Welcome Notice

Hello and welcome to Molineux Mix a forum for Wolves fans by Wolves fans.

Register Log in

England Women: The Lionesses

reanswolf

MolMix's Manchester United Cheerleader-in-Chief
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
29,715
Reaction score
23,161
It is vaguely amusing how animated some people are getting here over a debate about a few people playing football.

Ffs it’s a forum, if people don’t like different views about things, whatever that view, you are surely in the wrong place. People haven’t even slated the team and people are outraged. I think whatever issue there is underlying this anger, lies away from anyone posting on here.

Womens football rage …..how long before we get the Subway Army- ettes and widespread womens football hooliganism, from men.
 
Last edited:

bod101

Admin & No.4
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
10,730
Reaction score
8,089
It is vaguely amusing how animated some people are getting here over a debate about a few people without penises playing football.

Ffs it’s a forum, if people don’t like different views about things, whatever that view, you are surely in the wrong place. People haven’t even slated the team and people are outraged. I think whatever issue there is underlying this anger, lies away from anyone posting on here.

Womens football rage …..how long before we get the Subway Army- ettes and widespread womens football hooliganism, from men.
again can we keep the political side off this part of the forum please.
 

Jefe

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
1,808
The thread is about football. You have a thread for the BBC elsewhere. This direction does not equate to only being able to say 'well done ladies', so don't try to imply that it does.
That's funny, because I and other posters were freely allowed to discuss the topic of media coverage as far back as page 5 on this thread without moderation. I was discussing the BBC more than a day ago and you had no qualms then, even as you were moderating me over Ukraine. It seems odd that we can freely discuss our issues with the BBC when it comes to Wolves and Match of the Day, but not the BBC when it comes to women's footie. What ever changed?

Well done again, ladies! :hearteyes:
 
Last edited:

Mutchy

Administrator
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
17,020
Reaction score
12,031
That's funny, because I and other posters were freely allowed to discuss the topic of media coverage as far back as page 5 on this thread without moderation. I was discussing the BBC more than a day ago and you had no qualms then, even as you were moderating me over Ukraine. It seems odd that we can freely discuss our issues with the BBC when it comes to Wolves and Match of the Day, but not the BBC when it comes to women's footie. What ever changed?

Well done again, ladies! :hearteyes:
When it becomes a more general BBC discussion it needs to be on the thread I linked to - one you are wholly familiar with.
Now I'm sorry but thats it, no more argument.
 

Jefe

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
1,808
What do people think about Wolves Women being able to use Molineux? Is it a no no because of the pitch?
Right, moving on from the other frivolities. I personally would like Fosun to build a stadium at Compton as per @JadeWolf 's suggestion that houses both Wolves ladies and the Wolves reserve side (which I would absolutely bring back), then give the ladies sole occupancy as their attendances hopefully grow. Will Fosun do this? To quote The Fast Show: "Will they ****”
 

Streathamwolf

Has a lot to say
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
3,155
I just caught this pearler of a comment. A litigator, seriously? Are you saying the opinions proferred by myself and others are, or should be, illegal?
SBK does litigation, it's a joke.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

rg4352

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
2,968

Sussex Wolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
17,434
Reaction score
18,930
I'm well aware of the FA women's ban; there were some obviously outmoded attitudes to pretty much everything in the 1920s. As for its popularity at that point... might have just had a teeny amount to do with a staggering percentage of Englishmen being dead, maimed, psychologically destroyed or with otherwise no inclination to kick a pigskin around some grass. I am also aware of a certain terrible practice outside of Football against a certain group of people a while further back, that I guess I am not allowed to mention explicitly lest I be cleaved by the sword of Damocles, but I think you should be able to connect the dots.

You might balk at this comparison in degree, but in kind the principle that a fresh wrong cannot amend for a historical one, still applies. I'm frankly done with people who live in the past. So, just as I do not believe in rrrr... compensation for the people I mentioned, I do not believe in principle that the BBC should take what is analogously taxpayer money for what is arguably social justice activism. In this case, artificially inflating coverage of a particular competition out of some internalised quest to (over?)compensate for the impact of historically outmoded attitudes.
-Positive discrimination is still discrimination. Particularly when the SPL and EFL are the ones who are consistently pushed down the pecking order on the BBC website: an organisation that have built a famously competitive, exciting and globally-admired product, through decades of diligence and savvy by innumerous individuals.

Secondly, the FA ban against women doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for half a century. That's a looong time to not build a competition that draws in better average crowds than AFC Telford. I don't think that's because 'the man' kept women down for so long. Have you not considered the average woman just might not be 'into' Football as much as the average man? That is certainly my anecdotal experience from pretty much every woman I've ever known, and I'm sure many others on here would agree. You say they were "shunned" - I'm not sure what this means. There has been absolutely no bodily or market force preventing women's Football from acquiring funding or from fans attending women's games this past 50 years, particularly right now in the era of social media where viral advertising is effectively free.

No disrespect, but you’re talking ideological rubbish.

As the FT article below explains, there is a case for reparations paid for by the mens game. Sure the womens game developed because the men were otherwise engaged, but that’s irrelevant. The womens game didn’t start as a substitute for the mens game, it started because women were doing jobs in factories that men used to do, and just as the mens game started in works teams, so did the womens game. You portray it as some temporary substitute that was no longer relevant when men returned from the front, and that’s wrong.

The womens game was actively suppressed by the mens FA for 50 years, during the period when football went from provincial works teams to the professional game we recognise, and in which Wolves became a dominant team. If not for the misogynistic FA chiefs, the womens game would likely have developed in parallel to the mens, and would by now be far larger and more established than it is. It’s not positive discrimination to support the womens game now, it’s pay back for decades when the mens game actively suppressed it. I also do not support positive discrimination for many of the reasons you give, but I do acknowledge that if the FA and mens game in general put down the womens game for decades, then it owes it support and compensation to allow the womens game to achieve its potential.

As for your comment about 1920s attitudes. Even in this organising this Euros competition, the FA has been accused of selecting woefully small and sub standard stadia for some of games, so we are nowhere near equality of opportunity.

But I will repeat the other point. Our mens football team has given us **** all to celebrate in all my years on this planet. Our womens team has done what they’ve failed to do, and I’m happy to celebrate that as a male football fan.

 

Wolf79

Groupie
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
105
Reaction score
179
Right, moving on from the other frivolities. I personally would like Fosun to build a stadium at Compton as per @JadeWolf 's suggestion that houses both Wolves ladies and the Wolves reserve side (which I would absolutely bring back), then give the ladies sole occupancy as their attendances hopefully grow. Will Fosun do this? To quote The Fast Show: "Will they ****”
If Fosun have any spare cash to spend on infrastructure projects it should be spent on improving Molineux to increase our capacity, not spending millions to house a few hundred fans on a Sunday afternoon.
 

Sussex Wolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
17,434
Reaction score
18,930
What do people think about Wolves Women being able to use Molineux? Is it a no no because of the pitch?

I’ve previously suggested that a potential solution for a proper Molineux redevelopment would be to build a second stadium within Wolverhampton. Once built, Wolves men could play there while Molineux is redeveloped in a quicker, cheaper single phase development, and the savings from this, would cover a large part of the cost of building a second stadium. Other teams have done this for major redevelopments.

Following the redevelopment of Molineux, and the mens team moving back, this second stadium, designed as a community football stadium, could have Wolves women as an anchor user along with use by community groups who need a high quality football pitch.

As a temporary home for the Wolves mens team, it would have around 30k capacity, but this would be made up of a modest permanent stand containing facilities like changing rooms, etc. and a set of covered temporary stands. Following the move back to Molineux, some or all of the temporary stands could be dismantled, to drop the capacity to one suitable for the womens team and community use. As the womens team grows, then the capacity can grow with them, either through temporary or further permanent stands.

I think sharing Molineux between mens and womens teams would create scheduling challenges as others have noted.
 

derbyrameater

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
27,107
Reaction score
3,103
I'm well aware of the FA women's ban; there were some obviously outmoded attitudes to pretty much everything in the 1920s. As for its popularity at that point... might have just had a teeny amount to do with a staggering percentage of Englishmen being dead, maimed, psychologically destroyed or with otherwise no inclination to kick a pigskin around some grass. I am also aware of a certain terrible practice outside of Football against a certain group of people a while further back, that I guess I am not allowed to mention explicitly lest I be cleaved by the sword of Damocles, but I think you should be able to connect the dots.

You might balk at this comparison in degree, but in kind the principle that a fresh wrong cannot amend for a historical one, still applies. I'm frankly done with people who live in the past. So, just as I do not believe in rrrr... compensation for the people I mentioned, I do not believe in principle that the BBC should take what is analogously taxpayer money for what is arguably social justice activism. In this case, artificially inflating coverage of a particular competition out of some internalised quest to (over?)compensate for the impact of historically outmoded attitudes.
-Positive discrimination is still discrimination. Particularly when the SPL and EFL are the ones who are consistently pushed down the pecking order on the BBC website: an organisation that have built a famously competitive, exciting and globally-admired product, through decades of diligence and savvy by innumerous individuals.

Secondly, the FA ban against women doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for half a century. That's a looong time to not build a competition that draws in better average crowds than AFC Telford. I don't think that's because 'the man' kept women down for so long. Have you not considered the average woman just might not be 'into' Football as much as the average man? That is certainly my anecdotal experience from pretty much every woman I've ever known, and I'm sure many others on here would agree. You say they were "shunned" - I'm not sure what this means. There has been absolutely no bodily or market force preventing women's Football from acquiring funding or from fans attending women's games this past 50 years, particularly right now in the era of social media where viral advertising is effectively free.

There might not have been an official ban but as the system usually does things with a nod and a wink they would not help with allowing stadiums to be used for England games despite being constantly asked.
 

lostwolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
4,595
Reaction score
5,188
I've just had a natter with me mom. She used to play for a team in north Worcs (Redditch district) in the 70s, and they were decent.

Her old man was an Irish emigré, merchant seaman who found himself in the West Mids: a Wolves supporting glory chasing lad, hence us being a sprawling Wolves family in Blues/Villa country. That's been us since then, for better or worse.

The Lionesses have been great. They're decent players, with a great work ethic and marvellous team spirit. Anything beyond that though needs some careful, uninhibitted consideration. After all, the lads are paid disgusting wages because, well, they're 'worth' those wages.

Edit: the whole point of posting that gibberish. My mom, who I've never seen cry, came close I think when the women won.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lostwolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
4,595
Reaction score
5,188
I'm well aware of the FA women's ban; there were some obviously outmoded attitudes to pretty much everything in the 1920s. As for its popularity at that point... might have just had a teeny amount to do with a staggering percentage of Englishmen being dead, maimed, psychologically destroyed or with otherwise no inclination to kick a pigskin around some grass. I am also aware of a certain terrible practice outside of Football against a certain group of people a while further back, that I guess I am not allowed to mention explicitly lest I be cleaved by the sword of Damocles, but I think you should be able to connect the dots.

You might balk at this comparison in degree, but in kind the principle that a fresh wrong cannot amend for a historical one, still applies. I'm frankly done with people who live in the past. So, just as I do not believe in rrrr... compensation for the people I mentioned, I do not believe in principle that the BBC should take what is analogously taxpayer money for what is arguably social justice activism. In this case, artificially inflating coverage of a particular competition out of some internalised quest to (over?)compensate for the impact of historically outmoded attitudes.
-Positive discrimination is still discrimination. Particularly when the SPL and EFL are the ones who are consistently pushed down the pecking order on the BBC website: an organisation that have built a famously competitive, exciting and globally-admired product, through decades of diligence and savvy by innumerous individuals.

Secondly, the FA ban against women doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for half a century. That's a looong time to not build a competition that draws in better average crowds than AFC Telford. I don't think that's because 'the man' kept women down for so long. Have you not considered the average woman just might not be 'into' Football as much as the average man? That is certainly my anecdotal experience from pretty much every woman I've ever known, and I'm sure many others on here would agree. You say they were "shunned" - I'm not sure what this means. There has been absolutely no bodily or market force preventing women's Football from acquiring funding or from fans attending women's games this past 50 years, particularly right now in the era of social media where viral advertising is effectively free.

I think all the points you make there are very fair. I don't think there's any need for retribution. The women at the monent earn less because even the top teams command 3k attendances and less on tele.

But... it'd be nice don't you think if girls were allowed to play the game wherever they want to. I think most non- social warrior types think that: let the women play.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AndyY

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
4,519
Reaction score
4,895
Right, moving on from the other frivolities. I personally would like Fosun to build a stadium at Compton as per @JadeWolf 's suggestion that houses both Wolves ladies and the Wolves reserve side (which I would absolutely bring back), then give the ladies sole occupancy as their attendances hopefully grow. Will Fosun do this? To quote The Fast Show: "Will they ****”
Could it be done as part of Aldersley Stadium?
 

Streathamwolf

Has a lot to say
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
3,155
No disrespect, but you’re talking ideological rubbish.

As the FT article below explains, there is a case for reparations paid for by the mens game. Sure the womens game developed because the men were otherwise engaged, but that’s irrelevant. The womens game didn’t start as a substitute for the mens game, it started because women were doing jobs in factories that men used to do, and just as the mens game started in works teams, so did the womens game. You portray it as some temporary substitute that was no longer relevant when men returned from the front, and that’s wrong.

The womens game was actively suppressed by the mens FA for 50 years, during the period when football went from provincial works teams to the professional game we recognise, and in which Wolves became a dominant team. If not for the misogynistic FA chiefs, the womens game would likely have developed in parallel to the mens, and would by now be far larger and more established than it is. It’s not positive discrimination to support the womens game now, it’s pay back for decades when the mens game actively suppressed it. I also do not support positive discrimination for many of the reasons you give, but I do acknowledge that if the FA and mens game in general put down the womens game for decades, then it owes it support and compensation to allow the womens game to achieve its potential.

As for your comment about 1920s attitudes. Even in this organising this Euros competition, the FA has been accused of selecting woefully small and sub standard stadia for some of games, so we are nowhere near equality of opportunity.

But I will repeat the other point. Our mens football team has given us **** all to celebrate in all my years on this planet. Our womens team has done what they’ve failed to do, and I’m happy to celebrate that as a male football fan.

Well said Sussex, spot on.
 

rg4352

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
2,968
I didn't realise that the British media agenda was so powerful in Spain. They must have quite a bit of marketing influence there in order to manufacture interest amongst the sheeple in the women's game on that level.

:cool:I thought the same when I saw the post.
 

Jefe

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
1,808
[Full quote below]
No disrespect, but you’re talking ideological rubbish.

j-alexander-clutching-my-pearls.gif


As the FT article below explains, there is a case for reparations paid for by the mens game. Sure the womens game developed because the men were otherwise engaged, but that’s irrelevant. The womens game didn’t start as a substitute for the mens game, it started because women were doing jobs in factories that men used to do, and just as the mens game started in works teams, so did the womens game. You portray it as some temporary substitute that was no longer relevant when men returned from the front, and that’s wrong.

I’ve read the article, it’s... it's not good. When it’s not peddling the trendy temporal shaming of our own culture, it’s held up by mid-witted arguments like: “When a female player blunders at the Euros, the trolls gloat, but when, say, Steven Gerrard lost Liverpool the Premier League in 2014 by falling over, nobody argued that men shouldn’t play football.” Simon Kuper, hang your head in shame.
-It then makes a bloated non-sequitur about Tennis, which last I looked is a totally different type of sport, culturally and physically to ones like Football or Rugby (which I noticed they gave a wide berth for the purposes of their argument).

As I’m sure you know about me by now, I find the idea of reparations fundamentally repulsive. To reiterate, I am tired of people who dwell in the past (which unfortunately seems to be everyone these days), and I honestly did not expect you to be in support of reparations, payback, or any other form of eye-for-an-eye. Because that’s what it inevitably spirals into. If you give someone reparations, particularly through some form of public pot, someone else is inevitably deprived who did not deserve to be. This is exactly how vicious cycles form.

And I didn’t portray the women’s game in the 20s as a temporary substitute, this is a strawman argument. I said nothing of the sport's future popularity, as that would be an unfalsifiable claim. I said it mostly became popular through extraordinary circumstances, and a dire need for entertainment in dark times. Like the modern rise of the women's game, it happened in a manner that I would not call organic.

The womens game was actively suppressed by the mens FA for 50 years, during the period when football went from provincial works teams to the professional game we recognise, and in which Wolves became a dominant team. If not for the misogynistic FA chiefs, the womens game would likely have developed in parallel to the mens, and would by now be far larger and more established than it is.

Who knows? I am trying to steer clear of conjecture. I cannot form a hypothesis off of what might have happened, but I can off of the 50 years of women’s football since the ban lifted. The game seems to have barely taken off at all - until the last half decade or so. As I’ve said at length, I feel this mostly driven by a social justice / equality of outcome force that exists in certain socially progressive media outlets which I cannot name; as Contrarian said, the hype has preceded the interest. This is why I scratch my head at the mods who think I’m being political. The rise of the women’s game is fundamentally political, as was its shuttering in the 1920s; I don’t rightly know how to dance around that.

It’s not positive discrimination to support the womens game now, it’s payback for decades when the mens game actively suppressed it. I also do not support positive discrimination for many of the reasons you give, but I do acknowledge that if the FA and mens game in general put down the womens game for decades, then it owes it support and compensation to allow the womens game to achieve its potential.

I’m not saying we or the FA shouldn’t support the women’s game. I do support them. I’m saying we shouldn’t push it, over other competitions like the Championship that reached their position through their own merits. You OTOH are trying to have me believe that payback based on gender is somehow not a form of positive discrimination...

As for your comment about 1920s attitudes. Even in this organising this Euros competition, the FA has been accused of selecting woefully small and sub standard stadia for some of games, so we are nowhere near equality of opportunity.

It’s nothing to do with equality of opportunity, it’s about supply and demand. Combining all the host stadiums gives an average maximum capacity of 33,400. I’d say that’s plenty big enough for a sport that is not nearly as well supported as the mens’. Have you not considered the FA were trying to be prudent and compassionate by putting some games in smaller grounds like Rotherham that would be appear full, than at larger grounds that might be less than half full and present an optical own goal? Anyone who has seen recent WSL games at Reading and St Andrews knows what I mean.

But I will repeat the other point. Our mens football team has given us **** all to celebrate in all my years on this planet. Our womens team has done what they’ve failed to do, and I’m happy to celebrate that as a male football fan.

I’m happy that you’re happy, and I’m happy for the women, but, no. England women have not succeeded where the men have failed; this asinine oft-repeated point drives me up the wall. Men have had to compete with phenomenal past teams from Germany, Italy, France, Argentina and Brazil, places where Football is a way of life (and in the case of the Favelas, sometimes death). The England ladies just scored 12 without reply in two group games; that would be unthinkable in the men’s Euros. Male and Female football cannot be compared, for cultural, developmental and physical reasons.
 

Jefe

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
1,808
I didn't realise that the British media agenda was so powerful in Spain. They must have quite a bit of marketing influence there in order to manufacture interest amongst the sheeple in the women's game on that level.
Oh, I though the discussion was about the popularity of the English women's game in England involving the English media. Silly me. I guess that George Carlin quote is getting truer by the minute...
 
Last edited:

reanswolf

MolMix's Manchester United Cheerleader-in-Chief
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
29,715
Reaction score
23,161
But, but it's all driven by the BBC woke aganda - oh hang on a sec!
So the 2000 average premier league crowds prior to it were just imaginary?

I don’t know why people take such offence, people aren’t even saying it’s a bad thing. They are not saying the level of football is not good, because it’s definitely improving, as is interest. It’s genuinely great that it’s evolving and I think it’s superb that girls will have been massively stimulated by seeing their heroes. Opportunities to play are going to greatly expand. Marvellous.

People like me, admittedly probably older, just become very cynical about the influence of social media and can see social engineering occurring. It’s a bit big brother ish. I felt exactly the same about the BLM thing, but that is entirely different to the actual causes themselves. I come from a generation where such social engineering was really frowned upon. I feel intensely sick of the Man Utd social media constant love in. Please just accept that it is the flood-publicity a lot of people find really annoying and denigrating, it’s not the actual subject itself.
 

sedgwolf1980

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
8,650
Reaction score
14,743
Almost feel like you need to caveat any comment on this thread by saying ‘I’m really the glad the women won, I’m chuffed for them’, or words to that effect.

Really can’t get my head round now why people are suddenly pretending to be so interested and happy about something that 2 weeks ago they had, literally zero, emotional attachment to.

I’m pleased the girls won. In the same way I was when Nicola won the boxing, or when a girl wins a medal in, say, judo or something. They are British / English so that makes me proud. In saying that though, even those medals don’t carry the same weight of feeling as when, say, Kelly Holmes brought home multiple gold medals, or our own Denise Lewis got the gold. Sport is about emotional attachment. This all just feels so exaggerated and, frankly, disingenuous.

As I say, we’ll done girls, and as a proud father of a beautiful 5 year old daughter myself, it would be great if this acted as the springboard for something amazing. However spare me the patronising sanctimonious drivel. I’m surprised some on here are able to reach the keyboard and type out a message, they are that high on their horse.
 

rg4352

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
2,968
Almost feel like you need to caveat any comment on this thread by saying ‘I’m really the glad the women won, I’m chuffed for them’, or words to that effect.

Really can’t get my head round now why people are suddenly pretending to be so interested and happy about something that 2 weeks ago they had, literally zero, emotional attachment to.

I’m pleased the girls won. In the same way I was when Nicola won the boxing, or when a girl wins a medal in, say, judo or something. They are British / English so that makes me proud. In saying that though, even those medals don’t carry the same weight of feeling as when, say, Kelly Holmes brought home multiple gold medals, or our own Denise Lewis got the gold. Sport is about emotional attachment. This all just feels so exaggerated and, frankly, disingenuous.

As I say, we’ll done girls, and as a proud father of a beautiful 5 year old daughter myself, it would be great if this acted as the springboard for something amazing. However spare me the patronising sanctimonious drivel. I’m surprised some on here are able to reach the keyboard and type out a message, they are that high on their horse.

That’s quite the assumption you’re making here. Maybe you should instead look at it as there are plenty of people who have had an interest in the womens game, prior to the euros, and are thrilled at what’s been achieved by our own country’s womens team like me and others who have posted so on this thread. And plenty of people who perhaps didn’t and now have more of an awareness of the womens game and an interest in it which can now help grow/fund/generate further interest in the womens game, which to me can only be a good thing.

And that people can be happy about something without having a deep emotional attachment to it just as much as people that can.
 

Jefe

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
1,808
That’s quite the assumption you’re making here. Maybe you should instead look at it as there are plenty of people who have had an interest in the womens game, prior to the euros, and are thrilled at what’s been achieved by our own country’s womens team like me and others who have posted so on this thread. And plenty of people who perhaps didn’t and now have more of an awareness of the womens game and an interest in it which can now help grow/fund/generate further interest in the womens game, which to me can only be a good thing.

And that people can be happy about something without having a deep emotional attachment to it just as much as people that can.
If this forum is any sort of reflection of broader society, I'm not sure how much I would agree with that. There are only two other women's football threads this entire year: the dedicated Wolves Women's thread and Lionesses at Molineux (which relates to Wolves). If I could be bothered to scroll any further, I imagine the last thread is the last time there was an international tournament. While people appear to be getting on the bandwagon for finals, the week in week out interest does not appear to be there that I can see.
 

Monketron

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
3,811
Reaction score
5,548
Almost feel like you need to caveat any comment on this thread by saying ‘I’m really the glad the women won, I’m chuffed for them’, or words to that effect.

Really can’t get my head round now why people are suddenly pretending to be so interested and happy about something that 2 weeks ago they had, literally zero, emotional attachment to.

I’m pleased the girls won. In the same way I was when Nicola won the boxing, or when a girl wins a medal in, say, judo or something. They are British / English so that makes me proud. In saying that though, even those medals don’t carry the same weight of feeling as when, say, Kelly Holmes brought home multiple gold medals, or our own Denise Lewis got the gold. Sport is about emotional attachment. This all just feels so exaggerated and, frankly, disingenuous.

As I say, we’ll done girls, and as a proud father of a beautiful 5 year old daughter myself, it would be great if this acted as the springboard for something amazing. However spare me the patronising sanctimonious drivel. I’m surprised some on here are able to reach the keyboard and type out a message, they are that high on their horse.

Speak for yourself mate. I've been following the Women's Cricket and Football teams for years now. In fact most of the best sporting English moments of the last few years have come just as much from the women's side than the men's (England winning the 2017 cricket world cup a particular highlight).

Yes, I grew up only really watching men's sport (bar Tennis, weirdly), so don't have the same affinity for women's sport as I do for men's, but that's definitely changed for me over the last decade and it's not disingenuous to say I enjoy watching both men and women versions of the sports I love now.
 

rg4352

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
2,968
If this forum is any sort of reflection of broader society, I'm not sure how much I would agree with that. There are only two other women's football threads this entire year: the dedicated Wolves Women's thread and Lionesses at Molineux (which relates to Wolves). If I could be bothered to scroll any further, I imagine the last thread is the last time there was an international tournament. While people appear to be getting on the bandwagon for finals, the week in week out interest does not appear to be there that I can see.

It’s not a reflection of broader society though is it? And just because people don’t post in a womens football thread on a forum, doesn’t mean they have no interest. I’ve followed wolves women, and womens football for years, and haven’t posted or started a womens football thread in here, because I come to this forum to post about thoughts and feelings on the mens squad (as my female friends who I can speak to about football either are womens football focused, or don’t support wolves) or to get answers to questions/queries not related to the womens game. Those I save for my friends/people I know in the womens game. It doesn’t make me any less interested.


The article above I found interesting, even myself and friends who watch the wsl were surprised at the viewing figures this states, and are excited about how it will move forward.
 

reanswolf

MolMix's Manchester United Cheerleader-in-Chief
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
29,715
Reaction score
23,161
Of course no one is talking about individual preferences, the point is that several weeks ago relatively few were really that interested. This is where it kinda feels somewhat false, not for you perhaps, but for the hundreds of thousands who are acting as tho it means the same as their team winning the FA Cup.

It’s such a difficult topic to express without offending someone. It doesn’t mean the girls don’t thoroughly deserve the win nor that girls football doesn’t fully deserve every opportunity to expand.

No, we are talking about the public reaction to something, as Sedgewolf highlighted, a few weeks ago they were barely emotionally invested in. People just lap up instant success these days, but perversely for me it is almost the total opposite to loyally supporting a club like Wolves all these years.

So no one ( or hardly any on here) have denigrated the achievement of the girls, it is merely about how we all perceive the public reaction to it. There probably isn’t a right or wrong answer anyway, but it’s a far more complicated discussion than some here would have us believe.

Me personally, I am genuinely pleased for the girls and more importantly think it’s wonderful that girls like a young Mutchy might now have far more opportunity to play.

But as far as emotional attachment to the achievement goes, I am pleased but otherwise totally emotionally detached from it.
 

rg4352

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
2,968
Of course no one is talking about individual preferences, the point is that several weeks ago relatively few were really that interested. This is where it kinda feels somewhat false, not for you perhaps, but for the hundreds of thousands who are acting as tho it means the same as their team winning the FA Cup.

It’s such a difficult topic to express without offending someone. It doesn’t mean the girls don’t thoroughly deserve the win nor that girls football doesn’t fully deserve every opportunity to expand.

No, we are talking about the public reaction to something, as Sedgewolf highlighted, a few weeks ago they were barely emotionally invested in. People just lap up instant success these days, but perversely for me it is almost the total opposite to loyally supporting a club like Wolves all these years.

So no one ( or hardly any on here) have denigrated the achievement of the girls, it is merely about how we all perceive the public reaction to it. There probably isn’t a right or wrong answer anyway, but it’s a far more complicated discussion than some here would have us believe.

Me personally, I am genuinely pleased for the girls and more importantly think it’s wonderful that girls like a young Mutchy might now have far more opportunity to play.

But as far as emotional attachment to the achievement goes, I am pleased but otherwise totally emotionally detached from it.

What are you basing your relatively few were interested on? This is what annoys me. Just like using a womens football thread on a forum for basing no one having an interest in the womens game annoys me. I couldn’t give a **** that you aren’t emotionally attached to it, just like you don’t give a **** that I am. Hundreds of thousands were watching the WSL last season.

What I do give a **** about is people needing to find reasons why success in a sport needs to be derided, complained about, moaned about, attributed to media agendas, people being accused of jumping on bandwagons. I don’t get it, I really don’t. And it’s **** to be honest, it’s **** coming on here and being excited that there’s actually a thread to share enthusiasm about womens football and matches and find common ground, to then find the last 5 pages devolve into people arguing that the interest and excitement is manufactured, superficial, media dr evil coerced, “patronising, sanctomonious drivel” there’s enough things going on in the world
I could attribute all of that too, but women enjoying succcess in football?! Seriously?!

There’s always going to be people that jump on a bandwagon, that’s life, and as long as that generates something positive, I don’t see the problem or feel the need to **** all over it just because I don’t feel “emotionally attached” because frankly if I did do that, I’d never sleep there’d be so many.
 

Hot Fuss

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
9,713
Surely everyone on here has had a passion for football for years?

Some people are trying to make out that the Euros that have just finished were a completely different sport. It was still 11 England players trying to kick a ball into a goal. It wasn’t like Iv suddenly taken up an interest in synchronised swimming.
 

reanswolf

MolMix's Manchester United Cheerleader-in-Chief
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
29,715
Reaction score
23,161
Everybody has been dishing out patronising, sanctimonious drivel, indeed your post here RG4352, is the master of it. It’s a demand almost that everyone should see it the same way as you. But you and people sharing your view won’t see it that way, just as people taking a similar stance to me won’t see your point.

Yet again, let’s make this clear….this is not about denigrating the achievement of the women, it’s not about wishing to deny the fight to evolve or play.

Honestly. Is that clear?

It is discussion about the human reaction to it. Everyone who is English is pleased I am sure. It’s the level of reaction that is being discussed by many. Myself and Sedgeeolf have explained why we don’t feel emotionally attached, and thousands actually feel the same.

I would never go onto an England fans website and post, I am on Wolves website which I have posted on for 30 years. I don’t want to **** on anyones victory parade, just discuss it on a Wolves forum.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom