Rugby League - man's game!

[Trinity]

Well I wouldn't want to see girls play call me sexist I couldn't give a flying ferret, is it so wrong for girls to be lady like? Sorry but not for me, if they want to play that's fine but I do not want to see it all.

 

[Evil Homer]

12 minutes ago, Trinity said:

Well I wouldn't want to see girls play call me sexist I couldn't give a flying ferret, is it so wrong for girls to be lady like? Sorry but not for me, if they want to play that's fine but I do not want to see it all.

Why can't they play rugby and be ladylike?

[Jim Prendle]

I know his type of discussion is all the rage at the moment, but God it’s tedious.

 

[RabbitRhinoovOZ]

9 hours ago, jacksy said:

What sports could they participate in that would not make you uncomfortable?

Well anything non contact, In saying that I have to admit woman's cricket is even less appealing to me then women's RL is. Tennis, Netball, Hocky , Soccer, Athletics etc are all sports I can comfortably watch women partake in.

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, DoubleD said:

I'm of a similar opinion, although haven't voiced it previously as it would likely get jumped on, as is the intolerant nature of society we sadly live in

I have huge admiration for women who give TGG a go, due to the toughness of it and am keen to see participation grow across the spectrum - the more people we can get engaged in the sport the better. However, it's not something i'm particularly interested in watching. Similarly, I don't see why people cannot admire the beauty/glamour that walk on girls have in darts for example.

It's sad that it gets clouded in an alleged sexist hysteria

I dont see why people would jump on anybody not wanting to watch womens rl. 

Womens RL gets a lot less people watching than the mens game so it is a common view.

Same with things like RU and Football - while the womens games have been getting some decent coverage, the majority of the fans from the male versions are not switching on to the female versions.

[MZH]

4 hours ago, Evil Homer said:

Of course they should, just like any prejudice.

 

5 hours ago, Evil Homer said:

No it isn't, it's literally the exact same thing. You don't have to abuse gay people or want to stop them to be homophobic. Feeling 'uncomfortable' with the thought of someone doing something they want to do and which doesn't affect you in any way based on preconceptions of what their role in society should be is pretty much the definition of prejudice. I'm not trying to demonize people, I'm sure the posters I'm replying to don't have bad intentions and would not purposely try to upset anyone or stop them from doing anything. But they are still sexist views that should be challenged.

Why do they need to be challenged? All people have said is that they dont really like the idea of girls playing rugby. No one has said it is wrong or needs to be banned, just that its not for them. Its an opinion.

Sticking with your gay example. Who really cares if someone is  homophobic if they never cause any harm through it? People are quite entitled to think it is wrong if thats what they really believe. Don't get me wrong, I think its a real shame if they do and its none of their business anyway. But do you want everyone to be made to watch clips of men kissing, Clockwork Orange style until they are comfortable with the idea? 

Your definition of prejudice is a little off aswell. I don't really like the idea of someone I have never met in Russia risking their life by doing a base jump. It has absolutely no impact on me. Is that a prejudiced view? What is so fundamentally wrong about someone being concerned about the safety of a woman that it needs to be challenged? When the Titanic was going down and they said women and children first. Was that prejudiced? Should it have just been a free for all with the strongest (the men) surviving? At least it wouldn't have been sexist.

If someone knows about rugby league, has watched womens rugby league and made their own mind up that they disagree with it. Then that is by definition almost the opposite of prejudice.

If a girl wants to play rugby. Great. If a girl wants to wear a skimpy bikini and parade about a boxing ring. Great. Whatever anyone else thinks about it should be irrelevant. But that doesnt mean they arent allowed an opinion on it.

[Copa]

18 minutes ago, RabbitRhinoovOZ said:

Well anything non contact, In saying that I have to admit woman's cricket is even less appealing to me then women's RL is. Tennis, Netball, Hocky , Soccer, Athletics etc are all sports I can comfortably watch women partake in.

That’s all fine. You admire and respect them but probably due to cultural reasons it’s hard to watch them in contact sports...

I’m planning on watching the Raiders v Souths on 10 February. It’s their women’s 9s teams. Best of luck to Souths (but I hope the Raiders win!)

EDIT: Just realised I’ll be in Wollongong that night.

 

[Copa]

Some suburban and country female rugby league action from Australia. The CRL match seems to have a good crowd too.

 

[Shadow]

I watched the women's Rugby 7s at the Rio Olympics because I'm interested in Rugby 7s, I didn't watch the women's boxing because I'm not interested in Boxing. Rugby League would come into the same category for me as Rugby 7s. I like the sport so would probably watch the women's version if it were accessible. 

Whether it's a "mans game" or not is a ridiculous question in 2018, 100 years after women got the vote in Britain and 43 years after the Sex Discrimination act. To add the thinly veiled racism of the reference to Zorro Suits makes the quoted article offensive and open to challenge.

[Ackroman]

4 hours ago, Trinity said:

Well I wouldn't want to see girls play call me sexist I couldn't give a flying ferret, is it so wrong for girls to be lady like? Sorry but not for me, if they want to play that's fine but I do not want to see it all.

 

and is it so wrong to prefer women to be ladylike or enjoy the female form at it's attractive best? A women playing RL is a conflict of 2 things I enjoy. Although I've never tried the role play yet. 

[RP London]

there seems to be a mix up here as far as I see it:

Not enjoying the game is not sexist... not enjoying it because you dont like seeing Women playing a contact sport is a little sexist (though hardly criminal and an extreme of the point) but equally a valid reason for not wanting to watch it.. banning women from playing it or spouting that they shouldn't because it is a mans game or because it is generally too tough for them is beyond the pale, amazingly sexist and boarding on the illegal (discrimination) I would suggest. I dont see anyone on here saying that they should be banned (thank god) just people who dont like it. 

I dont like some sports (male and female) as they just dont do it for me, the same could be said for why i would prefer one sex playing a sport to another. The skill level is womens football is not as high as the mens but it doesnt have as much of the diving around, abuse to the ref and other players etc so I actually find it a bit easier to watch. 

I help coach and under 10s team, we have a girl in it and she is one of the best players on the side, I would have an issue with anyone who says she cannot play, my daughter (who is 7) wants to play and when she has finished her commitments on a Sunday morning this summer, and if she still wants to, she will play, and I would take issue with anyone who says she cant/shouldn't.. Both my kids do Karate and both love it, and its good for them both in confidence and in learning to look after each other. 

My point is with equal opportunities must come equal opportunities across the board, that includes your right not to go along to watch if you dont want to and dont like it.. its also your prerogative to not enjoy it for whatever reason (i may not agree with you but then I may not agree with you about RU or cricket either) but standing there and saying that "its a mans sport" or that women shouldnt play it (I know that is not directly what he is saying) is very very wrong.

his comment about dressing them up as "zoro" and then comparing it to a burka/hijab etc is racist and uncalled for. As mentioned before grid girls are dressing with more on instead of being scantily clad because it gives more surface area for sponsors.. it is also just a little more respectful and many of the girls prefer it.. so maybe more clothes is a good commercial decision as much as anything (if it were to happen) and if he wants to perv I am sure there is a strip joint down the road

and on that point a strip joint (like some people with womens RL) is not something I am too keen on, or that I would partake in myself by choice as dont like them but I have no issue with their presence as long as the girls there are doing it by their choice and not as some form of human trafficking or being forced to work there in any other way.

[Trinity]

7 hours ago, Evil Homer said:

Why can't they play rugby and be ladylike?

It's not very lady like at all to behave in an aggressive manner, i don't recall me saying they shouldn't play they can do as they please I just don't like to see it. There are also many other things in the world I don't like to see and I also choose not watch them, I choose not to watch gay porn does that make me a homophobe? 

[Kayakman]

7 hours ago, Evil Homer said:

Why can't they play rugby and be ladylike?

Why can't they play rugby and be gentlemen?

These things are not mutually exclusive.  I have known many fine young respectable ladies that play rugby and hockey...great girls, and good to have watching your back in a bar fight too!

[Spidey]

19 minutes ago, Trinity said:

It's not very lady like at all to behave in an aggressive manner, i don't recall me saying they shouldn't play they can do as they please I just don't like to see it. There are also many other things in the world I don't like to see and I also choose not watch them, I choose not to watch gay porn does that make me a homophobe? 

The term “Ladylike” in itself can be construed as sexist. Suggesting women have to behevave in a certain way defined by their gender is the issue here. 

Why can a man be aggressive but not a woman?

[JohnM]

32 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Why can a man be aggressive but not a woman?

You're  not from Yorkshire, then? ??

[Ackroman]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

The term “Ladylike” in itself can be construed as sexist. Suggesting women have to behevave in a certain way defined by their gender is the issue here. 

Why can a man be aggressive but not a woman?

Women are different to men or hadn't you noticed? I'm sick to death of this pursuit of androgyny. If appreciating ladylike women is sexist then I'm happy to be sexist and science can happily explain why.

[Spidey]

5 minutes ago, Ackroman said:

Women are different to men or hadn't you noticed? I'm sick to death of this pursuit of androgyny. If appreciating ladylike women is sexist then I'm happy to be sexist and science can happily explain why.

Women (or men) have the right to be as “ladylike” as they want, but it shouldn’t define who they are, or what sports they want to play. 

How does science explain that only “proper men” should play rugby league?

[Kayakman]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

Women (or men) have the right to be as “ladylike” as they want, but it shouldn’t define who they are, or what sports they want to play. 

How does science explain that only “proper men” should play rugby league?

I really don't know what you people are arguing about.

[Amber Avenger]

2 hours ago, Trinity said:

It's not very lady like at all to behave in an aggressive manner, i don't recall me saying they shouldn't play they can do as they please I just don't like to see it. There are also many other things in the world I don't like to see and I also choose not watch them, I choose not to watch gay porn does that make me a homophobe? 

Depends on if along the same lines of believing women who play rugby aren't ladylike, do you believe participants in gay porn aren't "manly"? I'm not saying you do by the way, but that could be a logical extension of your argument.

[RP London]

50 minutes ago, Ackroman said:

Women are different to men or hadn't you noticed? I'm sick to death of this pursuit of androgyny. If appreciating ladylike women is sexist then I'm happy to be sexist and science can happily explain why.

actually what science will explain to you is that you will get aggressive women, ladylike women, tom boys and so on so forth because of personality traits, because of nature and also because of nurture.. science will not tell you that people of the female gender should act in one specific way..

women are different to men but each woman is also a different person with different characteristics as are all men or havent you noticed that?

as such they will all want to do/try different things, wanting them all to adhere to the same way of behaving is wrong on any number of accounts.. not least because there in lies a dis-functioning society. 

"Appreciating" women being ladylike isnt the problem, but if you were to expect all women to be ladylike it is because you are telling someone to behave in a certain way, potentially contrary to their nature just because of their gender. I am sure you wouldn't expect someone to tell your child to stop being themselves just because it doesn't fit into the normal way of behaving.. of course they may stay within the bounds of the law but their personality is key to them.. 

there are 3 different categories as far as I can see it:

1. someone who just prefers "ladylike" women.. everyone has their "type" if you prefer "ladylike" women (i dont like that term but get what you mean by it) then that is fine.. some people like blondes, big boobs etc.. that does not make you sexist of course..

2. someone who judges someone or treats them differently because they are female but not ladylike.. that is debatable (probably not sexist but just that you are a bit of a d*ck)..

3. a person who expects all women to be "ladylike" because they are women.. then you are 100% signed on sexist (and also a complete d*ck)..

from your posts I am pretty sure you are 1 not 2 or 3

[Mattrhino]

F1 has just scrapped the grid girls. Aparrently doesn't resonate with thier brand values whatever that means.

Ok cuddling up to Putin, Bahrain and Qatar though.

[RP London]

18 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

F1 has just scrapped the grid girls. Aparrently doesn't resonate with thier brand values whatever that means.

Ok cuddling up to Putin, Bahrain and Qatar though.

it will be interesting to see how they do this going forward.. are they getting rid of the term rather than the need for someone to beholding umbrellas etc.. for example will the teams need someone to hold umbrellas (in the rain and really sunny places they will still need to keep the driver cool/dry) and as such they can chose male/female team spokesman/non team spokesman. For the flags and placards will they now use kids/mascots/girls etc depending on the countries they are in... by scrapping "grid girls" this could be a great opportunity for other people to get involved.. equally for the "grid girl" to be employed by the team rather than the track and as such have a more active role in the team etc etc.. 

equally it could just be pandering to a lobby and they are scrapping the whole concept.. 

[Mattrhino]

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

it will be interesting to see how they do this going forward.. are they getting rid of the term rather than the need for someone to beholding umbrellas etc.. for example will the teams need someone to hold umbrellas (in the rain and really sunny places they will still need to keep the driver cool/dry) and as such they can chose male/female team spokesman/non team spokesman. For the flags and placards will they now use kids/mascots/girls etc depending on the countries they are in... by scrapping "grid girls" this could be a great opportunity for other people to get involved.. equally for the "grid girl" to be employed by the team rather than the track and as such have a more active role in the team etc etc.. 

equally it could just be pandering to a lobby and they are scrapping the whole concept.. 

I think the Umbrellas are usually held by a team employee already.

I wouldn't think getting Children to stand in the heat of a F1 track in the middle east or the Med for a couple of hours is a good idea.

The girls are usually in some sort of traditional dress albiet a bit tarted up. But it is not like they were stood in a bikini. 

 

[Mattrhino]

Just a way for them to seem progressive and appease the angry mob.

All the while they take billions from despot anti-human rights regimes around the world. 

World gone mad.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Mattrhino said:

I think the Umbrellas are usually held by a team employee already.

I wouldn't think getting Children to stand in the heat of a F1 track in the middle east or the Med for a couple of hours is a good idea.

The girls are usually in some sort of traditional dress albiet a bit tarted up. But it is not like they were stood in a bikini. 

 

It depended where they were... and that would stay the same as I said.. no you wouldnt put the kids out in the middle of the grid in the middle east but you might do at Silverstone where kids as mascots is much more of a thing. You are right about the umbrellas (I only mentioned it as it was listed on the BBC as one of their tasks but your right) 

the traditional dress stuff might well stay too but they can now put blokes in there too which with the term "grid girls" they may have not wanted to do... 

As you say a lot of them arent scantily clad now as sponsors dont want it but I would hope that it is scrapping the term and for each grand prix to have an ability to do different things which would be good.