Female commentators in cricket

[ManFan]

And that point is?

Women have not inserted themselves into the NFL at all. That's just factually untrue. As for the breast cancer thing you mentioned, that's not women "ruining" the NFL. That's the NFL doing it themselves to try and get decent PR and sell pink merchandise to women while they're doing it.

So that's rubbish for a start.



1) Why not? If we can have men who are terrible at the job, and there are plenty of those in the commentary box, then why can't we have a woman who is terrible? That's pretty much the definition of sexism.

2) As for the people putting her on mute, not sure we should cater to the whims of sexists.



Then you should know better.



I refer you to my previous point about people that whine about "forced" diversity.



Oh there's a white guy somewhere that was crying about diversity?

Errrr...no it isn't.

You make some good points but I think you are confusing me for someone else.

Here’s my point, plain and simple.

Just get a better female commentator and maybe all the hoopla will go away.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Also, the irony of having to explain institutional discrimination to a forum that primarily consists of people that have to deal with both racism and Islamophobia is not lost on me.

Maybe it's natural?

It certainly seems to come naturally to people of all creeds and cultures. We ALL discriminate on one level or another.

 

[ManFan]

Let's talk about facts and not the feelings of people that are scared of women.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...study-workplace-office-mckinsey-a8166601.html







Companies benefit from both gender diversity and ethnic diversity. I'm not even talking about how it benefits society in the long term by proving role models for women and minorities. I'm talking about cold, hard, money. Diversity = More profits.

People need to stop treating the word diversity like it's the boogeyman, it just makes you look silly.

You’re really making a mountain out of a molehill.

Nobody is scared of women or diversity being implemented into cricket.

All we are asking for is a decent commentator.

And no, Ramiz is not a commentator.

 

[zafarsyed]

Yes, she might not be as good as other male commentators. However, what she does do is give all/any female viewer a hope and an example of there being a possibility of having a female commentator and encourage them to consider that as a profession in the future. It is a simple case of promoting female commentary and initially that will require them to give a chance to a female commentator that might not measure up to a lot of people's standards but that is okay. It is just a matter of looking at the bigger picture rather than being narrow minded.

 

[Big Mac]

You make some good points but I think you are confusing me for someone else.

Here’s my point, plain and simple.

Just get a better female commentator and maybe all the hoopla will go away.

and that point is, as many people have said in this thread, totally sexist when the same standards are not expected of male commentators.

Imagine if Sky had Bob Willis instead of Wasim Akram and they said "Maybe Pakistani commentators should just be better and then we wouldn't have this hoopla".

Everybody crying about forced diversity in this thread would be getting up in arms about the racist English so-and-sos.

Maybe it's natural?

It certainly seems to come naturally to people of all creeds and cultures. We ALL discriminate on one level or another.

Yes, which is why all of this is necessary otherwise we will never see any progress.

You’re really making a mountain out of a molehill.

Some things are worth making a big deal over. I'm not going to sit here and keep my mouth shut when it comes to matters of discrimination.

Nobody is scared of women or diversity being implemented into cricket.

I mean, apart from the bit where you used your first post in this thread to agree with the sentiment that women are forcing themselves into the NFL in order to ruin it for men.

 

[ManFan]

and that point is, as many people have said in this thread, totally sexist when the same standards are not expected of male commentators.

Imagine if Sky had Bob Willis instead of Wasim Akram and they said "Maybe Pakistani commentators should just be better and then we wouldn't have this hoopla".

Everybody crying about forced diversity in this thread would be getting up in arms about the racist English so-and-sos.



Yes, which is why all of this is necessary otherwise we will never see any progress.



Some things are worth making a big deal over. I'm not going to sit here and keep my mouth shut when it comes to matters of discrimination.



I mean, apart from the bit where you used your first post in this thread to agree with the sentiment that women are forcing themselves into the NFL in order to ruin it for men.

I said, “I hope the same does not happen in cricket”.

Did I say it will?

I was making a comparison of the forced inclusion of women into sport for purposes other than the teams themselves.

You went ahead, deciphering this as if it was a CIA declassified document.

 

[Big Mac]

Also, to expand upon my point about the "I don't mind a female commentator but she has to be good" being sexist.

When you apply a higher standard to women or people of colour all it does is raise the barriers of entry to those that are under represented which only serves to strengthen the position of those that are already in power. It's that insidious type of discrimination where it seems reasonable at face value but it's really designed to ensure the status quo is not challenged.

It's like people who, when discussing politics (Especially the US under Trump), say something along the lines of "Well I think both sides have good points and we should meet in the middle". Because you know, sure racism is bad but extremism is bad on both sides right? That supposedly moderate/centrist view seems seems reasonable on face value but if you apply five seconds of critical thought you realise that it's complete nonsense. The middle ground between being totally racist and not being racist at all is "Well let's be moderately racist" which is not something that we should accept.

It immediately marks them out as people with no real opinion or backbones.

 

[ManFan]

Also, to expand upon my point about the "I don't mind a female commentator but she has to be good" being sexist.

When you apply a higher standard to women or people of colour all it does is raise the barriers of entry to those that are under represented which only serves to strengthen the position of those that are already in power. It's that insidious type of discrimination where it seems reasonable at face value but it's really designed to ensure the status quo is not challenged.

It's like people who, when discussing politics (Especially the US under Trump), say something along the lines of "Well I think both sides have good points and we should meet in the middle". Because you know, sure racism is bad but extremism is bad on both sides right? That supposedly moderate/centrist view seems seems reasonable on face value but if you apply five seconds of critical thought you realise that it's complete nonsense. The middle ground between being totally racist and not being racist at all is "Well let's be moderately racist" which is not something that we should accept.

It immediately marks them out as people with no real opinion or backbones.

Could you explain the extremists and racism further?

Rest of it I agree with.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Yes, which is why all of this is necessary otherwise we will never see any progress.

Progress for the sake of progress is not actual progress. Besides, you can't have equality without sacrificing freedom. We are all born unequal and we'll die that way as well. Forcing an unnatural social construct is not healthy for any society. I say this as I see 'the rainbow nation' dream die around me. Diversity is doomed, I'm sorry to say. That, however, does not mean I support apartheid. I am simply against forcing people to think, speak and act a certain way. That's not freedom, that's tyranny.

 

[Big Mac]

I said, “I hope the same does not happen in cricket”.

Did I say it will?

IT DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN IN THE NFL.

I was making a comparison of the forced inclusion of women into sport for purposes other than the teams themselves.

See above. You were making a comparison to someone joking about something that happened in the imaginary mind of a person playing a character.

It's like watching Dark Knight Rises last night, seeing Tom Hardy in the crowd at Lords and going "Boy, I hope he doesn't set off a series of bombs in London that causes the entire Lords pitch to collapse underground. I'm not saying it will, I just hope it doesn't happen."

 

[ManFan]

IT DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN IN THE NFL.



See above. You were making a comparison to someone joking about something that happened in the imaginary mind of a person playing a character.

It's like watching Dark Knight Rises last night, seeing Tom Hardy in the crowd at Lords and going "Boy, I hope he doesn't set off a series of bombs in London that causes the entire Lords pitch to collapse underground. I'm not saying it will, I just hope it doesn't happen."

You’re failing to see my point time and time again.

A female commentator got a chance and she performed poorly.

There is no hidden agenda here, no sexism, no discrimination.

My comparison to the Bill Burr rant may have been out of place but it still begs the question.

Do we need a female commentator because there is a lack of female commentators or because she is too good to ignore?

 

[Big Mac]

Progress for the sake of progress is not actual progress. Besides, you can't have equality without sacrificing freedom. We are all born unequal and we'll die that way as well. Forcing an unnatural social construct is not healthy for any society. I say this as I see 'the rainbow nation' dream die around me. Diversity is doomed, I'm sorry to say. That, however, does not mean I support apartheid. I am simply against forcing people to think, speak and act a certain way. That's not freedom, that's tyranny.

Unless we live in a world of true anarchy then there is no real freedom. Society is predicated upon the social contract to which we all implicitly agree, whereby we all give up varying freedoms in order for society to function.

All social constructs are unnatural or artificial by definition. (I mean come on, they're called constructs)

Diversity is no more unnatural than allowing rich families to continue to stay rich by means of inheritance and preexisting social networks, the only difference is that the latter has normalised because it helps those at the top and the former has been demonised because it erodes their power.

Could you explain the extremists and racism further?

Rest of it I agree with.

Ok, this is a bit of an off-topic tangent but it's interesting and increasingly relevant nowadays.

If you pay attention to US politics (This exists everywhere to some extent btw, it's just easier to see in 2018 USA) you will see loads of right wingers masquerading as people who are moderates. They keep saying things that seem to be sensible like

• Politics has become too polarised
• This country has become divided
• We should try and encourage unity
• We should listen to ideas on both sides and meet in the middle
• We should try and compromise instead of encouraging extremists
• The far left is as bad as the far right (Remember Trump saying "There are good people on both sides" when neo-nazis held a rally in Charlottesville and that woman died?)

The problem is, one side is literally white supremacists and neo-nazis and you should never compromise with them. This is because, while we have been taught from birth that compromise is an admirable concept, there are some things that you should never compromise on and need to be dismissed immediately without even talking seriously about them. The reason for this is taking that seriously, even for a minute shifts the Overton Window to the right and ideas that previously used to be racist start becoming acceptable in the mainstream.

Tl;dr:

See how something as seemingly reasonable or even admirable as "We should listen to both sides and meet in the middle" ends up moving the middle rather than reaching an actual compromise?

But that's not the point I was making, it was just an example to help support it.

The point was how we should apply more critical thought to statements like "I have no problem with a female commentator/Muslim captain/black quarterback/immigrant manager as long as they're good enough". They sound reasonable but they are really quite harmful because what you're actually doing is cementing an uneven playing field.

You’re failing to see my point time and time again.

A female commentator got a chance and she performed poorly.

There is no hidden agenda here, no sexism, no discrimination.

My comparison to the Bill Burr rant may have been out of place but it still begs the question.

Do we need a female commentator because there is a lack of female commentators or because she is too good to ignore?

See above.

Unless we apply the same standards and expectations to male commentators then that sensible sounding statement is actually sexist and dangerous.

We don't apply those same standards to male commentators, ergo we shouldn't use the "They have to be good enough" test.

Well, unless a person is happy being sexist in which case there isn't much I can do to stop them.

 

[ManFan]

Unless we live in a world of true anarchy then there is no real freedom. Society is predicated upon the social contract to which we all implicitly agree, whereby we all give up varying freedoms in order for society to function.

All social constructs are unnatural or artificial by definition. (I mean come on, they're called constructs)

Diversity is no more unnatural than allowing rich families to continue to stay rich by means of inheritance and preexisting social networks, the only difference is that the latter has normalised because it helps those at the top and the former has been demonised because it erodes their power.



Ok, this is a bit of an off-topic tangent but it's interesting and increasingly relevant nowadays.

If you pay attention to US politics (This exists everywhere to some extent btw, it's just easier to see in 2018 USA) you will see loads of right wingers masquerading as people who are moderates. They keep saying things that seem to be sensible like

• Politics has become too polarised
• This country has become divided
• We should try and encourage unity
• We should listen to ideas on both sides and meet in the middle
• We should try and compromise instead of encouraging extremists
• The far left is as bad as the far right (Remember Trump saying "There are good people on both sides" when neo-nazis held a rally in Charlottesville and that woman died?)

The problem is, one side is literally white supremacists and neo-nazis and you should never compromise with them. This is because, while we have been taught from birth that compromise is an admirable concept, there are some things that you should never compromise on and need to be dismissed immediately without even talking seriously about them. The reason for this is taking that seriously, even for a minute shifts the Overton Window to the right and ideas that previously used to be racist start becoming acceptable in the mainstream.

Tl;dr:

See how something as seemingly reasonable or even admirable as "We should listen to both sides and meet in the middle" ends up moving the middle rather than reaching an actual compromise?

But that's not the point I was making, it was just an example to help support it.

The point was how we should apply more critical thought to statements like "I have no problem with a female commentator/Muslim captain/black quarterback/immigrant manager as long as they're good enough". They sound reasonable but they are really quite harmful because what you're actually doing is cementing an uneven playing field.



See above.

Unless we apply the same standards and expectations to male commentators then that sensible sounding statement is actually sexist and dangerous.

We don't apply those same standards to male commentators, ergo we shouldn't use the "They have to be good enough" test.

Well, unless a person is happy being sexist in which case there isn't much I can do to stop them.

POTW.

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it out.

Happy to have had this discussion as I’ve learned something new!

 

[Big Mac]

POTW.

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it out.

Happy to have had this discussion as I’ve learned something new!

No worries. It's important to talk about this stuff.

We should be especially understanding when it comes to this because most of us suffer at the ends of the the hat-trick of racism (we're brown), Islamophobia, and xenophobia as many of our parents are immigrants.

It doesn't make sense for desis in the west to realise that they deal with all that discrimination without also being a feminist as well. It all comes from the same place.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Unless we live in a world of true anarchy then there is no real freedom. Society is predicated upon the social contract to which we all implicitly agree, whereby we all give up varying freedoms in order for society to function.

All social constructs are unnatural or artificial by definition. (I mean come on, they're called constructs)

Diversity is no more unnatural than allowing rich families to continue to stay rich by means of inheritance and preexisting social networks, the only difference is that the latter has normalised because it helps those at the top and the former has been demonised because it erodes their power.

I'm familiar with Hobbes' and Locke's ideas on the state of nature and the social contract. You seem liberal so I'll assume you lean more towards Locke's ideas on the social contract. In this case, Locke also argued for our natural right to life, liberty and property.

• Life: everyone is entitled to live.
• Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
• Property: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

Should a government become tyrannical and infringe on these rights, we have a right to revolution. Telling people what to say, think or do is a clear violation of these 'natural rights'. There is a fine line between a just rule of law and having tyranical laws.

In regards to diversity and riches, there should be no limit to riches, inherited or not, as long as such wealth was gained by just means. 'Diversity' has been demonised because it's unnatural and infringes on people's rights. Any healthy society should strive for more freedom, not less, and certainly not in the name of someone's idea of 'diversity'.

 

[Big Mac]

I'm familiar with Hobbes' and Locke's ideas on the state of nature and the social contract. You seem liberal so I'll assume you lean more towards Locke's ideas on the social contract. In this case, Locke also argued for our natural right to life, liberty and property.

• Life: everyone is entitled to live.
• Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
• Property: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

Should a government become tyrannical and infringe on these rights, we have a right to revolution. Telling people what to say, think or do is a clear violation of these 'natural rights'. There is a fine line between a just rule of law and having tyranical laws.

In regards to diversity and riches, there should be no limit to riches, inherited or not, as long as such wealth was gained by just means. 'Diversity' has been demonised because it's unnatural and infringes on people's rights. Any healthy society should strive for more freedom, not less, and certainly not in the name of someone's idea of 'diversity'.

This is nice in theory but the real world doesn't work like that. They're the ideas that white guys that lived a comfortable existence and went to fancy schools can espouse because they never had to deal with real discrimination.

Diversity is not demonised because it's unnatural, it's because you've been conditioned to think that by the powers that be who want to stay on top.

Increasing inequality just creates another form of tyranny where the poorest, most vulnerable people in society become oppressed.

Inherited wealth is completely at odds with the idea of a meritocracy. You can't give people that big a headstart and then talk about merit, deserving, freedom etc.

Diversity leads to a healthier society, more productivity and yes, more freedom for the populace as a whole.

 

[Markhor]

Ebony Rainford Brent is the best female cricket commentator - she's on Sky's The Debate show.

 

[Big Mac]

To add to that previous post:

I don't want to hear people lecturing minorities on freedom and justice when the colour of our skin or the accent with which we speak means we can't get jobs, get passed over for promotions, get stopped by the police more often, receive harsher sentences for doing the same crimes and have governments passing legislation specifically designed to disproportionately target minorities.

THAT is tyranny and that is the status quo that is being defended by people that whine about diversity.

 

[hadi123]

Ebony Rainford Brent is the best female cricket commentator - she's on Sky's The Debate show.

Yep, am watching this now.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

This is nice in theory but the real world doesn't work like that. They're the ideas that white guys that lived a comfortable existence and went to fancy schools can espouse because they never had to deal with real discrimination.

Diversity is not demonised because it's unnatural, it's because you've been conditioned to think that by the powers that be who want to stay on top.

Increasing inequality just creates another form of tyranny where the poorest, most vulnerable people in society become oppressed.

Inherited wealth is completely at odds with the idea of a meritocracy. You can't give people that big a headstart and then talk about merit, deserving, freedom etc.

Diversity leads to a healthier society, more productivity and yes, more freedom for the populace as a whole.

These 'white theories' are the foundations of modern western culture. They grant you, at this very moment the ability to debate on 'diversity'. In fact, these 'white theories' are responsible for the very notion of 'diversity' you're arguing.

I would not generalise and say they "never had to deal with real discrimination". Both Hobbes and Locke wrote during civil strive with their works being the product and thoughts of a divided society. You would be a fool to disregards their ideas because they come from educated and, frankly, genius white men.

Inequality is the consequence of having such freedoms. As I said, you can't have equality without sacrificing freedom. Most people don't want to be less free. The secret to this whole dilemma is to uplift the down trodden, not to bring down the high-flyers.

There is nothing wrong with ensuring the continued propagation of genes, through wealth, via offspring.

I live in one of the most unequal and 'diverse' countries on earth. I have not seen this "healthier society, more productivity and yes, more freedom for the populace as a whole". I believe that is pure propaganda.

 

[Adijazz1706]

The female commentator is on in place of Holding who isn't commentating for some reason and she is not as good a commentator or even close, it's like replacing Kohli with Mithali Raj and calling people sexist for stating that Kohli is miles better

 

[bujhee kom]

Silliness.

 

[Big Mac]

Inequality is the consequence of having such freedoms. As I said, you can't have equality without sacrificing freedom. Most people don't want to be less free. The secret to this whole dilemma is to uplift the down trodden, not to bring down the high-flyers.

OK, is a female commentator bringing down the high flyers?

Does affirmative action not uplift the down-trodden?

I live in one of the most unequal and 'diverse' countries on earth. I have not seen this "healthier society, more productivity and yes, more freedom for the populace as a whole".

You said it yourself, it's 'diverse' but it's still very unequal.

There is nothing wrong with ensuring the continued propagation of genes, through wealth, via offspring.

Sure, if you're happy with some people being more equal in others but don't try and kid people by pretending it's about freedom or being just.

 

[Big Mac]

Ebony Rainford Brent is the best female cricket commentator - she's on Sky's The Debate show.

Yep, am watching this now.

It's kind of frustrating that she provides a better analysis of Pakistan's play than Wasim Akram.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

OK, is a female commentator bringing down the high flyers?

Does affirmative action not uplift the down-trodden?



You said it yourself, it's 'diverse' but it's still very unequal.



Sure, if you're happy with some people being more equal in others but don't try and kid people by pretending it's about freedom or being just.

Telling a man he can't have the commentating job because he's male is just as wrong as telling the woman she can't have the job because she's female. This silliness needs to end.

As I said, EVERYONE has the right to life, liberty and property. That includes every shade of minority and gender.

I'm saying my country is a failed experiment on 'diversity'. You would be wise to learn from our mistakes.

Inequality is a consequence of freedom, I'm unsure what you're trying to argue about inheritance. You can legislate equality via communism or some form of socialism but the fact of the matter is you'll be less free.

 

[Big Mac]

Telling a man he can't have the commentating job because he's male is just as wrong as telling the woman she can't have the job because she's female. This silliness needs to end.

Which male commentator was refused a job just because he's a man?

Inequality is a consequence of freedom, I'm unsure what you're trying to argue about inheritance. You can legislate equality via communism or some form of socialism but the fact of the matter is you'll be less free.

So what, you're saying it would be better to live in a libertarian society without taxation or any other form of wealth redistribution because "freedom"?

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Which male commentator was refused a job just because he's a man?



So what, you're saying it would be better to live in a libertarian society without taxation or any other form of wealth redistribution because "freedom"?

How should I know? I'm not involved in the recuirement process. I'm arguing the ethics of discrimination based on gender.

That's not what I said at all. I never argued against taxation, where do you get that from? I can make a great argument about a minimal government, but that would not be on topic.

Freedom is fundamental to the prosperity and happiness of modern society. People fought and died for these freedoms, they will do so again. Destroying a Lockean free society through legislation, in the name of 'diversity', seems stupid.

If you want to really alter the status-quo in typical 'progressive' fashion: Communism and all sorts of socialism have been tried and most, if not all, have failed. Perhaps isn't time for a different approach, not rehashing old ideas.