Women's World Cup

[Poodler]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48564568

 

First game done.

 

 

Frances Number 9, Henry, looks tidy. Document tidy players here. At least, I will, when I watch the highlights.

 

 

 

FWIW, here's the England team

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48503537

 

It's a no from me.

 

Sorry about the mysognystic undertones, LGIR

[Poodler]

Here's the afore mentioned Henry, Frances number 9

 

 

[Guest milne_afc]

Colin Henry, more like.

What a fucking mutt.

[Poodler]

I chuckled

[maryhilldon]

 

 

 

 

 

 

FWIW, here's the England team

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48503537

 

It's a no from me.

 

 

Leah Williamson looks decent in some photos. That's about it.

[Guest milne_afc]

That English women's team really is the ugly face of lesbianism

[Sonoftherock]

The hyping up of the womens world cup is another example of PC-gone mad!  Surely no one can actually enjoy watching the football?  Why are so many media types trying to pretend it's brilliant?  It's not, it's absolutely shocking.

 

I watched a bit of the highlights of the Scotland vs Jamaica farewell match and it was cringeworthy.  The Scotland goalkeeper let a shot, from outside of the box, straight through her.  Instead of admitting that it was a shocking blunder, the commentators, were just like, 'Hard luck, ohhh that was a hard shot!' 

 

The standard is appalling - half the amateur teams running around in the mud, every weekend at Hazlehead could beat the womens national team.  It mildly irritates me that no one is brave enough to state the obvious regarding womens football.

 

I've nowt against Womens football.  I think it's great that women are playing sports.  Good on them... but stop making it out to be something that it isn't.

[maryhilldon]

 

 

It mildly irritates me that no one is brave enough to state the obvious regarding womens football.

Plenty on here do. Probably constitutes a hate crime now.

[maryhilldon]

Alison Walker on telly the other night saying one of Scotlands goals against Jamaica would've been hailed as 'the goal of the decade' if it had been in a mens game. It wouldn't even have been a goal in a mens game, the goalie would've caught it.

[For Fecks Sake]

Watching China vs Germany, holy shit the quality is woeful

[Poodler]

Any tidies?

[maryhilldon]

Watching China vs Germany, holy shit the quality is woeful

[For Fecks Sake]

Any tidies?

Some of the Germans are tidy, blonde pony tails bouncing around the place.

 

Chinese, all look the same to me but all have that look that they would enjoy torturing people for a living.

[For Fecks Sake]

Racist and sexist. Disgusting.

Some people would say they are my best qualities along with deviance and being a pervert.

[Ke1t]

The hyping up of the womens world cup is another example of PC-gone mad!  Surely no one can actually enjoy watching the football?  Why are so many media types trying to pretend it's brilliant?  It's not, it's absolutely shocking.

 

I watched a bit of the highlights of the Scotland vs Jamaica farewell match and it was cringeworthy.  The Scotland goalkeeper let a shot, from outside of the box, straight through her.  Instead of admitting that it was a shocking blunder, the commentators, were just like, 'Hard luck, ohhh that was a hard shot!' 

 

The standard is appalling - half the amateur teams running around in the mud, every weekend at Hazlehead could beat the womens national team.  It mildly irritates me that no one is brave enough to state the obvious regarding womens football.

 

I've nowt against Womens football.  I think it's great that women are playing sports.  Good on them... but stop making it out to be something that it isn't.

 

The fact of the matter is that if women were as good as men, as strong, skillful, or technically capable they'd be playing in the men's game already. No pro team is telling the next Messi or Ronaldo to fuck off because they have tits, and if there are gender restrictions in place they'd be scrapped as quick as it took to hold a meeting to scrap them.

 

At no point should anyone pander to the notion that women's football is anything but fourth rate, and even at its best it's still at a standard equal to men's semi-pro. And that is being MASSIVELY generous to the women. 

 

In the US they are desperate to have people believe that women's fitba is a superior product to the men's, and they point to the women's World Cup success as proof. "Have the MEN won a World Cup?" Well, there you are then, the women are better than the men.  This is to ignore the basic standard of the teams and focus purely on success within their own framework as proof. 

 

By this reasoning I'm better than the US' Women's team, because I won about 5 consecutive games of World Cup against Andy Smith in the fields behind our houses back in the day. 

 

Women's football is utter shite. 

 

The end. 

[Ke1t]

It’s only being pushed upon the world by the PC “I’m offended” types that are terrified of being labelled as being sexist. It’s not sexist to say that the women’s game isn’t as good as the men’s. If something is factual then it can’t be prejudiced.

 

Another thing that grips my tits... they demand equal pay.

 

The last time the USMNT competed at a World Cup they made $8million for making the round of 16. The women got $2million for winning it. They point to this as proof of misogyny and glass ceilings and all the associated bullshit. They won't raise the fact that the women's World Cup made $73million, whereas the men's made $4Billion. 

 

These people live in a fucking fantasy world, but it's not up to us to enable their stupidity. 

[King Street Loon]

Has there ever been a men v women football match?

I'd imagine a few of the men would smash the women in more ways than one.

[craegDAMH]

The fact of the matter is that if women were as good as men, as strong, skillful, or technically capable they'd be playing in the men's game already. No pro team is telling the next Messi or Ronaldo to fuck off because they have tits, and if there are gender restrictions in place they'd be scrapped as quick as it took to hold a meeting to scrap them.

 

At no point should anyone pander to the notion that women's football is anything but fourth rate, and even at its best it's still at a standard equal to men's semi-pro. And that is being MASSIVELY generous to the women. 

 

In the US they are desperate to have people believe that women's fitba is a superior product to the men's, and they point to the women's World Cup success as proof. "Have the MEN won a World Cup?" Well, there you are then, the women are better than the men.  This is to ignore the basic standard of the teams and focus purely on success within their own framework as proof. 

 

By this reasoning I'm better than the US' Women's team, because I won about 5 consecutive games of World Cup against Andy Smith in the fields behind our houses back in the day. 

 

Women's football is utter shite. 

 

The end. 

 

Literally no one is saying that the women's game is better than the men's. If you're arguing women's football shouldn't be covered because it's a shit standard then we'd be as well winding up Scottish football, because it's shite too. The most watched game of football in US history was the women's team winning the world cup in 2015. More viewers in the US watched that than the men's final in 2014...

 

It’s only being pushed upon the world by the PC “I’m offended” types that are terrified of being labelled as being sexist. It’s not sexist to say that the women’s game isn’t as good as the men’s. If something is factual then it can’t be prejudiced.

 

Literally no one is calling you sexist for saying the women's game isn't as good.

 

Literally no one is pushing women's football on anyone. It's just gone from getting no coverage to getting some coverage because it's getting more popular.

[Ke1t]

1. Literally no one is saying that the women's game is better than the men's.

 

2. If you're arguing women's football shouldn't be covered because it's a shit standard then we'd be as well winding up Scottish football, because it's shite too.

 

3. The most watched game of football in US history was the women's team winning the world cup in 2015. More viewers in the US watched that than the men's final in 2014...

 

 

4. Literally no one is calling you sexist for saying the women's game isn't as good.

 

 

 

1. You are literally incorrect. 

 

US Women's Soccer Team is Better Than The Men's

 

2. I'm not making that argument. 

 

3. Viewing figures are entirely irrelevant to quality. The most popular beer in the US is Budweiser. The most popular chocolate is Hershey's. This does not make them quality products. Likewise, a lot of people watching a football match will not improve its quality. 

 

4.  You are literally incorrect

 

The Sexist imbalance in how FIFA treats women's soccer

[craegDAMH]

1. You are literally incorrect. 

 

US Women's Soccer Team is Better Than The Men's

 

2. I'm not making that argument. 

 

3. Viewing figures are entirely irrelevant to quality. The most popular beer in the US is Budweiser. The most popular chocolate is Hershey's. This does not make them quality products. Likewise, a lot of people watching a football match will not improve its quality. 

 

4.  You are literally incorrect

 

The Sexist imbalance in how FIFA treats women's soccer

 

1. I've of course read this article, maybe you haven't, because if you did you would know it doesn't prove your point or disprove mine. Nice try. At no point does she claim the women's team would beat the men. She's saying they have been more successful.

 

2. So what are you moaning about then?

 

3. I didn't even suggest the amount of viewers or popularity of something proves it's quality. It only proves it is popular.

 

4. Again, accusation of sexism because there have been fuck ups in the organisation of a women's world cup, or because FIFA doesn't treat it fairly, is not accusations of feminism for saying the standard isn't as high. Nice try.

[craegDAMH]

"Some coverage "?

 

Rubbish

 

It's taken over the bbc sport page

 

The womens football should be a sub forum, NOT littered amongst the mens football main page

 

The main BBC sport football page has 7 stories about women's football and 7 stories about men's, while there's a bloody world cup on. 

 

There's as many stories about Hazard going to Madrid as there is about the world cup game that is happening right now.

[BWG]

The hyping up of the womens world cup is another example of PC-gone mad!  Surely no one can actually enjoy watching the football?  Why are so many media types trying to pretend it's brilliant?  It's not, it's absolutely shocking.

 

I watched a bit of the highlights of the Scotland vs Jamaica farewell match and it was cringeworthy.  The Scotland goalkeeper let a shot, from outside of the box, straight through her.  Instead of admitting that it was a shocking blunder, the commentators, were just like, 'Hard luck, ohhh that was a hard shot!' 

 

The standard is appalling - half the amateur teams running around in the mud, every weekend at Hazlehead could beat the womens national team.  It mildly irritates me that no one is brave enough to state the obvious regarding womens football.

 

I've nowt against Womens football.  I think it's great that women are playing sports.  Good on them... but stop making it out to be something that it isn't.

Correct. It's a shit sport being artificially propped up in the name of equality.

 

The BBC site is almost unreadable right now with all the fluff pieces about Shelly and her wee stars.

 

Womens fitba is fucking shit and there are more deserving sports that could use the coverage being afforded to it.

[Ke1t]

1. I've of course read this article, maybe you haven't, because if you did you would know it doesn't prove your point or disprove mine. Nice try.

 

1a. At no point does she claim the women's team would beat the men. She's saying they have been more successful.

 

2. So what are you moaning about then?

 

3. I didn't even suggest the amount of viewers or popularity of something proves it's quality. It only proves it is popular.

 

4. Again, accusation of sexism because there have been fuck ups in the organisation of a women's world cup, or because FIFA doesn't treat it fairly, is not accusations of feminism for saying the standard isn't as high. Nice try.

 

1. Your argument was that "Literally no-one said____". I addressed your argument with a link where it actually says "Women's soccer team is better than men's.The content is irrelevant, since the headline disproves your claim.  The fact of the matter is that if you watch sports programs here they repeatedly reiterate the line that women's soccer is just as good, often better, than men's. And the women's success at the World Cup is used as a specious argument to advance that claim. 

 

1a. At no point was the argument that the women would beat the men.  I used the term 'superior product'. There is a difference. A Ferrari is a superior product to my Jeep, hence the 250k vs 60k price differential. But they're two entirely different beasts. In a race the Ferrari wins. Driving through a flooded field and my Jeep pisses the Ferrari. This is not a straight analogy, but meant to illustrate the difference between 'superior' and 'more likely to win'. 

 

2. Not that. Nowhere in my post was that my argument. So I'm literally NOT moaning about it. Since you addressed what I was moaning about you manifestly already know what I'm moaning about. And it wasn't media coverage. 

 

3. The argument is that women's soccer is shite. YOU raised the point of attendances apropos of nothing whatsoever. If you weren't trying to advance your argument then why even raise attendances? Why not raise the price of pies at women's matches, since that also has no bearing on the argument?

 

4. There are fuck ups in all sports. Men and women's football equally. The link raises gender as a point of contention. Hanlon's Razor suggests that you should never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity. 

 

If you believe Points 1 & 4 were facetious, and to a degree point 1 could be considered such, here's a link that should satisfy. They even expressly reiterate that women's soccer is superior to mens...  which is the exact word I used when I commented on how the conversation goes here. 

 

Womens soccer is better and also sexism. 

[craegDAMH]

1. Your argument was that "Literally no-one said____". I addressed your argument with a link where it actually says "Women's soccer team is better than men's.The content is irrelevant, since the headline disproves your claim.  The fact of the matter is that if you watch sports programs here they repeatedly reiterate the line that women's soccer is just as good, often better, than men's. And the women's success at the World Cup is used as a specious argument to advance that claim. 

 

1a. At no point was the argument that the women would beat the men.  I used the term 'superior product'. There is a difference. A Ferrari is a superior product to my Jeep, hence the 250k vs 60k price differential. But they're two entirely different beasts. In a race the Ferrari wins. Driving through a flooded field and my Jeep pisses the Ferrari. This is not a straight analogy, but meant to illustrate the difference between 'superior' and 'more likely to win'. 

 

2. Not that. Nowhere in my post was that my argument. So I'm literally NOT moaning about it. Since you addressed what I was moaning about you manifestly already know what I'm moaning about. And it wasn't media coverage. 

 

3. The argument is that women's soccer is shite. YOU raised the point of attendances apropos of nothing whatsoever. If you weren't trying to advance your argument then why even raise attendances? Why not raise the price of pies at women's matches, since that also has no bearing on the argument?

 

4. There are fuck ups in all sports. Men and women's football equally. The link raises gender as a point of contention. Hanlon's Razor suggests that you should never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity. 

 

If you believe Points 1 & 4 were facetious, and to a degree point 1 could be considered such, here's a link that should satisfy. They even expressly reiterate that women's soccer is superior to mens...  which is the exact word I used when I commented on how the conversation goes here. 

 

Womens soccer is better and also sexism. 

 

1. You've now decided to change my argument. No-one is arguing the women's game is better than the men's game. That article, not even the headline (which writers do not write, these are created by the editor to generate clicks) does not argue that.

 

1a. You opened your post saying "The fact of the matter is that if women were as good as men, as strong, skillful, or technically capable they'd be playing in the men's game already..." so you were comparing men v women initially

 

2. You were responding to SOTR's post moaning about the coverage women's football gets with your rant about how women aren't as good as men at football. I assumed you were making a more interesting point than "women aren't as good as men" given you were replying to his post but I guess I was mistaken

 

3. I brought up attendances to support my argument that quality or not the sport is popular, and therefore worthy of coverage. That was when I thought you had a more interesting argument beyond "women's football is shite" so again, my mistake

 

4. I never said FIFA fucked up due to sexism. I said you're not going to get called sexist for saying the women's game isn't as good as the men's.

 

Again.... that link does not argue the women's game is better than the men's, nor does it show people being accused of sexism for saying the women's game is worse than the men's game. The article says the USWNT is superior than the USMNT in terms of success, not that it is better than them at football. You know this, you're not an idiot, this is getting embarrassing.

[Ke1t]

1. You've now decided to change my argument. No-one is arguing the women's game is better than the men's game. That article, not even the headline (which writers do not write, these are created by the editor to generate clicks) does not argue that.

 

1a. You opened your post saying "The fact of the matter is that if women were as good as men, as strong, skillful, or technically capable they'd be playing in the men's game already..." so you were comparing men v women initially

 

2. You were responding to SOTR's post moaning about the coverage women's football gets with your rant about how women aren't as good as men at football. I assumed you were making a more interesting point than "women aren't as good as men" given you were replying to his post but I guess I was mistaken

 

3. I brought up attendances to support my argument that quality or not the sport is popular, and therefore worthy of coverage. That was when I thought you had a more interesting argument beyond "women's football is shite" so again, my mistake

 

4. I never said FIFA fucked up due to sexism. I said you're not going to get called sexist for saying the women's game isn't as good as the men's.

 

Again.... that link does not argue the women's game is better than the men's, nor does it show people being accused of sexism for saying the women's game is worse than the men's game. The article says the USWNT is superior than the USMNT in terms of success, not that it is better than them at football. You know this, you're not an idiot, this is getting embarrassing.

 

1. I supplied a subsequent link which categorically states that the women's game is superior. This was what I said the argument was, and the link makes the very argument I cited. The argument was mine, not yours, since you responded to my op. 

 

1a. Correct. A stand-alone statement that is completely accurate. 

 

2. You already displayed a misunderstanding of the parameters of my argument, so it would not be unprecedented for you to misunderstand or erroneously infer absent subtext... or even just outright knock down a strawman such as "Women beating men" or "Crowd size".  

 

3. Attendances offer no insight nor advance either side of the argument. As I pointed out, popularity is an irrelevance to the argument regarding quality. 

 

4. And you are incorrect. The feeling in women's football is that 'the sexist man is keeping women's football down' rather than any shortcomings of their own. Misogyny is endemic and ubiquitous, if you listen to advocates for women's football, and they'll be only too happy to tell you all about the sexism, covering everything from the pay grade to appearance. If you think that this somehow excludes commentary on ability then I disagree. 

 

I'm sorry if you feel my counter argument is embarrassing. Try not to take a contrary position as a personal slight. 

[craegDAMH]

1. I supplied a subsequent link which categorically states that the women's game is superior. This was what I said the argument was, and the link makes the very argument I cited. The argument was mine, not yours, since you responded to my op. 

 

1a. Correct. A stand-alone statement that is completely accurate. 

 

2. You already displayed a misunderstanding of the parameters of my argument, so it would not be unprecedented for you to misunderstand or erroneously infer absent subtext... or even just outright knock down a strawman such as "Women beating men" or "Crowd size".  

 

3. Attendances offer no insight nor advance either side of the argument. As I pointed out, popularity is an irrelevance to the argument regarding quality. 

 

4. And you are incorrect. The feeling in women's football is that 'the sexist man is keeping women's football down' rather than any shortcomings of their own. Misogyny is endemic and ubiquitous, if you listen to advocates for women's football, and they'll be only too happy to tell you all about the sexism, covering everything from the pay grade to appearance. If you think that this somehow excludes commentary on ability then I disagree. 

 

I'm sorry if you feel my counter argument is embarrassing. Try not to take a contrary position as a personal slight. 

 

1. No it didn't. It says the USWNT is superior to the USMNT in terms of success, which is not the same as saying the women's game is better than the men's game which is what I said and you attempted to disprove, unsuccessfully. 

 

2 & 3. Yes, I already said I thought you had more to say than "women are worse than men at football". I wasn't creating a strawman, I assumed a rant about the relative quality of men and women's football which quoted a post ranting about the coverage of women's football in the media might have something to do with the coverage of women's football in the media. Again, my mistake.

 

4. You've still provided no evidence of anyone being called sexist for making a factual statement about men's football being a higher standard than women's. 

 

What I'm saying is embarrassing is your wilful misinterpretation of people saying that the USWNT is more successful than the USMNT is them saying that the women's game is better than the men's game.  

[Ke1t]

1. No it didn't. It says the USWNT is superior to the USMNT in terms of success, which is not the same as saying the women's game is better than the men's game which is what I said and you attempted to disprove, unsuccessfully. 

 

2 & 3. Yes, I already said I thought you had more to say than "women are worse than men at football". I wasn't creating a strawman, I assumed a rant about the relative quality of men and women's football which quoted a post ranting about the coverage of women's football in the media might have something to do with the coverage of women's football in the media. Again, my mistake.

 

4. You've still provided no evidence of anyone being called sexist for making a factual statement about men's football being a higher standard than women's. 

 

* What I'm saying is embarrassing is your wilful misinterpretation of people saying that the USWNT is more successful than the USMNT is them saying that the women's game is better than the men's game.  

 

1. It absolutely confirms what I said. "On the field, and within soccer, the United States’ women’s national team (USWNT) are not equals with their male counterparts (USMNT). They are superior. While the men languish at No. 30 in the latest FIFA rankings and enter their third year without winning a major trophy, the USWNT are the most dominant international sports team the United States has to offer. 

Winning the 2015 World Cup created a new tidal wave of popularity for the team"

 

I stated, repeatedly now, that the argument is that the women's product is superior, predicated upon the specious argument that the USWNT has won the world cup. This paragraph exactly makes that argument. I can't demonstrate any better than an article that exactly reiterates what I said.

 

2 & 3 "My mistake". Agreed.

 

4. The lawsuit by the USWNT is based explicitly on the premise that gender inequality (sexism) is the reason for their lower wages. The entire suit hinges upon the 'fact' that the women are getting paid less for exactly the same, if not superior, product because of sexism. Here's a direct quote from one of their ex players.

 

“The bottom line is simple: It is wrong for us to be paid and valued less for our work because of our gender,” said defender Becky Sauerbrunn, a former co-captain." 

 

 

She's saying that their work is undervalued not because it's shite but because they're women and the authorities are sexist. It's not even an implication, it's right there on the lawsuit. 

 

 

* Better is a synonym for superior. The article I supplied expresses exactly the sentiment that the USWNT is superior. "They are superior" If you think there's misrepresentation then I can't see it, nor can I agree that it's 'embarrassing' to point that out.

[craegDAMH]

If you want to continue to claim that an article saying the USWNT is more successful than the USMNT is the equivalent to saying the women's game is better than the men's game then I can't help you.

 

The lawsuit is regarding equal pay for equal work, it and its supporters makes no claim that the women are better than the men at playing football. Just that one specific women's national team is more successful than their male counterparts.

 

Clinging to the word "product" is clutching in the extreme.

[Ke1t]

1. If you want to continue to claim that an article saying the USWNT is more successful than the USMNT is the equivalent to saying the women's game is better than the men's game then I can't help you.

 

2. The lawsuit is regarding equal pay for equal work, it and its supporters makes no claim that the women are better than the men at playing football. Just that one specific women's national team is more successful than their male counterparts.

 

3. Clinging to the word "product" is clutching in the extreme.

 

1. I provided an article that stated exactly that. Almost word for word. 

 

2. The article claims that they receive less pay based strictly on gender, ie. sexism. The subtext is exactly that it's sexist to treat female soccer as inferior, since they are demanding equal pay for equal product. (It's not)

 

3. My argument, despite your misunderstanding and erroneous inference, has remained exactly as it was in the op. I suppose you might describe that as "clinging" if you wanted to place a negative connotation on a constant position. 

[For Fecks Sake]

How anyone can be arsed typing so much into a post is beyond me!

 

@CreagDAMH take the pole out of your arse and give it a rest and lighten up eh.

 

Then tell us which of the female German team you would like to be involved with a champagne filled bath, a 10" dildo and some leather lederhosen.