Getting ready to bore you.
I used to live in a small rural conservative town. Against impossible odds a few dozen acres of prime real estate were somehow exempted from feverish development for a “sports park.” The community took understandable pride in what they had built: a crowning jewel featuring baseball diamonds, fishing ponds, soccer fields, tennis courts, volleyball and more.
Finally the local amateur sport leagues had a place where they could shine and participate in the time-honored activity of athletic competition. The facility was promptly used as a means of gender-based oppression by giving all the best time slots to the boy leagues. Girl leagues were relegated to sloppy seconds.
Thanks for playing.
Aw, c’mon. Who could possibly be bothered by this? It’s just boys being boys, right? Don’t get yer panties in a bunch, honey.
Meanwhile, on one of the world’s larget stages, the Women’s World Cup is currently underway, presented by FIFA, one of the most corrupt organizations discovered by human science so far. Men play soccer on grass surfaces during major FIFA events. Women are playing the 2015 World Cup on artificial turf.
It turns out players don’t like artificial turf. It hurts and caused injuries and stuff. They call it “turf burn.” Search the web and you’ll see how turf brutalizes a player’s legs. Said one American female World Cup competitor, “Bullshit.”
Why grass for men and turf for women? Since non-profit organizations like FIFA are all about the money, I bet it has something to do with that.
The question of gender and turf earlier prompted a gender discrimination claim against FIFA brought by women World Cup players, but early this year the claim was withdrawn. Sadly the action never had any real chance of success.
Change is coming but it is slow. And it always favors men first. Women will get to play on grass in 2019. This year is the first for “goal-line technology” at a Women’s World Cup. Men have had it since 2014 in Brazil.
Why the disparity? Simply put, men’s sports are still the primary draw. Major tennis events traditionally end with the men’s final. It is the role of women to be the runner-up. The limelight is reserved for men. It’s all about the ratings and money. Can you name the female version of the Tour de France? No one has ever heard of it.
I honestly don’t understand this, but again, I think it has to do with dollars which are based on mob mentality and giving the public what it wants. Why does the public think sports by men or more important than those played by women? I have no idea except that we’re a really fucked up species.
Slam dunk.
Shouts from the Abyss 
nice blog….good informations…
LikeLike
Very interesting.
It’s because men are better athletes in most sports, so the action is more intense, hence they rake in more money. That’s the bottom line.
If tons of people were buying tickets to view women’s soccer, they’d get better equipment, pay, etc. I may get beat in the head with a soccer ball for saying so, but I don’t have a problem with that. As a woman, all I want is equal opportunity, not a guarantee of equal outcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the comment. I guess it begs the question: What do we mean by “better” when it comes to sports?
Is it a matter of strength, size, and power? If so, must a welterweight bout between two men always be less exciting and entertaining than a heavyweight bout between two men? Clearly it’s possible for the lesser weight class to provide equal entertainment.
Is it a matter of reflexes and accuracy? I haven’t seen any evidence that those traits are superior in the realm of men.
It is a matter of strategy, intelligence, and cunning? Again, I suspect qualities like those are equal across gender.
Maybe it’s the competitive spirit? The desire to win? I’ve seen female athletes compete with ferociousness that would curl your hair while male equivalencies were yawn-fests.
To me, I guess it comes down to this: why does society seem more interested in male competition? Does it say something about us and the role we feel women are “supposed” to play? That doesn’t feel like equal opportunity to me.
LikeLike
All excellent points – I don’t dispute a one of them.
Why are there more people interested in watching women parade around scantily clad than men? There are probably an equal # of hetero men and women in the world, so wouldn’t you think we’d want our fair share of the ogling? But men are typically more aroused by the visual than women. Is that a bad thing? Is it unfair to men with great pecs that bar owners don’t sponsor wet t-shirt nights for them, even if they would lose money? Maybe.
I think society is more interested in male competition for the same reason they are more interested in female anatomy.
Many of our preferences are hard-wired into us. But whether nature or nurture, people like what they like. They’re willing to freely pay their own money to see what they like. I don’t have a problem with that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Equally annoying is the increase in interest in female athletes based on their physical attractiveness, namely, how they look in their “outfits.”
Remember when the U.S. women’s soccer team was hot? Yes, they were winning, but “we” were also interested in how pretty Mia Hamm was and how “hot” it was when Brandi Chastain ripped off her shirt when they won.
Likewise the female volleyball players.
And, lately, I feel eerily uncomfortable watching women’s golf with senior men who would’ve flipped the channel when Nancy Lopez played, but who are more and more fascinated as the average age of the”women” is something-teen, and their skirts are growing shorter and shorter. In a word: gross.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An excellent obvious point I missed in my coverage. Thirty – love.
Your serve.
LikeLike
On the plus side, CBC radio morning sports review said many spectators are turning to women’s soccer because it’s more about play and less about acting. If male players are tripped, they fake injury. When put on a stretcher and carried off, they’re back in the game five minutes later!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re a bad ass, ‘qooq.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, thanks! 🙂
LikeLike
Sorry I’m stumbling on this (months) late, but I wanted to comment anyway. The fact that the women had to play on artificial turf is ridiculous and utterly disappointing. Yet the fact that the women are being slighted isn’t at all surprising. Which is really the saddest part of this I believe.
I think this all has to do with men “feeling” like women’s athletic competition is somehow substandard. That women aren’t as “tough” or “physical” so it must be boring and bland. As such they are less likely to watch, and much less likely to spend any money on it. UNLESS one of the competitors is a wife, daughter, sister, etc. and then they will seemingly out of a “duty” to support. I’m not sure why so many men feel that way, I mean personally I would much rather watch the Canadian women vs the American women in soccer than any other match. The game is just better. That lack of watching or spending by men on women’s athletics is the number one reason for things like this though. A large majority of sports viewers are men, and as such their whim is what will decide how much money is available to put into women’s professional sports. Which is a shame because generally speaking the end product is just as good, and often times better than the male equivalent. Perhaps if there was more money in women’s professional sports more girls would feel like they have the potential for a career after their amateur athletic days are done, and as such more girls would play sports longer. As it is once you’re done college/university there isn’t really much choice in pro sports beyond that, and what choices there are pale in comparison to the men when you look at salaries.
Since I’m rereading an old book I’ll leave you with this quote, if you’ll indulge me, from Tom Robbins about men and women.
“To diminish the worth of women, men had to diminish the worth of the moon. They had to drive a wedge between human beings and the trees and the beasts and the waters, because trees and beasts and waters are as loyal to the moon as to the sun. They had to drive a wedge between thought and feeling, between the lamplight by which they count the day’s earnings and the dark to which our Pan is ever connected. At first they used Apollo as the wedge, and the abstract logic of Apollo made a mighty wedge, and the abstract logic of Apollo made a wedge, indeed, but Apollo the artist maintained a love for women, not the open, unrestrained lust that Pan has, but a controlled longing that undermined the patriarchal ambition. When Christ came along, Christ, who played no musical instrument, recited no poetry, and never kicked up his heels by moonlight, this Christ was the perfect wedge. Christianity is merely a system for turning priestesses into handmaidens, queens into concubines, and goddesses into muses.”
LikeLike