Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

"While The Men Watch" - CBC


Recommended Posts

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/whilethemenwatch/opinion/2012/05/because-its-the-cup-pt-1-while-the-men-watch-hockey-night.html

I think this is absolutely ridiculous. This is 2012. I thought we were past the whole "Women are silly! They like shopping!" crap years ago. If this was on the W Network I wouldn't care, but this, along with dinosaurs like Cherry continuing to get airtime is just even more evidence that Hockey Night in Canada has become a farce. I hope that when CBC's funding gets cut, they axe this first thing.

In all honesty, I'd be OK with it all getting cut. I just can't believe they think this is a good idea. Brilliant women like Cassie Campbell-Pascall are stuck doing 30 second bits while morons like P.J. Stock, Don Cherry, and Mike Milbury all get prime slots. And now these two just waltz in and get their own show. It must be infuriating for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first when I saw this I was kind of appalled to be honest. Way to discredit the females, really. But then I realised that that's because I am a fan and I'm a female. Clearly that would anger me. It's like saying because I'm a female I need this other version of commentary to understand or pique my interest in a sport that *only* and *all* men watch (which is stereotypical in and of itself). They are not appealing to my demographic ie. the female who is already a hockey fan. They are appealing to those that are in a relationship with men or have friends or family members (which also kind of leaves out the LGBT community) that watch hockey and they don't necessarily feel an "attachment" or interest in the way it is delivered. That stems from the larger "appealing to the non hockey fan" advertising and "how do we get more people to become fans" notions.

They could have done away with the name/title which I think puts more negative connotation on the idea itself. So while I can see in a very small way what they want to do I see no way in which it actually succeeds. In fact, I think it may foster more bad than good. Perhaps there is a small group of females that will tune in - either because the idea actually resonates with them or they want to see what it is about. Although I could see it being used as a tool to create more misconceptions and stereotypes.

The other point you brought up kind of connects to what I'm trying to get across in which they are targeting a demographic. Had this been something on the W Network perhaps It'd be viewed in a different light or maybe it may not have even made an impact at all but because it is CBC it's taken notice. With W, the demographic is already there. But then what does that say about CBC? What does that say about W?

When I read that you wouldn't care about it though, if it was on W, I thought why should one care less? I can see how, demographically speaking, W, for example, would be a better choice but that still doesn't take away the original idea of the show nor does it change the name of it. It still feels wrong to me whether it's on Friday nights, Monday mornings, on channel 6 (CBC), 25 (YTV), or 30(TSN).

I'm sorry if I'm running in circles. bottom line is that I really don't like this and I think it's a terrible idea. At the same time I understand that they are not making this for my demographic and that perhaps there will be people who like it. I will tune in to see just how bad it is or if there are any redeeming points for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between being on the W Network and CBC to me is that the CBC is a public broadcasting corporation, and it should really not be perpetuating these ridiculous "TEEHEE SHOPPING OMG!" stereotypes. It just makes it seem like Women aren't good hockey fans, or that they don't care about hockey, when the reality is that women represent 36% (don't quote me on that) of NHL fans. The name implies that only men should enjoy sports, and the content is just ridiculous (those ladies don't sound particularly intelligent to me).

I'm very doubtful they'll get very good viewership on this, and I hope it's canned very soon. I guess what bothers me the most is like I said in the OP, that Cassie Campbell-Pascall is relegated to 30 second bits on the sidelines and these two get an entire game. I think trying to draw in the female demographic is a great thing, and I'm all for CBC and the NHL trying to make hockey more appealing to women, but I don't at all approve of this. It's just perpetuating a bunch of old fashioned, ignorant stereotypes (a common theme for HNIC with Milbury and Cherry).

I just think it's such a dumb idea overall. I can't believe someone thought this was a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont insult P.J.Stock, he IS a good man and father of four know him "okay". Lives nearby I see his wife often enough.

I'm sure he's a nice guy and I'm not insulting his character (which I've done with Milbury and Cherry), but his analysis on HNIC is pretty weak IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno folks, I can't say that I fully agree with the opinions in here so far. Well, except for one, I suppose: I do I agree that this is a bad idea for a show and that it will probably fail. But sexist and offensive? Errrrgghh, I dunno....

Now I do realize that as a younger male I'm not exactly the demographic that this would be most likely offend to begin with, but even trying to put myself in someone else's shoes I can't really see how it should be offensive. I'll admit that I haven't seen the show, but my impression from the articles is that these are two women who have husbands that really like sports, who didn't much care for sports themselves, who love shopping and looking pretty and other "girly" things and who make a lot of sex jokes. Do they play to a stereotype? Sure they do! But here's the thing: there are literally millions of women in Canada who DO hate sports and love sex and shopping and read Cosmo magazine. There are also men with the same interests.

And who are we to say that there's anything wrong with that? Are those interests any less valid than ours? How is a woman talking to her friends about shopping and hairstyles any less valid than a woman talking to her friends about hockey? I know, for example, that my girlfriend thinks that I'm a huge nerd for spending as much time as I do on a Montreal Canadiens hockey forum ;). I'd also like to point out that we contribute just as little to society by debating endlessly about what should be done with Scott Gomez as another person does researching "101 ways to please your man". We come here because we enjoy it, other people do their own activies because they enjoy them. These two women enjoy talking and laughing about the lighter side of a hockey game, and apparently enough other people share that interest that their show grew big enough to attract the attention of the CBC.

For a male analog, I'd offer up the UFC. I have absolutely zero interest in the "manly" endeavour of MMA and I haven't watched Spike TV since they stopped showing hours of Star Trek: TNG reruns. I don't feel that I should be judged negatively for that, but I feel just as strongly that I shouldn't be able to judge anyone who IS interested in these tournaments. Is the UFC offensive to men? I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Watch it if you're interested, don't if you're not and let everyone else have their fun.

So I'll ask: what exactly is the offensive part of this show? Is it somehow "setting women back"? In my opinion, to say that is to say that women who share the interests of these two hosts are somehow inferior to those who don't. I just don't agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I share your reflection Manatee.

Being a female hockey fan, I like the 'girlie' aspects of watching the game AND the sports fan aspects of it. I guess what's offensive about this is not the show itself as much as the title. It sorta implies that only men watch and that all women don't know what to do with themselves while the game is on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I share your reflection Manatee.

Being a female hockey fan, I like the 'girlie' aspects of watching the game AND the sports fan aspects of it. I guess what's offensive about this is not the show itself as much as the title. It sorta implies that only men watch and that all women don't know what to do with themselves while the game is on.

Exactly, I mean if Cassie Campbell did some commentary and mentioned or implied that a player was good looking etc etc that's not a problem. It doesn't make someone not a true fan if they point out which players are good looking. The issue for me is that these two are going to get paid to sit there and gossip, as well as the title. All the female members on here are way bigger hockey fans than most of my male friends. To me it's just a big step backwards, and those two don't represent (or at least I hope they don't) the average Canadian woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can easily see where a more correct title like "While fans are watching" doesn't have the same selling punch

I agree CRB,,,it's about marketing,,,,,,but to me,,this was not well thought out. And to think that someone actually signed off on this show. :blink: boggles the mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand this at all, maybe I should listen to the commentary. Let me get this straight, its women who talk about buying lingerie, reading cosmo, and gossiping over top of video from an NHL playoff game, and occasionally they point something out thats going on on the tv?

They don't actually mention that someone does anything unless its of interest?

If I wanted that id have a girlfriend :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lil surprising to read an article like that, but in all honesty stereotypes exist for a reason. They may not represent everybody, but it does represent the majority.

I really don't understand why people are so sensitive when it comes to stereotypes... Maybe it's cos it hits close to home?

This is an odd article to have on CBC, but it definitely hits close to home in our household. When I have hockey parties, the boys come over with their wives, the boys usually watch the game over a few beer while the women gather in another room of the house-They watch romantic movies or chat over a few bottles of wine. There are a few of the boys wives who are hockey fans and they join the boys, drinking as much and screaming as loudly as the boys do.

Women and men are different, have different tastes, passions, interests, etc... There are always exceptions. I have some male friends who would rather watch a cooking show over a hockey game.

So they gave 2 women's view on the playoffs.

It doesn't represent all woman, but it does represent the majority. Let's face it, sports such as hockey does have a stronger male following. We have some very valued members here who are female(most of our female members are either mods, captains or HOFers), who know more about hockey than some of our male members.

At then end of the day, when you look at the numbers... The majority is male.

I agree with CRB, the title is a lil questionable, but I find it an honest article. Why can't women be women during the playoffs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, I mean if Cassie Campbell did some commentary and mentioned or implied that a player was good looking etc etc that's not a problem. It doesn't make someone not a true fan if they point out which players are good looking. The issue for me is that these two are going to get paid to sit there and gossip, as well as the title. All the female members on here are way bigger hockey fans than most of my male friends. To me it's just a big step backwards, and those two don't represent (or at least I hope they don't) the average Canadian woman.

I think you're missing my point though, Noob, which is this: how is getting paid to sit and gossip any worse than getting paid to sit and talk hockey like Bob McKenzie, Elliotte Friedman or Cassie Cambell? People who are interested in hockey like you and I would much rather hear the thoughts of the folks I listed above, but people who aren't might be much happier hearing the thoughts of the two ladies on While the Men Watch.

You make it sound as though it's a negative thing if someone isn't a true hockey fan, or at least that it's a step backward for women if they're not. I could actually argue that that in itself is sexist: by saying that women who participate in traditionally 'manly' things like sports broadcasting are taking a step forward (and those who don't a step backward), you're implying that the manly things have been the better choice to begin with. Come on gals, leave your sewing and cooking behind and come watch some sports and you can be as great as we men are! ;)

Now that last part was just a bit of fun; I don't actually think that you're sexist and I know that you're coming from a good place. But it does go to show how easy it is to let loose cries of "sexism!" when things like this show come around. I don't think that these two ladies are setting women back, they're just catering to a different audience than the one that traditionally watches Hockey Night in Canada. Not a better or a worse audience, just a different audience. CRB has pointed out that the name could be different (like she said, it could be taken to imply that only men watch hockey) but it's just a marketing decision and certainly not anything that I think it's worth getting worked up over.

To my mind, gender equality is achieved when men and women are each free to choose what they want. They shouldn't be locked into 'traditional' roles, but we have to be careful not to push the pendulum too far in the other direction, either. I guess the simplest way for me to put it is this: if my daughter wants to play with Tonka trucks and wear hockey gear I'll be happy to let her. But if she wants to play with dolls and dress up in a pink tutu, well, I'll be happy to let her do that, too :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if my daughter wants to play with Tonka trucks and wear hockey gear I'll be happy to let her. But if she wants to play with dolls and dress up in a pink tutu, well, I'll be happy to let her do that, too :)

Mine gave rides to their barbies in their tonka trucks :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest archey

my favorite mare, who is obviously the most talented athlete left to be availed of at the stable, who is also the meanest horse at the stable to the other horses wants to have a baby, to my mind, the last i saw of her..which was today.

can't you women get your story straight? or what is it? we men don't give you the same thing female horses take for granted? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I'm beating this to death, but I came across this in the Globe this morning:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/womens-commentary-on-hockey-without-the-hockey/article4237297/

Turns out that at least one of the hosts is actually a successful urban planner and youth sports advocate who uses an alias on the show. It just goes to show that all sorts of people can have all sorts of interests :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...