But where are your daughters?
It's easy to understand why football (no dude, not US handball) is the world's by far most popular sport - but not why so few girls play it.
Peter Klevius suggests we put a global sex segregation tax on football income until equilibrium is achieved between the sexes.
Read and follow Peter Klevius to understand this more in depth.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Sunday, June 09, 2019
Peter Klevius won't watch England-Scotland in women's football world cup - before Scotland is independent or UK participates as ONE country!
Peter Klevius (the extremely normal) loves football in all forms (except American handball). But only when it's fair. It's not fair when UK participates as a country in the Brexit game, but as four countries in football!
.
Saturday, June 08, 2019
Otto Weininger (1903): "The Woman is the main obstacle against women's emancipation." Peter Klevius (watching women's world cup 2019): Feminists tried to stop women from playing football in England and Sweden.
While (mostly "white"*) men tried to help girls/women playing football, one group of feminists stopped it and later feminists blamed it on men.
* "Colored" or "black" men were (and still are to a high degree) hampered by sexist islam (and other "monotheist cultures").
Peter Klevius PhD research long time ago (added by newer citations below) revealed that the English FA in December 1921 only banned women from playing on its grounds because of strong pressure from feminists.
In Sweden the feminist Group Eight, founded 1968, vehemently opposed girls and women playing football.
Extract from Peter Klevius Born to Play a Sport of Nature exemplifying the above:
Sweden:
An examination of one of Sweden’s foremost feminist organizations in the late 1960s and 1970s, the left wing communism inspired Grupp Åtta (Group 843), reveals that sport was seldom debated in positive terms among its members. Furthermore, football was seen as an ‘unacceptable and uninteresting “masculine” form of culture’ (Hjelm 2004: 277). This is the more contradictory because, according to Hjelm, the same feminists also proposed that women, at an individual as well as at a collective level, should try and learn new activities – such as, for example, amateur painting, and performing political music and theater – things they had not dared to try before (Hjelm 2004: 177). Under the feminist Group 8, Swedish females would most probably not have been encouraged to play football.
For feminists and the political left in Sweden competitive sports in general, and especially football, were ‘hopelessly characterized by masculinity’, and, according to one informant from the original Group 8, sport supervisors and teachers of gymnastics were among the worst ‘indoctrinators of our rigid sex role patterns’ (Hjelm 2004: 276). Another aspect of the female resistance against female football seems related and very consistent over time. Whereas in the 1920s the concern about dangers facing sporting females targeted the reproductive organs, in the 1960s the focus was laid on ‘dangling’ breasts, and more recently on the disturbed menstruation cycle. In England, the concern about female fragility has led to the situation that girls and boys aged 12 are not allowed to play against each other (Kosonen 1991, Seiro 2002 in Paavola 2003: 33). All of these can be seen as different aspects of the same underlying resistance, especially targeting football and seemingly paradoxically including many female critics.
It has been noted that sporting females have not internalized role conflicts (Laitinen 1983, 34). However, asks Paavola (2003: 43), herself a footballer, if sporting females do not experience role conflicts, would it be possible that those women for whom sport does cause such conflicts, do not participate in sport because of this? This conclusion may be adapted not only to the case of the Swedish feminist Group 8 above but also, and similarly, to all the girls that have avoided football precisely because it poses role conflicts. In this light, the Swedish feminists from the 1970s described above seem to have been basically separatist and hence ‘real feminists’ as it is understood here, and consequently for a continuing sex segregation. Furthermore, a logical consequence of this reasoning would be that much of the so called ‘equal-feminist’ movement was not feminist after all, but rather a social twin to the early women’s movement for the vote and other equal rights.
England:
During the course of World War I, football in England changed. From having been a tough sport practiced by lower class males, it evolved into a two-sex, and even mixed-sex sport. This development is best exemplified by the case of Lily Parr and Dick, Kerr’s Ladies. Whereas Lily Parr took her first steps towards the position as the first woman in the football’s hall of fame, freed from femininity among males on the rough backyards and streets of St. Helen, Dick, Kerr’s Ladies developed from a mixed-sex factory team to one of England’s most successful female teams. With the young males serving in the war, factory girls continued playing and soon challenged neighbouring teams as well as national teams.
By the end of 1921 it is estimated that some 150 women’s football clubs were active in England, mainly in the North and Midlands (Williams & Woodhouse 1991:93). This pattern is similar as to that of Sweden, i.e. that it was not the biggest cities that functioned as a fertile ground for women’s football but rather the opposite. It may also be noted that the public success of women’s football in the early 1920s just followed a similar boost on the men’s side (Williams & Woodhouse 1991:94). Two main explanations for the English FA ban on women’s football may be suggested:
▪ Money and power.
▪ Fear of defeminization (or demasculinization).
Initially, and for quite some time, the monetary, as well as other practical aspects of the women’s charity games, seemed to have developed to the satisfaction of all, including the F.A. According to Williamson (1991: 58), ‘because of the level of co-operation shown to the girls by the men's clubs, and the increasingly well-oiled operation of the charities in organising the games in the first place, the F.A. was content with the way things were going.’ This state of the matter, however, lasted only ‘until certain rumours began to filter through to the hierarchy of the Football Association.’ The actual source of these rumours has never been discovered.
The FA had debated the financial repercussions of continuing with women's matches for months before the decision. According to Williams (2003), the decision appeared to be about the Football League and Association's continued attempts to recoup and defend a masculine image for football. It was impossible to stop women playing per se, but those who did participate were simultaneously seen to behave in an inappropriate manner, in places where they ought not to be. The ban spread across Britain quickly (Williams 2003:32). ‘To recoup and defend a masculine image’, of course, simultaneously implies to recoup and defend a feminine image. This relation ought to be considered when making this evaluation.
Throughout his autobiography Fifty Years of Football 1884-1934 Frederick Wall, Secretary of the FA at the time of the ban, clearly expresses his hostile views against professionalism and commercialism connected to football. I was asked, writes Wall, to referee the first women's football match at Crouch End. I declined, but I went to see the match and came to the conclusion that the game was not suitable for them (Wall 1935/2006: 15-16).
Mary Scharlieb, an influential Harley street physician, expressed her opinion as: ‘I consider it (football) a most unsuitable game, too much for a woman's physical frame’ (Williamson 1991:55). This paraphrasing from a woman physician seems well in line with the wording in the FA ban. After all, the ban was based on a previously arranged meeting with experts on women's health.
Another precursor to the ban may have been the publication of London physician Arabella Kenealy's Feminism and Sex Extinction in 1920 which, according to Russell (1997), outlined the supposed ‘sterilizing’ influences of competitive games, at the same time as the National Birth Rate Commission expressed concern over the fall in the rate of childbirth. Iimmediately after 1921 came a debate in the Lancet and in educational circles over the effects on women of athletics and sport in general. The Board of Education's Chief Medical Officer (assumingly a male) called for more of physical education for girls at the same time as other98 contributors to the Lancet suggested that women's health had been permanently damaged by athletics. The 'Sexless gymnast' reached the national press, a focus of complex anxieties about the appropriate role of women. This was potentially as damaging to the movement for women's physical education as the Victorian 'overstrain' argument (Russell 1997: 97 cited in Williams 2003: 35). The male Mayor of Liverpool commented thus on the proposed ban by FA:
‘I may mention that in the past and present seasons I have watched about 30 ladies' football matches between various teams and I have met the players. I have travelled with them frequently by road and rail ....On all sides I have heard nothing but praise for the good work the girls are doing and the high standard of their play. The only thing I hear from the man in the street is ‘Why have the FA got the knife out for women's football? What have the girls done except raise large sums for charity and play the game? Are their feet heavier on the turf then the men's teams?’ (London Lesbian Kickabouts 2007-04-02).
Peter Klevius wrote:
Friday, September 28, 2007
David (Marta/Brazil) won Goliat (Wambach/US) in women's world cup semi-final by "playing like men" - size doesn't matter & no Islamic team even close!
Klevius comment:
Football (soccer) is perfect for emancipation, as long as it avoids
"feminization". The re-vitalization of US female "soccer" has been
severly hurt by the 1990s anti-Tomboy
"girl power feminism" (+ the stupid US-"football" prejudice of "soccer"
as a "sissy", i.e. "feminine" sport) whereas Marta & Co is the very
result of learning from boys/men, not because they are males but
because they have had access to the global university of football on
backyards, streets, schoolyards, sports clubs, teams etc. settings
usually denied girls because of sex segregation.Klevius EMAH comment (EMAH = the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis on brain/consciousness/motoric function): During childhood and adolescence, white matter anisotropy changes in the brain affect the posterior limb of the internal capsule, intrathalamic connections, and corpus callosum. The presence of stimuli for these changes seem to be important for childhood development of attention, motor skills, cognitive ability, and memory. As one of the most significent differences between humans and other primates is a higher proportion of white matter (i.e. brain connections), and as we do know that women tend to have a lower proportion than men, my guess is that most, perhaps all, of this difference may be signed sex segregation in upbringing. (for a deeper understanding of the brain/body interface see EMAH)!
Klevius evolutionary comment (also see Klevius evolution blog): The desperate search for evolutionary traces supporting sexist sex segregation prejudices (see From Klevius without love) is perhaps best exemplified by the notorious Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, and his fanatic ideas abt innate sexism. Now a "researcher" at the same university, Coren Apicella, delivers the next stupidity on this path by wildly speculating ("We really don't know what is behind this yet") that males with deeper voice pitch are better breeders (made me think abt high pitch Somali males in Sweden with some ten kids each - yes, of course I know it's the same cultural sexism but in the shape of Islam). Apicella conducted her "research" by driving randomly in Tanzania and asking pygmy-like statured Hadza males abt their kids! But when there is a positive expectation/demand for a certain result, the quality of the research usually suffers. It's also noteworthy that human evolution during the last two million years has been precisely in the opposite direction, namely towards less, not more, sexual dimorphism, i.e. we (in general, - I don't know abt Summers) have distanced ourselves from Gorillas, Orangutangs etc! It may also be noted that according to Frank W Marlowe "Hadza men value fertility in a mate more than women do, and women value intelligence more than men do"! Furthermore, according to Klevius, one may also consider the effects of Bantu/Arab gene flow (not the least because of Bantu/Islamic slavery) on a pygmy-like population (or didn't she even control for the stature/pitch relation?!).
Lack of talented football girls is "cured" by size in many teams
In football (soccer) too big size may, in fact, be a handicap (btw, Wambach isn't too big). Most of the best football stars have been small or medium size (Pele, Maradona, Carlos, Hamm, Marta etc). However, because most girls have been so heavily brainwashed with sex segregation the pool of talents has been dried up to an extent that forces teams to compensate with size. In women's 2007 World championship teams with real talents may be best represented by North Korea and Brazil. The former has avoided this effect of sex segregation because of its rigid DDR-style system, and the latter because of its lack of system.
For fanatic, sex segregated thinking, however, the small (10-15%) sexual dimorphism among modern humans seems to be more of a problem than the much bigger difference within the sexes. A sexistperson may have no problem with the huge difference in quality between elite football and e.g. corporate or junior level football, but are unable to filter female football! Why?!
Klevius wrote 2009:
Did Germany's Birgit Prinz, score the best ever goal (incl. those of men) in 2009?
The video is here (it can only be seen from the original posting).
Klevius motivation:
1 The attack (from an in-throw) was as clean as it gets. Check out the video & consider how Simone Laudehr's extremely well placed pass (into an open but crucial area) is taken by Inka Grings who was initially further from the ball than Prinz, who runs in the opposite direction.
2 Inka Grings then does just the opposite to what one would have expected. Instead of running with the ball into the empty space from where she could have tried a cross to Birgit Prinz, she turns against & between two defenders and quickly squares the ball across the penalty area just before Birgit Prinz encounters the defenders.
3 Birgit Prinz accelerates strongly & manages not only to reach the ball before a defender crashes into her, but also to cheat the goalkeeper (see how the keeper moves to the wrong direction) while then perfectly turning her foot in the last fraction of a second to give the ball ultimate precision, before she is smashed to the ground by the flying defender.
Who said women's football is boring?
Size doesn't matter in football
However, although Birgit Prinz is a six footer (179 cm), in footbal you can be any size & still world class. Lionel Messi, the world's best male player 2009 is 169 cm/67 kg, while the next best (Xavi) is 170 cm/69 kg! Third place Ronaldo is 185 cm. Among women Marta da Silva (162 cm/57 kg) is the world's best player for the fourth year in a row, with Birgit Prinz right behind!
Football is the most emancipating sport in the world
This goal hasn’t even been mentioned among the best, perhaps because women’s football is hardly mentioned at all in the media. And the reason for this is the same as with evil islam, namely that so many women participate in directing girls into the sex segregation trap of their own *starting physically with Indonesian muslim women who mutilate every female child, to Western glamour feminists who push their daughters into the time consuming trap of empty & pointless artificial "feminization".
As Otto Weininger put it a century ago: "The main obstacle for women's emancipation is the Woman".
Klevius doesn't in any sense want to point out how women should behave, quite the contrary. He couldn't call himself intelligent if he would, could he! However, what Klevius does want to do is to help minimizing the number of girls who limit themselves or commit self rape becaudse of cultural sexism. In this Klevius stands in the deapest oppositition to islam, while Mr X US "president" says he "respect" islam (and no wonder, look at his islamofascist pals)!
Origin of islam & its evil parasitic booty/sex/slavery/reproduction formula
Btw, a professor friend (sociology) thinks I “uber-emphasize” sex segregation. My question then to him & to all of you is: How can one ever “uber-emphasize” something that affects negatively & directly HALF of the world population, & indirectly the WHOLE of the world population, & which is upheld on no logical grounds at all?! And which constitutes the cornerstone for the evil interface between islam & the rest of the world! And which constitutes the main difference in OIC's Cairo Declaration which (initiated by Saudi islamic theocracy) aims for the destruction of UN's 1948 Human Rights Declaration, combined with a global effort (via UN) to criminalize criticism of islam! Read more from Klevius (e.g. From Freud to bin Laden or What is sex segregation?) to understand why islam & feminism share so much & why the first feminists didn't support votes for women! And why feminists can't agree if Mary Wollstonecraft was a feminist or an anti-feminist!
Or perhaps Klevius Marriage, kinship & friendship
Or even better, the most important sociological paper from the last century: Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs social state
No comments:
Post a Comment