Was genuinely shocked you had written this, to be honest. I expected it from other posters but not from you. I don't watch or have much interest in women's sport but I feel very strongly that they should be able to play any sport they like, and I have no issues with female commentators whatsoever. I've highlighted the bits that I particularly thought were out of order and they are not ambiguous in the slightest.
And that was this week’s episode of ‘Unexpected Revelations’, where we found out Prince of Risborough is an unlikely sexist. Join us next week, where we unearth Jay’s past in the KKK, trace Young Nudger back to his Lancashire birthplace and discover that Orsenkaht is actually a teenager.
I think where you're going wrong is expecting the sports to be identical and using that basis to decide one is inferior. Oddly in the sports that you truly can say women are inferior (no offence ladies) such as running or basically any Olympic sport that uses hard and fast 'yes or no' rules to determine a winner you accept that and don't mind at all that not one woman at the 2016 Olympics ran a quick enough time in the 100m to even get through ANY of the heats. In fact only one person out of I think 56 men posted a time slower than the fastest woman. But people, you included, consider this as fine and acceptable because it's not 'a man's sport'. Women's football however which has many different attributes to it you just make a sweeping statement of women are ****, it's an inferior product and you're against the idea of women doing it. In reality what you mean is women's football is different. Women aren't as fast or as physically strong because of genetics but there isn't really anything in a woman's body that stops her being as skillful or tricky as a man. In fact I'd say that their body size often aids them with skill in a way that players like dale Jennings could never do. Women's football is different from men's but how does that in any way make it inferior? That's like arguing that because dogs are faster than cats (over long distances) that dogs are better pets and cats are inferior. In reality they may both come under the umbrella of pets but they're different things with advantages to both. Sweeping statements of women are inferior at 'mens sports' are laughable and make you look very small minded and sexist. I think in reality what you mean is 'im quite old now and I grew up watching women do some sport so it's normal but I'm not very good with change so I can't handle the idea of women doing things they didn't used to do'
I can see this post was made without wishing to offend, without malicious thought. I don't doubt that for a second. But it's 100% pure misogyny. Just because you don't recognise that, doesn't mean that isn't the case.
Women should be allowed to play whichever sports they wish. However, I will not be watching any of it. The Australian women's team played Newcastle Jets under fifteen boys team as a warm up for the World Cup. They lost 7-0. Says it all. Mixed gender sports should never happen either.
Although I can see why this post caused a stir I don’t care for name calling and attempted PC shaming when a poster opens up a subject for debate. For my part I have 2 sporty daughters and watch them at gymnastics, athletics, hockey and netball. We also watch those sports on TV, along with women’s cricket, which I reallly enjoy, and tennis. Isa Guha and Alison Mitchell are excellent cricket commentators and although I cannot stand Alex Scott on the football I really like Sue Smith. Also great to see women breaking through into the elite of men’s darts. I understand but do not share the point of view expressed by the Prince and certainly do not think worse of him for raising it.
As a oldish bloke from South Yorkshire im definitely not the torch bearer for woke opinions, but this is pretty pathetic. In most areas of life we truly need more women not less, I’m sorry if that threatens you, but for goodness sake, it’s just the same argument we have heard against women’s participation in all walks of life for the last 500 years.