Back to being daughters, wives and mothers...(39 Posts)
Apologies if this has already been written about but , REALLY???
I know - it reminded me of the scene at the end of Swing Shift where Goldie Hawn and her team watch a film basically saying 'thanks for all that dangerous work during the war, gals, but back to the kitchen now to make room for the men coming home from war'. They do not look pleased after watching this film.
I don't think the FA meant it to be quite as patronising as it comes across as a single tweet but it was profoundly misjudged and utterly offensive.
Apparently we're all overthinking it, and it's actually nice of the FA to remind women what their natural role is. As told to me this morning by a man who made me feel quite stabby....
"The piece is intended to sum up a nice moment when players are reunited with their families," he wrote on his own Twitter account. "Human interest is a big part of any sports reporting. I'd have done the same for England men, absolutely."
Oh yeah. Because we see that ALL the time in the newspapers don't we - "Nadal drops out of Wimbledon, returns to being a partner" hmmm...
Yeah - Federer and Farah - return to being dads, husbands and sons.
But it wasn't even "thrilled to be back with their families"
They were mothers partners and daughters whilst overseas too, y'know! And "back to being..." Sounds like "the adventure's over, carry on with your real status"
It's a bit depressing. So is the fact that mixed teams are never even discussed as a possibility.
Do many sports have mixed teams? I was thinking tennis. The equestrian ones don't really count as you're basically riding your own horse and adding up points. But polo is mixed sex isn't it? (According to Jilly Cooper anyway).
But I'm talking about football, which is the world's number 1 sport. Football lovers want to see the game played at its very best. I don't see why women couldn't be coached at the highest level to get to that point.
Because you can't coach speed, strength or power. ( or rather you can but women would still be behind men).
I'm sure you could have mixed sports in some sports, like snooker or darts but not where there is a power element.
I'm not sure why you need mixed teams to see the game played at its very best?
Women would still be behind men Mide7 You know that for a fact do you?
Look at Xavi the Barcelona and Spain Number 6. His game was passing, positioning and vision, an ability to retain possession. He didn’t score many goals, and he wasn't strong or very quick. But his importance, unquestionable. Don't you suppose he was told when he was young he'd never make it co's he was too small, not strong and not fast enough? He's five foot seven inches (1.68m) and just over ten stone BTW.
More and more women are playing football but unfortunately football is still perceived as a man’s game and is filled with corrupt and sexist men who would undoubtedly feel threatened by women coming into their sport.
Can you imagine the quantity of and quality of future females players if women were allowed to grow in mixed youth systems of Barcelona, Chelsea and Ajax?
Yes I do know it as a fact silk. Generally women don't have the same capacity for strength as men ( obviously there will be exceptions but not at top level sport.) look at the differences in times in 100m records. Thats not because women don't have the same coaching or equal technique ( or better), it's because they don't have the same muscle mass as men. More muscle, more strength therefore more speed.
In football terms, of course women can be as good as men at skills like reading the game, passing, tackling ( I know very little about football so apologise if I'm missing stuff) but they won't be as quick or as strong due to biology.
It's great women are getting more involved in sports and attitudes need to change but you can't ignore biology.
I would imagine unless a team was forced to be six women five men or whatever, any attempt to mix the players beyond, say, under 13s would result in primarily male teams with the odd woman, equivalent to the occasional ten stone, fairly short male player you have cited.
And I enjoy women's football more than men's - to me, it's a good football game if the sides are well matched and it's a good contest and there's not too much amateur dramatics on the pitch.
Ah! Statistics! What is the overlap then? Is the variation between men and women larger than the variation within one sex or the other? Do most men have more muscular strength than most women? And is muscular strength the most important thing in football? Do 100m sprinters make good footballers?
I think your misunderstanding me upto, I'm not saying women can't be just as good/ better footballers then men but just that due biological difference there will be a difference at the highest levels of sport.
As a man, I can be just as good a parent as my partner but I still can't breast feed.
Having played football (Sunday league 11 a side and 5-a-side, both women's and mixed) I'd say there's a crucial advantage to speed and strength in the 11-a-side game which no amount of skill could undo (I know the odd woman who can play with men at an amateur level, but not many - though it's interesting to take up silk's question and ask whether if girls were encouraged to play in school you'd get to the stage where it was more than just one or two women). It's also worth remembering that the 11-a-side game is a contact sport - you can lean into people to nudge them off the ball, you can slide tackle them (so long as you play the ball). I wouldn't fancy my chances against even a medium sized bloke. But mixed 5-a-side works really well, as it emphasises passing accuracy and strategic thinking about position on the pitch over speed (pitch is too small for that to be an advantage) and strength.
The issue of what women would do if encouraged is an interesting one, though. For a start, for speed or strength as a function of number of people able to achieve a given standard (20 seconds for 100m, 19 seconds, 18 seconds...) we're not looking at two discrete populations but at two populations which overlap to a large degree. (My workplace recently entered a team in a charity 5k event. The fastest member of our team home was a woman, in just over 18 minutes - got her second place overall. The slowest was a man in 30 minutes). So perhaps we could reach a point where you could have mixed games at an amateur level. The professional game is a different matter, because by then you're way into the tail of the distribution. Even then, there might be interesting results - I seem to remember that when Paula Radcliffe set her world-record time in the London marathon, the fastest British man home (large field, lots of top runners internationally) was about 4 minutes slower than she was.
". The professional game is a different matter, because by then you're way into the tail of the distribution. "
So how do you explain Xavi's success as a player? His small stature, lack of pace and relative weakness never inhibited him from excelling at the highest level. Why should it a woman? Assuming she's inferior if muscle-mass = strength is the crucial factor, according to you Mide7?
Football is such that almost any body type and temperament can flourish under the right guidance and care. From Xavi to Vinny Jones..
Physicality is not a prerequisite for footballing success. Yet women’s football is dismissed as inferior to the male game and the notion of mixed teams never even discussed as a possibility.
Women are prevented from turning out for the greatest clubs with their male counterparts, not because of a lack of skill or determination, but rather a lack of opportunities, social will and myths about strength and speed. As I said it's all about money. Actually whilst were on the subject of speed, compare the sporting differences between Jamaica and Brazil. Jamaica, an island of less than three million people, continues to churn out the best male and female sprinters in the world, winning medals at all the global events and setting records wherever they compete. Brazil on the other hand has never won a sprint medal in any international competition despite having a population more than 73 times the size of Jamaica. The answer is because for Jamaica, sprinting is the premier sport, in Brazil it garners no interest, so no money is spent on it and thus no stars are born.
Silk, if you plotted the weights, heights, amounts they could bench press etc of footballers worldwide on a graph, how many players would be in the xavi mould?
I think the solution to improving women's football is improving women's football, not creating mixed football. Make any team or tournament sponsor sponsor both as part of the T&C etc.
I can't explains Xavi's success silk because I don't really know who he is. I've never said strength is the key factor, in fact im sure it's way down the list for a footballer but all other things being equal the stronger athlete is the better athlete.
Would you prefer I said men's ceiling for strength is higher or do you disagree?
I've never said women's football is inferior, how would I know? I don't watch men's football or women's.
I agree there are social aspects to these things as well, of course. Using your example of Jamaican sprinting yes it is the biggest sport there so of course the best athletes go into it. There is also a strong genetic element to, there has been research to suggest a large porpotion of jamican sprinters can trace their roots back to a certain area of East Africa.
Can social aspects explains why men are significantly stronger in pretty much every strength sport? Whether it's Olympic weightlifting, powerlifting, shot put.
Of course in a mixed sprint, Ussain Bolt and his fellow male sprinters (for all I know), would doubtless wipe the floor with the quickest female sprinter. And if there was a war between men and women men would wipe us out pretty quickly, accepted...
But, Google 'Xavi of Barcelona' up and you'll see a prime example of how talent transcends speed, strength, size, muscle mass or anything else most men biologically have over women.
You seem unwilling to accept the idea that, unlike in most other sports, (where only the best physical athletes need apply) ie weightlifting, shot put, Football is such that almost any level of strength, size and player body type can reach the very top. Xavi is living proof of this. His particular 'ceiling for strength' is very low BTW. But luckily for him, this is not a prerequisite for footballing success. Skill is! Women can be trained to develop skill for retaining the ball, to pass accurately, precisely and to spot a developing situation on the pitch, just as well as men can. Now tell me why I'm wrong about that?
From the word 'go' women are prevented from gaining the same opportunities as men. When boys and girls are split up at primary school with the best boys being picked up by professional clubs but not the girls. So of course female players are going to struggle to develop the same level of technical skills and speed exhibited by their male counterparts when they are not taught to the same standard.
Now you know who Xavi is ~ would he have managed to perfect his positioning and ball retention skills without the best coaching system in the world? No.
And if anyone says 'well just look at the standard of the womens game, it's so far below the mens' . Well what do you expect? Until women are given the same coaching opportunities as men, don’t be surprised when the standard of play isn’t the same as that found in the billion dollar industry that is male football.
It’s clear that football isn’tready for women to play with men but that’s not to say that it can’t happen in the future. There was a time when black men were segregated from whites in boxing and its only been since the 1960's that women have been allowed to run marathons! That all seems a bit arcane now though doesn't it?
And BTW many players are in the Xavi mold. So many I couldn't even begin to list them. A far shorter list would be of players that posses such physicality a woman could never achieve. Beckham's game didn't depend on him being big, ultra-fast, or strong. His game was cross-field passing, an ability to play the ball up field with incredible accuracy, leadership, motivating others, foresight and vision. These are all things a woman could never acquire are they?
Join the discussion
Please login first.