To think people who say women's football & tennis isn't as skilled as men's because the men (or even untrained boys) would beat them are missing the point?

[Carla786]

I've been down a rabbit hole about the 1971 Mexico Women's World Cup, and it's got me interested in women's football now. I've always been interested in tennis. Anyway, it's struck me, reading MN threads, that a lot of posts seem to miss the point about physical strength differences between men and women.
Men obviously are able to kick/hit balls etc with more power, because of higher testosterone. It's incoherent to claim this makes women players 'less good'. Sports are generally an area where it doesn't make sense to compare women to men : the women's game should be judged on its own terms.

Depressing

Speaking to a chap about some of this stuff who absolutely thought that men should earn more money than women because they are 'better' - which would make it pointless for women to ever participate in sport because they would never be good enough by that standard. Approach that men are the main character and women an inferior deviation from this. I wonder why we don't have toddlers sprinting with 21 year olds...

He also said that womens football has been added to the endless coverage of mens football and is crowding out other sports which I do agree with. Every time I listen to Radio 4 they're talking about war and football and sometimes how war affects football.

But don't you have trans women ie biological men in your sport?

My point really is that in the grand slams I don't think the women should get equal prize money, the best of three sets is often over in an hour. I think the women should play 5 sets in grand slams just like the men. I don't agree that 5 sets add nothing, it is a completely different scenario. Look at players coming back from 2 sets down, which happens fairly often. In a 3 set match it would have all been over, but they have to dig in & show stamina & mental strength to turn things around.

If you really think that people don’t get to see the performance of exceptional female athletes pushing their bodies to the limit the same way the male athletes do and get value for money in seeing those games, then maybe that is an issue with the framing of people paying per minute’s entertainment. Rather than people paying to see exceptional athletes at the top of their game.

They're being paid for the work they put in behind the scenes as well as the public display. Are you in a job where you give client presentations? Do you just get paid for the time you're giving the presentation or for all the time you spent researching and rehearsing as well? Is it a higher-quality presentation if it takes 3 hours instead of half an hour?

Best of 3 is a superior psychological test, I think. You can come out half-asleep in best of 5 and still have loads of time to gradually find your rhythm. You can't afford that in best of 3, and you can't afford to dip if you have a lead either - you have to be at the top of your game more consistently.

🤣 imagine coming onto mumsnet to post his oh so important opinion 🙄

@Helleofabore & @gannett good points well made & I will take them on board. Thank you.

@Carla786 - I’ve already posted a couple of times but just wanted to add: i’ve just mentioned this thread to my DH and he has said women’s rugby is a particularly good showcase for skill vs the men’s game.

And he agrees that the fact that men would generally beat women at any sport that depends at least in part on strength and speed does not mean the men’s game is better and isn’t an appropriate way of measuring the quality of the women’s game in any sport. As i have said upthread, he loves the skill on display in women’s sport.

I think in many sports (not all), in particular at the elite level, men will out-perform women if they were to compete against each other. And that’s biology- because the best men are going to be stronger/faster etc than the best women. I think it’s a given and best just accepted.

I think that there is a disparity in skill between elite men and women in some sports- but I think that has come about due to difference in training opportunities and the way they have been trained, as much as anything. I also think in some sports there is a noticeable difference in how men and women’s play/perform. I’m not saying necessarily better or worse, just different- both can be very good, but they aren’t necessarily identical to watch.

For instance, I prefer watching men’s rugby to women’s. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think women shouldn’t play rugby or that they shouldn’t be professional etc. It’s just not my preferred match to watch- that won’t be everyone’s opinion, just mine and I don’t have an issue with anyone else taking the opposite view. Horses for courses, and all that.

It's not about skills; it is the entertainment. I love to watch woman tennis and volleyball, but not football. I don't care the gender of players just the overall thrill and fun.