Women's sports programs are strong all over the country. This is just about professional (or in other words, commercial) sports.
You can't really force something to be commercial, any more than I can force all of you to visit my website and like my jokes.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Okay, first of all, those women didn't grow up watching sports. They didn't grow up playing sports. They weren't involved because there were few, if any, they could be involved in.
Men's sports were on tv when it was commercial either. It became commercial after a while though.
And, how sad is it that women are actively opposed to sports because their deadbeat husband's can't get the lawn mown?
[Edit: but doc, if you force us to visit everytime we open a browser :coughmicrosoftcough: we become used to it and it becomes our "favorite." You know, if you watch Grease II often enough, it grows on you and then next thing you know, you're peddling along one day and realize you are humming "Cool Rider" to yourself!]
posted
If women are almost on par with men in sports and gaining ground fast, it seems like they should be just as capable with the lawn mower. Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watch women's tennis, gymnastics, and figure skating when I get the chance. For gymnastics and figure skating I watch the women's events exclusively. I think its because the grace and beauty aspects of the sports, but also because the guys really can't do much more. In figure skating, they may be able to do a quadruple lutz to the women's triple, but that's about it. In gymnastics, they are not even the same events. Guys would not be able to do the beam or the double bars while the women couldn't do rings or horse. Different body types is all. For women's tennis, my reasons are pretty much the same as everyone else's, its a more enjoyable game to watch. I think the William's sisters could make a living on the men's side, but they would never be ranked. They dominate the women's side mostly by playing like the men do, with dominating serves and power, but the boys are much bigger and stronger.
As for other things like the WNBA, the women just aren't very good. I thought they would impress me, but my boys local high school team could probably beat the average WNBA team. So why would I watch them?
Kayla might very well be right that the women may catch up in some ways, but I won't deny basic biology. There will never be a woman offensive lineman or power foward. Women just don't come in those sizes. I can guarantee though that there will be a female point guard in the NBA someday. Maybe even a female quarterback. In the AHL (a minor league for hockey) there is (or was) a starting goalie, and can see women goalies in the NHL someday soon. A woman in hockey at other positions would have a hard time, but I wouldn't be suprised to find a woman foward in 20-30 years or so.
(this is Xavier by the way. Stupid non-logging out)
[ August 28, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: New Member ]
Posts: 4 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there's never been a woman winner of the World Series of Poker. And i'm pretty sure there's never even been one at the final table, but I may be wrong, there may have been one.
I know there's more women players now than in previous times, and yes, one or two have won some of the more "major" tournaments, depending on what you consider major. Never one of the $10,000 buy ins.
Maybe it's what Storm said about women not having the drive to compete, the inability to drain someone of all their money, to bluff them out of everything. I don't know if it has to do with the nature of poker, and the money and the decieving involved. Not sure.
I guess if you want we can examine what it is that makes a good poker player and go over the differences between men and women in those traits/skills/characteristics. you up for it?
I'm not saying a women will never win a major poker championship, but the statement that within 10 years there will be lots of women winning championships, definitely is not based on anything that i can understand.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
