Why Do We Ignore Women's Sports?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because women's leagues are typically just less competent than the men's leagues. When that isn't the case they have significantly more popularity, such as in gymnastics or figure skating.
 
The only sport I follow is football (soccer) and to a much lesser and far more rare extend, very rarely tennis or basketball. Obviously I would ignore the very inferior women teams in football in both quality of players, prestige, popularity and many other factors. I don't even know if the team I support has a women team, I think it doesn't.

Women also ignore women sports in favor of football with men players.
 
This, shamefully. I don't watch much in the way of sports, but when I do I want to see the best of the best compete. I'd rather not have gender-exclusive leagues at all and have all major sports just be co-ed. As long as women are relegated to a second-rate league, they'll be competing for attention with minor-league equivalents for male leagues.

Is this obvious? Am I nuts?

Seems like the truly feminist position is to make all the pro sports non-gendered.

That would put women at a serious disadvantage in many sports unless you also mandated that teams needed to have equal representation between the sexes. If you go that route, you no longer have the best of the best.

There are sports where women are the more popular/better athletes, but males typically don't watch them.
 
You ever wonder why there's no professional women's baseball? Easy, if you wanted to see that level of play you could just watch the Japanese leagues.
 
I watch womens tennis and golf. More golf than tennis, but whatevs, I find it just as entertaining as mens in both those sports. I can't say the same for basketball though.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-04-20-title-ix-policy-repealed_N.htm

Yeah then Bush implemented some bullshit which basically allowed institutions to "survey" women on campus and use said survey results to rationalize their inadequate funding or coaching.

If it wasn't for men's basketball/men's football making insane profits the vast majority of college sports male or female wouldn't have a dime in their budget. That they were ever included in title 9 is insane.


Also budget has nothing to do with bigger/stronger/faster.


On the URI campus the women's bball coach would bring squads down to play pickup against men...not the men 's team. Just random male URI students who played in highschool but not college. Just to gain experience playing against bigger/stronger competition. In the dozen or so times I was involved in those games the men always won. I'm talking about guys like me who played hs bball but never had a single college team even D3 have interest in me for bball. I was against women who worked on their games 10X as much as me as well.
 
As a Canadian reading this thread getting responses mostly from Americans, i think peak ability is a key factor, but there's more to it than that.

I mean, why don't Canadian football fans exclusively watch/follow the NFL? As I understand it, the NFL is higher level play than the CFL, but at least where I live, there is fervor over comparatively inferior CFL teams competing against each other. So why does comparative inferiority in this case not seem to matter as it does with the ability of men versus women in a given sport?
 
Read up on unequal athletic funding from highschool on.

I would be interested in reading an argument that women's sports' cultural relevance is exceedingly impacted by lesser funding at the high school and collegiate levels. While I'm sure there is some correlation, given the peak ability of each gender in sports in which they both compete, it's much more likely people would rather see ore impressive feats and higher thresholds. And as such the funding follows the demand.

Sports where there is some actual parity between then genders like Bowling or Chess just don't draw spectators, because they aren't impressive spectacles to the layperson.
 
The biggest reason?

Women don't watch enough sports, and men aren't interested in seeing lower quality of play.

The given question about why female tennis is popular where other sports aren't doesn't completely work though. First, female tennis is actually a high level sport that can be even more fun to watch than men's. Because women can't hit the ball as hard, you can often get more back and forth action, less matches that are just ace after ace after ace. Also because they play fewer sets, they can play harder without worrying about endurance as much. All of these lessen the difference in level of play for the spectator.

As for sex appeal, that can't hurt. If the majority of sports watchers are men, it can't hurt to appeal to them on multiple levels. I don't think sex appeal works by itself though. The game has to be exciting to watch on it's own after a certain point.

Also the comparison of female tennis players and female cyclists clothing misses the point entirely. Compare the average female cyclist(endurance athlete of any type really) to the average female tennis player, and it's obvious which are more attractive to males no matter what they are wearing. Female endurance athletes are by and large not sexy at all. Women need some body fat to appeal to men. If you look at the track and field athletes, the sprinters are the ones that make it big, and they are the ones that are more likely to be considered attractive.
 
I would be interested in reading an argument that women's sports' cultural relevance is exceedingly impacted by lesser funding at the high school and collegiate levels. While I'm sure there is some correlation, given the peak ability of each gender in sports in which they both compete, it's much more likely people would rather see more impressive feats and higher thresholds.

Sports where there is some actual parity between then genders like Bowling or Chess just don't draw spectators, because they aren't impressive spectacles to the layperson.

My point is the "athleticism" you're going to see on display in women's sports is impacted by less encouragement and financial support.
 
As a Canadian reading this thread getting responses mostly from Americans, i think peak ability is a key factor, but there's more to it than that.

I mean, why don't Canadian football fans exclusively watch/follow the NFL? As I understand it, the NFL is higher level play than the CFL, but at least where I live, there is fervor over comparatively inferior teams competing against each other. So why does inferiority in this case not seem to matter as it does when comparing the ability of men versus women?

Depends on where you live. In southern Ontario no one I know cares about CFL. Most aren't even aware of the differences between NFL and CFL rules. Maybe it's cool to go to the occasional game if they have a team in your home town, but I don't know anyone under 35 who would rather watch the CFL than the NFL.

On the other hand, plenty of people love OHL hockey and their games can get pretty good turnouts despite it being a junior league full of high school kids. People also love high school and NCAA football in the US. Probably because you get to see the future superstars play before they make it big.
 
I generally haven't much liked watching Women's MMA and Boxing mainly because they don't seem to have a broad enough pool of competitors so they end up with mismatches a lot.

It's just not exciting to watch a 6+foot lady gut punch a 5'4" lady into oblivion. You can call that before they even start up.
 
That would put women at a serious disadvantage in many sports unless you also mandated that teams needed to have equal representation between the sexes. If you go that route, you no longer have the best of the best.

There are sports where women are the more popular/better athletes, but males typically don't watch them.

I'm sure they'd be at a disadvantage, but it would certainly end all concern and worry about why people aren't watching women's sports.
 
My point is the "athleticism" you're going to see on display in women's sports is impacted by less encouragement and financial support.

Perhaps in team sports and generally getting kids interested in sports they didn't even know they could play. I can't really see the Williams sisters being any better at tennis if their HS had more money in the WS line.
 
Female football always rocks. I also tune in to all of their Olympic events - both summer and winter. My partner did javelin and long distance running so she would kill me if I didn't watch the track & field.
 
As a Canadian reading this thread getting responses mostly from Americans, i think peak ability is a key factor, but there's more to it than that.

I mean, why don't Canadian football fans exclusively watch/follow the NFL? As I understand it, the NFL is higher level play than the CFL, but at least where I live, there is fervor over comparatively inferior CFL teams competing against each other. So why does comparative inferiority in this case not seem to matter as it does with the ability of men versus women in a given sport?

People watch the CFL to cheer for the team in their area.
 
This, shamefully. I don't watch much in the way of sports, but when I do I want to see the best of the best compete. I'd rather not have gender-exclusive leagues at all and have all major sports just be co-ed. As long as women are relegated to a second-rate league, they'll be competing for attention with minor-league equivalents for male leagues.

Is this obvious? Am I nuts?

Seems like the truly feminist position is to make all the pro sports non-gendered.
Why waste money for something no one wants to watch?
 
They just lose out in comparison to men's sports. Is there a female with more talent than Messi? Could Serena beat Federer? I firmly believe that athletics and testosterone go hand in hand.

I do like watching some women's sports, soccer and tennis being the obvious ones, but it's because I love the way that the sports are played that I'll be able to watch any level.

Weird that the article was centered around cycling, though. Fringe sport at best (although a ridiculous achievement physically)
 
People usually pay more attention to women's athletes only when they start posing in a bikini or with a sexy pose in a cover of a magazine.

Sad, but there are a lot of truth in that. Slightly attractive? Book that lady straight for a sexy photoshoot! *shakes head*
 
Did you ever think this might be because they never advertise or air these sports on tv?

The WNBA had plenty of advertising and was also aired nationally on it's debut. I was a huge basketball fan so I was really looking forward to it and had an open mind. After a few weeks I just couldn't deal with the lack slam dunks and faster pace. I wasn't alone and it slowly lost it's popularity. We want to see the best athletes in the world. For me it's not a male or female thing it's whoever does it best. In Gymnastics I prefer to watch women in basketball it's men in sports like tennis I'll watch either or.
 
Not really. I'd say they are about as exciting as men playing sports.

While many will say that's completely untrue, I'm inclined to somewhat agree. I wouldn't say all women's sports are equally as exciting as men's sports, I'd say they definitely have the potential to be as exciting.

I watch sports not only for the athleticism but also for the drama. That's why I can enjoy college sports despite their much lower level of play; because they have historic rivalries and more diverse tactics that make the sport entertaining or at the very least interesting.

Women's tennis is also an example of that, which is why it's one of the admittedly few women's sports I follow.
 
Women's volleyball is the only college sport I will watch.

Women's mma gets no respect but I think it's great. The talent is sparse but they have something to prove. It's like watching 125-145 men.

Editing to clarify that I watch women's vball cuz the skill level is high and it's always exciting.
 
I actually prefer women's tennis over men's. But that's probably the only instance where if I had a choice I would choose the women's version.

Actually volleyball also.
 
As a Canadian reading this thread getting responses mostly from Americans, i think peak ability is a key factor, but there's more to it than that.

I mean, why don't Canadian football fans exclusively watch/follow the NFL? As I understand it, the NFL is higher level play than the CFL, but at least where I live, there is fervor over comparatively inferior CFL teams competing against each other. So why does comparative inferiority in this case not seem to matter as it does with the ability of men versus women in a given sport?

Isn't Canadian Football played with different rules and such?
 
There is. The fifa women's cup.
Never heard of it.
I mean i know there's women's football, but since it's usually treated like an amateur thing (for some reason) it never occurred to me to look into it.

Gotta stretch that i don't follow sports, and when i follow my country during the world cup/Euro cup is mostly because of the huge media bombardment that gets me hyped up, after which i go back to not giving a shit about it.

Still, it's really a weird thing how sports are so gendered, though it doesn't really surprise me, since aside from the physical differences, there are reasons deeply rooted in culture.
I guess sports are the quintessence of it.
 
Not disagreeing but do you think that is the absolute only reason?

Of course not.

I absolutely do not think its because 'women playing sport is less exciting'. I would enjoy watching a women's soccer team as much as a men's soccer team. Women's tennis is no less exciting than men's.
 
Of course not.

I absolutely do not think its because 'women playing sport is less exciting'. I would enjoy watching a women's soccer team as much as a men's soccer team. Women's tennis is no less exciting than men's.

It's heavily dependent on the sport and on the person though.
 
Because women's sports are only considered entertaining (to the masses) when grace and finesse are more important than physicality and endurance. Such as Ice Skating, Tennis, Gymnastics, Golf, etc.

Every single sport where women athletes can excel in popularity (not talking Danica Patrick outliers here) is related directly to this reason.

When physicality and endurance are more important than grace and finesse in sports like soccer, football, boxing, etc. people turn to men. (Women's professional soccer is not popular, the USA league died... twice!)

All sports actually require all 4 of these attributes but some sports put more emphasis (real or imagined) on one side or the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom