UK schoolgirls exasperated by sexism in soccer association's "get girls into sports" advice

Ugh. Why is it that sometimes people are the most obnoxious when they're trying to be helpful? I was out fishing on Sunday, and this old guy struck up a conversation. Now most people I've met while fishing are pretty cool, all sharing an activity they enjoy and cheering each other on when you catch something good. It's pretty straightforward conversation. "How's the fishing?" and "Nice weather/currents/whatever," pretty much covers it, with maybe a "where you from?" tossed in for good measure before you settle in to enjoy the quiet.

This guy though... first didn't bother to ask my name, just started calling me "Girl." Not "A girl," just "Girl," the way you might address a stray by calling it "dog." "Hi, Girl. How's the fishing?"

Then he watches me cast and basically told me I was pretty good at casting for a girl.

He asked where I lived, and when I told him, he said, "Oh, that area's dangerous. You have to watch out for blacks." I responded that most of my neighbors were black and I'd never had any problems. That shut down that line of conversation, but he kept on trying to chat.

He waited until I reeled in my line and came over. "Let me see how you've got that rigged, Girl. Oh, there's a better way. Want me to show you?" I declined and told him I liked it how it was (There are a thousand ways to rig a line, and most of them work okay, and EVERYONE thinks their way is the best ever).

Clearly, the only experience this guy had fishing with women was bringing along the occasional female relative and showing them the ropes. He had no idea how to interact with a woman who didn't want or need his help, so he fell back into what patterns he knew. As awful as he was, he obvously meant well (even the racist comment out of left field seemed spurred by a misguided desire to be protective), and he seemed genuinely puzzled that I responded less than warmly. He was completely oblivious to the fact that every word he spoke was condescending, offensive, or both.

Why do folks find this so difficult? ... all you have to do is treat the girls the same way you treat the boys. Old dude would have been much more pleasant company if he hadn't treated me like "a girl." (Also, if he weren't a racist, but I'm focusing on the sexism since it's the thread topic). No way he would have walked up to a male fisherman and offer to "help" with their rig.

And soccer? I played soccer in high school, and it's awesome just like it is. You don't need to "pink it up." It's fun. Let girls know it's fun, and *gasp!* they'll join in, mud and all. It's not that hard people.

/end rant

Tazlima said:

And soccer? I played soccer in high school, and it's awesome just like it is. You don't need to "pink it up." It's fun. Let girls know it's fun, and *gasp!* they'll join in, mud and all. It's not that hard people.

Click to expand...

Here in the states, one of the best ways to get more girls involved with soccer would be to hand out tickets to see the women's national team play. If you see any of the games on TV, when they show the people in the stands, there's always large amounts of young girls wearing jerseys, totally rapt, clearly imagining themselves on that field someday themselves.

I played soccer in high school, college, and on club teams after college. I was a good player. I am in total awe of the physical skills and ability of the women playing soccer today – they play the sport at a level that I only aspired to reach and never could.

Tazlima said:

And soccer? I played soccer in high school, and it's awesome just like it is. You don't need to "pink it up." It's fun. Let girls know it's fun, and *gasp!* they'll join in, mud and all. It's not that hard people.

/end rant

Click to expand...

Just because you don't want it "pinked up" doesn't mean there aren't girls out there who WILL respond to that and through things they're already interested in, learn to love soccer.

Do they have to come to it for the same reasons you did for their approach to be valid?

rugcat said:

I played soccer in high school, college, and on club teams after college. I was a good player. I am in total awe of the physical skills and ability of the women playing soccer today – they play the sport at a level that I only aspired to reach and never could.

Click to expand...

Lol, I was a terrible player. I'd never played before, and I really only made the team because it was the first girl's team formed in my small hometown and I made 11. Some of the other girls were just amazing, though, and I trained my tail off to be worthy of sharing a field with them.

Myrealana said:

Just because you don't want it "pinked up" doesn't mean there aren't girls out there who WILL respond to that and through things they're already interested in, learn to love soccer.

Do they have to come to it for the same reasons you did for their approach to be valid?

Click to expand...

Of course they don't, and I have nothing against stickers and pink stuff. But after a lifetime of pink cars, pink toolkits, pink guns, pink fishing poles, pink pocket knives, pink bowling balls, and on and on, it gets a bit tiresome. It's like a pink paint job is supposed to signal to women "this is okay for you. You're allowed to like this." How about not making it NOT okay in the first place?

Fun things are fun. Kids like tag. Kids like swimming. Kids like climbing trees, and petting animals, and riding rides. No extra enticements needed. (Generally speaking. Of course there are individual exceptions).

If girls feel like they don't have a place playing soccer, to the point that the sort of suggestions in the OP are seriously considered as a way to draw them in, stickers and... nice-smelling uniforms? Seriously? Girls will like soccer if you just use the right laundry detergent?... are, at best, a stop-gap solution to a much deeper problem and, at worst, a complete misunderstanding of WHY girls aren't playing.

Again, I have nothing against pink items. I've owned a couple myself. But those items invariably came AFTER the interest in the activity itself. If I like shooting, then maybe I'll buy that pink gun, but if I don't like shooting, handing me a pink gun is unlikely to change my mind.

And what about those on the fence? Maybe they're at the point where a pink item WILL give them that final nudge. Are they then going to feel like they're ONLY allowed to use the pink version, putting them right back into the box they just stepped out of?*

Pink is nice, but it's not a solution.

*For a fairly recent historical example of this kind of thinking: You're a woman and you want to go into medicine? No problem! But only as a nurse. Women can't be doctors.

Different bait for different sports, I suppose. Maybe accessories and toys are needed to get some girls interested in soccer. Probably they will drop out once they get out of school and there are no more prizes. While for women who play rugby, the pleasure of slamming into people at high speed will go on forever.

Granddaughter #1 was a power lifter in school. Pink stuff would not have impressed her.

rugcat said:

Here in the states, one of the best ways to get more girls involved with soccer would be to hand out tickets to see the women's national team play. If you see any of the games on TV, when they show the people in the stands, there's always large amounts of young girls wearing jerseys, totally rapt, clearly imagining themselves on that field someday themselves.

Click to expand...

This, and it amuses me to no end that soccer is considered such a "manly" sport in many parts of the world that it's hard to interest girls in it. When and where I was growing up, soccer was primarily a "girls' sport, one that we played in the fall, when they guys were channeled into "North American" (tackle) football. And they had co-ed soccer leagues in our city back in the 80s. It shocked one of my colleagues at work out (he was from Colombia) that his young sons had girls on their soccer team. He admitted that the girls were "pretty good" players, though.

A couple of my young nieces love soccer and are very active in their youth leagues. One also likes many traditional "girly" things (and the color pink), while the other doesn't so much. Neither of them worries about breaking nails while doing sports, though, or needs stickers to entice them to play.

rugcat said:

Here in the states, one of the best ways to get more girls involved with soccer would be to hand out tickets to see the women's national team play. If you see any of the games on TV, when they show the people in the stands, there's always large amounts of young girls wearing jerseys, totally rapt, clearly imagining themselves on that field someday themselves.

I played soccer in high school, college, and on club teams after college. I was a good player. I am in total awe of the physical skills and ability of the women playing soccer today – they play the sport at a level that I only aspired to reach and never could.

Click to expand...

This is touchy to me -- not your post, but the whole women's sports thing. One of the things mentioned in the opening post is the idea that girls want to play with other girls, and don't want to be seen by males. I'm sure that's true of some girls, but I think it probably could use some unpacking (why do they not want to be seen playing by males, why do they only want to play with girls?), but 'here, look at the women's team, aren't they inspiring?' kind of reinforces that.

I'm not big on segregation in team sports, kind of at all, and I think the perpetuation of it leads to a female ghetto that is, again, self-perpetuating. I know I may be an outlier on this, and I get that, but... it bothers me.

cornflake said:

This is touchy to me -- not your post, but the whole women's sports thing. One of the things mentioned in the opening post is the idea that girls want to play with other girls, and don't want to be seen by males. I'm sure that's true of some girls, but I think it probably could use some unpacking (why do they not want to be seen playing by males, why do they only want to play with girls?), but 'here, look at the women's team, aren't they inspiring?' kind of reinforces that.

I'm not big on segregation in team sports, kind of at all, and I think the perpetuation of it leads to a female ghetto that is, again, self-perpetuating. I know I may be an outlier on this, and I get that, but... it bothers me.

Click to expand...

Women are different physically than men. They're not as strong; they're not as fast.

There are always exceptional athletes – Rhonda Rousey can kick the ass of not only the average guy, but the average male fighter as well. But she cannot successfully compete against elite male athletes – she does not have the physical capabilities, nor does any woman.

The elite women athletes can compete on an even level with the average male athlete. But there aren't a whole lot of them, and they could never reach the highest level. Serena Williams, I believe, can beat a lot of mid-level professional tennis players – she would never be able to compete against a Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal.
The women on the women's national team are superior athletes to me; there's no way that I, as a man, could ever hope to make that team even if it had been an option to try it out. But none of those women are capable of playing for an MLS team.

If you do away with women sports, you do away with the opportunity for almost all women to play. There would certainly be a few who could play at the college level, but they would be a rarity -- everyone else would be sitting in the stands watching.

Women sports, where women compete against other women are great. I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that.

cornflake said:

This is touchy to me -- not your post, but the whole women's sports thing. One of the things mentioned in the opening post is the idea that girls want to play with other girls, and don't want to be seen by males.

Click to expand...

Part of that is the fact that there's an unfortunate amount of male leering at women's sports events. And it's unpleasant in the extreme. This is especially true at the junior high and high school levels. Even male coaches make jokes about your breasts, which is NOT OK, but especially not when you're a teen. It's gross. At least now, when you complain about that, it's often taken very seriously.

Yep.
Senior year in college, I swam my practices with the men's team, and the coach was going over what we we'd all qualified for at the end-of-the-season meet. He went through everybody except me, so I asked. His answer was to announce to the entire team (wearing a stupid grin) that I'd be spending the whole meet "on my back".

Yeah thanks, coach.

I probably laughed it off, because that's what you did, but you can probably guess how often I heard that joke (and worse) the rest of the year...

eta: fwiw, Age Group swimming (12&U) is heavily skewed towards female participation - probably 4 or 5 to one. As you get into high school, then college, girls/women start to drop off. I don't have any data to support, but based on my experiences both as a swimmer and coach, I think that body image and peer response has a lot to do with it.

I utterly despised pink as a little girl. Pinking something up to attract more girls wouldn't have worked with me. Seeing that adult women did it, and did it well, would have made it more interesting, though. Little kids having role models of the same gender they identify with, and seeing them in a variety of stereotypical and non-stereotypical activities, is incredibly important in shaping how those kids will view what they are and aren't allowed to do or should want to do.

Myrealana said:

Just because you don't want it "pinked up" doesn't mean there aren't girls out there who WILL respond to that and through things they're already interested in, learn to love soccer.

Click to expand...

Through things they're already interested in...the color pink? That seems...weird.

And I don't understand why learning to love soccer is important for girls who don't. When I was in school, most of the girls played sports. I didn't, and I was a freak. I can't imagine it's something they have any trouble getting girls to do.

rugcat said:

Women are different physically than men. They're not as strong; they're not as fast.

There are always exceptional athletes – Rhonda Rousey can kick the ass of not only the average guy, but the average male fighter as well. But she cannot successfully compete against elite male athletes – she does not have the physical capabilities, nor does any woman.

The elite women athletes can compete on an even level with the average male athlete. But there aren't a whole lot of them, and they could never reach the highest level. Serena Williams, I believe, can beat a lot of mid-level professional tennis players – she would never be able to compete against a Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal.
The women on the women's national team are superior athletes to me; there's no way that I, as a man, could ever hope to make that team even if it had been an option to try it out. But none of those women are capable of playing for an MLS team.

If you do away with women sports, you do away with the opportunity for almost all women to play. There would certainly be a few who could play at the college level, but they would be a rarity -- everyone else would be sitting in the stands watching.

Women sports, where women compete against other women are great. I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that.

Click to expand...

So there is no woman on Earth who is a better soccer player than the worst scrub in the MLS?

No, the pro leagues wouldn't end up half women, half men, if they were integrated, but there would be more than one woman in each league. There are hundreds of players in each of the four major leagues in this country -- there are women who are better than the scrubs and than some of the better players. There are also various positions, and various skills in each sport. No, every woman isn't going to compete for linebacker positions. There aren't that many women who'd likely be great NHL defensemen (though there'd probably be some), but there are surely women who could compete as forwards.

I did say team sports, but when you're talking about individual sports, you jumped right from mid-level to the top in the world. If we just blended the sexes in tennis, would Serena Williams be no. 1? Probably not. Would she be in the top 10? I'd say that's not out of the question. However, I did say team sports.

Why shouldn't sports be open to all on merit? Girls who want to play on the 'boys' team' are often told, even today, to play on the girls' team, regardless of their skill level. Why?

If you like women's team sports, great. I think they're harmful, not helpful and, frankly, mostly god awful.

I'm glad the kids stood up and put the writers in their place. They're right. It's patronising and irritating. More importantly, it shows that the work feminism has been doing for the past 40 years has had an impact. Girls are standing up for themselves. About sports. Fuck yeah.

cornflake said:

So there is no woman on Earth who is a better soccer player than the worst scrub in the MLS?

Click to expand...

Doubtful. There are plenty of top college players who never make it to MLS. The speed and power of the men's game today is more than women can handle.

I did say team sports, but when you're talking about individual sports, you jumped right from mid-level to the top in the world. If we just blended the sexes in tennis, would Serena Williams be no. 1? Probably not. Would she be in the top 10? I'd say that's not out of the question.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is out of the question. Here's what insiders following tennis have to say:

So could he? It sounds preposterous, right? Well, around the time of the Murray discussion, I polled some tennis insiders to see what they thought. Everyone agreed that Serena wouldn’t get a game off Murray and a few agreed that she wouldn’t win a point. No one believed she’d come close to beating a man in the top 100. When asked where in the men’s rankings Serena would be able to get a W, the answers ranged from “between 200 and 300” and “no one in the top 1,500.” (And let me add that the respondents were not people prone to hyperbole or sexism.) McEnroe himself once weighed in on the topic and said Serena might be able to be the No. 500 man in the world.

Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/amp/ftw.usat...s-jimmy-kimmel-andy-murray-how-many-games/amp

Why shouldn't sports be open to all on merit? Girls who want to play on the 'boys' team' are often told, even today, to play on the girls' team, regardless of their skill level. Why?

If you like women's team sports, great. I think they're harmful, not helpful and, frankly, mostly god awful.

Click to expand...

I agree on one thing – any woman who wants to play on the men's team and is good enough should be allowed to do so.

But team sports, for those who like them, are one of the great things that young people can do. I enjoyed playing soccer when I was young as much as I now enjoy playing in a band.

I really doubt that the thousands, (or even millions, by now) of young women who enjoy playing team sports think it's harmful to them. That's what title nine was about – giving women in college the opportunity to play in organized sports, something that was dismissed for many years. That's why every college has women's teams and sports programs, to the great benefit of the women who attend those schools.

If you think it's god awful, you don't have to watch. The whole point of sports isn't watching anyway, it's playing. And a lot of women are as dedicated to their sports as are any man. Frankly, the whole idea that women's sports are harmful, with the implication perhaps that we should do away with them under the guise of equality, is about as sexist an argument as one can make.

Celia Cyanide said:

Through things they're already interested in...the color pink? That seems...weird.

And I don't understand why learning to love soccer is important for girls who don't. When I was in school, most of the girls played sports. I didn't, and I was a freak. I can't imagine it's something they have any trouble getting girls to do.

Click to expand...

I think maybe it's different in the UK? We had Title IX, for instance, back in the 70s, which is when they really started promoting girls and women's sports in publicly funded schools, colleges and universities. I don't know if they had legislation of the same nature in the UK (and ironically, they probably couldn't pass anything like Title IX in today's political climate here). Or maybe they're still more about traditional gender roles in some respects?

It's also true that in the UK soccer is more like North American football is here-seen primarily as a boy's and men's professional sport still. There hasn't been a strong move over here to promote women's tackle football in schools and after school leagues (though they did have women's semi-pro tackle football leagues in the southern US of all places in the 1970s. I know a woman who played on one).

rugcat said:

Doubtful. There are plenty of top college players who never make it to MLS. The speed and power of the men's game today is more than women can handle.

Click to expand...

All women, any women? I don't watch soccer, or know about soccer, but that sounds ... off. I do know hockey, and I know there are women who could make the NHL, which features speed and power.

Actually, it is out of the question. Here's what insiders following tennis have to say:

https://www.google.com/amp/ftw.usat...s-jimmy-kimmel-andy-murray-how-many-games/amp

Click to expand...

Well, if a USA columnist and some guys he asked who he knows aren't sexist or hyperbolic think so...

I agree on one thing – any woman who wants to play on the men's team and is good enough should be allowed to do so.

Click to expand...

So let's just have teams segregated by skill level, not sex.

But team sports, for those who like them, are one of the great things that young people can do. I enjoyed playing soccer when I was young as much as I now enjoy playing in a band.

I really doubt that the thousands, (or even millions, by now) of young women who enjoy playing team sports think it's harmful to them. That's what title nine was about – giving women in college the opportunity to play in organized sports, something that was dismissed for many years. That's why every college has women's teams and sports programs, to the great benefit of the women who attend those schools.

If you think it's god awful, you don't have to watch. The whole point of sports isn't watching anyway, it's playing. And a lot of women are as dedicated to their sports as are any man. Frankly, the whole idea that women's sports are harmful, with the implication perhaps that we should do away with them under the guise of equality, is about as sexist an argument as one can make.

Click to expand...

I agree team sports are great - and there are a lot of women who wanted to play on teams but were shunted to women's teams or sports (softball, anyone) who I don't think would say the segregation was great. I'm all for equal opportunity and equal access, not separate.

I don't watch (and the point, imo, is both playing and watching -- some people are bad, or can't play, or don't want to play, or did play but don't anymore, but are fans. Team sports are great for lots of reasons). I've been to WNBA games and women's olympic hockey matches. I think they're both bad, in a sports sense, and marginalizing. It's very 'this is for girls! Look at the inspiring women playing sports. If you want to grow up and play basketball or hockey, this is the best it could be.' Why not just integrate? If no women made it into the pros, in as fair tryouts as possible, then what''s the harm? There'd be women in junior leagues, college sports ('male' ones)...

Yes, I can see you certainly don't know anything about soccer.

What you seem to be unable to understand or accept is the physiological fact that men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women. Not all men vs all women, but pretty much all men who play sports at a high-level.

If there was no such thing as women's sports, and it was all merit based regardless of gender, you would end up with one or two women out of every hundred playing sports at even a minor college level much less an elite one. Professional sports would be nothing more than a hopeless stream.

So you would be in favor of taking away the experience of team sports from literally hundreds of thousands of girls and women (if you include youth leagues,) and smugly explain that it's all a merit based system and if the women can't cut it, well that's just too bad.

I'm assuming you have no daughters. If I'm wrong, I feel a bit sorry for them.

rugcat said:

Yes, I can see you certainly don't know anything about soccer.

What you seem to be unable to understand or accept is the physiological fact that men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women. Not all men vs all women, but pretty much all men who play sports at a high-level.

If there was no such thing as women's sports, and it was all merit based regardless of gender, you would end up with one or two women out of every hundred playing sports at even a minor college level much less an elite one. Professional sports would be nothing more than a hopeless stream.

So you would be in favor of taking away the experience of team sports from literally hundreds of thousands of girls and women (if you include youth leagues,) and smugly explain that it's all a merit based system and if the women can't cut it, well that's just too bad.

I'm assuming you have no daughters. If I'm wrong, I feel a bit sorry for them.

Click to expand...

I don't know soccer, but I do know other sports, and in none of them is bigger, faster, stronger the determining factor in success. If it were, Wayne Gretzky wouldn't have had a career, along with dozens of other smaller, weaker, slower professional players I can think of.

I would be happy to explain (not so much smugly), that teams are open to everyone. I don't see what that'd do to remove girls from youth sports, as they're not so often merit-based, but for all comers. It'd just shuffle people. As leagues and teams get more selective, everyone faces having to prove their skill to play. I disagree with you about how many women there'd be. I also think that presupposes that there are somehow tons more men who want to play but can't, who would theoretically come in and take all the lower-level team spots. That, of course, wouldn't mean people couldn't play regardless. I know plenty of people play sports and aren't on any pro-level team.

It's hardly as if lots of women are making a good living playing team sports and would lose out.

As long as we're at it, let's make all sports gender neutral. Track and field, for example. We'll just have the hundred meter dash open to everyone – no separate race for women.

The 2016 women's Olympic champion, Jamaican Elaine Thompson, ran a time of 10.71. The 193rd fastest time that year in men's sprints was 10.25.

I'd love to see an Olympics with no women competing in any track and field event.

If you want to believe that women would do just fine competing against men in baseball, basketball, soccer, football, hockey, etc., if only they have the chance, but sadly and to their detriment they are relegated to competing against one another feel free.

As I said before, I doubt that the thousands of women currently enjoying organized athletics would find the elimination of their teams to have a positive impact on their lives.

I'm guessing not every player in the Negro leagues who couldn't find a team was happy either, but I still think it was right to integrate.

They'd still be totally free to enjoy organized athletics.

Wayne Gretzky was a rather fast skater during the 80s and early 90s. Without that speed, he would have not as many breakouts that would have resulted in so many of those points.

Women have tried out in the NHL, all have been goalies. The requirements for goalies have changed since then, making the goalie very often the tallest player on the team (2m+) because small goalies have become obsolete. So the prospect of anymore crossovers doesn't look well.