Err... Is this sexist?

[evilhamster]

This one

It seems to be quite sexist, or at least biased, not to mention being anti-Paralympics/Paralympian (disablist?) in one of the paragraphs. And I find it hard to believe it's written by a credible journalist at all. Amongstr other things, he seems to be saying that someone (Froch) who's not actually even top in weight band is better than someone like Jessica Ennis who's the best in her sport. Not to mention completely disregarding the fact that it's not Best At Sport, but Sport's Personality of the Year. Or have I just been looking at it wrongly?

Is it just me, or do you think the same?

I think you are probably correct, Smudging when it comes to PRESS coverage. (As opposed to other forms of media)

I was very disappointed by the lack of press coverage of the England's women rugby team victory over NZ, however I do think that the BBC did a very good job with on-line commentary.

Thanks for the article Very useful! So a misogynist (according to that) is always sexist, but in this case the article displays his misogyny not his sexism. Or something

I think I agree a bit. Although there are many sports (such as the English rugby team complex said) which should be broadcasted, public awareness is so little that although there is a limited number of fans, it's not on the news or on tv and people aren't made aware of it as much. When a friend said she was thinking about getting tickets for Wimbledon (never got them though!) she said she'd ideally get the men's tennis, and if she didn't, she'd go for the women's just for the experience of Wimbledon. It's recognised in some ways, but is often a fall back sport almost for some (not all, obviously) fans.

Now it sounds like I have a sexist friend. Basically, men's sport is still seen as the main one for some sports (not others, for instance gymnastics or swimming) and women's are secondary sports almost. Think of how televised the World Cup was and compare that for the women's team...

Just something I have been pondering...

I never really get the 'women play fewer sets so they should have lower prize money' argument. We don't pay sports people based on how long they are on the track/court. If we did, the earnings of cricketers and tennis players would eclipse that of footballers and 100 m sprinters would be on the breadline.

The tennis 5 v 3 sets thingy (which only applies anyway to the 4 slams - not the Masters or any other tournament) is actually more discriminatory against women then equal prize money is against men. It allows men the chance to come back from two sets down, while women who are fit athletes and well able to play 5 sets, do not get that chance. Think how Andy Murray at the American Open lost sets 3 & 4 and came back to win in set 5 (for example).

Also, women tennis players have offered to play 5 sets at the slams and been turned down on the basis that the ATP and WTA schedules are so tight that it would not allow for the extra time needed.

I really think it should not be beyond the wit of the slams to find a way to allow women to play 5 sets.