| Total Comments 79 | Start A New Comment |
| Post Info | Comment |
| Posted By: Novae Posted On: Nov 9, 2007 Views: 4652 | Yeah, well... I wasn't content until I had convinced my girlfriend that football isn't evil. There are now more Steelers fans in the world. I'm sure everyone else is thrilled. |
| Posted By: Sarina Posted On: Sep 12, 2007 Views: 3508 | Insecure? I have yet to find a guy who is a romantic interest that was comfortable with the fact that I am a sports fanatic. Either I am more into sports than them- which is threatening, or I know more then them- threatening, or the spend the whole time trying to prove THEY know more- once again threatened (and that is exasperating, truly, as there is never an enjoyable banter there). I have several male friends who are just fine with it and they all swear they want a girl that into sports but really- they don't! Maybe guys think it infringes on "their time" which, really, go ahead and watch the game with your boys and leave me to enjoy it in peace LOL. |
| Posted By: Anna Posted On: Jun 3, 2007 Views: 3320 | Hypocrites It's ok to be a fan, but if you join their football team, they really dont like it. |
| Posted By: manny Posted On: Dec 27, 2006 Views: 3466 | What this guy wants I would love to have a woman that loved sports. I'm separated at the moment and she is not a sports fan and can't stand the fact that I am a sports fanatic. If there is a second Mrs. Manny, hopefully she will be a gal that will dig sports as much as I do. |
| Posted By: femmefan Posted On: Nov 7, 2006 Views: 2482 | Female Fans Nigel: You are just the kind of guy women adore. I only have a athletes photos in the lookers section. But if you want to meet a femmefan you could send me a photo and we'll see what we can do for you. |
| Posted By: Nigel Posted On: Oct 12, 2006 Views: 2031 | women in sport I think its awesome that women are more into sports now. Its fun to play, fun to watch, and a great way to zone out and forget about lifes worries for the time from buzzer to buzzer. Guys who think that women dont belong in sport...dont belong in sports themselves. They are the ones that dont appreciate what its all about. I for one am extremely attracted to the sports fan, the type of girl that can hang out and watch the game sometimes and have interesting things to say about it, or even just have nothing to say at all. My ex girlfriend was a huge sports fan and i loved it when we'd see a game together or she would buy me a jersey for whatever reason - to me they're like flowers! so enjoy the sports ladies, and dont let those fools say anything to take the fun away from it. they are nothing but insecure with themselves and think you're taking something away. when i get stuck watching "sex and the city" and "gilmore girls", my girl never accuses me of stealing her show...(well, if i was actually a fan of those shows, it might be different ;). ladies, the games on @ 1pm on sunday. see you in the stands. ps: can i get my pic on that locker room pictures page? |
| Posted By: Chris Posted On: Mar 16, 2005 Views: 3401 | Clerical Error I neglected to make sure I had written in that I had attended the 500 ever year since, and had debated such things with my sister, without gender ever being an issue. My apologies for the failure. |
| Posted By: Chris Posted On: Mar 16, 2005 Views: 3160 | Reply Jeanine: In reading your reply, I am either saddened...or angered...that you accuse me of being one of those fools who believe in "seeing and not hearing women," or for that matter children, especially since I have always felt acute, simmering wrath every time I've heard that expression spoken about anyone at all. However, I am even more so feeling that...way...due to my apparently not being understood in the implications I was making as to why some of the men who've had problems with women having stronger influence in a sport, even if they are only a slightly minority amongst the many apparent chauvenists, might actually have a legitimate grievence that has never truly been addressed (and still to this day isn't, thank you). At least, misunderstanding here is the only reasoned out conclusion I can draw as to what your opening statements implied about me. I've constantly searched for women to talk to about sport, and war, and their feelings on the delicious sensation of crushing your opposition thoroughly, and the bloody defiance one should show to the end, if failing to achieve the goals sought. I've spoken the poetic lines about Alydar and rider John Valascez (sp?) barreling out of the far turn at Belmont, right on the heels of Steve Cauthen aboard leader and Triple Crown-seeking Affirmed in 1978, and the eerieness of the shadows being cast by the combatants, as though they were gladiators out of Greco-Roman myth, fighting to the last possible breath under the glare of the "dying sun" (for that evening, anyway). The response I've gotten? Regarding the latter subject: "Cruelty to animals, whipping them like that!" I don't want to go into the former, and the "We should learn to get along better" crap that has nothing to do with the inner fire of love and hate and rage and joy. Perhaps this is merely one group of women among many....but if so, here's hoping one can concede that I must've had the worst luck finding them in the world, after a steady ten years now of serious search. In your opening line, you write the words "sacred tribal places." I must immediately question whether that indicates the lack of seriousness with which you approach my previous post's subject. Sacred tribal places?? Already it sounds as if you're endeavoring to tie it into notions of savagery and/or barbarism, when the desire of males to rule their surrounding space can be seen from before Nebuchadnezzer, the king who ordered built the extraordinarily artistic Hanging Gardens, to after Napoleon, the cultured Frenchman who...did some stuff here and there involving armies. Back to the actual real subject here, sports, the greatest basketball team ever continuously "assembled under one banner" (curiously militant term) was Wooden's UCLA Bruins, a team which had discipline stressed on it so regularly that some might wonder if they would won numerous battles in the jungles of Vietnam, had they been armed and dispatched. Why is "tribal" used to describe something that is seen far more than just daily, right here and now?? "Not trying to conquer them..." Does the word "emasculate" fall under the term "conquer"? If not, then there needs to be a major clarification of its definition. Emsaculation occurs when a male of a given species that has balls gets them subsequently chopped off by whatever means. This tends to make him much more docile, as any horse-trainer can tell you about a gelding...but in the end, the rambunctious and often half-impossible-to-tame (thank God for it, too) stallions are the ones who have life in them. If that little difference of attitude occurs when they're chopped off, then wouldn't trying to adjust the male attitude to come more in line with polite society (or whatever...that's the most basic premise I could think of) be pretty much the psychological equivalent of physical emasculation? How on Earth is it emasculation? Though already mentioned, will say it again for ease of reference: "You should be nicer (not so aggressive), and not cause so much havoc to our sensabilities!" Maybe the sensabilities need to change. Havoc attracts males to movie theatres ("tell me when they get to the good part..."), and the uttermost parts of the world (Ernest Hemingway's three real sports, if not already mentioned: bull-fighting, mountain climbing, and auto racing...all else he called children's games played by grown-ups). "I thought we were all going to die....it was the best time of my life," was a line actually spoken to an author named John Eldredge. It makes them more willing to watch ice hockey, of late, and see how the game will police itself...or get a bunch of fines slapped down, if going by the weak method...it fills them with excitement when someone gets a hit in the NFL that you can hear in the broadcasting booth, and utter morbid (or not so morbid) fascination when watching political rioting for change in the streets of some foreign nation. It is ACTION, and it is awesome. "If we could just all talk about it, maybe we could work it out," was a line someone actually was recorded as saying over the situation regarding Saddam Hussein before the Iraq War. Whether or not you agree with going to war, ENTIRELY a non-issue. What is, to a slight degree, is that someone could of think negotiating with a dictator who understands only force (killing 1.2 million people during his rule) would bring about anything worth a damn. But mostly, the point would be to test what the first guesses would be regarding the gender of the one who suggesting "talking about it." Men ARE more aggressive, and deep down society knows it, despite speaking it aloud being politically incorrect. I have gone to the Indianapolis 500 continuously since 1991. In that time, I have debated events and their changing, every single year, along with discussing the races when we sit near each other. Am I still attempting to exclude women, if I tell her...told her, to be accurate...that it is pathetically weak to shrink from the challenge of the speed of Indy even if the speeds move beyond human reaction time, and imply all that does is insure that those warriors really ARE on the limit all the time, if they want to have any hope in winning? If so, then fine, call me a chauvenist....I cannot and will not accept the "flowerization" of the combat that sport is, when it is at its best. It's SUPPOSED to involve spitting in death's face and laughing, and accepting annihilation if you make an error, since the fault was then yours. Regarding bras and jock straps on fire, I've always laughed every time it occurred...it's not like they're burning the flag or something. Sports is indeed about the intellectual as well as the physical. But when the physical becomes so vicious that people are dying (more than half the racers in the 1950s would be killed in their sport, a figure somewhat worse than the those of the gladiators of the Empire...what glorious men they were, eh?), are women more likely to cry out that it needs to stop, whatever that sport is? If NOT, then I more than welcome any fellow fan who wants to enjoy it to sit near me, and debate the pros and cons of what's going on. I invite women who enjoy the harshness as well as the intelligence, more still, since I have seen so few around me up 'til now. And as an aside...I think a surprising number of men would savor women being near, if the latter encouraged, rather than discouraged, the former's love of action and battle. Then again, maybe that is me alone. |
| Posted By: Jeanine Posted On: Mar 4, 2005 Views: 3170 | Battle of the Sexes? Chris: You make an eloquent case for the guys. The guys who feel women should be seen and not heard, the guys who fail to understand that women who love sports are not trying to conquer them or destroy their sacred tribal places. We want to be equal partners, and at least be offered the opportunity to enjoy sports as spectators in ways men have always been able to. We aren't burning our bras or your jock straps. How many men who follow football, actually played the game? How many believe that sports are more than just about the physical but also about the intellectual? I think you would agree that most fans, male or female have the ability to be ardent and passionate as well as knowledgable about a game, after all as a fan we can understand the x's and o's as well as any male coach potato can. |
| Posted By: Chris Posted On: Jan 15, 2005 Views: 1621 | Fundamental worldview(s) on sports Perhaps I am totally alone in my take on this, and maybe everyone will tell me I am a fool to think what I do. Maybe I'll even be hated by everyone here for having the audacity to say said outlook. If so, I could give less than a damn, and will tell such to anyone, to their faces. Men view sports, what is enjoyable about sport, far differently than women have, in the world in which I grew up and now presently live. The foundation of the house, not the window-dressing, is basically the thing of it. Of what do I speak, and mean? Quite simple. The males I know who love, for instance, football, have almost always loved it for reasons that actually made evening national news magazines as "disturbing," "frightening," or even "horrifying." They may not say it in the open, and in fact they may claim that such events inspire loathing and disinterest, etc., in them. But, I must point out, if they feel that way, then why does the crowd noise in boxing matches ALWAYS go up when the hits start getting truly brutal, and someone's going to near-get his flesh torn off? Thus, here is the outlook: Men like blood and battle, and have ambition to match. Sport, in lands that are at peace, is a way to let out what in times of war has been exuberence and enthusiasm (and it IS there, whether people want to interview solely those who have nightmares from the wars or not) for conquest of a foreign power ("the THRILL of victory, and the AGONY of defeat"...it's even more pronounced on the playing fields, military/political/economic, of "The REAL Game"). Am I reading too much into this? I don't think so, because of what it then means for sports. In the 1950s, the Indianapolis 500-Mile Race was contested by a generation of race drivers that had emmerged from World War II and the Korean War with wanderlust at the leaat, total disgust at the pastel-lifestyle of the Eisenhower era at the most. These men who had seen the eye of the tiger and smiled back were the same as the Lost Generation that emmerged from World War I only to go into liquor and barroom brawls to try to fleeting touch the energy of the life they had just had, and the warriors of the Civil War that had turned to the far west and the struggles with the Indians, circa the 1870/80s' Wild Wild West, in order to not have to go back to the insipid....gentleness....of eastern life. These men wanted battle, wanted non-stop adventure, and the racing drivers of the 1950s (and their enormous numbers of fans, not too few of whom were wealthy young women drawn to these apparent "alpha males") found it indeed. They drove machines that had been created for the express purpose of being pushed to the max, and then drove them like the hammers of hell. The crowds loved it... ...and felt sober moments silence at the times these men died in wrecks that would stagger many modern minds in the degree of their violence. Felt sober, but then went to the next race...after immortalizing every single one, each in their own way, who had perished doing something that involved riding out on the very edge of the envelope, death quite likely, and pushing still harder. It has been asked by philosophers during the 20th century, and many even before that, if at some time in their lives, young men who're worth anything (worth anything "as warriors," in any rate) will feel the need to try to kill themselves in a risk-taking adventure that borders (by "civilized" standards) on sheer lunacy. To quote the brilliant work, "Against Death and Time; One Fatal Season in Racing's Glory Years" by Brock Yates: "Following V-E Day, subsequent poet Richard Hugo's squadron was stationed in Sicily, training for future combat. Their aircraft, P-47 fighters with giant radial engines, were claimed to be unditchable in water. Flight engineers warned all the pilots that landing in water meant certain death. In the summer of 1945 a fellow pilot and friend of Hugo's was returning from a training flight over the Bay of Naples when, on a whim, he decided to try a water landing with the gear up. He was killed instantly. Hugo would later ponder the possibility that deep in the psyche of all young men [all males in general...? One wonders...] lies a hatred of peace and safety are an irresistable urge to flout all rules and conventions. He suggested that his friend might have chosen the risk as opposed to the prospect of returning home to the cushy domesticity of postwar America. His choice was the play Russian roulette with his airplane and his own mortality in the cauldron of war." Long and thorough, but what does all that have to do with modern sports, and some men's disapproval of women getting very involved with it? The word mentioned, after a fashion, above: Domestication. Taming. I.e., "Curbing the Risks," as a major newspaper proclaimed the need to do after the death of Dale Earnhardt in the final lap of the 2001 Daytona 500 (possibly the last non-WWF NASCAR race to be run at Daytona, though that only this writer's opinion). Getting away from the sheer violence, and making the whole thing safe for families and children..... Making the whole thing no longer what attracted a great number of men to the sport[s] in the first place. In the aftermath of the Pacers/Pistons fight, there were many around me that shook their heads and asked aloud, "I wonder what's going to happen when they play again on Christmas, if that kind of stuff will happen again........I know I'd watch the NBA a lot more if it did." That kind of sentiment is visible in football as well. Phrasings such as "in the trenches," an allusion to World War I even if people don't realize it, cause men to romanticize the men who usually get the least press coverage, the offensive linemen. "Duels," alluding to man-to-man combat, is a phrase that is used in every single sport that exists, when the best struggle with each other. The list goes on...of references to WAR, in sport...and males love it so very much. The drama, the excitement, the passion..."the romanticizing of it all," so long as romanticism involves questing and conflict instead of flowers and bunnies and holding hands. What many men hate, when women get involved in sports, is that aforementioned domestication. To use a personal example (yes, still further examples), and yet another from motor racing, I was once present for a mother mentioning in my presence that she couldn't stand the likes of Tony Stewart (who is not really the subject here) cussing on the radio. "That should be outlawed, there are children in the stands!" When I informed her that she had decided to attend a sport where men are fully able (so far) to cuss out about problems they're experiencing in their rides, and that it was their sport before she'd ever shown up, she replied that it didn't matter...."if they can't control their tongues, they should get out of sports." ALL sports, was the implication. I myself decided to hold my tongue, with the rage and horror that built within. "Why do men have to be that way?!", loving battle and war? Because they're aggressive. They WANT, and will suffer whatever is needed to get it, if they're worth anything. When the notion is raised of "cleaning up" a sport for (for all intents) the good of the community, so that it's "civilized and proper," many men, at least the one's that I know, recoil in horror. That's the reason they......we.....LEFT to begin with, to found our own where the flowers and bunnies and quaint window dressing....WASN'T. These people who want to make sure that it conforms to "Decency Standards" are what we hate...and if any male started bringing it up of his own volition, without reason of the death of a loved one or pressure of people around him to be the main reason, I personally have no doubt that most aggressive and-thus-successful males would call him a coward, and especially traitor, to his face. All this has not been to say that weakass morons do not exist, who feel their manliness threatened by the mere possibility of a woman being able to "run with them" on the subject of fearsome (hopefully, anyway) sport. That is conceded. What many cannot or refuse to understand is that a great number of males feel anger and hostility toward the idea, raised so often in today's society, of taking the fearsomeness, and here and there noble holdouts of "fatal risk" (bloodied but unbowed), out of the whole thing. And you think it doesn't apply to football, the original sport chosen in this commentary? This author would like to point out the days of Laurence Taylor for the Giants, who was encouraged to be as violent as possible with quarterback targets, in the 1980s. Nowadays? "The NFL has to take care of its quarterbacks, we can't allow it to be as rough as it used to be." Why can't it? As I recall, there was no shortage of quarterbacks going into the NFL back then, with the "horrific" risks there for all to see. To conclude: My take on it is simple. I myself get sick and damn tired of hearing ladies say "That's MEAN!", and have recently responded, "Name how YOU'd like us to let our aggression out." When the response has been "Maybe you should change, then!", the comeback I strive for is, "Maybe you should get the hell out of our way." Don't tell me this social struggle is not there, because I've seen it all too often with my own eyes. For you women who happen to enjoy aggressiveness in men, and have no interest in domesticating that level of passion out of them? None of this hopefully constructive criticism was meant towards you, and thank you for your wonderful help in trying to keep life fun. Chris |
| Posted By: JoiseyGirl Posted On: Nov 12, 2004 Views: 1927 | Smarter than you? Hey bud, what cave did you crawl out of? |
| Posted By: Not Fat and Not Ugly Posted On: Nov 12, 2004 Views: 1947 | Smarter than you? Oh please, get a life. Where have you been the last 100 years? Women who enjoy sports seem to scare you. Make you dinner, give you a blow job? Ah, such simple pleasures for the simple minded fools. I bet there's a long line of beautiful fashion models just waiting to do either of those little "jobs" for you. Sorry your narrow little mind strayed our way. |
| Posted By: smarter than you Posted On: Nov 10, 2004 Views: 1881 | maybe they aren't the problem maybe it's just that you're all fat and ugly and stupid and you don't realize that maybe it's not your love of sports that the man doesn't like, but your misunderstanding of "trying to be equal" and "trying to be better". men implicitly go into a relationship with the idea that women and men are equal (not in football knowledge, obviously, but do men always try to one-up you at tampon purchasing?). so when women are there with a chip on their shoulder and something to prove, it comes off as harsh and nasty and you look like a bitch. and if you don't give good h---, you're out of there. so please...what men really want is for you "women's rights" blowhards to shut up and realize that men are men, women are women, and that you should be making us dinner |
| Posted By: Fed Up Posted On: Aug 3, 2004 Views: 2330 | What SOME men really want I'm not fond of generalizations, but even if you do know something, you are not going to get anywhere in groups of men. Maybe one-on-one you can have a conversation, but the group dynamic works against women. I've found that even after I've done research and posted article after article proving someone wrong, they just blow a gasket and insist that their knowledge is superior. It seems to be crucial to some guys' egos and is a key part of (some) male culture. Even if you join a group and it's not there, you're always going to wonder if it's just latent. You're always going to be judged by men, and you get to a point where you don't want to play anymore, because you shouldn't have to feel like you have to prove yourself all the time. Sports should be about fun, and some fans have a way of making it miserable for you. I'm starting to think that it's best just to hang out with the ladies. Also: they bluff so g-damn much, don't they? It infuriates me because women could never get away with faking knowledge. |
| Posted By: Jan Posted On: Jul 28, 2004 Views: 2346 | What men really want Men do NOT want a woman who knows sports. Believe me I have lived my whole life loving sports and all the men who love sports are with women who could give a rats A** |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next Page -> |