XPost: uk.politics.misc   
   From: bern.boergeenreclame@planet.nl   
      
   "banana"  schreef in bericht   
   news:e79v2VAihwjEFwTO@borve.demon.co.uk...   
   > In article <448eaabb$0$2028$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl>, B. B.   
   >  writes   
   >>   
   >>"banana"  schreef in bericht   
   >>news:KQ4asUA$1LhEFwzz@borve.demon.co.uk...   
   >>   
   >>[snip]   
   >>   
   >>> Most women I've known haven't given a tinker's cuss for football.   
   >>   
   >>Go to the pub when England plays and see for yourself that many of the   
   >>women   
   >>you don't know like football.   
   >   
   > You can't get a sensible handle on the question raised in the title of   
   > this thread just by going to pubs when England plays!!   
      
   Of course you can, just establish how many men and how many women you see.   
   It will astonish you, but quit a large percentage of the viewers are women.   
      
      
   > Most women rarely go to pubs, even when England isn't playing. This is   
   > true of a fairly large proportion of men too.   
      
   It must have been a loooooong time ago that you went to the pub. It is true   
   that in the twenties "decent" women didn't go to pubs, but things have   
   changed. (In case you didn't know: women have the vote now! I only mention   
   this because your ideas are so Edwardian.)   
      
   > I would agree that most people who go to most pubs when England plays   
   > (whether male or female) are not exactly turned off by either football   
   > or nationalism.   
   >   
   > It is obvious that many people enjoy watching football, and are taking   
   > part in the nationalist hysteria with regard to the world cup   
   > competition. My point was that the proportion of the population involved   
   > is smaller than is being presented.   
      
   You link football and the World Cup with nationalism, most football fans   
   don't. They support their club and/or their national team. It is all about   
   tribalism and has very little to do with politics. Since in your view   
   everything is political you don't understand this.   
      
   >>> (Although a friend told me recently that she has known several women   
   >>> who've pretended to be interested in football in order to get into a   
   >>> man's knickers, despite actually finding it about as boring as watching   
   >>> paint dry).   
   >>   
   >>Most football watching men I know wouldn't like it when their   
   >>wives/girlfriends started sexual acts during a match.   
   >   
   >>Afterwards, alright,   
   >>in the interval, alright, but not during the match. I will conduct a poll   
   >>to   
   >>back this up -:) (During the interval would be difficult, since millions   
   >>of   
   >>men watch matches in the pub or, even better, in the stadiums!)   
   >   
   > I've got no problem with this observation - except that most men who   
   > watch football mainly do so at home, rather than at a pub or at a   
   > stadium. Although I was interested to see that in some places in England   
   > large screens have been erected in public places so that crowds can   
   > watch England's matches. One wonders where that is leading.   
      
   Nothing new, here, Neil. Just people gathering to watch the match. As I   
   said, it is all about tribalism. Desmond Morris has written a great book   
   about the issue.   
      
   > I just don't understand what your observation has to do with mine, which   
   > was that my friend has known several women who PRETEND to be interested   
   > when men TALK about football (not when they're WATCHING it!), but in   
   > actual fact they think the subject is VERY BORING, and are HUMOURING the   
   > men in order to get into their knickers.   
      
   It is common knowledge that you have no sense of humour, Neil. That is why   
   you didn't understand what I said. From your MI5 file I learned that at the   
   Borve people read Marx outloud to get aroused. Everybody has his/her own   
   methods!   
      
   [snip]   
      
   > If wanting social conditions where people always have better things to   
   > do than watch TV (or play sport) is 'totalitarian', well, call it what   
   > you like.   
      
   Better things to do? Like reading boring Marxist books? If an UK citizen   
   really wants to change social conditions, he or she should start with the   
   educating "system". No more elitist schools for rich parents, but equal   
   opportunities for all children. And of course no "home schooling" or "home   
   education" for elitist parents with the time, money and education to   
   hothouse their children. (Pressing a five year old to take GCSE and parade   
   the child afterwards in front of the cameras just to show how clever daddy   
   is, must be classified as a very, very unwanted social condition.) Come on,   
   Neil, work to do!   
      
   BTW, Brazil - Croatia 1 - 0   
      
   B. B.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)