Mysoginist of the day: Alan Swann

And the award goes to: Alan Swann of the Petersborough Telegraph, a local English newspaper, who tells us:

World of Sport: Sorry ladies, but you are very dull  

Well, we are terribly sorry indeed you are so bored. Unfortunately, these types of headlines show up again and again. Male sports journalists claim that, quite simply, women's sports aren’t as interesting and that this position is, as Mr. Swann puts it "a biological statement rather than a sexist one."

But two things have to be clearly distinguished here. No one tries to argue that there aren't certain differences between men's and women's football or tennis or any other sports. Men and women have different biological limits and possibilities - not always uniquely in favour of men, one should add - and this creates differences in the way they approach a game. Now it's one thing to state that you personally prefer men's tennis over women's tennis - that’s a simple manner of opinion and preference of style, even though it should be noted that there is no actual clear cut stylistic distinction in most cases.  It's a completely different matter to pretend that men's sports are inherently superior to women's sport because of these differences. That indeed is sexist, whatever Mr. Swann, trying to present us his personal preferences as a matter of fact, wants to pretend. 

His argument is that women "aren’t quick enough, and they aren’t strong enough which should be enough to ensure that they aren’t as richly rewarded in terms of prize money or funding." 

This argument is awfully simplistic and reduces professional sport to a simple question of physical strength, when it is really a combination of so many factors like tactics, anticipation, mental strength and technique. it also needs to be considered that superior physical strength of men is at best relative, especially considering athletes come in various shapes even in one sport, and as much a biological reality as a social construct. As long as society tells women they're naturally physically inferior and at the same looks down at them for being to athletic and "unfeminine" we can hardly expect young girls to be encouraged to even develop their physical strength beyond a certain level.

He further argues, citing the example of women's tennis, that this physical difference means the sport is "pretty much unwatchable and no amount of baseline shrieking and grunting can disguise the fact that the rallies are often interminable exchanges of powderpuff hitting"

Once again, personal opinion is confounded with fact. Apart from the obvious exaggerations, what's troubling is the clear assumption that what he considers the "male" type of tennis, i.e. the antithesis of what he describes here, is inherently superior. It's actually a question of taste. Men's physical strength often leads to serve dominated games, where you rarely see rallies or breaks of serve and can basically fast forward to a tie-breaker. This of course is a similarly gross simplification, but the point is - there are types of typically male tennis you can find just as boring, precisely because of the superior physical strength. 

What Swann's article leads up to is the unfortunately not uncommon demand to abolish equal prize money because as he says "equal pay for less demanding work is one of sport’s great scandals"

The equal prize money debate is a complex one, but in my opinion it boils down to these things: Men and women are equal. And prize money rewards winning and nothing else. It isn't paid by hour or by effort or by the amount of winners hit. Men and women win tennis matches. They should get the same money for it. End of story.

Swann is a prime example of latent sexism in sports. He presents his opinion that men's sport is superior to women's as some type of natural fact and basically wants to turn back time and take back all progress made in terms of equality. Perhaps most telling is the way he preemptively addresses accusations of sexism: "Of course I’m certain to be accused of blatant sexism by the hard-of-thinking and the easily-outraged, but the viewing figures and live attendance totals will back my opinion up."

He disqualifies everyone who doesn't agree with him - a classic strategy if you don't have any pertinent arguments - and claims back-up of by viewing figures in such when in fact they result precisely for under-exposure and devaluation of women's sports in media such as his. 

I always wonder of this type of article - an obvious opinion piece, populist and underwritten - are worth getting upset about. But in the end I think they are. Because they contribute to a number of issues. They engrain stereotypes into society and consequentially discourage potential audiences form discovering women's sports, sponsors form investing and young girls fro participating. So articles like this one are part of the problem and as such it's important they're addressed.