Friday, June 26, 2020

Women and sport and my confusion

As readers would know, I pay very little attention to sport.   It's only occasionally of interest - State of Origin rugby league; the spectacle of Olympic openings and of some individual sports - how can you not be impressed by how people learn to pole vault or ski jump?   And if an athlete seems a nice enough person, it can be good to see them win and get some benefit out of years of what would otherwise be more-or-less wasted effort.

But when it comes to women's team sports, I cannot muster any interest, let alone enthusiasm, at all.  Hence today's excitement about Australian and New Zealand hosting the FIFA Women's World Cup leaves me completely cold, and once again baffled as to how they have become popular. 

I like to think my inability to want to watch a team of women is sound in evolutionary biology terms.   Men's team sports, particularly the only one I ever watch (if only a few times a year), rugby league, is readily interpreted as a substitute to watching a team of hunters planning and moving as a pack to hunt their quarry.   Or, to update the analogy, as a substitute for watching competing lines of men trying to acquire ground in battle.   (This is why it makes so much sense to me as to why it should be my preferred code - not like soccer or AFL where clear lines moving up and down a field of play don't exist.)

This reasoning leaves little room for an explanation for people liking ball hitting games like cricket, baseball, or even tennis; although with the latter, it is so concentrated on the individual's stamina and talent, I can see why it has some appeal.  With cricket and baseball - well, they both often have the crowd amusing themselves while the play itself is boring, so they have their own weird dynamic of crowd solidarity that is not exactly part of my make up, but it's obviously a thing.

But back to team sports - I can't shake the feeling that gender really matters to why I don't have any interest in them because what is happening on the field is nothing like what women have ever done in an evolutionary sense.   It's different from watching a woman who is good at an individual sport - I see nothing wrong with that, unless it's something like weightlifting.  (But hey, I couldn't care less about what men do in some obscure sports, either.)

Yet, I seem to be alone in this, and lots of men (increasingly, on both sides of political spectrum, too) will say they are enthusiastic followers of women's team sports.

I really don't understand how that has happened.   I find it so strange, especially when in quite a few sports there is a high proportion of lesbian players, rendering any more base evolutionary biology explanation irrelevant, that I am starting to wonder if there is something weird going on, like plastics chemicals in drinking water, or something.  [I am joking.  Sort of.   Seriously, I find this more surprising and inexplicable than Western societies' turnaround on gay relationships.]

   


4 comments:

  1. The only thing you need to know is that women's sport are very inferior.
    Take football. Our best player Sam Kerr has no great acceleration nor is well balanced and cannot best a player.

    Now take cricket. They struggle to bowl awayswingers and when bowling inswingers it swings from the hand.
    Their spinners bowl pies.

    Why do we not have open sports? Because the women are not good enough.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Women's tennis is OK but even there the very best are no match for the mediocre professional men. I don't get into sport and have stated that it is evidence of evolutionary heritage. Women's sport pales in comparison. They are only mimicking men which contradictory to their claims of equality. Women's sport should have contests like who can push a shopping trolley fastest through a carpark, how quickly they can take their washing off the line, and how quickly they can get ready to go out. 😊

    I find it so strange, especially when in quite a few sports there is a high proportion of lesbian players, rendering any more base evolutionary biology explanation irrelevant,

    Perhaps not, might be interesting to look at the T levels of lesbians. Not conclusive but suggestive.

    Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation

    he second digit to fourth digit (2D:4D) ratio, which is the length of the second digit (index finger) relative to that of the fourth digit (ring finger), is another measure that has been used as a proxy for prenatal androgen exposure. The 2D:4D ratio is generally smaller in men than in women,82,83 although the validity of this measure as a marker influenced by only prenatal androgen exposure has been questioned.84 Nonetheless, numerous studies have reported that the 2D:4D ratio is also on average smaller in lesbians than in hetero-sexual women, a finding that has been extensively replicated85 and suggests the testosterone plays a role in female sexual orientation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John, you are giving my sexist commentary on women's sport a bad name by our sexist-ing me!

    I'm not entirely sure you got my point about lesbianism featuring a lot in some (most?) women's team sports - I was referring to a possible explanation for men wanting to watch such teams being simply for them to "perv" [a word I don't like] on women. I can't see that applying to teams with a lot of high profile lesbians.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pretty solid introspection for a change. Sadly I feel the same way. Women's team sports don't inspire me even a little bit. But I watched Cathy winning the 400m again and even with knowing the result, it was almost as awesome as the first time around. So what you've discovered is an authentic psychological phenomenon.

    ReplyDelete