´óÏó´«Ã½

(Ahem) Thursday's Glass Box

Comments

1. At 10:37 AM on 20 Apr 2007, eddie mair wrote:

   only kidding.

2. At 11:02 AM on 20 Apr 2007, wrote:

   Well, I'm trying to remember back to yesterdays' programme. I did feel embarrassed to be a man when I heard the piece on whether a woman should commentate on football. I'm afraid I missed the name of the man who took part (I was walking from the car to the house at the time). To hear him make such chauvinistic remarks just made me cringe....

3. At 11:06 AM on 20 Apr 2007, Stephen, Leader of STROP wrote:

   Aha - now I can comment on how difficult I find listening to the news when there is a female voice delivering it.

   Clearly a woman cannot get the same inflection as a man, nor generate the same excitement as Mr Mair.

   Seriously, brilliant discussion on the female footy commentator. I'm amazed there are still people that can express such dissonant arguments against allowing women into their previously all male bastions

4. At 11:13 AM on 20 Apr 2007, The Reverend Green wrote:

   Eddie-Eddie-Eddie,

   DID you listen to PM - did you? Did you notice how Carolyn Brilliant Quinn handed the baton over to the Six o'clock news - did you? Carolyn didn't drop it - did you notice? Not a gap, she managed it beautifully. Perfect it was. If the lovely Carolyn can do it - why oh why can't YOU? It's all being recorded you know, in my red Analysis book. Oh yes!!

5. At 11:19 AM on 20 Apr 2007, Belinda wrote:

   As a direct result of her error, Carolyn has been fired and will never appear on Radio 4 again. Or indeed on any airwave. Anywhere. That's how seriously we take this terrible error.

   The whole of the media will collapse now, due to lack of staff.

   I trust you had a good time at your award ceremony?

   The football commentary thing was the only piece which has really stuck in my mind over-night, mostly due to the cringe-factor. If that man doesn't believe that women can get excited enough, then he has obviously been doing something wrong all these years.

   Ohh that's so not going to get through, is it?

6. At 12:02 PM on 20 Apr 2007, wrote:

   And the woman/football thing rolled on to ´óÏó´«Ã½ Breakfast news this morning with the opinions just as split on the whole thing.

   Interesting that some seemed willing to concede that the woman in question WAS being fast tracked into the job, whilst others denied it. If she is being pushed through then does that amount to Positive Discrimination or Affirmative Action (which also appeared on the programme last night regarding police recruitment). If they do then one might expect the other sports staff to be up in arms. The opinion of the Equality Commission is that either would be illegal under current law. So if there is evidence, or a complaint, of either happening will the EC take the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to court?

   Will she be required to wear the Motty-pattern sheepskin coat? Or adopt the Ron Atkinson attitude to racial harmony? Or talk inanely about 'a game of two halves'?

   I'm glad that I don't watch football. I don't need to have an opinion either way.

   :-)

   Si.

7. At 12:39 PM on 20 Apr 2007, Peter wrote:

   Well I for one won't be lamenting Carolyn's release from duty.

   The two flagship drive time programs have been dominated by her and I'm not a fan. What is this obsession with female broadcasters that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ seem to thrive on?

8. At 12:52 PM on 20 Apr 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

   Belinda (currently 5)

   Was it only your in mind that it stuck? I would have thought that for most it stuck in the throat. Mind you, this is what I wrote:

   Dear Sequin/Wonderwoman/Carolyn,
   For many years I thought women were much too sensible to take any interest in
   football. So the arrival of a female commentator just shows how far society has
   deteriorated in the past 40 years.

9. At 01:25 PM on 20 Apr 2007, Gillian wrote:

   Vyle Hernia (8) So that was YOU was it?!Masquerading under your real name! ;o)

   Belinda (5) I think the point being made wasn't that women don't get excited enough, but that they make high-pitched sqeaky noises when they do!
   (See you on the naughty step!)

10. At 01:33 PM on 20 Apr 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    Peter (7) - eh???

11. At 01:36 PM on 20 Apr 2007, Belinda wrote:

    Simon (currently 6):

    You mentioned a juxtaposition of stories which did strike me badly yesterday as well. The tone of the positive discrimination/affirmative action piece seemed to be skewed towards "It's bad to pick one person over another because of skin colour!" which is fair enough, but the similar issue regarding female sports commentators was "Well if she has been fast-tracked to this position because she is a woman, then good for her!" and this was something mentioned by both interviewees for this piece.

    So if I were to blindly follow the viewpoints of the PM interviewees and articles then I would think that it is perfectly ok to specifically promote someone because they are a woman, but not if they are coloured. Seems somewhat odd in my view.

12. At 02:46 PM on 20 Apr 2007, John H. wrote:

    I didn't hear much of the prog yesterday. But the football commentary question is quite interesting. On the one hand, I really couldn't care less. On the other, it really is a good example of how something which is fundamentally about choice and preference gets caught up in policy and prejudice. Look at Peter's comment above (currently 7) - he doesn't like Sequin. No problem with that, you can't please everybody. But, "What is this obsession with female broadcasters..." betrays a slightly different attitude to me. Surely in a balanced world, we would expect just slightly more women broadcasters on the Beeb than men? The problem, of course, is that the real obsession of the past is that all programmes were dominated by male broadcasters and so some people get off thinking that having a woman instead is nothing but political correctness gone mad. As far as I'm concerned, the footy commentator is just more of the same.

13. At 04:11 PM on 20 Apr 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    John H - thats were I was heading, but you're far more eloquent. Guess thats because I'm a woman!! ha ha, and I may even venture, tee hee :)

14. At 11:23 PM on 20 Apr 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Um, guys, can't you see Peter's (7) tongue poking at his cheek? Especially with the last line.

    Of course, the question about women and football is so much more than "commentating". When as much media attention, financial backing and so on is heaped upon women's football as is upon men's then I might considering giving it all a look. Until then I shall stay away from yet another manifestation of the sexism in our society. Sport is for doing not for watching anyway...