Snooker

[TeenPlusCat]

I've been dipping in and out of the snooker this week, and a bit came up this afternoon about the women's world championship, and the fact that 2 women are now qualified to go on the main tour.
Anyway, they mentioned in passing that the first transgender (MtF) snooker player had got to the semi finals (Jamie Hunter).

Now obviously there is no obvious physical disadvantage to women playing snooker (except I suspect height and reach will still make a difference), but there is obviously a women's competition for a reason....
A teen boy hanging out playing pool/snooker would be a lot more usual than a teen girl, so at the age Jamie was developing their skills, a girl would be much less likely to have felt welcome?

Grumblemonster

Thanks for that. I am confusing my floor routines obviously.

And I have watched that video a few times now. The look on the women’s faces is very memorable.

Girls are taught from a young age that their activities are lesser, given less time, money and focus. It goes right down to playground politics...at 8 my daughter raged that boys took over the basketball courts at break and wouldn't let girls join
in. Any boy was allowed play and they eventually let her play when she was persistent and proved her ability. But a girl with a casual interest, who wanted to give it a try wouldn't have made it. (We discussed how to deal with this but then lockdown happened and normal playground use has not been reinstated so one to watch for the future).
Fishywishy is very determined to say lack of funding/investment is due to lack of spectator interest but that's a chicken and egg situation. When women's sports are more popular than mens, women get banned and sidelined again e.g. women's football post ww2. Women's sports are chronically underfunded with lack of investment right from grassroots to elite sport ergo they cannot develop at the same rate.
In addition, even if none of that was true (if there were equal opportunities, socialisation etc) men's sport is not better than women's sport its just different -performance and the skills required due to the physical differences between the sexes mean they are not comparable in that way. Individuals may have a preference for which they like to watch and that's fine it doesn't mean the other is lesser. We don't say that classical music is crap/not worth listening and should be abandoned in favour of pop etc because currently orchestras are supported by government grants and not ad profitable as other genres

Women's gymnastics is a whole other conversation really, since, with some exceptions, it favours teenage girls above fully formed women.

It could be argued that women's football is better than men's because it requires more skills and not just power. (A bit like how men's tennis got very boring for a while as it was all about massive serves and not much else.)

You are right that some womens sports are more interesting because they are different and not reliant on power serves or kicks etc.

Just like field hockey too. I find women’s hockey better to watch.

I have watched Martina play doubles as a maturer player. She was grace personified. I then watched a men’s game and it was much less interesting as a spectator.

Yep! Same for the women's rugby too, but the rules changes in the men's games brought that back to skill not slamming your oponents senseless, so now, not so much.

I disagree with Fish about the population not wanting to watch women's events.
There is much less opportunity though.
Maybe we should all try and grab it while we can - my kids saw an England Women's football match at our local stadium (it may have been u21s).
It was great.

@DomesticatedZombie But who watches the Paralympics? Go on show me a time when they even got close to Olympic viewing figures in terms of viewing hours consumed. Likewise women's football or women open or even the women's cricket world cup. People want to see the best physical human acheivements. Look at the difference in price between a arsenal ladies match day ticket and an arsenal men's match day ticket then add in the number of people prepared to pay for each (the ladies got a grand total of just over 2k average attendance last season the men nearly 60k). Society isn't as PC as mumsnetters want it to be (although not too pc because that wouldn't be compatible with GC beliefs).

I don't understand except for political or feminist reasons why people on here don't agree. When discussed at length this lunchtime outside of the Mumsnet bubble it was apparently "obvious" that there is a difference in interest.

Again Fish you seem to exist in a strange bubble of extreme capitalist individualism.

I know many people, both men and women, who watch women’s sports. And who watch the paralympics on TV. I, personally, pay to watch womens sports and so do my friends and work colleagues.

yes. The price of the tickets are often cheaper, and the crowd is smaller. But it takes time. And it is changing.

My dh really rates the woman's football
Great skill in football rather than amateur dramatics

( although he thinks the goal should be a big smaller for the goalie to cover )

But who watches the Paralympics? Go on show me a time when they even got close to Olympic viewing figures in terms of viewing hours consumed. Likewise women's football or women open or even the women's cricket world cup

Okay. Fewer people is not equivalent to no people. A 'smaller number' doesn't mean 'zero'.

See?

I don't understand except for political or feminist reasons why people on here don't agree.

‘Only people with a political agenda actually like watching or participating in women’s sport!!! No one else is interested. Just get rid of it completely. It is useless. It doesn’t earn anything near the amount of the most amazing, ever so brilliant men’s sport.’

’Women should just work harder to be as good as the mens. I mean, they wanted equality. Amirite!!!’

When discussed at length this lunchtime outside of the Mumsnet bubble it was apparently "obvious" that there is a difference in interest.

’Me and my sexist buddies all decided that since WE are not interested, and the past sexist attitudes of centuries did not change like, in the time WE decided it should have to show that those pesky women and girls deserve to be recognised for their unique and outstanding achievement, that it must only be idiots (cos they can’t see the obvious, obvs!) who think those useless pathetic women should be supported in having their own sports.’

’Cos we are the intellectual giants of the world and it is you on Mumsnet that are in a bubble! I mean, the Mumsnet bubble are the only ones who are stupid enough to not recognize that only the best of the best should survive, and if females cannot compete against males because they simply don’t have the advantages granted by that amazing hormone cocktail they can never have, too bad. They don’t deserve to play, be recognised, whatevs.’

’I mean, everyone has some advantage or other. Look at Phelps! Female athletes should just suck it up and admit they are crap compared to the male-sports-gods that we worship’

(My paraphrasing, of course)

@Fishwishy People enjoy excellence in all its forms. People can enjoy watching women being the best women at their sport without having to compare them to another body form.
After all, arguably fish are better swimmers than men, cheetahs better sprinters, but we don't say 'oh we won't watch men's sport because men aren't the best'.

... you're being caught in the fallacy that women are lesser men. We aren't. We are different.

Teencat

I think we are seeing someone who lives in that particular fallacy!!

@Helleofabore that is one heck of a ramble I offered facts about attendance. You simply trot out the same line with no actual evidence. You dismiss my experience outside of the Mumsnet bubble but you expect yours to be valid. You may well watch women's sports but the vast majority don't from Wimbledon to the world cup from athletics to rugby the women's game is has fewer spectators and fewer revenue (spectators X price they are willing to pay to watch) than open category. I'm not saying women's sports isn't serious for the participants but it isn't the best. We judge the best by competition in sport. the best is the one who wins the league beats the opposition the best women's team isnt the most skillful one but the one that wins the league best means beating the others in competition. Let women compete with men and you will see what is the best and in some sports this is eminently possible.

Your figures are not in dispute. It is your opinion about

We judge the best by competition in sport. the best is the one who wins the league beats the opposition the best women's team isnt the most skillful one but the one that wins the league best means beating the others in competition.

that I and others robustly dispute. And the fact you keep stating no one 'knows' outstanding sportswomen, which is an over exaggeration.

And the fact that any people who disagree are in some kind of *Mumsnet bubble and missing an "obvious".... difference in interest. *I mean what other interpretation is there for that statement other than you believe that you and your colleagues have some kind of superior knowledge and that you should be considered an authority.

Your assertion that the world 'only remembers' the best of the best and will not remember the best male and the best female, so females with natural disadvantages need to compete with males to determine who is the 'best' at that sport is absurd.

Just as absurd is the notion Let women compete with men and you will see what is the best and in some sports this is eminently possible.

It is just the continuance of 'female sportspeople are just not trying hard enough yet'. A misogynistic point of view.

I didn't say men wouldn't have an advantage on beam. I think they probably would, although it would be marginal because the strength and power advantage would be mitigated by the size disadvantage. It's the only women's artistic gymnastics apparatus where it isn't clear that men would have a large advantage. So men would definitely have an advantage in women's artistic gymnastics. If someone created some kind of mixed sex artistic gymnastics blending events from WAG and MAG the men would have a huge advantage since they have a definite advantage on 3 of the 4 women's events, maybe a marginal advantage on the other one, and women would barely even be able to do 3 of the 6 events on the men's side.

In rhythmic gymnastics, however, which is a completely different gymnastics discipline to artistic gymnastics, men wouldn't have an advantage because there is no tumbling and it is very much flexibility based. I realised now I put a typo and said tumbling isn't allowed in artistic gymnastics, but of course it is. That's what Simone Biles (and Shawn Johnson and Nile Wilson) do/did. Rhythmic gymnastics is the balletic one with the balls and ribbons, and contortion style stuff, and men would definitely have a disadvantage there.

Not that this has anything to do with snooker, but just for the sake of accuracy, and being armed with facts so that we are all able to make our best case.

@Fishwishy you seem to be persistent in ignoring the fact that sport has categories, even elite sport. Rowing has heavyweight and lightweight categories. Which is "best"? Is the men's eight the best or the men's coxless pairs? What about the coxed pairs?

Judo has weight categories - is the heavyweight 100kg+ category the "best"? What about swimming? Is the 50m freestyle winner the "best" at swimming, rather than the butterfly or backstroke? Is Sarah Sjostrom a "better" swimmer than Adam Peaty because her freestyle 50m is quicker than his 50m breaststroke?

And so on and so on.

Women's sport is a category of sport, like all these other categories. The fact that it is often valued less than the men's category by society is down to historical factors based in sexism. Not because it isn't the "best".

If Jamie had won the women's title he would have qualified for the main tour thus taking the place from a woman

I've played competitive cuesports for 15 years and have discussed this issue at length with my team mates.

Men absolutley have an advantage over women in cue sports. The main issue does not seem to be physical differences (although it does make a difference, especially when you reach the top tiers of sport) but mental\brain differences. Men have better spatial awareness and hand eye coordination.
I know a women who is one of the top female players, she is currently going through the menopause and it affects her game massively! A man would not have this problem. See also pregnancy!

Interesting we always look at morphological differences but not neurological differences. I'm not sure how the feminist mumsnetters will appreciate being told that men have the edge mentally as well as physically.

Note the use of better in the above quoted statement too not my words although I do agree, the open category is better sport.

And one of the reasons women appear to be so very significantly better in ultra endurance field is psychological. We are theorised to be better able to both anticipate our requirement to pace ourselves and theorised to cope better with the mental requirements of being alone and just going and going through exhaustion. There are also numerous physiological reasons for us likely being so much better in these fields, twitch muscle fibres, faster recovery times our higher natural levels of body fat, etc. So I'm honestly not sure what the fuck your point is. Men and women are better suited, physically and mentally, for different sports. What's the next thing you think is controversial to us, that water is wet, fire is hot?

My hunch is that Fishy has womb-envy.

Fishwishy

Again Fishy your own prejudice shows in your post. Neurological differences such as reaction time between eye and action have been discussed often. I think I have mentioned it on this thread.

I have yet to see informed feminists deny there are some processes in the brain that are different for females. Of course there is. Does it mean they should be discriminated against in an employment capacity.? No.

This is not the gotcha you think it is.