During the last World Cup, I was without cable so I had to watch on Univision. I don’t understand Spanish, so it was an interesting experience. The best part, though, was the announcers calling Beckham, “Spice Man.”

I love the World Cup….much more than the Olympics.  I’m going to be worthless for the next several weeks.

An excellent service, Amanda.

(Tiny point: It’s ‘offside’, not ‘offsides’.)

Aguante Argentina!!!!!

Ha.  In my office the NBA finals are not a deal (consensus: LA sucks) and baseball is all groupthink as well (Yankees suck).  When it comes to world cup, well, nationalistic fractions sprout up!  We even got a memo about keeping a lid on it!

During the last World Cup, I was without cable so I had to watch on Univision.

Coverage is better on Univision, anyway!

I played soccer when I lived in Germany, and fell in love.  Many evenings were spent either going to BvB Dortmund home games, or watching Bundesliga Fußball on TV.  American network coverage sucks.  Long live Univision!

World Cup…that’s that soccer thing, right?

How about a little help for the truly ignorant among us, though—those of us who grew up before the “youth soccer” thing took off, have no kids, and generally have absolutely no idea what rules or strategies guide that mad scramble after the ball.  I’ve tried to watch soccer, really I have, but it’s frustrating as heck to be completely unable to follow the action.

I’m a football geek, the (hopefully not annoying) kind who can explain the referee’s call after a flag before he even makes it clear what the foul was.  I used to make pretty serious bank in the inter-office football pool, back when I worked for a compulsive gambler who knew where the good action was.  So I’m used to knowing what I’m watching when I watch sports, and soccer is hard to follow.

Where do I go?

I played soccer as a kid, so I do know what offsides is, but in general, it’s like any other sport.  I don’t care much about it.  Plus, I have soccer to thank for my two-different-sizes feet (I got to the ball first, the opposing player kicked my foot instead, like, REALLY HARD). 

I don’t think liking it is a sign of anything really special *or* horrible about a person. 

But I would disagree that following World Cup makes you part of the “world community.”  It makes you part of the sports-watching world community, which is largely male and definitely male-centric.  Comparing it to American Football seems, to me, a bit of a dick size war, like it really matters which sport is “best”.  And the game as industry has the same problems any other large, male-centric sport does:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/09/world-cup-2010-women-ads
Much like the Super Bowl, UK World Cup advertising focuses on men even though many watchers in the UK will be women.

http://fromaleftwing.blogspot.com/2010/05/for-nike-women-seem-to-be-good-just-for.html
Nike 2010 WC ad typical in its sexism.

http://www.undomesticgoddess.com/2010/04/world-cup-runneth-over-with-sexism.html
South Africa has poor controls over sex trafficking and rape.  This means that loads of visitors to SA will be using women for sex who aren’t sex workers by choice, and women who go to the games have to be very careful not to go anywhere alone.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/anti-rape-condom-ready-sa-world-cup
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/62758,news-comment,news-politics,world-cup-fans-to-get-30000-rape-axe-barbed-condoms
A doctor has developed an anti-rape condom which she wants to distribute in SA during the World Cup.  Doesn’t look like it’s available, though.

http://blog.taragana.com/sports/2010/06/09/uk-police-warn-of-world-cup-domestic-violence-109570/
The usual, unsubstantiated story of “domestic violence follows favored team’s loss” which gets trotted out every Super Bowl?  According to this story, “[England’s] Home Office says that during the last World Cup, on England match days, the number of domestic violence cases rose by around 25 percent, and when England was eliminated from the competition, that figure rose to more than 30 percent.”  I will try to find more information on this.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2918868/Bid-to-ban-England-tops-in-World-Cup-pubs.html
“Killjoy cops have urged landlords to bar anyone wearing a Three Lions top.  They want to avoid a repeat of violence which has marred previous events, particularly if England lose.”

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2010061117037&lang=e
“There has been an increase in police harassment of informal traders (hawkers), homeless South Africans, and refugees and migrants who are living in shelters or high density inner city accommodation.  This harassment has included police raids, arbitrary arrests, ill-treatment and extortion, as well as destruction of informal housing.  The tearing down of informal housing has taken place without prior notice, provision of adequate alternative housing or compensation and in violation of domestic law prohibiting forced evictions.”

Awesome! I definitely have some friends that could use this guide and if I hadn’t lived on the same floor as the soccer team in my dorm in college (and thereby “forced” to attend every game), I would probably need it too. I’ve always found it strange that soccer isn’t as popular in the US. It is an awesome game to watch. Especially in person.

World Cup is like the Olympics, a neocolonial corporatist dream. oldfeminist already said all that needed to be said on the subject.

BTW, I heard this morning that Nelson Mandela’s (great-?)granddaughter was killed in a drunken driving incident and he won’t be attending the ceremonies. Seriously Universe, hasn’t the man suffered enough already?

Oldfeminist, I get your points, but isn’t your Point No. 3 - about sex trafficking and rape - not an argument against the World Cup, but against South Africa being a visitor destination at all?  And then, by extension, against any nation with poor control over sex trafficking and rape, meaning any Third World country, being an acceptable destination for visitors?  Which just says to me, “They’re doing a poor job protecting their own people.  Let’s isolate them from the world community and see if that makes it better.”  which, imho, it really really won’t.

Am I misunderstanding something?

Well, it’s good to know there’s no such thing as having some cheeky fun without someone pissing all over it, but okay. 

That’s too bad about Mandela. 

As for how to play, I think this guide on how to play soccer is a pretty good one.  It’s a super simple sport to understand enough to start watching.  It’s basically like basketball, but with less scoring.  But the penalties are handled roughly the same, you handle out of bounds the same, and scoring attempts are basically the same.  The big difference is basketball doesn’t have a goalie.

Here’s an explanation of the offside rule.  From what I understand, it’s basically there to keep you from forging ahead of the ball and the defenders in order to get a pass to kick it in.  Keeps things entertaining.

And seriously, oldfeminist, if we want sports to be less sexist, the first step isn’t going to be, “Women and feminist allies should simply abandon the sport.”  The first step is insisting that they be treated fairly. There’s no incentive to treat non-sexists and women fairly in sports if they aren’t actually fans.

Oldfeminist, I get your points, but isn’t your Point No. 3 - about sex trafficking and rape - not an argument against the World Cup, but against South Africa being a visitor destination at all?  And then, by extension, against any nation with poor control over sex trafficking and rape, meaning any Third World country, being an acceptable destination for visitors?  Which just says to me, “They’re doing a poor job protecting their own people.  Let’s isolate them from the world community and see if that makes it better.” which, imho, it really really won’t.

Am I misunderstanding something?
Comment #11: elmo on 06/11 at 10:11 AM

Yes.  Or rather, you’re adding something.  My supposed argument against making SA a destination for World Cup.  Which is nonexistent.

And seriously, oldfeminist, if we want sports to be less sexist, the first step isn’t going to be, “Women and feminist allies should simply abandon the sport.” The first step is insisting that they be treated fairly. There’s no incentive to treat non-sexists and women fairly in sports if they aren’t actually fans.
Comment #13: Amanda Marcotte on 06/11 at 10:18 AM

Again with the assumptions.  I didn’t say we should abandon the sport.

But it has its problems.  That’s all.

Amanda - thanks.

Oldfem - Ok, I must have misunderstood.  If this point—

South Africa has poor controls over sex trafficking and rape.  This means that loads of visitors to SA will be using women for sex who aren’t sex workers by choice, and women who go to the games have to be very careful not to go anywhere alone

—wasn’t intended as a reason to be sour on the World Cup being held in SA, then what was the point, exactly?  Why bring it up if it isn’t to say that having the WC in SA is a bad thing?

From that guide, teh stunningly accurate:

19. NEW ZEALAND

A bunch of squirrelly, over-matched, mostly white guys with dodgy haircuts, who play with so much heart that they just might cause some trouble for a big team. But overall, these irrepressible scamps are basically just happy to be there.

Like I said in another forum, we’re basically the lovable Down Syndrome kid of the tournament.  *sigh*

PiatoR, I didn’t know you were from NZ.  I want to go to there!

Seriously, it’s a promise I’ve made to myself, that I will take my partner there for either our 20th anniversary (next year) or her 50th birthday (year after that).  South Island.

Oh.  Sorry, everybody.  Carry on.
/threadjack

I’ll be sitting here in my corner, cheering for Germany.

Until next week that is, when I leave this desolate place and go to Europe, to watch the World Cup with others who care and know how to watch the World Cup properly

If this point wasn’t intended as a reason to be sour on the World Cup being held in SA, then what was the point, exactly?  Why bring it up if it isn’t to say that having the WC in SA is a bad thing?
Comment #16: elmo on 06/11 at 10:54 AM

It’s to say that good controls over sex trafficking and rape would be better.  And that SA should institute those controls, both during the World Cup and afterwards. 

Taking a big sports event to a city brings out its positive aspects, it can also bring out the negative ones.  The people who run those cities don’t always respond by fixing the problems—often they end up hiding them or denying them (e.g. exporting poor people and “undesirables” so that visitors won’t see them, like a later URL points out).

My overall general point was that usually on a leftist, feminist blog, posts about a subject would have a leftist, feminist slant.  Instead the focus seemed to be on making sure you’re not one of those Ugly Americans (misnomer anyway) who only knows about the Super Bowl and thinks soccer is for “pussies”.  Understanding another culture is good, but accepting some other culture’s sexist institution in the name of cultural relativism is a hazard.

Women in non-US cultures aren’t uniformly “wooah World Cup”.  Plenty of them find it an exercise in male privilege and glorification:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/06/world-cup-football-england

Liberal alarm bells can’t help but start ringing when a bunch of overpaid PE teachers get together to orchestrate a month of corporate-sponsored quasi-xenophobia; however, as soon as World Cup fever rolls around, members of the otherwise uninterested bourgeois left feel obliged to muster at least a sniffle of enthusiasm, sensing that not to do so is somehow elitist.

This is a misplaced notion: football is no longer the people’s sport. Just look at the brutal contempt that the police reserve for fans, or count the number of working-class Britons who can afford to attend home matches, much less the festivities in South Africa. Then there’s the uncomfortable fact that the World Cup is only and always about men.

http://florycalavera.blogspot.com/2010/06/of-soccer-and-sexism.html

There’s one thing I’m not thrilled about, however: the fact that the World Cup craze, in addition to fueling enthusiasm for soccer, has also intensified the Chilean media’s already pervasive objectification of women.

http://bradmillershero.blogspot.com/2010/06/bebe-world-cup-ad.html

World Cup. What are the men doing? They are the stars, playing the game, receiving the accolades, partying, murdering important political figures’ great granddaughters, etc.  And the women? Oh, they get to play football, too- well, play play football. In stupid dresses. While wearing high heels. And a metric fuck ton of makeup.

I wrote the following after attending my fist Soccer Match.  Hope it helps fellow non-fans, er Americans.
Hal Talks about his First Time
(because you can’t print “Popping My Soccer Cherry” in a family friendly venue)

By
Hal Cohen

In the movie, “Yes Man,” Jim Carrey has a line that goes something like, “I just had a Red Bull. I’d never had a Red Bull before.  Now I really like Red Bull, would you like to go get a Red Bull?”  He says this really fast sounding like a 33 being played at 45.  That analogy will be lost on most people because it refers to a time when people bought music on discs made of vinyl.  Then again, I’m old.

I mention this because I just went to a Red Bulls game.  If you don’t know, and judging by the turn out, you don’t, the Red Bulls are the New York area’s team (though I blame NJ Transit in part for the attendance).  In the days of yore referenced in the first paragraph, some people decided that America was ready for soccer.  They set up a team in the biggest market and brought in the biggest name in soccer.  As a result, all I can tell you about that league is that it was called the North American Soccer League, Pele was the star, he played for the New York Cosmos, and the league went bust.  Oh yeah, the score of almost every game was one to nothing.

No oil has yet been discovered from the remains of the extinct NASL.  However, the United States did place a successful bid to host the World Cup in 1994.  National pride demanded we pay attention.  Though, in New York, the Nation was Italy, or Brazil, or Ireland, or wherever else our parents came from.  Attendance and ratings were robust, so people decided that maybe it was time to try again. 

Realizing that North American Soccer had about as much in common with Soccer (Futbol) as Canadian Bacon has with Bacon, they decided to call this new version Major League Soccer.  There is no truth to the rumor that Bill Gates was offering millions if they called it NASL 2.0.

So there’s a new league in town.  Okay, it’s not so new, but it’s still got the new league smell.  None of their games end one nothing-  if only because they call it nil.  They’ve also brought in other International ideas such as Chivas, Real, United.  Irony note United is an international idea here in the U.S., and they play in the Capitol.  I guess the idea here is that if they use the terminology of international soccer, they will achieve the success of international soccer.

It’s not a bad premise, I’ll admit, but the rioting is a bit off-putting.  In America, when Cleveland Browns fans get rowdy, they cut off beer sales in New York.  But I digress.  So here I am at my first soccer game.  Wait, this is soccer, it’s a match not a game.  The New York Red Bulls versus the San Jose Earthquakes.  An energy drink pitted against a natural disaster.  A thought: Should there be an earthquake in San Jose, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, the emergency workers will need a lot of Red Bull.

I’m watching the game, match, I’ll get used to it, and since I have no clue what’s going on, I’m listening to the broadcast through the internet feed.  There’s about a half-minute delay between the live action and the feed, but since I don’t know what I’m seeing I don’t notice.  Until, only seven minutes in, somebody scores.  As this is soccer and I wasn’t expecting any scoring this came as a surprise.  Luckily, I only had to wait another 30 seconds to watch it live on my laptop.  A player named Jorge Rojas scored on a free kick.

Now it’s one-nil Red Bulls, and I think the games over.  What do they do for the remaining 83 minutes?  It turns out, and this was a shock, that there is nothing in the rules which limit’s a team to one goal!  Who new?  This lack of a rule was proven only a few minutes later when Jorge Rojas scored again!  This time, he was assisted by a header from Macoumba Kandji off an inbounds, um I mean throw in.

It’s a good thing Rojas didn’t score again, because I don’t think anyone would be able to reach the pitch, that’s soccer for field, with their hat.  Not long after that, Kandji assisted on another goal.  This one scored by Juan Pablo Angel; another goal I was able to see live thanks to the 30 second delay.  Later in the half, Kandji scored a goal himself.  I’m guessing that he looked around and there was no one to pass to after he found a hole in the defense.  I saw that one live.  No, really, I lost my internet feed.

Now, I’m starting to think that they need to save some goals for the next game.  The bad guys managed to score a goal right before halftime, so the word nil had the rest of the night off.  I get my internet feed back for the second half, and 30 seconds after the match ended the final score was Redbulls 4 Earthquakes 1. 

Now I’m going to work on my Soccer to English dictionary, look for it in stores soon.

And here I thought I didn’t have to pretend to like sports once I was done with high school.

Whoa, there’s a Pandagon sub-site devoted to soccer? Awesome…

Women in non-US cultures aren’t uniformly “wooah World Cup”.  Plenty of them find it an exercise in male privilege and glorification.

So true. I get the sense that being interested in the World Cup in America is a boldly internationalist thing to do, as well as (perhaps?) being slightly gendered in that soccer in the US is a sport associated with women and girls.

Here in Europe, soccer is The Man. I’ve been going to watch the top division of professional soccer since my age was single digits, and I’ve gone to international matches too, but it’s still very much male space. I’ve watched professional sports in America, and in other countries around the world, and other sports in my own country, and I think that soccer culture is the least hospitable to the notion of including women. It’s also viciously homophobic. There’s only been one out professional footballer ever, and he committed suicide. No professional footballer working today was willing to appear in an anti-homophobia PSA last year.

It’s impossible to overstate how saturated the media is with soccer-related stories. I’ve just watched the Prime Minister reading a letter of support from the manager of the England team to troops in the field in Afghanistan: a perfect vortex of masculinity. Captains of industry and national union officials have been publicly debating the tricky problem of how to balance productivity with the need to watch the matches. I feel that I could manage the care of Rio Ferdinand’s pre-Cup knee injury, so comprehensive has coverage of it been. Every product, every advert, has some kind of World Cup theme going on.

None of this is bad, per se, but there are some things we should rightly challenge. Feminists in Europe have been jumping up and down about South Africa’s approach to trafficking, and we’re looking ahead in the UK to the Olympics in 2012 with the same issues in mind. It’s been disappointing that FIFA (the world governing body of soccer) has banned condom and safer sex info distribution in the stadia and fanzones, because HIV/AIDS is still hugely problematic in South Africa. (Mind you, the President of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, said in 2004 that women footballers could provoke a bit more interest in their sport by wearing skimpier kits, so they’re not coming from a particularly informed position.)

So, yeah, I’ll be loving the games, but hating quite a lot of the politics of what is now a global industry, because they couldn’t give a damn about women and girls.

My Spanish listening is for crap (I can read the printed word better), and everyone who knows both languages says games are called better on TV by the Spanish-speaking announcers. I was wondering if hitting the SAP button while tuned to Univision will give me a good English voiceover translated.

Oh, and the SJ Earthquakes are named after the NASL SJ Earthquakes. Anyone who needs to know more than is healthy to remember about the NASL can ask me. I have an old Edmonton Drillers pennant around here somewhere.

Elle:  “So true. I get the sense that being interested in the World Cup in America is a boldly internationalist thing to do, as well as (perhaps?) being slightly gendered in that soccer in the US is a sport associated with women and girls. “

It probably is.  There’s a pleasant irony in that World Cup/soccer fandom in the US could be more gender-balanced and non-jingoistic than anywhere else in the world.  Which I don’t want to discourage.  I’d just rather have people aware of the problems than blindly think, World Cup yay, Super Bowl boo.

Wow, can’t have fun without someone being humorless all over it. For a good example of how to acknowledge that this is a tremendous thing for South Africa while not forgetting the problems of the country and the corporatism of the tournament, check out some of the coverage in The Guardian. They don’t go enough in-depth but it’s a good start. Or look at the work Grassroot Soccer is doing to fight HIV and teach life skills to youth in South Africa.

Personally, I’d rather celebrate the good while acknowledging that more work needs to be done. Football needs more women to participate as fans, administrators of the game, and players, not less. But if you’d rather piss all over other women’s enjoyment, more power to you. I’m going to watch a few games outdoors in Dupont Circle tomorrow and enjoy myself while cheering heartily for England. Thanks for bringing footy to Pandagon, Amanda and Marc!

Saying offensive shit about limeys is all part of the game.

Speaking as an Englishman I shall be saying far ruder things about you Yanks during the match!

Elle: THIS. I posted my comment before yours popped up, but this is exactly what I meant when I said we can both enjoy the game and acknowledge the problems. The condom issue is hugely disappointing; it really demonstrates how corporate interests are destroying the communal nature of the game.

Wow, can’t have fun without someone being humorless all over it.

There would be no women in football without the fairly sustained humourlessness of the women who came before us. The fact I got to play at all, as a child, is thanks to female teachers who were derided and patronised by the men who ran my local football club. 

I know a couple of women who have worked for FIFA, a couple who work for other football governing bodies, and some who have worked for the governing bodies of other sports. It’s not puppies and sunshine for women in football organisations, particularly, and sustained pressure is still required before (in the absence of a Title IX equivalent) women have a place at the top table of football. 

I don’t think that ‘supporting the tournament’ means ignoring the ways that women are marginalised in the sport, and the way male football players are privileged, economically and within the criminal justice system. I love football. I hate misogyny. I truly don’t see the problem with anyone pointing out the real issues that still exist on a feminist blog.

Elle, it’s not the pointing out of misogyny that I took issue with. It needs to be addressed and trust me, I’m not unaware of the work women have been doing to make soccer a safe space for us to be in. It’s the fact that the original response could be easily (mis?)interpreted as taking those of us who were excited about the WC for ignoring these issues. And, yes, sometimes you need fun in your life. Maybe “humorless” wasn’t the best word choice, but the idea that women can’t/shouldn’t be part of this doesn’t sit well.

oldfeminist, to say sports have their problems is to say the sky is blue.  It does force an audience to say, “And what are we to do about it?”  The whole thing reminds me of people who don’t watch football anyway saying they’re going to boycott the Superbowl.  Political action by doing what you wanted to do anyway!

My overall general point was that usually on a leftist, feminist blog, posts about a subject would have a leftist, feminist slant. 

This blog has always had space for blogging about things that aren’t politics.  That we gave our name and our website to bloggers who set out expressly to blog about soccer from a progressive, feminist point of view isn’t enough?

I didn’t read Old Feminist’s post like that, so much as a statement of fact, but I understand what you’re saying, Elena. It also sounds like we’re on the same page on the World Cup being a curate’s egg of entertainment. I’m v. glad that you said ‘humourless’ wasn’t the right word choice, though, because it’s annoying enough when our ideological enemies use words like that to dismiss us, without using them on each other.

I hope you and the rest of the ex-pats have a good World Cup!

The condom story was one I was pushing hard on Twitter, FYI.  Also, I did not say Super Bowl boo. I like the Super Bowl. I just assumed I could be cheeky about Americans’ relationship to soccer without it automatically implying I suddenly am a big time fan of trafficking, STDs, or misogyny.  I assumed my audience was smart enough to know that sports have a misogynist culture, and not that every post has to be about that.

Thanks, Elle!  “Humorless” is one of those words for me. I don’t think I ever mean it the way “they” mean it, but that’s really no excuse.

I’m an expat, but from Russia. I went to an English-language school, so England has always been my “second team.” Since my former compatriots took our record of failure to new heights by not qualifying at all, I’m neutral this time. Would love to see Spain or Argentina take it and it would be unbelivable if one of the African teams won. But I’m cheering England on tomorrow. Good luck!

Sorry, Elena! I just assumed.

Argentina can obviously bite me, but I wouldn’t be sorry to see Spain win if England don’t. Thanks for the good wishes! We will assuredly need them.

SWPL nails it.

“white people like the World Cup because it allows them to pretend they are European for a few weeks, and more importantly, it allows them to get drunk at odd hours.”

“This plan will be consummated with a high five, a trip to Trader Joes, and the purchase of a soccer jersey that will be worn, on average, twice a decade.”

the idea that women can’t/shouldn’t be part of this doesn’t sit well.
Comment #31: elena on 06/11 at 12:42 PM

I didn’t say women can’t or shouldn’t be part of the soccer world.

The whole thing reminds me of people who don’t watch football anyway saying they’re going to boycott the Superbowl.  Political action by doing what you wanted to do anyway!
Comment #32: Amanda Marcotte on 06/11 at 12:45 PM

I didn’t claim everyone should boycott soccer/futbol or the World Cup.

What should we do about it?  Not ignore it.  Not say people are pissing all over someone’s enjoyment when they mention problems.  That’s a tactic the right uses, calling us big crybabies and spoilsports when we won’t just shut up and ignore the problems with any other entertainment.

Again, a focus on problems in South Africa means more people will become aware of the high AIDS rate, the lack of protection for women, and the ongoing problem of poverty.  People may wish to write to FIFA about their refusal to allow free condom distribution at the games.  People might want to send money to anti-AIDS and anti-poverty charities in South Africa.

Is South Africa, which did a lot to clean up its dirty racial act partly on the basis of international pressure, now “hands off” when it comes to sexism and AIDS awareness?  I hope not.  I hope this is an opportunity.

The whole thing reminds me of people who don’t watch football anyway saying they’re going to boycott the Superbowl.  Political action by doing what you wanted to do anyway!
Comment #32: Amanda Marcotte on 06/11 at 12:45 PM

I misunderstood this point of yours, which seems to be that I wouldn’t be watching the World Cup anyway, so it’s easy for me to march around declaring “I’m not going to watch it because it’s super horrible!  All of you are super horrible for watching it!  Run away! run away! from the big bad SOCCAR!”

But that’s not what I’m doing.  I’m talking about some of the problems with the World Cup event and soccer in general.

That we gave our name and our website to bloggers who set out expressly to blog about soccer from a progressive, feminist point of view isn’t enough?
Comment #33: Amanda Marcotte on 06/11 at 12:48 PM

Right!  I am participating in that kind of discussion.  Right here. 

So…what is the problem? 

I’m seriously not understanding this.  I’m doing exactly what you claim you are offering here.  Discussing soccer from a progressive, feminist point of view.

Captains of industry and national union officials have been publicly debating the tricky problem of how to balance productivity with the need to watch the matches.

Even our more humorless bosses look the other way when our programmers stream the World Cup over the network (we have a fairly international workplace). Now just try to ask them about bringing in flextime and ending the practice of ‘crunch time’ to help employees with families (lack of support for them is one of the major reasons why women and older people are excluded or discriminated against in this field).

Similarly, when crazed Canadian fans rioted and trashed downtown all the news outlets were falling over themselves saying that real fans had not participated in the riots and that they were the result of ‘organized troublemakers from criminal gangs’ (Journal de Montreal even had lots of pictures of young black males in hip hop attire looting stores, in case you did not understand what ‘organized troublemakers’ meant). But the COBP does its yearly march against police brutality and the cops take everybody in and the media just says everybody in the march was a criminal because a few threw bottles at cops.

There’s a serious double standard when it comes to sports, and at least a good part of it is because it’s a male identified culture.

A screening of Panahi’s OFFSIDE at Pandagon Theatre would be brilliantly appropriate right about now.

The best part about the World Cup has got to be the month long reaction by local sports broadcasters talking about a sport they don’t know or understand and don’t want to know or understand. Then they get a bunch of callers who agree to appear on the air talking about how stupid and boring the game is. About how it sucks compared to the NFL. About how the inability to track a bunch of stats makes the game hard to study.

Or, when they deign to allow fans of the sport on the air to disagree, they are politely condescending, at best. And, of course, any enthusiasm for the event usually completely dies when the US team bows out since there is no longer any angle they can understand to even bother talking about. Maybe the US team can last longer than a week this time, though I wouldn’t be surprised if they failed this year like they usually do when the competitions actually mean anything.

Yeah. Awesome!

I’m with Colbert on this one, and it commutes to EVERY other sport.

Elle, no problem! US should be a good test, not that I think they are that good, but I think they are a type of team that could give England a bit of a headache. It does seem to all rest on Rooney’s performance, unfortunately.

Oldfeminist, I believe it was Danny Jordaan (head of the WC bid) who said something about the dream of South Africa free of racism and sexism. Yes, these are just words, but you don’t hear men in public life speak of racism and sexism in the same breath that often. So I don’t think the subject is hands-off for anyone. Although a lot of Africans from various countries have been pointing out that the focus on the problems has been disproportionate and, to them, read like a gleeful pile-on by Westerners who would like to see RSA (and, by extension, the whole continent) fail. But, anyway, this post wasn’t about any of that. Again, I apologize for bad word choice, but I still maintain that even a leftist/feminist blog can say “hey, this is a fun thing we are doing” and leave it at that. It’s not like Amanda never posts about some pop culture item she gets a kick out of without dissecting it!

Feminists calling other women humorless for not ‘just lighening up’, ‘having a cheeky good time’, etc etc etc when women point out the problematic aspects of something.

Am I really on Pandagon? For shame.

elena, no worries, I don’t think you meant “humourless” the way a lot of men do when women say anything at all about vulgarly sexist entertainments, because when they say it, they mean that the sexism is integral to humor and fun, while I think you’re saying, set it aside and enjoy it for the good that’s in it.

And I agree there can be a lot of holier-than-thou posturing about South Africa and other third world (SA would be second-world, maybe?) countries.  I am perfectly willing to turn that microscope on the US; there’s plenty of sexism to go around, and technologically advanced countries often just have more technologically advances sexism going on.

It’s just that actually, no, I can’t think of a post where Amanda has talked about something in pop culture without at least an acknowledgement of whatever sexist or racist issues that that entertainment might embody.  So I was surprised to get so strong a negative reaction from my comments.

I’m not a big sports fan, but I can see the beauty in a great sports play.  It’s possible to appreciate physical grace even if you don’t understand the context.  I think everyone should have the opportunity to enjoy it.  Which is why that one link I posted, with a deconstruction of the “write the future” ad, was I think particularly worth looking at.  The ad itself is inspiring and exciting.  Then you realize that women only participate as pole dancers or serving food to men watching the game or looking sexy or falling down trying to do the complicated foot move.

And I wasn’t aware of the film “Offside”—thanks, Ranylt.  Another instance where women are put to the side when it comes to sports, even in this case as spectators, not even participants.

But does every post have to be about or mention the problematic aspects of something? This is just a “Hey, it’s World Cup time!” post - are we always required to discuss the negatives? If someone writes a post about a new restaurant they really like, are we going to admonish them if they don’t discuss the issues surrounding sustainable food and free-range meat?

As a woman who is an ardent fan of soccer, and who is also an ardent feminist, I absolutely recognize the existence of the problems in this (not to mention EVERY) sport. But I am not going to agree that any and all posts on the subject must mention these things, and when the comments go that way in what was to some of us a very finger-wagging kind of way, it feels unnecessary. 

I’ve been blogging at Pandagoal for a month now, and I don’t think I’ve said a thing about the issues of sexism in sports, but that doesn’t mean it’s not something I think about and am bothered by. I may write a post on that one day, when I feel like diving into it. But if there were comments on all of my posts pointing out the lack of feminist analysis and decrying it, that would get really tiresome right quick.

I’ve been blogging at Pandagoal for a month now, and I don’t think I’ve said a thing about the issues of sexism in sports, but that doesn’t mean it’s not something I think about and am bothered by. I may write a post on that one day, when I feel like diving into it. But if there were comments on all of my posts pointing out the lack of feminist analysis and decrying it, that would get really tiresome right quick.
Comment #48: Alison on 06/11 at 03:53 PM

But I’m not going to Pandagoal and commenting on every post there about how horrible everyone is for not saying that soccer is wildly misogynistic.  I’m posting here, on Pandagon.  A feminist and progressive blog.  On this one entry. 

My followup comments have mostly been explaining what people didn’t understand and maybe assumed something I didn’t say and didn’t mean.

Is there a reason you’ve never blogged at Pandagoal about the sexist aspects of the sport, given that you are aware of it?  Does it seem to you you might get a negative reaction?  Do you think it should?

Oldfeminist, I’m glad you didn’t see it that way. It is a word I struggle with using, as I mentioned. We probably won’t agree in this instance, but I enjoy your comments and I think I get where you were coming from here.  I think we can agree that both of us hope that the WC will put a spotlight on South Africa in a way that is helpful and that we both wish that women could be full participants in all aspects of this sport!

Oh my god. Fuck off! The World Cup is the single greatest sporting event in the world. Can you not think about how the World Cup is “male-centric” and “misogynistic” and enjoy the game (or not watch it). I’ve been waiting for months and can’t wait until tomorrow; have some drinks and yell completely offensive things about the English, even though I’m an Anglophile.

Just enjoy the game and the passion.

I know you’re not commenting there, I was saying that YOU seem to be saying this post by Amanda should have included some discussion of the problematic aspects…even though it was just a “World Cup is here, and here’s some info on it” post. Which seems to say that any post written by a feminist about soccer should include that discussion. Pandagoal’s header says “the progressive soccer hangout” because it’s a blog run by progressives. But most of the posts are just going to be about soccer, not about the progressive issues with the sport and the culture surrounding it.

Yes, this is Pandagon. A feminist blog. But it’s Amanda’s blog and she can write what she wants, how she wants. It would have been one thing to just mention that it’s too bad sexism is still such a problem in the sports world or whatever, but to throw out link after link after link seemed really condescending, as though you felt you had to school Amanda on this subject. If that wasn’t your intention, okay, but it came across that way.

I haven’t blogged about the sexist aspects of soccer because I just haven’t. I did not start blogging there because I wanted to discuss those aspects in particular - it was because I wanted to discuss soccer. I think that’s fine. I am happy to still call myself a feminist even without having posted about sexism in sports. I also haven’t written about the incredible racism in certain leagues and the homophobia and the ridiculous salaries and all of that. Doesn’t mean those things don’t matter to me.

Can you not think about how the World Cup is “male-centric” and “misogynistic” and enjoy the game.

I don’t have any problem doing both at the same time. It’s called ‘living while feminist’.

Based on everything I know about Amanda, I doubt she’s unaware of sports-related gender inequities. She just chose not to highlight it in what was an attempt at a lighthearted post. There’s just this attitude from certain commenters that they have to educate all of us because we’re way to dumb to give a shit about sexism and the victims of sex trafficking in South Africa. It comes off as condescending, finger-wagging, and a total buzzkill.

***This is a ME BEING A HUMORLESS FEMINIST AND A BUZKILL ZONE. WATCH OUT***

I don’t know oldfeminist from Bob, but here is what I watched:

Amanda: Here is some info about something that people might not know a lot about, and might be interested in learning more about.

Some Other People: Cool, I’ve always wanted to know more about that!

oldfeminist: Here is some more information on that topic, from a feminist viewpoint, which you might also find interesting, seeing as we are all reading a feminist blog.

Some Other People and Amanda: HUMOURLESS FEMINIST. Why you gotta rain on our parade of penises and macho masculinity?

Me: WTF?!

*end scene*

Maybe it is just me, but calling a feminist ‘humorless’ seems awfully loaded. Telling a woman who has performed feminist criticism on a feminist blog to stop taking things so seriously also seems pretty loaded. Maybe next time Amanda doesn’t want feminist criticism of something in the comments of her blog post on a blog that is about feminist criticism of everything, she could let everyone know first. That way, I can know to skip the damn thing.

oldfeminist, I really appreciated your links, and I realize I am probably not helping anything, but damn if this situation didn’t rub me entirely the wrong way.

The World Cup is probably the only thing the brings the world together (hope I don’t sound too idealistic). So criticizing it is kinda tacky/uncalled for/doesn’t help your cause/etc., that’s how I view it, anyway.

My spouse, who watches virtually NO sports, has on Univision and is actually getting into it right now.  It is a side of him I have seldom seen in our 27 + years together.  It’s kind of cute.

I know you’re not commenting there, I was saying that YOU seem to be saying this post by Amanda should have included some discussion of the problematic aspects…even though it was just a “World Cup is here, and here’s some info on it” post. Which seems to say that any post written by a feminist about soccer should include that discussion. Pandagoal’s header says “the progressive soccer hangout” because it’s a blog run by progressives. But most of the posts are just going to be about soccer, not about the progressive issues with the sport and the culture surrounding it.

I didn’t say that this post by Amanda should have included some discussion of the problematic aspects.  I don’t believe it had to.

However, I do believe there’s nothing wrong in my commenting about the problematic aspects.  And I’m getting pushback, from Amanda, about it.

Yes, this is Pandagon. A feminist blog. But it’s Amanda’s blog and she can write what she wants, how she wants. It would have been one thing to just mention that it’s too bad sexism is still such a problem in the sports world or whatever, but to throw out link after link after link seemed really condescending, as though you felt you had to school Amanda on this subject. If that wasn’t your intention, okay, but it came across that way.
<blockquote>
Perhaps your commenting style is different—I don’t focus solely on sending a message to the individual blogger, or some other commenter who’s asked me a question or called me out. 

In the case of my first comment, I’m speaking to everyone here, and not everyone here will be aware of all these issues.
<blockquote>
I haven’t blogged about the sexist aspects of soccer because I just haven’t. I did not start blogging there because I wanted to discuss those aspects in particular - it was because I wanted to discuss soccer. I think that’s fine. I am happy to still call myself a feminist even without having posted about sexism in sports. I also haven’t written about the incredible racism in certain leagues and the homophobia and the ridiculous salaries and all of that. Doesn’t mean those things don’t matter to me.
Comment #52: Alison on 06/11 at 04:48 PM

I wasn’t questioning your credibility as a feminist.  I was asking because I wondered if you thought you’d get a chilly response if you brought up anything about the sexist and misogynist aspects of WC and professional soccer.

Sorry, format fail.

I know you’re not commenting there, I was saying that YOU seem to be saying this post by Amanda should have included some discussion of the problematic aspects…even though it was just a “World Cup is here, and here’s some info on it” post. Which seems to say that any post written by a feminist about soccer should include that discussion. Pandagoal’s header says “the progressive soccer hangout” because it’s a blog run by progressives. But most of the posts are just going to be about soccer, not about the progressive issues with the sport and the culture surrounding it.

I didn’t say that this post by Amanda should have included some discussion of the problematic aspects.  I don’t believe it had to.

However, I do believe there’s nothing wrong in my commenting about the problematic aspects.  And I’m getting pushback, from Amanda, about it.

Yes, this is Pandagon. A feminist blog. But it’s Amanda’s blog and she can write what she wants, how she wants. It would have been one thing to just mention that it’s too bad sexism is still such a problem in the sports world or whatever, but to throw out link after link after link seemed really condescending, as though you felt you had to school Amanda on this subject. If that wasn’t your intention, okay, but it came across that way.

Perhaps your commenting style is different—I don’t focus solely on sending a message to the individual blogger, or some other commenter who’s asked me a question or called me out. 

In the case of my first comment, I’m speaking to everyone here, and not everyone here will be aware of all these issues.

I haven’t blogged about the sexist aspects of soccer because I just haven’t. I did not start blogging there because I wanted to discuss those aspects in particular - it was because I wanted to discuss soccer. I think that’s fine. I am happy to still call myself a feminist even without having posted about sexism in sports. I also haven’t written about the incredible racism in certain leagues and the homophobia and the ridiculous salaries and all of that. Doesn’t mean those things don’t matter to me.
Comment #52: Alison on 06/11 at 04:48 PM

I wasn’t questioning your credibility as a feminist.  I was asking because I wondered if you thought you’d get a chilly response if you brought up anything about the sexist and misogynist aspects of WC and professional soccer.

I adore World Cup and am right now eagerly awaiting the Argentina/Nigeria match. But I’d be the first to admit oldfeminist is making a very good point. There is, after all, a women’s World Cup held a year after the men’s which never generates one hundredth of the excitement of the former despite the presence of some truly amazing female players. Why can’t all the countries of the world come together when people bearing female genitalia play the beautiful game?

Rhetorical question, of course. I will be watching both with great avidity, my cable providers willing.

I don’t get soccer.

And no, I’m not trying to be some Real ‘Murkan. I don’t get baseball, either. I think it’s boring as hell, and that’s borderline Communist according to a good portion of the country.

I like football, basketball, and ice hockey, so I guess I like my sports fast and/or violent.

Elmo, where have you been?! Sometimes it feels like Piator brings up his NZer status daily, sometimes more than once a thread.
Of course, I don’t hold back on mentioning my Santa Cruz residency. It’s easy to be proud of a good place.

However, I do believe there’s nothing wrong in my commenting about the problematic aspects.  And I’m getting pushback, from Amanda, about it.

Actually, I think you are getting pushback because of your first paragraph, not because of all the other points you raised.  I mean, the rest are good points*, so why the hell start out with talking about how much you, personally, dislike the sport and how it ruined your life?  It kind of undercuts the rest of your arguments and makes it seem like they *aren’t* good points - or rather, that maybe you don’t actually give a shit if they are good points or not and you are just bringing them up because they are better ammunition than just “oh, god.  soccer/football? do I really have to hear about this here, too?”

And then, after that opening salvo, you follow up with attributing an argument to Amanda that she didn’t make - that *liking* soccer makes you a better person.  Which isn’t what the post says at all.  What the post says is that a huge chunk of the world plays and loves this sport, so knowing something about it - hey! maybe even participating in some of it! - (often) gives one a better understanding/sense of connection with a huge chunk of the world’s population.

That this still leaves out a lot of marginalized people - people that are often forced out - is a good point…but, really, as far as sports goes…the one thing that soccer really has going for it that few others do is that can be frickin’ cheap.  And that’s not a small thing when one is talking about a world cup that is currently being held for the first time (?) on the poorest continent on earth.

*mostly, I’m with elmo - while the dangers related to the sex trade greatly intensify around World Cups (and it’s pretty much all World Cups, btw, not just this one**) and that’s something that should be discussed and addressed - I have no idea wtf you were trying to say with point 3 of your original post.

Also, while they are good individual points, they are pretty random and disjointed and like something that was just googled.  As a soccer/football fan, it’s just rather personally annoying when people who don’t like the sport come in while I’m enjoying it and critique it’s sexism in a way that barely scratches the surface.  I mean, if you are going to metaphorically interrupt my chants of USA! to bag on FIFA and the like, at least do a halfway decent job of it.

**dear god, the articles about the decisions made regarding sex work at the time of the last cup in Germany, combined with Landon Donavon continuing to be an ass and the then still relatively recent demise of the WUSA, are a big part of why I never bothered to watch any of the games from that cup.

Elmo, where have you been?! Sometimes it feels like Piator brings up his NZer status daily, sometimes more than once a thread. smile

Sheesh - I would have thought the name was a bit of a giveaway.

I mean, the rest are good points*, so why the hell start out with talking about how much you, personally, dislike the sport and how it ruined your life?

I dunno.  Just to piss you off so you can’t rationally deal with what I have to say?

I didn’t say soccer ruined my life.  I have one foot a half-size bigger than the other.  It doesn’t cause pain or affect my gait, so the injury’s effect on my life is slight. 

I think I have been clear about my general indifference to spectator sports.  I’ve repeated it when others questioned it.  I’m beginning to consider taking offense, as it’s starting to sound like y’all are calling me a liar.

But suppose I am lying.  That doesn’t mean I’m totally ignorant of how big businesses work, and that’s what World Cup is, no mistake.  And I have been a feminist since 1971.  So I think I’m familiar with the patriarchy and how it works. 

So.  Even if my complaints were from a sports-ignorant whiner who hates sports with a fiery passion borne of a bad injury, how would that affect the validity or relevance of the points I raised? 

You haven’t touched the substance of any of them.  This has all just been one big tone argument.

“I think I have been clear about my general indifference to spectator sports. “

Your first paragraph of your first post is hardly indifferent to spectator sports.  Also, not engaging in something does not make you indifferent/objective.  It means you have opinions and feelings on the matter.  And really, this needs to be explained?

“Even if my complaints were from a sports-ignorant whiner who hates sports with a fiery passion borne of a bad injury, how would that affect the validity or relevance of the points I raised?”

As I said before, focusing on that first* affects the usefulness of the overall argument.  And really, that needs to be clarified?

“You haven’t touched the substance of any of them.”

That’s complete bullshit that I haven’t “touched the substance of any of them.”  I EXPANDED on one of them.  Perhaps you were spoiling for a fight and just focused on the parts where you got one?  But then, I also addressed the “worldwide community” thing - so maybe you just overlook anything that doesn’t make it seem like you are getting picked on?

“This has all just been one big tone argument.”

Just because the tone argument is usually a troll’s tool doesn’t mean that it never has merit.  This isn’t a question of us needing to be convinced that women’s issues should be taken seriously, it’s a question of what kind of discussion you are expecting to have with fellow feminists.  We are not outsiders coming into your space and expecting to be heard, we all are supposedly peers having a conversation.  As I said before, the issue is not that your points are not valid or relevant, my issue is that they annoy me personally because you are coming in an acting like I (we) know nothing about any of this, when it’s clear that you know less than I (we?) do about it.  Which suggests not only that you have little respect for me as a fan, but more importantly, you are acting disrespectfully with regards to my experiences as a female fan and player.  THAT is insulting.  THAT is bordering on acting like a concern troll - no matter the validity of the individual points raised.  And is annoying as fuck.

*Actually, it would be more accurate to say that your argument is both shallow and disjointed, and would be even without the first paragraph.  It’s simply a list of issues, after all, not a cohesive argument with an overall point.  Which really, is fine, it’s just a fucking comment on a blog, not a graduate thesis.

The problem with mentioning your personal feelings on the sport (and not in a “this is my bias” kind of way) is that it suggests not so nice reasons why this might be, and colors the rest of the comment, no matter how you may wish it to be otherwise.  It suggests that it’s not just that you are new to this, but that you really couldn’t be bothered to put anything better together. Which again, as someone who is very aware of the depth of soccer’s sexism from the inside, I find it rather insulting that your foot injury needed a mention, but that soccer’s sexism merited nothing more substantial or cohesive than a list of whatever the fuck came up in google.

It also makes me less inclined to expand on your points or to see you as worth engaging in and instead makes me more likely to lump you in with all the sexist/jingoist assholes I’ve encountered both inside and outside of the sport.  It’s not that “omg! you insulted soccer!” it’s that your initial tone very strongly reminds me of all the American assholes who use soccer’s popularity with girls to dismiss it, or of all the non-(white-bread)-American assholes who use the US womens team doing better internationally than the US mens team to dismiss American soccer overall.  It comes across as very much “I’m not into this”  (whether “this” is soccer or things done by women) “so I’m going to start with that and then collect whatever shit I can find to support it.”

If you argument was “soccer is sexist”  that would one thing.  But for whatever reason you could neither stick to that valid point nor could you be bothered to do more than list links to stuff you googled (as if this was all brand-spankin’ new to all of us).

It’s basically like basketball, but with less scoring

I can’t know for sure, but I do not believe I will ever hear something at this level of understatement again in my life.

I’ve always thought of it more like hockey, myself.  Can’t know for sure, since none of the reporting or analysis I’ve read so far describe actual tactics.  Hopefully Marc’s links will point me in the direction of something a little meatier than “they played limply” or “they played with heart”.

s I said before, the issue is not that your points are not valid or relevant, my issue is that they annoy me personally….

Obviously.

I didn’t make the points to annoy you personally, or to annoy anyone personally.  You can believe me or not.

How’s the Women’s World Cup going these days?  I used to follow it, but it’s been *really* hard to get any news of it in recent, well, decades.