Analysis The Small Things

[Andre]

Boob.

Is it more insulting to call a woman a boob or a bloke with man boobs?

And bro or manzier?

 

[Lagooner]

Is it more insulting to call a woman a boob or a bloke with man boobs?

And bro or manzier?

It's the Bro. Ma man Cosmo knows where it's at!

 

[Eddie Dingle]

Dill

 

[finbarr]

Is it more insulting to call a woman a boob or a bloke with man boobs?

And bro or manzier?

"Boob" as an insult is derived from "boobery" and has nothing to do with the female anatomy. A boob is a fool.

 

[Lockhart Road]

Relevant to this thread ... what I perceive as part of its original intent, at least ... is an article from Adelaide Review written by our GM Community Programs and published last June. Andrew Hunter is married to dual Olympics breast-stroker Sally Foster. She swam for her country in 2008 (Beijing) and 2012 (London).

http://adelaidereview.com.au/opinion/modern-times/modern-times-uneven-playing-field-womens-sport/

Modern Times: Uneven playing field

Horse racing receives more exposure on Australian television sports news than women’s sport. This reality is accepted, despite the success of our female Olympians and national women’s teams, and despite the growing level of participation in women’s sport.

If circumstances that can only lead to economic inequality are accepted as normal, inequality is the only possible outcome. Australian women won the majority of our medals at the London Olympics, but many returned to relative obscurity in Australia.

Many successful female Olympic athletes live on modest incomes while their male counterparts, who achieve similar or inferior results, thrive. The source of this inequality is easy to identify: female athletes do not have the same earning capacity as males do in Australia because they are not afforded equal attention in the media.

With few exceptions, our Olympic athletes rely on media exposure and sponsorship to achieve an income level which their achievements merit. A recent report, 'Towards a Level Playing Field: Sport and Gender in Australian Media', showed that Australian television only dedicates seven percent of sports coverage to women’s sport and the situation is getting worse. The lack of mainstream exposure directly impacts on the earning capacity of Australian sportswomen.

It is true that the most popular spectator sports are played by men, and greater spectator interest naturally brings higher salaries and more attention from corporate sponsors looking to promote their products. But there is no reason for gender inequality to exist within Olympic sports, such as athletics, hockey or swimming.

At the last Olympics, a female swimmer became the equal most successful Australian in history in terms of medals won at a single Games (with five medals). Can you, dear reader, identify the swimmer? It is significant that James Magnussen is a household name but Alicia Coutts is not. Is Coutts – a remarkable athlete – too reserved, too uncontroversial, for the mainstream media? Should more have been done by Swimming Australia to promote Coutts and her historic achievements?
........................>>>

.....The coverage of women’s sport on television and in the media will likely worsen in the coming years. The period on which the aforementioned report was based preceded the decision to cease broadcasting women’s basketball and soccer. We need strong leadership or collective action on the part of our female athletes, coaches and leaders. And only a superficial national pride will, every four years, bring these great athletes out from the shadows. To their detriment, and to ours.

http://adelaidereview.com.au/opinion/modern-times/modern-times-uneven-playing-field-womens-sport/

Logically, if Andrew Hunter has anything to do with it, the subject of women's AFL at postcode 5015 will not be lip service.

 

[Magus]

Bell-end.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

Bell-end.

Knob

 

[raman]

Bell-end.

I'd like to thank The Inbetweeners for brining back this classic.

 

[charcolechaddy]

what about campaigner?

Was thinking this ,god we are going to have to re wright the rules of this forum.

What a put w***er,tosser,d-head.

 

[charcolechaddy]

I cant say wa\ker, bloody knob jockey's!

 

[charcolechaddy]

Muppet

I called a cows supporter a clown once, he lost his mind.

 

[Andre]

Relevant to this thread ... what I perceive as part of its original intent, at least ... is an article from Adelaide Review written by our GM Community Programs and published last June. Andrew Hunter is married to dual Olympics breast-stroker Sally Foster. She swam for her country in 2008 (Beijing) and 2012 (London).

http://adelaidereview.com.au/opinion/modern-times/modern-times-uneven-playing-field-womens-sport/

Modern Times: Uneven playing field

Horse racing receives more exposure on Australian television sports news than women’s sport. This reality is accepted, despite the success of our female Olympians and national women’s teams, and despite the growing level of participation in women’s sport.

If circumstances that can only lead to economic inequality are accepted as normal, inequality is the only possible outcome. Australian women won the majority of our medals at the London Olympics, but many returned to relative obscurity in Australia.

Many successful female Olympic athletes live on modest incomes while their male counterparts, who achieve similar or inferior results, thrive. The source of this inequality is easy to identify: female athletes do not have the same earning capacity as males do in Australia because they are not afforded equal attention in the media.

With few exceptions, our Olympic athletes rely on media exposure and sponsorship to achieve an income level which their achievements merit. A recent report, 'Towards a Level Playing Field: Sport and Gender in Australian Media', showed that Australian television only dedicates seven percent of sports coverage to women’s sport and the situation is getting worse. The lack of mainstream exposure directly impacts on the earning capacity of Australian sportswomen.

It is true that the most popular spectator sports are played by men, and greater spectator interest naturally brings higher salaries and more attention from corporate sponsors looking to promote their products. But there is no reason for gender inequality to exist within Olympic sports, such as athletics, hockey or swimming.

At the last Olympics, a female swimmer became the equal most successful Australian in history in terms of medals won at a single Games (with five medals). Can you, dear reader, identify the swimmer? It is significant that James Magnussen is a household name but Alicia Coutts is not. Is Coutts – a remarkable athlete – too reserved, too uncontroversial, for the mainstream media? Should more have been done by Swimming Australia to promote Coutts and her historic achievements?
........................>>>

.....The coverage of women’s sport on television and in the media will likely worsen in the coming years. The period on which the aforementioned report was based preceded the decision to cease broadcasting women’s basketball and soccer. We need strong leadership or collective action on the part of our female athletes, coaches and leaders. And only a superficial national pride will, every four years, bring these great athletes out from the shadows. To their detriment, and to ours.

http://adelaidereview.com.au/opinion/modern-times/modern-times-uneven-playing-field-womens-sport/

Logically, if Andrew Hunter has anything to do with it, the subject of women's AFL at postcode 5015 will not be lip service.

So everyone here would be happy to replace half of the AFL coverage on TV with Netball? TV stations are all about money, they are commercial enterprises after all. If more people Male AND Female wanted to watch women's sports it'd be on more and the incomes would go up. Most sports though the men are faster, stronger and/or can crash in harder and people (of both genders) would rather watch that. Even if the government came in and mandated that 50% of sports coverage had to be women's sports it wouldn't rate. Take one of the few sports were viewer numbers for both sports are similar - Tennis - and the earning capacity of males and females aren't orders of magnitude apart.

 

[chiwigi]

Relevant to this thread ... what I perceive as part of its original intent, at least ... is an article from Adelaide Review written by our GM Community Programs and published last June. Andrew Hunter is married to dual Olympics breast-stroker Sally Foster. She swam for her country in 2008 (Beijing) and 2012 (London).

http://adelaidereview.com.au/opinion/modern-times/modern-times-uneven-playing-field-womens-sport/



Modern Times: Uneven playing field

Horse racing receives more exposure on Australian television sports news than women’s sport. This reality is accepted, despite the success of our female Olympians and national women’s teams, and despite the growing level of participation in women’s sport.

If circumstances that can only lead to economic inequality are accepted as normal, inequality is the only possible outcome. Australian women won the majority of our medals at the London Olympics, but many returned to relative obscurity in Australia.

Many successful female Olympic athletes live on modest incomes while their male counterparts, who achieve similar or inferior results, thrive. The source of this inequality is easy to identify: female athletes do not have the same earning capacity as males do in Australia because they are not afforded equal attention in the media.

With few exceptions, our Olympic athletes rely on media exposure and sponsorship to achieve an income level which their achievements merit. A recent report, 'Towards a Level Playing Field: Sport and Gender in Australian Media', showed that Australian television only dedicates seven percent of sports coverage to women’s sport and the situation is getting worse. The lack of mainstream exposure directly impacts on the earning capacity of Australian sportswomen.

It is true that the most popular spectator sports are played by men, and greater spectator interest naturally brings higher salaries and more attention from corporate sponsors looking to promote their products. But there is no reason for gender inequality to exist within Olympic sports, such as athletics, hockey or swimming.

At the last Olympics, a female swimmer became the equal most successful Australian in history in terms of medals won at a single Games (with five medals). Can you, dear reader, identify the swimmer? It is significant that James Magnussen is a household name but Alicia Coutts is not. Is Coutts – a remarkable athlete – too reserved, too uncontroversial, for the mainstream media? Should more have been done by Swimming Australia to promote Coutts and her historic achievements?
........................>>>

.....The coverage of women’s sport on television and in the media will likely worsen in the coming years. The period on which the aforementioned report was based preceded the decision to cease broadcasting women’s basketball and soccer. We need strong leadership or collective action on the part of our female athletes, coaches and leaders. And only a superficial national pride will, every four years, bring these great athletes out from the shadows. To their detriment, and to ours.

http://adelaidereview.com.au/opinion/modern-times/modern-times-uneven-playing-field-womens-sport/

Logically, if Andrew Hunter has anything to do with it, the subject of women's AFL at postcode 5015 will not be lip service.

When it comes to Olympic sport, generally it's the faster, strongest, highest that matters. The male competitors tend to be all three. How fast does the fastest female swimmer go? Is she as fast as the 10th fastest male?
The female 100m world record is 52.07 seconds, a record surpassed in male swimming back in the 60's.


However, the chicken and egg situation is in the spectator and sponsorship numbers. Far fewer women watch sport than men and men tend to prefer watching other men. Sponsors will inevitably aim at the market.

Equality of opportunity is hugely important and to a great extent it exists. What cannot then be forced on sponsors etc. is to provide equality of prizes when the popularity and market is not there. This does not just apply to gender but across sports. Your top Australian judo player has to self fund himself around the world, whilst the wannabe fish take all the funding. That's market reality unfortunately.

What Port are doing with the women's teams etc. is how things should be done, provide the opportunity at the appropriate level and then hopefully one day promote women to the senior teams.

 

[Portia]

So everyone here would be happy to replace half of the AFL coverage on TV with Netball? TV stations are all about money, they are commercial enterprises after all. If more people Male AND Female wanted to watch women's sports it'd be on more and the incomes would go up. Most sports though the men are faster, stronger and/or can crash in harder and people (of both genders) would rather watch that. Even if the government came in and mandated that 50% of sports coverage had to be women's sports it wouldn't rate. Take one of the few sports were viewer numbers for both sports are similar - Tennis - and the earning capacity of males and females aren't orders of magnitude apart.

So have you heard of advertising?

There's this thing, right, where a product is promoted to a large group of people with the aim of accessing as many people as possible, so that they can attach to the product - creating a demand. They can know what it is, know when its on, enjoy it, and if the promotion is done right, it lingers.

But thats not all, there's a thing caled supply where when people want something, you put it somewhere where they can get to it, and if people want it, they get it. Its called supply and demand.

But here's where advertising comes in, because advertising works to increase demand! And when you have demand and supply, you move product.

I know its pretty weird and out there, and we only have 13000 odd years of data, but apparently if you promote something to the public and make it accessible to them, they are more likely to watch it than if you don't.

Its a pretty popular concept.


PS. Of the 20 odd AFL shows/radio programs following the format "white dudes address questions posed by a host from a running sheet with occasional video clips and blokey banter", we could live with only about half of those, sure.

 

[chimmez]

When it comes to Olympic sport, generally it's the faster, strongest, highest that matters. The male competitors tend to be all three. How fast does the fastest female swimmer go? Is she as fast as the 10th fastest male?
The female 100m world record is 52.07 seconds, a record surpassed in male swimming back in the 60's.


However, the chicken and egg situation is in the spectator and sponsorship numbers. Far fewer women watch sport than men and men tend to prefer watching other men. Sponsors will inevitably aim at the market.

Equality of opportunity is hugely important and to a great extent it exists. What cannot then be forced on sponsors etc. is to provide equality of prizes when the popularity and market is not there. This does not just apply to gender but across sports. Your top Australian judo player has to self fund himself around the world, whilst the wannabe fish take all the funding. That's market reality unfortunately.

What Port are doing with the women's teams etc. is how things should be done, provide the opportunity at the appropriate level and then hopefully one day promote women to the senior teams.

You're spot on here. A lot of people seem to not understand that money in sport follows what are essentially free-market principles. If there is advertising money flowing, then a portion of that money goes to the players, it's that simple. It's also a bit of a vicious cycle; as there is little advertising in female sport, there is little money given to it's players, and as such, fewer 'professional' (as opposed to amateur) female athletes. ie, there is no money in the sport, and because there is no money there are fewer competitors.

If the government wanted to do something, they could re.****(? Why is this being filtered) the cycle somewhat through televising (and paying higher than market prices) for the broadcasting rights on the ABC for the new FAFL (? WAFL is already taken...), and televise it nationally, which would in turn increase the sponsorship and participation rate in the sport. This would essentially be be Bernie Sanders-ing the competition, compared to what we have now which is essentially survival of the currently fittest.

Also, my favourite insult currently is: "penguin". It seems to annoy people when I call them a bloody penguin.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Portia]

I find it amazing that `disrupt' is the business buzzword for changing a market position that every company seems to want to be a part of, but as soon as you bring it up in the context of women's sport, a product that is hugely untested for potential following, all of a sudden the idea of being a disrupt is a dirty word. Suddenly `the free market', which is the least accurate name ever, is unchanging and unalterable...for women.

The most pleasing thing about how the AFL has been going about women's football is that it has been big and bold and disruptive, and it needs to keep being it.

 

[Andre]

So have you heard of advertising?

There's this thing, right, where a product is promoted to a large group of people with the aim of accessing as many people as possible, so that they can attach to the product - creating a demand. They can know what it is, know when its on, enjoy it, and if the promotion is done right, it lingers.

But thats not all, there's a thing caled supply where when people want something, you put it somewhere where they can get to it, and if people want it, they get it. Its called supply and demand.

But here's where advertising comes in, because advertising works to increase demand! And when you have demand and supply, you move product.

I know its pretty weird and out there, and we only have 13000 odd years of data, but apparently if you promote something to the public and make it accessible to them, they are more likely to watch it than if you don't.

Its a pretty popular concept.


PS. Of the 20 odd AFL shows/radio programs following the format "white dudes address questions posed by a host from a running sheet with occasional video clips and blokey banter", we could live with only about half of those, sure.

No matter how much you flog the shit out of something outside a first look people aren't going to watch stuff they don't want to watch. Yeah TV stations, radio and Egyptian dudes doing funny arm movements have being flogging stuff for ever, but without a state dictating what to watch and especially in this day of so many choices of medium and channels, you could make 2017 the year of women's sport and force everyone to watch, advertisers to promote and every leader of government and country to promote and by Feb 2018 we'd be close to where we are now.

Politically incorrect or not, sport is the one realm where men being bigger, faster and stronger leads to what in any other realm would be discrimination, where either gender could do just as well. And despite scooter brothers wishful thinking that raising everyone gender neutral will lead to the rise of the Amazons within a generation, unless we start messing with eugenics men being bigger, stronger and faster isn't going to change in the next 1000 years.

 

[Portia]

No matter how much you flog the shit out of something outside a first look people aren't going to watch stuff they don't want to watch. Yeah TV stations, radio and Egyptian dudes doing funny arm movements have being flogging stuff for ever, but without a state dictating what to watch and especially in this day of so many choices of medium and channels, you could make 2017 the year of women's sport and force everyone to watch, advertisers to promote and every leader of government and country to promote and by Feb 2018 we'd be close to where we are now.

I love how you can be so certain of something that has been entirely untested and which, according to pretty well established theories on media, is almost certainly false.

Politically incorrect or not, sport is the one realm where men being bigger, faster and stronger leads to what in any other realm would be discrimination, where either gender could do just as well. And despite scooter brothers wishful thinking that raising everyone gender neutral will lead to the rise of the Amazons within a generation, unless we start messing with eugenics men being bigger, stronger and faster isn't going to change in the next 1000 years.

I can tell you for free that the degree to which I watch football for bigger, faster, stronger is negligible. The sports where those traits are taken to extremes (weight lifting, running, body building) aren't even the most popular sports to watch.

At the end of the day what we watch sports for most commonly is conflict.

We watch for conflict. No one seems to have a problem watching Conor McGregor fight, and he's not the biggest, fastest, strongest fighter. No one has a problem watching Ronda Rousey fight.

A lot of us had no problem watching SANFL and ignoring the AFL when we weren't in it. We don't feel compelled to watch NFL over AFL just because it has demonstrably better athletes.

Exposure to sport is the #1 driver of support for sport.

 

[chiwigi]

I find it amazing that `disrupt' is the business buzzword for changing a market position that every company seems to want to be a part of, but as soon as you bring it up in the context of women's sport, a product that is hugely untested for potential following, all of a sudden the idea of being a disrupt is a dirty word. Suddenly `the free market', which is the least accurate name ever, is unchanging and unalterable...for women.

The most pleasing thing about how the AFL has been going about women's football is that it has been big and bold and disruptive, and it needs to keep being it.

If there is money to be made, people will invest. Maybe it's not that they are women, but that the money isn't there.

If it was simply a gender issue then there would be plenty of female investors picking up the slack (and the cash).

The richest Australian female owns a significant aamlunt of the second largest ISP after Telstra. So media coverage is there.
Many of the richest females are self made entrepreneurs...they surely wouldn't miss this trick.

 

[Dylan8]

Funnily enough many blokes pine for the football of the 80s where the talls were no bigger than today's midfielders.

People don't lean towards physical excellence they want entertainment.

 

[PAWt]

PS. Of the 20 odd AFL shows/radio programs following the format "white dudes address questions posed by a host from a running sheet with occasional video clips and blokey banter", we could live with only about half of those, sure.

Marngrook is about the only 'footy show ' I can tolerate these days. And I am a fat middle aged white bloke

 

[Portia]

If there is money to be made, people will invest. Maybe it's not that they are women, but that the money isn't there.

Yeah but even thats not true. You went to the LSE, you know about appetite for risk.

There is money to be made in lots of areas that people don't want to invest in until it looks `easy'. Thats why we have tech booms and the like. Women's sport doesn't look easy, but it doesn't mean there's no potential money in it. It just isn't easy.

If it was simply a gender issue then there would be plenty of female investors picking up the slack (and the cash).

Why would you assume that only women could be interested in women's sport, or that women don't also follow the same principles of favoring easy investment?

 

[chiwigi]

Funnily enough many blokes pine for the football of the 80s where the talls were no bigger than today's midfielders.

People don't lean towards physical excellence they want entertainment.

Different argument. I agree with this.

 

[raman]

Pertinent.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto..._is_our_mole_iest_sex_symbol_of_all_time.html

 

[chiwigi]

Yeah but even thats not true. You went to the LSE, you know about appetite for risk.

There is money to be made in lots of areas that people don't want to invest in until it looks `easy'. Thats why we have tech booms and the like. Women's sport doesn't look easy, but it doesn't mean there's no potential money in it. It just isn't easy.

Why would you assume that only women could be interested in women's sport?

I don't assume that, but it hurts the gender argument.

I amended my post adding that one of the richest females has a massive stake in the second largest ISP for example. Plenty of scope for exposure there.

Most of the richest women are self made risk takers, that's how they made it, why would they suddenly become risk averse? Maybe they aren't risk averse, maybe they simply see it is not a realistic proposition.