[Other Sport] BBC Sports Personality 2023

[Berty23]

Agree with this completely……the worst team environments I experienced in corporate life (particularly at Executive level) were always those that were dominated by one gender - didn’t matter whether it was male or female, they could be equally bad.

It is not just about one gender. It is about lots of diversity. People from different backgrounds come at issues from different perspectives. Whether it is women, class, nationality, ethnicity etc people will (on average) have different perspectives.

Group think is a curse. Imagine if a government surrounded themselves with people who think just them and don’t allow differing views of they got expelled from the cabinet. Hang on a second.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Agree with this completely……the worst team environments I experienced in corporate life (particularly at Executive level) were always those that were dominated by one gender - didn’t matter whether it was male or female, they could be equally bad.

The most obvious example was the lib dem / Conservative government which was actually pretty good. Since the counterpoint has gone it has descended into the usual Tory mess. Different opinions are always a good thing.Where I disagree slightly is that this doesn't necessarily need to be gender or background differences per se. I work in an all male team. We couldn't be more different and it works like a dream.

I have also worked around senior management teams that tick all the boxes in terms of the gender and racial balances but they have been abject failures. A mixture of egotistical males, some old boy / girl schools appointments and a couple of over promotions and Voila. An SMT that was great on paper but was actually from one social class (much like today's government again) that was dangerous mixture of cluelessness and over confidence.

 

[Happy Exile]

Interesting, and as it’s been 5 years since the MOD allowed women to occupy ALL roles in the armed forces, (including front line infantry) it must follow that mixed units of males and females are more effective than male only units?

Given that physical ability is the only likely barrier to entry in (say) front line units, it equally must follow that our professional sporting females can compete equally with their male counterparts?

That would help resolve some of the issues at play in the the debate about the parity of performance and also reward between men and women’s sport.

Mary Earps between the sticks for the BHA first team being paid the same as Steele………….why not? On your assessment we must be better right?

Well...no. Those are quite binary statements. For a start, ability not gender (or other diversity) is still the determining factor of suitability. Some - mostly white men over 40 in my experience - seem terrified at this idea of meritocracy which would be funny if it didn't disadvantage so many others. In the services mixed gender units are more effective in some tasks, and mixed units are less effective in some other tasks. Just like any organisation just because someone can do something by policy doesn't mean they will do it, it's putting people in the right role for their ability (physical, mental etc) that makes them effective. Where that's done well, it's makes teams perform better whether that's front line services or whatever.

The biggest barrier to women in the services isn't physical though - it's cultural. There was yet another official report that came out last month citing the awful situation for many women in the services and until that changes many won't find it an attractive place to stay, let alone join.

With regards to Earps v Steele I don't even know where to begin with that one. It's bizarre to take arguments about equality to that point. It's not demeaning to women in the slightest to say that levels of physicality in elite sporting competition dictate different requirements and will lead to different abilities and skills being needed between playing women's and men's sport. Same as some other jobs. Look at the debate around trans women in women's events and you'll find the vast majority of women have no issue with acknowledging there are physical differences between men and women that mean for sport to be fair competition it should remain split on gender lines. Not sure what point you're trying to make: a point that if X is true then Y must be as well and everything else must therefore be untrue doesn't really work.

But if you look at the Albion team behind the playing squad, of the senior management team 30% are women. It's not hard to find women as part of the core setup around the men's first team either when you see some of the informal videos. (May or may not be relevant - Chelsea have one woman in their top 17 positions.) Women are very much part of the Brighton men's first team, just not playing in it. I would confidently say it performs better for both those truths.

So it's possible for different statements to be true without them being contradictory. for example: Brighton and Hove Albion as a football club performs better for having so many women as part of it's decision-making team because they have the best ability for the jobs. Having a mixed first team would not make the playing team better.

I'm generalising, but most "culture war" arguments seem to me on the one hand people (on either side) who see the world in purely binary terms without any possibility of nuance or sensible discussion, and on the other hand people (on either side) capable of seeing that that view for the ridiculousness it is.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Well...no. Those are quite binary statements. For a start, ability not gender (or other diversity) is still the determining factor of suitability. Some - mostly white men over 40 in my experience - seem terrified at this idea of meritocracy which would be funny if it didn't disadvantage so many others. In the services mixed gender units are more effective in some tasks, and mixed units are less effective in some other tasks. Just like any organisation just because someone can do something by policy doesn't mean they will do it, it's putting people in the right role for their ability (physical, mental etc) that makes them effective. Where that's done well, it's makes teams perform better whether that's front line services or whatever.

The biggest barrier to women in the services isn't physical though - it's cultural. There was yet another official report that came out last month citing the awful situation for many women in the services and until that changes many won't find it an attractive place to stay, let alone join.

With regards to Earps v Steele I don't even know where to begin with that one. It's bizarre to take arguments about equality to that point. It's not demeaning to women in the slightest to say that levels of physicality in elite sporting competition dictate different requirements and will lead to different abilities and skills being needed between playing women's and men's sport. Same as some other jobs. Look at the debate around trans women in women's events and you'll find the vast majority of women have no issue with acknowledging there are physical differences between men and women that mean for sport to be fair competition it should remain split on gender lines. Not sure what point you're trying to make: a point that if X is true then Y must be as well and everything else must therefore be untrue doesn't really work.

But if you look at the Albion team behind the playing squad, of the senior management team 30% are women. It's not hard to find women as part of the core setup around the men's first team either when you see some of the informal videos. (May or may not be relevant - Chelsea have one woman in their top 17 positions.) Women are very much part of the Brighton men's first team, just not playing in it. I would confidently say it performs better for both those truths.

So it's possible for different statements to be true without them being contradictory. for example: Brighton and Hove Albion as a football club performs better for having so many women as part of it's decision-making team because they have the best ability for the jobs. Having a mixed first team would not make the playing team better.

I'm generalising, but most "culture war" arguments seem to me on the one hand people (on either side) who see the world in purely binary terms without any possibility of nuance or sensible discussion, and on the other hand people (on either side) capable of seeing that that view for the ridiculousness it is.

Intersting read.

I now look forward to @cunning fergus reply to this.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Well...no. Those are quite binary statements. For a start, ability not gender (or other diversity) is still the determining factor of suitability. Some - mostly white men over 40 in my experience - seem terrified at this idea of meritocracy which would be funny if it didn't disadvantage so many others. In the services mixed gender units are more effective in some tasks, and mixed units are less effective in some other tasks. Just like any organisation just because someone can do something by policy doesn't mean they will do it, it's putting people in the right role for their ability (physical, mental etc) that makes them effective. Where that's done well, it's makes teams perform better whether that's front line services or whatever.

The biggest barrier to women in the services isn't physical though - it's cultural. There was yet another official report that came out last month citing the awful situation for many women in the services and until that changes many won't find it an attractive place to stay, let alone join.

With regards to Earps v Steele I don't even know where to begin with that one. It's bizarre to take arguments about equality to that point. It's not demeaning to women in the slightest to say that levels of physicality in elite sporting competition dictate different requirements and will lead to different abilities and skills being needed between playing women's and men's sport. Same as some other jobs. Look at the debate around trans women in women's events and you'll find the vast majority of women have no issue with acknowledging there are physical differences between men and women that mean for sport to be fair competition it should remain split on gender lines. Not sure what point you're trying to make: a point that if X is true then Y must be as well and everything else must therefore be untrue doesn't really work.

But if you look at the Albion team behind the playing squad, of the senior management team 30% are women. It's not hard to find women as part of the core setup around the men's first team either when you see some of the informal videos. (May or may not be relevant - Chelsea have one woman in their top 17 positions.) Women are very much part of the Brighton men's first team, just not playing in it. I would confidently say it performs better for both those truths.

So it's possible for different statements to be true without them being contradictory. for example: Brighton and Hove Albion as a football club performs better for having so many women as part of it's decision-making team because they have the best ability for the jobs. Having a mixed first team would not make the playing team better.

I'm generalising, but most "culture war" arguments seem to me on the one hand people (on either side) who see the world in purely binary terms without any possibility of nuance or sensible discussion, and on the other hand people (on either side) capable of seeing that that view for the ridiculousness it is.

Great second paragraph.

 

[dazzer6666]

It is not just about one gender. It is about lots of diversity. People from different backgrounds come at issues from different perspectives. Whether it is women, class, nationality, ethnicity etc people will (on average) have different perspectives.

Group think is a curse. Imagine if a government surrounded themselves with people who think just them and don’t allow differing views of they got expelled from the cabinet. Hang on a second.

Yep......the last team I managed (before it was broken up - by a 40-something white middle class male who had a 11-1 male/female ratio in his team at the time funnily enough) was about 50/50 male/female and across my 12 directors I had 7 nationalities, an age range from 29 to 60, people from a very wide range of backgrounds etc etc. But - and as @Happy Exile says, the first two immovable criteria for any recruits were always competency/suitability for the job and fit with the team - skin colour, religion, nationality, orientation or what was or wasn't dangling between someone's legs were all irrelevant.

 

[Brownstuff]

Doesn’t set a very good example to the kids with her sweary antics

 

[cunning fergus]

Well...no. Those are quite binary statements. For a start, ability not gender (or other diversity) is still the determining factor of suitability. Some - mostly white men over 40 in my experience - seem terrified at this idea of meritocracy which would be funny if it didn't disadvantage so many others. In the services mixed gender units are more effective in some tasks, and mixed units are less effective in some other tasks. Just like any organisation just because someone can do something by policy doesn't mean they will do it, it's putting people in the right role for their ability (physical, mental etc) that makes them effective. Where that's done well, it's makes teams perform better whether that's front line services or whatever.

The biggest barrier to women in the services isn't physical though - it's cultural. There was yet another official report that came out last month citing the awful situation for many women in the services and until that changes many won't find it an attractive place to stay, let alone join.

With regards to Earps v Steele I don't even know where to begin with that one. It's bizarre to take arguments about equality to that point. It's not demeaning to women in the slightest to say that levels of physicality in elite sporting competition dictate different requirements and will lead to different abilities and skills being needed between playing women's and men's sport. Same as some other jobs. Look at the debate around trans women in women's events and you'll find the vast majority of women have no issue with acknowledging there are physical differences between men and women that mean for sport to be fair competition it should remain split on gender lines. Not sure what point you're trying to make: a point that if X is true then Y must be as well and everything else must therefore be untrue doesn't really work.

But if you look at the Albion team behind the playing squad, of the senior management team 30% are women. It's not hard to find women as part of the core setup around the men's first team either when you see some of the informal videos. (May or may not be relevant - Chelsea have one woman in their top 17 positions.) Women are very much part of the Brighton men's first team, just not playing in it. I would confidently say it performs better for both those truths.

So it's possible for different statements to be true without them being contradictory. for example: Brighton and Hove Albion as a football club performs better for having so many women as part of it's decision-making team because they have the best ability for the jobs. Having a mixed first team would not make the playing team better.

I'm generalising, but most "culture war" arguments seem to me on the one hand people (on either side) who see the world in purely binary terms without any possibility of nuance or sensible discussion, and on the other hand people (on either side) capable of seeing that that view for the ridiculousness it is.

If you are all for meritocracy then we are squarely on the same page. For all the meaningless platitudes and ersatz praise of the women’s game, it is a hard reality that it will not come close to developing the finances of the men’s game. People that don’t accept this are delusional.

The only plausible route will be to enable women to access the men’s game. I see no difficulty with that position at all, because the same environment used to exist in the armed forces when women were prevented from serving in the front line.

It is a fact that women now do serve in roles they were once prevented from accessing and they are passing the fitness tests that are required. Bravo to them, absolute 100% respect. Sure, whilst the numbers are small the direction of travel is one way whatever handwringing reports you want to refer to say. Furthermore, cultural change will come organically as females establish themselves in the roles previously denied to them in the armed forces.

So, there it is, women can fight in the paras and marines with the men and against this country’s enemies which will undoubtedly mean men. If Mary Earps et al are good enough so can they in sporting terms.

This will, at a stroke, resolve all the debates about how genuinely good the women are. As above I am all for that, are you? Yes or no?

 

[Greg Bobkin]

If you are all for meritocracy then we are squarely on the same page. For all the meaningless platitudes and ersatz praise of the women’s game, it is a hard reality that it will not come close to developing the finances of the men’s game. People that don’t accept this are delusional.

The only plausible route will be to enable women to access the men’s game. I see no difficulty with that position at all, because the same environment used to exist in the armed forces when women were prevented from serving in the front line.

It is a fact that women now do serve in roles they were once prevented from accessing and they are passing the fitness tests that are required. Bravo to them, absolute 100% respect. Sure, whilst the numbers are small the direction of travel is one way whatever handwringing reports you want to refer to say. Furthermore, cultural change will come organically as females establish themselves in the roles previously denied to them in the armed forces.

So, there it is, women can fight in the paras and marines with the men and against this country’s enemies which will undoubtedly mean men. If Mary Earps et al are good enough so can they in sporting terms.

This will, at a stroke, resolve all the debates about how genuinely good the women are. As above I am all for that, are you? Yes or no?

If you're going to ask questions, at least do us the decency of answering at least SOME of mine in post #155. I'm genuinely intrigued...

 

[AK74]

Lovely stuff from Marina Hyde, my favourite Guardian writer:

So, what is it about the brilliant, victorious sportswoman Mary Earps that bovine men just can’t abide? | Marina Hyde

The England keeper won BBC Sports Personality of the Year – and bitter old farts hated it. But they are losing ground, and they know it, says Guardian columnist Marina Hyde

www.theguardian.com

 

[stewart12]

If you are all for meritocracy then we are squarely on the same page. For all the meaningless platitudes and ersatz praise of the women’s game, it is a hard reality that it will not come close to developing the finances of the men’s game. People that don’t accept this are delusional.

The only plausible route will be to enable women to access the men’s game. I see no difficulty with that position at all, because the same environment used to exist in the armed forces when women were prevented from serving in the front line.

It is a fact that women now do serve in roles they were once prevented from accessing and they are passing the fitness tests that are required. Bravo to them, absolute 100% respect. Sure, whilst the numbers are small the direction of travel is one way whatever handwringing reports you want to refer to say. Furthermore, cultural change will come organically as females establish themselves in the roles previously denied to them in the armed forces.

So, there it is, women can fight in the paras and marines with the men and against this country’s enemies which will undoubtedly mean men. If Mary Earps et al are good enough so can they in sporting terms.

This will, at a stroke, resolve all the debates about how genuinely good the women are. As above I am all for that, are you? Yes or no?

only if girls and boys are given the same opportunities and access to training from a young age, which they currently aren't and never have

other than pace and strength, which are important factors in football but not the ONLY important factors, there is nothing biologically that would suggest that men should automatically be better than women at football from a technical perspective. Give boys and girls the same opportunities from day one and THEN we'll see how genuinely good the women are.

The current crop of female footballers have had nowhere NEAR the same level of coaching than their male counterparts. There are reasons of course for that, there's a lot more money in mens football so in terms of a clubs resources that's the obvious area to focus the budget. But this is also because of decades and decades of exposure. Female football was banned in this country until relatively recently and it's very very recent that it's had any sort of media exposure whatsoever, so how on earth is it all of a sudden supposed to make more money than the mens game which has had steady exposure and been a vital part of communities since the late 1800's and now 'enjoys' financial input from every random multi billionaire/oil baron that takes an interest?!

It won't grow without exposure but clearly the increase of exposure (from zero to 'a bit') bothers people

 

[stewart12]

looking at the Football front page on the BBC website- the BBC of course who have a massive "woke agenda" and are "ramming women's football our throats"

51 articles/links....an astronomical 5 of which are about women's football....IT'S SO OVERWHELMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hart's shirt]

Lovely stuff from Marina Hyde, my favourite Guardian writer:

So, what is it about the brilliant, victorious sportswoman Mary Earps that bovine men just can’t abide? | Marina Hyde

The England keeper won BBC Sports Personality of the Year – and bitter old farts hated it. But they are losing ground, and they know it, says Guardian columnist Marina Hyde

www.theguardian.com

As ever, it's an entertaining piece from MH who brings her customary wit and cutting observation. She's always worth a read.

But the part I would question would be at the end:
"It’s the sad men and their dwindling audiences..."

Joey Barton currently has 2.7m followers on X. That audience doesn't seem to be reducing. That doesn't fit Marina's argument.

In a culture war lacking nuance where everyone feels like they have to pick a side, the recruitment for both sides will increase.

Controversial posts are only likely to add to that. And articles responding to those will add publicity and increase them further.

With the upvotes/downvotes analysis made in #209, there's clearly a number of BBC Sport voters who have picked their side.

For me, Mary Earps is a worthy winner. But the evidence suggests that she's not necessarily a universally popular one.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

As ever, it's an entertaining piece from MH who brings her customary wit and cutting observation. She's always worth a read.

But the part I would question would be at the end:
"It’s the sad men and their dwindling audiences..."

Joey Barton currently has 2.7m followers on X. That audience doesn't seem to be reducing. That doesn't fit Marina's argument.

In a culture war lacking nuance where everyone feels like they have to pick a side, the recruitment for both sides will increase.

Controversial posts are only likely to add to that. And articles responding to those will add publicity and increase them further.

With the upvotes/downvotes analysis made in #209, there's clearly a number of BBC Sport voters who have picked their side.

For me, Mary Earps is a worthy winner. But the evidence suggests that she's not necessarily a universally popular one.

I spoke to a women yesterday who runs a 'female-friendly' business in the automotive world because customers felt intimidated by men and she was saying that the misogamy is getting worse/more widespread. Her theory is that 'REAL' men feel emboldened by the likes of Barton, Morgan, Tate and some of the GB News lot and are fighting against their impending 'cancellation' from society.

 

[cunning fergus]

only if girls and boys are given the same opportunities and access to training from a young age, which they currently aren't and never have

other than pace and strength, which are important factors in football but not the ONLY important factors, there is nothing biologically that would suggest that men should automatically be better than women at football from a technical perspective. Give boys and girls the same opportunities from day one and THEN we'll see how genuinely good the women are.

The current crop of female footballers have had nowhere NEAR the same level of coaching than their male counterparts. There are reasons of course for that, there's a lot more money in mens football so in terms of a clubs resources that's the obvious area to focus the budget. But this is also because of decades and decades of exposure. Female football was banned in this country until relatively recently and it's very very recent that it's had any sort of media exposure whatsoever, so how on earth is it all of a sudden supposed to make more money than the mens game which has had steady exposure and been a vital part of communities since the late 1800's and now 'enjoys' financial input from every random multi billionaire/oil baron that takes an interest?!

It won't grow without exposure but clearly the increase of exposure (from zero to 'a bit') bothers people

I can accept access to training is a part of the puzzle but it’s not as important as you deem to indicate. If it was football players from shithole countries in the 3rd world would not succeed or thrive against players from developed counties. Yet we can see from the Prem that they do. Our own fantastic African players (past and present) are perfect examples, like Biss now at Spurs and even sicknote Lamptey.

As I said, if women are physically and mentally capable of fighting in front line roles for the country’s armed forces with male peers then they can evidently compete in professional sport against men. The FA should do more to get those women like Earps who are at the pinnacle of the women’s game into the professional male game. This is how you push through the final barrier that discriminates from women getting the wealth that is presently available to men in professional football.

There are plenty of examples in industry (e.g. Ethical Social Governance for publicly listed companies) where governing bodies legislate for female and also ethnic minorities to be represented on boards/senior management roles, so the precedent is already set for the FA whereby they create quotas for female players in squads. How about each professional football team must field 2 women on the pitch from a 30 player squad containing at least 5 women?

Think how good that will be for women and the wider game. Finally, at a stroke, the girls get the money and notoriety that they fully deserve and we (the consumers) will manifestly see even more exciting football that we would happily pay even more for.

The current gender apartheid in football doesn’t wash, and those who think the women’s game can develop to a level to the men’s game are naive at best and likely sexist bigots at worst.

Merry Christmas by the way……………

 

[Berty23]

I think that was supposed to be funny. Not sure though. What I am sure of is that the rise of women’s sport has really upset some people.

What’s it with football? Why do people feel the need to compare with the men? When sally gunnell, Jessica Ennis and Denise lewis won their Olympic golds I don’t recall a single media bod say “oh shut up, they would be a decent club runner if men”. Why do people feel the need to compare in football.

Floyd mayweather was a brilliant boxer right? Arguably the best ever. Has anyone sensible ever said “he is not the best ever because Tyson would have destroyed him”? Of course not because they are in different weight categories and it would not be a fair fight. So why the comparisons in football? It happens in cricket as well but not really anything.

I think someone should propose stripping dame Kelly Holmes of her dame hood because as impressive as two golds are she would not have qualified for the men’s final let alone win it. Just ban women’s sport to stop the gammon crying.

Happy Christmas.

 

[timbha]

I think that was supposed to be funny. Not sure though. What I am sure of is that the rise of women’s sport has really upset some people.

What’s it with football? Why do people feel the need to compare with the men? When sally gunnell, Jessica Ennis and Denise lewis won their Olympic golds I don’t recall a single media bod say “oh shut up, they would be a decent club runner if men”. Why do people feel the need to compare in football.

Floyd mayweather was a brilliant boxer right? Arguably the best ever. Has anyone sensible ever said “he is not the best ever because Tyson would have destroyed him”? Of course not because they are in different weight categories and it would not be a fair fight. So why the comparisons in football? It happens in cricket as well but not really anything.

I think someone should propose stripping dame Kelly Holmes of her dame hood because as impressive as two golds are she would not have qualified for the men’s final let alone win it. Just ban women’s sport to stop the gammon crying.

Happy Christmas.

Good points. Maybe it’s something to do with “team” sports, altho I acknowledge you do mention cricket.