I think the woman's versions can be self sufficient if they can steal netballs market share. Netballers are fully pro on their on merit and TV deals I believe.
Netball is the worst spectator sport around and also gets very little breakthrough into the men's market.
@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
To my mind the question is how do we create a market?
At the moment the market is middle aged white guys (you and me).
I appreciate that you may not have seen the same coverage of the tournament where you are (including the news and 'magazine' type pieces) but the market was far from being middle aged white guys.
It was families, kids, women in much bigger numbers than you now see at the mens game.
It opened up and tapped into something different and created a very different vibe at the games which generated even more interest.
That self-created market is what needs to be fed.
On the Rugby Pod show the other night Parsons was saying that he was talking to a bunch of rugby watching veterans that attend everything from Lions tours to Bled to RWCs etc etc and they all said it was the best rugby crowd they had ever been in.
Obviously that's not going to happen at the Levin Domain but the key aspects of it can be promoted. Some may cringe at the 'women for women' side of it but there is quite obviously a market in that as also shown by Netball.
Hence the reason I think it could be advantageous for the womens game to be driven by women. (No, that doesn't mean to exclude men or not employ the best. It means that the definition of best is through a different lens)
@Crucial oh, now you are labelling criticism of your gender over ability opinion as cringing.
Thinking that only woman can have insight into woman’s sport is pandering virtue signalling. It’s helpful to swap genders when people say silly things like that, imagine saying that you’d have to be a man to employ the best for the men’s game.
You’d be driven off the internet.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Picking the best people, regardless of gender, is the only long term path to success.
I fundamentally disagree with that statement. One which you state as fact.
One for the politics thread (where I don't go these days)Shrugs. Pretty crazy time when people disagree with pick the best person.
Over simplification.
The argument is that it may be better for female direction of a female sport. If that benefit does exist (due to a better understanding of needs, drivers etc) then the 'best person for the job' would more likely be female.
Pretty crazy time when people can't see generalised observations and twist them into equality arguments.@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
It's wrong to suggest that men can't organise a woman's game because they are men, as it's wrong to say the opposite.
Never said or suggested this at all.
Weak. You are the one suggesting that somehow woman in general have a better view of the needs or drivers (whatever that means) for the woman's game. My opinion is that people are individuals and have different skill sets, and gender has little to do with people's ability to organise or administrate a sport. Pick the best person for the relevant role.
Fair enough. I didn't think I was alone with the concept that men find women a bit of a mystery at times.
'Organise and administrate' less so. Direct, design facilitate and run? I think there may be some advantages that make one gender 'better placed' than another.
Not trying to make it exclusive at all. Best person for the job but that best person may be so because they bring advantages or are better suitedYes, there are differences between the sexes, but in terms of abilty and competence they are more alike than different. That's the whole point about trying to remove "glass ceilings" and treat people fairly, replacing that by reversing the genders is a backwards step IMO. We shouldn't restrict opportunities for woman to just the woman's game either. If the best person for the Chairman of the NZR is woman, great. Equally, if the best person to adminstrate the woman's game is man, great.
Where I do agree is having stakeholders involved in organisations (eg Players Associations, etc). Gender is incidental for that however. Blanket calls for woman coaches, refs, administrators for the woman's game is not going to help that be successful IMO. Creating opportunities - based on merit - for woman in both men and woman's rugby helps everybody.
Btw, woman being a "mystery" is weaksauce (I know if was an attempt at humour).
There’s a lot in that post arguing something I haven’t said at all.
I have never suggested that ability or competence should be ignored in favour of gender.
I have suggested that perspectives and understandings might be an advantage to being the better placed person in some aspects.
I’ve also suggested this in particular areas such as directing and designing competitions as “by women , for women” as a selling point and a product that suits.
Everything else including coaching is a case by case basis but the more “best people” by merit that are women the better IMO. This is especially important with young women who may need to work through issues around a sports schedule and their own personal schedule. A lack of understanding in that area has lead to many and adolescent woman giving up sport.You started by saying
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crazy-Horse Some of these middle aged men are/may be involved with women's rugby, know female players/coaches, are parents of (aspiring) female players, listen to women's views about these subjects.
I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines.And I replied that it was preferable to have the best people regardless of gender. You doubled down with another comment about a game for woman designed by men.
The implication is pretty clear that you think woman should be running the woman’s game.
I think the outcome is more important than the gender of who gets jobs. If this about this being successful, then get the best - like they did with Smith.
Leave it out. You have chosen to interpret my comments to trigger an 'equality' argument. My subsequent attempts to clarify what I meant were then met with strawman tactics even after I said I didn't want a discussion on 'political' viewpoints.
To try and put my point succinctly, I think that an assessment of 'best' person for the job may be that women may bring certain views and a marketing difference that would benefit the progression and advancement of the game. No different than listing other attributes for candidate success. Obviously the end selection weighs up the pros and cons.
Netball is mentioned as an example and that is primarily a female sport run by females. It has attracted an audience and stands on its own two feet. I happen to think that this path would have advantages to womens rugby.
It naturally happens to a large extent anyway at clubs and unions. Maybe it is a good time to extend things up the chain a bit and get some voices into decision making areas (if those voices have the credentials of course).. NZR are currently paying a substantial 'fine' to Sports NZ (?) for not having female representation on the board. That's an incredibly easy fix that is draining away money and there is no shortage of appropriate candidates.
To be even clearer, if a male coach is better skilled to coach a team then by all means go ahead. What was found in the report earlier this year is that the support around that coach needs to involve women at levels such as team management or there are potential problems.
There already is a drive to bring many female coaches up the chain as their skills increase. I see that as a good thing even though there is no doubt that there are also very good male coaches that can 'work with' womens teams well. They wouldn't be excluded but supported.
Already in the second year of Aupiki there have been two female coaches promoted to head roles
@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.
That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO
Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.
@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.
It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.
That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO
Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.
Oh boy. So where is the money supposed to come from to run the game when we run things at a loss?
If we don't plan for woman's rugby to be at least cost neutral (preferably profitable to grow it's niche) then you are just cannibalising the mens game, which is already in poor health. This is wrong thinking, we shouldn't be propping up the NPC either, we should be generating more interest and profit from that too. The game will collapse without being sustainable, at least as a professional sport.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial oh, now you are labelling criticism of your gender over ability opinion as cringing.
Thinking that only woman can have insight into woman’s sport is pandering virtue signalling. It’s helpful to swap genders when people say silly things like that, imagine saying that you’d have to be a man to employ the best for the men’s game.
You’d be driven off the internet.
Only by people that deliberately misread posts to drive their own views.
Where have I said 'gender over ability'? I have gone out of the way to try and remove this misinterpretation but hey, keep going back to it.
"Only women can have insights into women's sports". Again, where have I said that.
This thread is fast becoming the ghost of BSG.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.
It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.
That's the political belief arugument that I stated was for another forum. I don't make the Sports NZ rules, nor have I agreed with them. I stated them as a fact.
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial oh, now you are labelling criticism of your gender over ability opinion as cringing.
Thinking that only woman can have insight into woman’s sport is pandering virtue signalling. It’s helpful to swap genders when people say silly things like that, imagine saying that you’d have to be a man to employ the best for the men’s game.
You’d be driven off the internet.
Only by people that deliberately misread posts to drive their own views.
Where have I said 'gender over ability'? I have gone out of the way to try and remove this misinterpretation but hey, keep going back to it.
"Only women can have insights into women's sports". Again, where have I said that.
This thread is fast becoming the ghost of BSG.
Ad hominem attacks aren't helping your argument. I'm discussing the subject about you try and do the same?
You have clearly said that you think that by just being a woman they'll have more insight than a man for woman's sport. Do you think the opposite with men and the men's game? What exactly are these insights?
It's a ludicrous position that is just accepted these days. To restate what I said earlier, for men and woman's sport the gender is not important, the individual's ability is. I'd have no problem with a woman being the CEO of NZR, I certainly wouldn't be saying that a man was preferable because of some magic insight he has because of his gender.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.
That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO
Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.
Oh boy. So where is the money supposed to come from to run the game when we run things at a loss?
If we don't plan for woman's rugby to be at least cost neutral (preferably profitable to grow it's niche) then you are just cannibalising the mens game, which is already in poor health. This is wrong thinking, we shouldn't be propping up the NPC either, we should be generating more interest and profit from that too. The game will collapse without being sustainable, at least as a professional sport.
A very narrow view IMO. Would you remove NPC from the calendar as well? That is far from being cost neutral.
Have you thought that a Women's game cost centre that runs at a loss may improve the bottom line in the mens game?
All sorts of ways that can happen. More involvement by girls can drive more involvement by boys. Families investing effort into the womens game increases interest in the game overall. More community involvement in clubs = less strain on Provinces = less support needed at that level.......
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
You have clearly said that you think that by just being a woman they'll have more insight than a man for woman's sport.
Correct. But you keep twisting that into this...
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
only woman can have insight into woman’s sport is pandering virtue signalling.
The two statements are not the same and you are either deliberately changing them to make your equality point or can't comprehend.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
To restate what I said earlier, for men and woman's sport the gender is not important, the individual's ability is. I'd have no problem with a woman being the CEO of NZR, I certainly wouldn't be saying that a man was preferable because of some magic insight he has because of his gender.
I have no issue with what you say here, just that you keep trying to paint my position as something different to what I am saying.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.
It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.
I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female. Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.
@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.
It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.
I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female. Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.
A good example. NZRPA had to add clauses into the collective agreement around menstrual cycles being taken into account because they weren't and it was causing problems in areas of expectations and communication.
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.
That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO
Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.
Oh boy. So where is the money supposed to come from to run the game when we run things at a loss?
If we don't plan for woman's rugby to be at least cost neutral (preferably profitable to grow it's niche) then you are just cannibalising the mens game, which is already in poor health. This is wrong thinking, we shouldn't be propping up the NPC either, we should be generating more interest and profit from that too. The game will collapse without being sustainable, at least as a professional sport.
A very narrow view IMO. Would you remove NPC from the calendar as well? That is far from being cost neutral.
Have you thought that a Women's game cost centre that runs at a loss may improve the bottom line in the mens game?
All sorts of ways that can happen. More involvement by girls can drive more involvement by boys. Families investing effort into the womens game increases interest in the game overall. More community involvement in clubs = less strain on Provinces = less support needed at that level.......
As I said in my post, the NPC is not sustainable and needs to be improved and have more support from the NZR - not less.
The rest of your post is little more than wishful thinking. If they rob Peter to pay Paul then I expect that the professional game in NZ will get worse not better. While I support woman's rugby in principle, it's not at the cost of health of the sport. So it's extremely important that whatever they plan to do is appropriate to the scale of the game currently, and with planned growth and covered costs.
@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.
It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.
I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female. Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.
Finally, someone with examples not just throwing out "woman have more insight".
Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way. He's slowly moved away from that, which is good because that will throw away a lot of talent and slow the growth of the woman's game IMO.
So my basic point is you don't need to artifically lean towards gender, picking the best people will naturally get a mix of genders and you'll get the outcomes like you describe in your example. Where we have failed in the past is woman didn't get those opportunties. The solution to that is not quotas, and certainly not fining lack of representation on boards.
@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan you are the one politicising the subject. Can you, please, stop, even if you disagree with what is being said? Or maybe continue it in "Politics"? Or maybe just accept that you dont' have to win every argument? It's spoiling the thread.
It's a thread about woman's sport, talking about an aspect of what Crucial thinks is good for woman's rugby. We are having a pretty civil conversation about a thorny topic, and we couldn't be any more on topic for the thread.
I thought you got over trying to police what people were posting in threads.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.
It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.
I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female. Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.
Finally, someone with examples not just throwing out "woman have more insight".
Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way. He's slowly moved away from that, which is good because that will throw away a lot of talent and slow the growth of the woman's game IMO.
So my basic point is you don't need to artifically lean towards gender, picking the best people will naturally get a mix of genders and you'll get the outcomes like you describe in your example. Where we have failed in the past is woman didn't get those opportunties. The solution to that is not quotas, and certainly not fining lack of representation on boards.
Your last paragraph is spot on. I think workplaces/organisations are starting to realise this. I know mine did after trying a quota system for a year or so.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.
Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.
here's the view in a nutshell.
"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."
One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.
Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.
here's the view in a nutshell.
"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."
One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.
You literally said;
"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"
and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"
But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.
Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.
here's the view in a nutshell.
"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."
One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.
You literally said;
"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"
But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.
And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.
This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.
Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.
here's the view in a nutshell.
"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."
One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.
You literally said;
"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"
But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.
And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.
No, where we differ is the inclusion of gender as criterion for determining best.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.
Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.
here's the view in a nutshell.
"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."
One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.
You literally said;
"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"
But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.
And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.
No, where we differ is the inclusion of gender as criterion for determining best.
And I said many post ago that I fundamentally disagree with your view on that.
If, as you concede, men and women can bring different attributes to a role then why isn't it possible that those attributes could be deemed desirable? If the attribute is, say, an understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent women then it stands to reason that more female candidates will meet that requirement than male.
You don't get he job by being female but you may be more likely to be the best depending on the weight applied to attributes. That's not discrimination.
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.
Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.
here's the view in a nutshell.
"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."
One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.
You literally said;
"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"
But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.
And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.
No, where we differ is the inclusion of gender as criterion for determining best.
And I said many post ago that I fundamentally disagree with your view on that.
If, as you concede, men and women can bring different attributes to a role then why isn't it possible that those attributes could be deemed desirable? If the attribute is, say, an understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent women then it stands to reason that more female candidates will meet that requirement than male.
You don't get he job by being female but you may be more likely to be the best depending on the weight applied to attributes. That's not discrimination.
Flip the gender, still not discrimination?
Mark Robinson clearly has a better understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent men. It's a silly argument.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.
Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.
here's the view in a nutshell.
"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."
One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.
You literally said;
"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"
But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.
And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.
No, where we differ is the inclusion of gender as criterion for determining best.
And I said many post ago that I fundamentally disagree with your view on that.
If, as you concede, men and women can bring different attributes to a role then why isn't it possible that those attributes could be deemed desirable? If the attribute is, say, an understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent women then it stands to reason that more female candidates will meet that requirement than male.
You don't get he job by being female but you may be more likely to be the best depending on the weight applied to attributes. That's not discrimination.Flip the gender, still not discrimination?
Mark Robinson clearly has a better understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent men. It's a silly argument.
Again with the philosophical arguments.
You advocate for best person for the job but seem to not want to admit that maybe the best person could be partly decided by gender.
I'll leave it there. Had enough.
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.
Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.
here's the view in a nutshell.
"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."
One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.
You literally said;
"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"
But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.
And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.
No, where we differ is the inclusion of gender as criterion for determining best.
And I said many post ago that I fundamentally disagree with your view on that.
If, as you concede, men and women can bring different attributes to a role then why isn't it possible that those attributes could be deemed desirable? If the attribute is, say, an understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent women then it stands to reason that more female candidates will meet that requirement than male.
You don't get he job by being female but you may be more likely to be the best depending on the weight applied to attributes. That's not discrimination.Flip the gender, still not discrimination?
Mark Robinson clearly has a better understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent men. It's a silly argument.
Again with the philosophical arguments.
You advocate for best person for the job but seem to not want to admit that maybe the best person could be partly decided by gender.I'll leave it there. Had enough.
It was your argument, just with the genders flipped!
It's a dangerous path to follow to filter jobs by things like gender. And been shown to not work elsewhere where it's tried.
If we want woman's rugby to succeed you need pragmatic choices to be made, not ideological ones like you are suggesting.
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Ignoring the 'political' aspects to stop thread diversion, I think that there is a good counter argument to this.
Nothing political here in my view. When discussing what is best for the woman's game there are differences in the game compared to mens. Thus, the level of female involvement in the off field is a legit discussion free of politics.
I don't think that anyone is saying to remove male involvement but direction would mean that design of comps, understanding of problems and drivers etc would be better. Avoid the "designed for women....by men" aspect.
I agree with this. But I'd also suggest a woman whose never played rugby doesn't have a better insight.
Whether right or wrong a big aspect to the success of the WRWC was the buy in by women that saw how other women were driving much of what was happening..if that is what needs to happen to accelerate growth then I'm happy with it.
You sure about this? It's a pretty big statement.
As for refs, the womens game is played a little differently, the focus aspects for refs is a little different, allowances are made in some areas etc That can come through in what constitutes advantage, time given to clear the tackle area and plenty of other areas. Unlees there are other 'better' refs that can also adjust to these aspects then we are better off having specialists. The other aspect is providing clear pathways for female refs which is very important as getting refs is one of the hardest things.
Are the rules different though? I mean, we do often talk about, and criticise, referees for not having the feel of a game & I'm sure there are subtleties which do dictate how a female game needs to be refereed differently. I am on the opposite side of the fence here though. I think the biggest service world rugby could have given the woman's game is to the give the final to the best referee on the planet.
Is it perfect? No, but it may be the best as the game grows in its own way.
I have seen refs (male and female) control a game as they would a mens game and that subtle change makes a difference to flow and enjoyment. Much more noticeable at lower levels.
Having agreed with a lot of the above, I firmly disagree with the notion that you shouldn't have the best person in the job. Wayne Smith being proof of that.
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.
That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO
Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.
Oh boy. So where is the money supposed to come from to run the game when we run things at a loss?
If we don't plan for woman's rugby to be at least cost neutral (preferably profitable to grow it's niche) then you are just cannibalising the mens game, which is already in poor health. This is wrong thinking, we shouldn't be propping up the NPC either, we should be generating more interest and profit from that too. The game will collapse without being sustainable, at least as a professional sport.
A very narrow view IMO. Would you remove NPC from the calendar as well? That is far from being cost neutral.
Have you thought that a Women's game cost centre that runs at a loss may improve the bottom line in the mens game?
All sorts of ways that can happen. More involvement by girls can drive more involvement by boys. Families investing effort into the womens game increases interest in the game overall. More community involvement in clubs = less strain on Provinces = less support needed at that level.......As I said in my post, the NPC is not sustainable and needs to be improved and have more support from the NZR - not less.
Off the other aspect now but this comment intrigues me. Are you saying that because your view is that rugby can't sustain 'loss leaders' then they need to support NPC to make it profitable? It does seem so.
The rest of your post is little more than wishful thinking. If they rob Peter to pay Paul then I expect that the professional game in NZ will get worse not better. While I support woman's rugby in principle, it's not at the cost of health of the sport.
So now I'm confused. NZR needs to give more support to NPC but when the same ruler is applied to Women's Rugby it doesn't deserve investment? So NPC (which has a stagnant support base) should be saved but the biggest growth potential in the game shouldn't be encouraged?
By the way NZR doesn't exist solely to support the professional game.
You mention appropriate scale which is a fair point but again that does not look to the future. If investment in the Women's game is made then it could be of a similar scale to NPC.
Not all costs have a direct link to profit and not all indirect benefits are warm fuzzies.
This is something that Gens Y and Z seem to understand better than GenX. The overall warm fuzzies around one product can benefit the overall portfolio even when that particular product is less profitable.
@MajorRage said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
I firmly disagree with the notion that you shouldn't have the best person in the job. Wayne Smith being proof of that.
I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with in that statement. No one has said that the best person shouldn't get the job. Quite the opposite in fact.
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.
That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO
Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.
Oh boy. So where is the money supposed to come from to run the game when we run things at a loss?
If we don't plan for woman's rugby to be at least cost neutral (preferably profitable to grow it's niche) then you are just cannibalising the mens game, which is already in poor health. This is wrong thinking, we shouldn't be propping up the NPC either, we should be generating more interest and profit from that too. The game will collapse without being sustainable, at least as a professional sport.
A very narrow view IMO. Would you remove NPC from the calendar as well? That is far from being cost neutral.
Have you thought that a Women's game cost centre that runs at a loss may improve the bottom line in the mens game?
All sorts of ways that can happen. More involvement by girls can drive more involvement by boys. Families investing effort into the womens game increases interest in the game overall. More community involvement in clubs = less strain on Provinces = less support needed at that level.......As I said in my post, the NPC is not sustainable and needs to be improved and have more support from the NZR - not less.
Off the other aspect now but this comment intrigues me. Are you saying that because your view is that rugby can't sustain 'loss leaders' then they need to support NPC to make it profitable? It does seem so.
The rest of your post is little more than wishful thinking. If they rob Peter to pay Paul then I expect that the professional game in NZ will get worse not better. While I support woman's rugby in principle, it's not at the cost of health of the sport.
So now I'm confused. NZR needs to give more support to NPC but when the same ruler is applied to Women's Rugby it doesn't deserve investment? So NPC (which has a stagnant support base) should be saved but the biggest growth potential in the game shouldn't be encouraged?
By the way NZR doesn't exist solely to support the professional game.
You mention appropriate scale which is a fair point but again that does not look to the future. If investment in the Women's game is made then it could be of a similar scale to NPC.
Not all costs have a direct link to profit and not all indirect benefits are warm fuzzies.
This is something that Gens Y and Z seem to understand better than GenX. The overall warm fuzzies around one product can benefit the overall portfolio even when that particular product is less profitable.
No, that is a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of my position. I was answering your question about removing the NPC from the calendar, pointing out that it needed more support (that includes more than just money) from the NZR. At the moment the NPC is dying a slow death.
So my point is we have declining interest in NPC and Super Rugby for the mens game, now is not the time to be adding on "loss leaders". Grow the woman's game, sure, but do it in a sustainable and financially responsible manner.
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@MajorRage said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
I firmly disagree with the notion that you shouldn't have the best person in the job. Wayne Smith being proof of that.
I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with in that statement. No one has said that the best person shouldn't get the job. Quite the opposite in fact.
Well, you did say that gender should be a criteria for selecting the best person. Literally the point of our disagreement, because that's about as relevant as filtering by race or age or hair colour.
@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.
It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.
I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female.
Broadly speaking that implies they're homogenous in their thinking.
Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.
Perhaps I'm not old enough to be stuck in such a mindset, because if women came to me with such an obvious concern, I'd address it.
@antipodean said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Perhaps I'm not old enough to be stuck in such a mindset, because if women came to me with such an obvious concern, I'd address it.
As most of us would. I don't know why, but some administations have been slow on the uptake. I think I read something the other day that suggested this is the first year at Wimbledon where dress codes are being relaxed because of this very issue. I know Wimbledon is conservative so that probably played a part.
@muddyriver said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
I think the woman's versions can be self sufficient if they can steal netballs market share. Netballers are fully pro on their on merit and TV deals I believe.
I doubt that's likely to happen - netball is the number one game for girls and women in New Zealand. And it appears to be run well.
@antipodean said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.
It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.
I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female.
Broadly speaking that implies they're homogenous in their thinking.
Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.
Perhaps I'm not old enough to be stuck in such a mindset, because if women came to me with such an obvious concern, I'd address it.
Absolutely, I think those types of examples are pretty weak and easily addressed. In a past life, I helped design educational spaces, and all I can say is that there are good reasons why almost all chair-seats in classrooms are black or in very dark colors. I will admit that when I first started in the role, I hadn't thought of it until it was brought up. It didn't make the user who pointed it out qualified to do my role though.
My opinion about this from watching some of the footage (breakdown etc) is that the female rugby players appear to want female coaches (at least a fair representation), and that makes sense as it opens up new pathways for them in the future. So, it is up to the current coaches to help develop them.
I personally think that the ref in the final was pretty fucking pants, but at the end of the day the players from btoh sides haven't been moaning
@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@antipodean said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Perhaps I'm not old enough to be stuck in such a mindset, because if women came to me with such an obvious concern, I'd address it.
As most of us would. I don't know why, but some administations have been slow on the uptake. I think I read something the other day that suggested this is the first year at Wimbledon where dress codes are being relaxed because of this very issue. I know Wimbledon is conservative so that probably played a part.
I've no doubt you're correct that the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club are a pack of stuffy fuckers in love with their traditions, but a place that has women on the board and a female CEO should surely have addressed this point earlier?
@antipodean said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@antipodean said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Perhaps I'm not old enough to be stuck in such a mindset, because if women came to me with such an obvious concern, I'd address it.
As most of us would. I don't know why, but some administations have been slow on the uptake. I think I read something the other day that suggested this is the first year at Wimbledon where dress codes are being relaxed because of this very issue. I know Wimbledon is conservative so that probably played a part.
I've no doubt you're correct that the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club are a pack of stuffy fuckers in love with their traditions, but a place that has women on the board and a female CEO should surely have addressed this point earlier?
You would think so but apparently not.
@antipodean said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@antipodean said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Perhaps I'm not old enough to be stuck in such a mindset, because if women came to me with such an obvious concern, I'd address it.
As most of us would. I don't know why, but some administations have been slow on the uptake. I think I read something the other day that suggested this is the first year at Wimbledon where dress codes are being relaxed because of this very issue. I know Wimbledon is conservative so that probably played a part.
I've no doubt you're correct that the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club are a pack of stuffy fuckers in love with their traditions, but a place that has women on the board and a female CEO should surely have addressed this point earlier?
It's almost like people are individuals, regardless of their gender.
