The digs have been subtle and not so subtle, but the message is clear: Forget the Canadian men. Support the women. They win; the men suck.
That underlining attitude is at the root of much of the traditional media’s reporting of the WWC in Canada. With the Canadian women riding a historically high No 6 ranking in the world, and considered to be a legitimate darkhorse to go deep, and the men coming off a uninspiring 1-1-1 Gold Cup, it’s easy to understand the argument.
Well, if you aren’t really thinking about it anyway.
The arguments fall into about four different categories. They are:
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
1) The “You’re a misogynistic dinosaur if you don’t care about women’s football” argument.
The condescension is dripping when commentators bring this one out. They are enlightened, you, the hater of chicks playing footy, are not worthy of their time. Those that make this argument are trying to force you to care about the game and to ignore any and all personal taste preferences. They use the failures of the Canadian men’s program as ammunition in their argument – not only are you a Neanderthal, you’re also stupid. You’d rather support losers than winners if supporting winners means seeing girls out of the kitchen.
It is, of course, impossible to argue against their point without proving it (in their mind).
2) The “Noble Warriors” argument
Here female footballers play a more pure, less cynical game than their male counterparts. The men do not deserve your support because they are diving, cheating and greedy mercenaries while women only play football out of a pure and inspiring love of the game.
3) The “Glory hunting FTW” argument
Only losers stay loyal to losing programs. Come join us cool kids that support the winning team. Glory, glory Man United.
4) The “CSA screws the women in favour of the men so supporting the men means you are supporting the CSA and the CSA sucks” argument.
(Hard evidence optional).
All four arguments rely on faulty logic or, in some cases, outright falsehoods.
It seems to escape the understanding of the commentators that it’s not an either or proposition. In fact, the two programs are far more dependent on each other’s success than it might appear on the surface. Canada, as we know, is not a traditional football culture. Resources are scarce. The country needs all the success it can get from both genders.
For what it’s worth:
1) – Dismissing the women’s game simply because women play it is indeed silly and deserving of scorn. But, you can’t force people to care and you certainly can’t judge them if they care more about the men’s program – actually, that would be like criticising someone for preferring the women to the men. Which is what they are doing. But, anyway.
2) – The Noble Warrior argument is actually more dangerous to women’s football than outright hostility is. With hostility there is no misunderstanding. Condescension, which is exactly what the noble warrior argument is – capital C condescending -- is a far more subtle form of dismissal. It suggests that women are less competitive by nature. I’m pretty sure Christine Sinclair would claw my eyes out to win a corner kick. That’s not noble, but it is praiseworthy when you are talking about an elite athlete.
Also, diving as a tactic is not universally accepted in the men’s game either. In fact if you look at the countries that tend to shy away from diving as a tactic – Scandinavia, Canada the United States, England, etc. – you’ll note that a lot of those places are front and centre at the WWC. Think maybe that’s why there is less diving?
3) Beyond the sheer absurdity that a supporter should base his or her loyalty on whether a team is successful, there is also common thinking error at play here. Namely, that the women are, in context, markedly better than the men anyway.
Before you jump all over that point remember that word: Context.
There are, at best, 20 countries in the world that take the women’s game seriously. That’s sad, but pointing it out does not make one an enemy of the women’s game. The entire world takes the men’s game seriously. The depth of field in the men’s game is staggering.
So, within that context, the women’s historical ranking of around No 10 in the world is pretty similar to the men’s historical ranking of No 60.
To put it in a way that most Canadians would understand let’s compare women’s football with men’s ice hockey -- about the same amount of countries take the two sports seriously, after all. Canada, historically about the 10th best team in the world, but improving, are kind of like, say Switzerland in hockey - decent, improving, worthwhile and able, on the perfect day, to upset the best teams. But, still, Switzerland.
Yes, but surely the men have crapped the bed in ways that the women could only dream of? Well, the failure to qualify for the 2004 Olympics was every bit as horrible of a performance for the women as anything the men have ever done.
Let’s be clear, this is IN NO WAY an argument for not supporting the women. Rather, it’s a suggestion that we shouldn’t use the women’s success as a hit against the men. Apples and oranges doesn’t begin to cover the differences between men’s and women’s soccer. It’s arguably harder to qualify for the men’s World Cup out of CONCACAF than it is to win the women’s World Cup.
4) The CSA is not the national teams. Anti-CSA arguments don’t belong on the pitch.
Canada needs to build a stronger soccer culture, period. To do that it needs both genders to be more successful. Cheering for the women in Germany is the right thing to do. Cheering for the men in this fall’s World Cup Qualifying is also the right thing to do.
Dismissing either, well...
No one reading Canadian Soccer News should have any time for that.