I’m going to confess straight up to having little to zero interest in the underwear choices of Venus Williams.

Depressing: I know she played well, but what was she wearing? Photo: AFP

Yet in recent days her flesh coloured shorts have become a story in sport in themselves and sent twitter abuzz with is she or isn’t she wearing underpants debates.

Perhaps this isn’t so shocking, Maria Sharapova’s green “frocklet” (I kid you not- apparently there is indeed such a thing), got its own press conference launch and then we saw precious column space designated to the diamond earring and necklace choices of Serena Williams, (which she liked “because it had lots of S’s in the design”, and we can all respect that).

As female athletes’ clothing and jewellery choices shifted from the fashion pages into the sports sections in coverage of the Australian Open, it seems that sporting fashion has been a key part of how female athletes are quite literally getting themselves into the picture.

And there’s no doubt that if you’re a female athlete then picture space is limited. It’s hotly contested to find ways to get coverage, grow your profile and attract much-needed sponsorship dollars.

I’m not adverse to ranting at length about the vicious cycle affecting women’s sport. There’s the lack of coverage limiting the sponsorship opportunities, which restrict career and training opportunities, which hamper the development and professionalism of sports, which in turn limit the coverage - etcetera, etcetera.

But today I’m going to insert some new research which provides powerful background to the potential motivations to “sex up” or “pretty up” images in women’s sport.

The Federal Government recently funded research into the content and quantity of women’s sport coverage which found coverage of women in sport makes up 9% of all sports coverage in Australian television news and current affairs.

Let me just repeat that, 9%. Male sport makes up 81%. (In fairness we should note that ABC gives above average representation of women’s sport with 11% of television news coverage on ABC1 Sydney and Melbourne).

It further deduced that reports on male sport also have an average duration which is 30 seconds longer than reports on female sport.

All of this is best put in context when one considers that horseracing alone receives more airtime than all women’s sport combined in Australian television news, making up the other 10%.  Which I think is interesting, to say the least.

The good news is that the coverage of women’s sport is overwhelmingly positive - far more so than men’s sport - though this is basically attributed to the facts that if you’re a woman you pretty much have to win to have any chance of making the news, whereas male sport will often be covered just for taking place. Men receive more negative press for questionable off field behaviour in part because they are higher profile and considered public role models in greater numbers. So it sort of takes the shine off that too.

Of course these are not new phenomena. And it’s not new to find ways to “sex up”, “provide a hook” or “increase the appeal” of women’s sport, far from it.

On the weekend I was heartened by a mate telling me how much he liked women’s sport, until he went on to explain that he really just meant women’s beach volleyball. And his rationale was, well, not particularly sport related. It brought back memories of the debate when volleyball ruled that men could play in shorts whilst the women on the beach circuit couldn’t wear briefs that were any thicker than 6cm at the hip. We saw it in basketball when women adopted tight fitting bodysuits in contrast to the men’s knee length oversized shorts and numerous other sports have introduced similar measures.

The thing is, and without ranting about equity issues or sexualisation or body image consequences which you can be sure I desperately want to rant about, we are a nation that prides ourself on our great love of all things sport and we’re missing some big stories in women’s sporting achievements and neglecting some inspiring female role models.

This week in women’s cricket alone, one of Australia’s greatest cricketers Karen Rolton announced her retirement after 141 one-day internationals, 14 Tests, 15 Twenty20 Internationals and winning the ICC’s Inaugural Female Player of the Year Award in 2006. She’s set a standard for women’s cricket and is a role model we should be holding up proudly to inspire our youngsters.

Just days ago, Betty “the female Bradman” Wilson passed away. Betty was one of the greatest cricketers this nation has ever produced, scoring 90 runs and taking 10 wickets in her debut Test in 1948. She became the first female cricketer to be inducted in the Australian Sports Hall of Fame with a bowling average of 11.80 – compared to Shane Warne’s 25.41 and a Test average of 57.46 runs compared to Ponting’s.

What were we talking about again though? Oh, that’s right - sports outfits.

I like frocks as much as the next person but I reckon dedicating our women’s spoirt coverage to them to stupid and counterproductive. Do we really want to be driving a market based on sex, fashion and drama when we have unsung heroes, great achievements and the sort of sporting accomplishments that we should all be holding up proudly?
Surely in 2010 we as sports lovers can send a message that we appreciate women’s sport and abilities irrespective of the darnned frocklett. With only 9% of coverage on women’s sport I reckon we can do better - and I for one want to know more of what we’re missing.

117 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:23am | 27/01/10

      I’ll worry about coverage of women’s sport when men’s health, men’s education, men’s rights and men’s issues get as much coverage as women’s issues do.

    • Nick says:

      07:15am | 27/01/10

      Kate,

      Your concerns were admirably illustrated by Channel 7 recently. When the finals of the Sydney medibank International were to be played, 7 showed the womens final (Dementieva vs Serena Williams: an attractive contest on many levels) as a replay at 9:30 pm, after a repeat of ‘Better Homes and Gardens’ and yet another story on Michael Jackson. On Saturday, however, the men’s final was shown live! Is this sexism or what? And is it not discrimination given the impact this sort of treatment has on exposure and thus sponsorship, opportunity etc?

      The approach was repeated when Australia’s own heroine, Sam Stosur met Williams in the Aus. Open. & 7 showed the news, Today Tonight and a soap episode! Hewitt and Federer were shown live!

      This continued on Sunrise the next morning. Sam’s effort was airily dismissed but Hewitt’s humiliation was spoken of at length. Hewitt was referred to as Australia’s highest ranked player. He’s not. He ranks 22 while Sam Stosur ranks 13!

    • T.Chong says:

      08:54am | 27/01/10

      Danni 920 - correct it is women who are most judgemental, and it was Serenas decision to wear attention grabbing undies- is anyonr seriosly suggesting she is so niaeve that she would be unaware of the reaction? Puhleeze! The Basketball team chose the lycra, the Soccer gals Matildas chose the soft porn calendar.
      If womens sport wants to be taken seriosly, maybe they   stop the attention seeking non sense, and maybe more women should go and watch.
      As for commercial TV , it responds purely to audience demand.
      Finally. Betty Wilson does deserve recognition,but to churlishly make the comparison to Warne or Ponting is not valid, due to the vastly different levels of competition.

    • iron lady says:

      12:32pm | 27/01/10

      The other 10% is horse racing.  Try reading it properly next time.

    • Fog Badger says:

      07:24am | 27/01/10

      Good point, Eric (06:23am). There’s a lot of negative male stuff in the sports media too (rugby league for example).

      I would be interested to see which channel would be most popular if (1) was 100% female in sensible clothes; and (2) 100% male in sensible clothes. Sports would be varied, so comparisons would be apples-with-apples. Two rules (1) no grunting; and (2) no talk about budgie-smugglers.

      mmmm..

    • woof says:

      07:24am | 27/01/10

      If more women watched women’s sports it would generate more coverage, sponsorship etc. You mentioned women’s cricket - have you ever been to an interstate women’s match? Not many people have, apart from family and friends of players giving them a lift to the ground.
      If people want a higher profile for women’s sports, get out there and get interested. The media etc will follow. Otherwise it simply smacks of hypocrisy.

    • reunig says:

      02:47pm | 27/01/10

      I agree with woof completely. If women want more coverage, then they need to encourage more women to watch. Money talks, and until womens sports rates higher than mens sports, then mens sports should get more coverage

    • Adam Dennis says:

      07:32am | 27/01/10

      For all our sakes Eric, please leave off. Every day I happily read opinion pieces here, only to have my smile turned upside down by your one-dimensional “men don’t get a fair go” comments. You’re right that women’s issues get loads of coverage. Often it’s needed to counter our societal biases against women, often it’s the shallow and meaningless fashion-related “we think this’ll attract eyeballs” crap that Kate Ellis is referring to.

      You want men’s health coverage? There’s magazines for that. Men’s education? About what? Everywhere I look there are fairly equal opportunities for both the sexes to enjoy access to education. Men’s issues ... it seems to me that you’re the man with the issues, and you’ve had more coverage than you deserve.

    • Fog Badger says:

      08:12am | 27/01/10

      Adam, what are your thoughts on the budgie-smuggler comments that Abbott has attracted? Imagine the fall-out if he were a female!

    • Jason says:

      08:45pm | 27/01/10

      Adam, Federal government expenditure for mens issues/rights is around $40 thousand dollars. Womens issues/rights their expenditure was $40 Million. Women live on average 7 years longer than men, yet men work 5 years longer.

    • Fred says:

      09:00pm | 27/01/10

      What world do you live in Adam…Eric was straight on the ball…

    • Paddy says:

      07:52am | 27/01/10

      Trivial, please Kate!
      It is there to be pillaged. Here is a question see if you can find out the answer and put it into print on this page.
      Which senior State Govt Minister advises and holds the hand of an AFL football club President on how to access monies his Government allocated in its State budget for womens sport. So far it has obtained substantial funds using this advice.
      The Club has recently been rejected by a State Govt appointed authority when seeking to access funds in the $millions from taxpayers monies using the same pretext. The Club has decried this decision to the friendly Minister and will resubmit the application after the Authority has been subjected to State Government pressure. 
      So Kate, if one of Australia’s senior politicians is willing to give the funds allocated to womens sport in his State to an AFL Club then it can only be the finest example of trivialising womens sport in Australia I have seen in many many years. Oh, by the way, they will have no doubt practised justifying it already.

    • Evie says:

      07:54am | 27/01/10

      Eric, Adam is right. Instead of huffing and puffing on the sidelines, why don’t you put pen to paper and state your case for male inequality?

    • AFR says:

      07:59am | 27/01/10

      Umm…. becuase women’s sport is boring?

    • Glenn Scott says:

      04:56pm | 27/01/10

      You maybe right AFR…... Zzzzzzzzzz

    • Eric says:

      08:04am | 27/01/10

      Adam and Evie - nice pairing. smile

      I reply to feminist opinion pieces with a male viewpoint. In other words, my comments only serve to balance the overwhelmingly one-sided perspective of the writers.

      If you don’t like my comments, don’t read them.

    • AFR says:

      08:30am | 27/01/10

      No, Eric, you reply with YOUR viewpoint. Leave the rest of us males out of this.

    • Bill says:

      07:38am | 28/01/10

      AFR,

      Isn’t that what Eric said ‘I reply to feminist opinion pieces with a male viewpoint’, a male, one, not purporting to represent all of us, just one.  Isn’t he entitled to that or is the Punch a forum for cheap shots by internet toughies?

    • Tim says:

      08:07am | 27/01/10

      Yes Kate you are correct.
      I also can’t wait for equal coverage of the South East Tiddlywinks competition, which is on this weekend at my local RSL.

    • Danni says:

      08:20am | 27/01/10

      It is women who care most about what other women wear, Kate. How are you going to address that?

    • Macca says:

      08:31am | 27/01/10

      This is a non-story.

      And I say this, because the Trans-Tasman Netball competition (5 Aus domestic teams, 5 NZ) had a deal with FoxSports where every game would be played live. After one season, they rejected FoxSports follow up offer to take an offer with Channel 10.

      Not only are the netballers recieving far less cash-in-hand after taking an inferior TV rights offer, but only 1 game is screened a week, its on OneHD, and it is a replay.

      You decide who’s fault it is women’s sport isn’t well publicised

    • Celia says:

      04:01pm | 27/01/10

      Oh Macca, do you honestly think TTNL didn’t weigh up their options for this broadcast deal?

      Foxtel siginificantly reduced the potential audience for the sport, whereas Channel 10 (also taking into account the ONE HD channel, which will be accesible by all soon enough) actually DOES screen all games.

      So: stick with Foxtel and ensure that netball is seen by a niche audience only?
      OR: Take the opportunity to expose the sport to a much wider, prevously-untapped audience (which incidentally, has happened, with the ratings more than doubling), and show people that it is actually a world class, underrated spectacle. You do the math.

      Moreover, it’s complete baloney that the players are receiving less cash in hand because of the change of broadcast rights- stop pulling statements out of thin air to suit your argument.

      To suggest that women’s sport isn’t well publicised because the governing bodies either aren’t trying hard enough, or aren’t as clever as you, is just insulting.

    • biff says:

      08:44am | 27/01/10

      The Williams sisters have a problem now that airlines plan to charge for two plane seats if the passenger in question is a person of ‘generous’ proportions. The news is not all bad for the Williams sisters because the airlines at this stage won’t charge extra for people with a huge derriere.

    • Andrew Lewis says:

      08:44am | 27/01/10

      Rightly or wrongly, when a sport becomes popular, and is able to survive, on only female patronage, then women sportspeople won’t have to wear skimpy outfits to get noticed.

    • jack says:

      08:48am | 27/01/10

      WTF is the government doing being involved in this issue?

    • Little Miss SciFi says:

      12:14pm | 27/01/10

      She’s the Minister for Sport. Duh.

    • ABC says:

      08:56am | 27/01/10

      No it’s not sexism. Its just that women’s tennis is incredibly boring to watch (and yes I’m a woman), most matches last about 50 minutes.  Compare that to the precursor to the Stosur match which went to five sets and lasted four hours.  The fact that the womens world No 13 cannot even make the world No 1 sweat demonstrates the poor standard of women’s tennis.

    • Bryndal says:

      12:17pm | 27/01/10

      Woman play 3 sets - men play 5 - that why it is over quicker. The quality of the tennis is down to the individual. Leyton really worked up a sweat against Federa - not.
      Yes mens & womens tennis has a different style - give me a good rally rather than a serve & volley any day.

    • Justin says:

      08:56am | 27/01/10

      There’s an argument to be made for more coverage of womens sport, but tennis isn’t the vehicle to make it with. Aside from the 3 sets verses 5 sets imbalance, it’s the level of competition (or lack there of) that is the real travesty. Could a man win a grand slam 3 tournaments in to a comeback? Or make the semis 2 tournaments back? Womens tennis has turned in to style over substance to compensate.

      Professionalism in mens sport started at a time of male dominance in society & has built from that to what it is today. Professionalism in womens sport is building, but you can’t simply click your fingers & mandate equality.

      The diet of the viewer has long been set & expecting someone to start watching the womens version of a sport is like asking them to watch a different football code - most won’t, because they never have.

      The children of today are being brought up on a more gender mixed diet of sport, so when they’re the key viewers in 20+ years, you’ll see more of a balance in coverage.

    • Darren says:

      10:39am | 27/01/10

      The Federal Government recently funded research into the content and quantity of women’s sport coverage which found coverage of women in sport makes up 9% of all sports coverage in Australian television news and current affairs.

      Let me just repeat that, 9%. Male sport makes up 81%.

      10 out of 10 for arithmetic Minister - BTW - when are you going to get charged for impersonating a minister!

    • DG says:

      08:57am | 27/01/10

      Actually, ignoring the attempt at point scoring by Eric, I think that the point could almost be valid. Media support is directly influenced by public support, there is plenty of public support behind female issues so the media jumps on the band wagon, similarly for male sport.

      I agree with Woof, if people want to improve the profile of female sport - get off the lounge and go to a game, there are certainly enough women in the population to make it happen.

      The practical reality is that more people choose to go and watch a bunch of has-beens play beach cricket than go to watch the current “best of the best” in women’s cricket.

      Having said that, I’ve watched a bit of female sport over the years, basketball, netball, football, tennis, golf - the list can go on. Invariably, the male participants are better at the same sports. Now I can see where this can, in part, be attributed to funding- but even when we look at park football, basketball and the likes, where there is no “funding” to speak of, the male athletes generally out perform their female counterparts.

      Is it likely that this difference in ability could be affecting the support that these sports obtain? There is also the same old: Women play less sets in tennis despite (in the grand slams at least) getting the same money as the male athletes. Is there something to be said for the quality of the sport and the competitors.

      I also think that your’ comparison between male and female athletes is flawed. By your logic Archie Thompson’s 13 Goals against American Samoa are more impressive than Wayne Rooney’s 4 goals against Hull on the weekend (no football fan would agree). Simply put, one must seriously consider the quality of the opposition.

      The fastest bowlers in female cricket manage about 120kph - a male “fast” bowler managersaround 140/150 kph range (while I appreciate it’s not all about speed I was unable to find information about the accuracy and spin that bowlers can extract from the ball). Further, cricket fans complain that you can’t compare a century against England with a century against Bangladesh or Ireland simply because of the quality of the opposition.

    • Betty French says:

      09:03am | 27/01/10

      Maybe if the players stopped treating it like a fashion parade, it would stop getting coverage…

    • ourtoowoomba says:

      09:14am | 27/01/10

      You need to face it, many viewers only watch sport to have a ‘better’ look at females ahletes (if you get my drift)

    • Matt says:

      11:25am | 27/01/10

      horse racing makes up the remaining 10%, which she mentions later in the article. nice try though darren

    • clementine says:

      11:52am | 27/01/10

      “All of this is best put in context when one considers that horseracing alone receives more airtime than all women’s sport combined in Australian television news, making up the other 10%.”

      Ten out of ten for comprehensive reading there Darren.

    • JJA says:

      09:21am | 28/01/10

      Horse racing mate, horse racing. That’s the other 10% of sports coverage on the news. That’s why the Minister is right and you may have misunderstood her piece.

    • washy says:

      09:27am | 28/01/10

      Ummm, Darren…....did you miss where she refers to the OTHER 10% (horseracing FYI)??

    • will says:

      09:28am | 27/01/10

      Whether you like it or not, modern sports coverage is dictated by dollar returns.

      When women’s sport has the potential to generate more than 9% of the sports broadcast revenue market, then we’ll be happy for its current coverage percentage to increase.

      For the moment, you should really be happy with the 9%.

    • Ben says:

      09:55am | 27/01/10

      Kate has my gratitude for restraining herself from ranting about those things about which she ‘desparately’ wishes to, but the question for Kate and others is - so what if women’s sport isn’t covered as much on television? So what if maybe men’s sport is regarded as more enjoyable to watch?
      If they must take a feminist approach to things why not adopt a patronising view and leave all the men to mindlessly caper about the field while they do something more worthwhile?
      @eric, mate for your own sake give it a rest! Men’s education? Is there some spate of men not being given equal access to education in this country? Men’s issues - what are they? Do men in general feel more theatened than women by domestic or sexual violence? Have women all of a sudden overtaken men as the perpetrators of domestic violence? Do men in general have to think twice before going for a walk at night?
      On men’s health you are absolutely right. Attention given to breast cancer and other women’s health issues has been driven by women and for very good reason. Men also need to drive attention for men’s health issues and until we are more willing to discuss issues like prostate cancer its not going to happen.

    • DG says:

      10:13am | 27/01/10

      Amen. Men have to own means health issues.

      However, blokes would be much happier throwing on a pink shirt and supporting breast cancer (that they have virtually no chance of getting) than considering something a little close to home.

      While we demonstrate our apathy towards prostate cancer and the likes the media will help us ignore it.

    • cats says:

      12:13pm | 29/01/10

      I think i’m in love with you.

      Not really, i’m just really grateful for people who think like you, especially on the Punch.

    • Gary Cox says:

      10:21am | 27/01/10

      Why don’t women’s sports just market themselves better. Just because some of the bloke’s sports have got off their backsides and hired good CEO’s, signed deals with good stadiums and sponsors and marketed their respective sports to gain appeal doesn’t mean that the media is sexist. It means that women’s sporting bodies are lazy because they’ve made some bad decisions. To the women of the world don’t sit there whinging about it and waiting for the government to step in, do something about it.

    • Jimmy says:

      10:31am | 27/01/10

      Why does the coverage have to be split between men and women? If the majority of people prefer male sporting events why can’t it just be that way?  Why do people feel the need to tell others what they should be watching, get off your left wing high horse and let people watch what they prefer (not what you prefer).

    • Terry says:

      10:36am | 27/01/10

      I’ll stop treating it as a fashion show when the players do. Puh-lease, they are all pretty little prima donnas anyway. When they harden up and play the best of five sets like the men, then I’ll take them seriously.

    • Roger says:

      12:52pm | 27/01/10

      not a truer word written on this page.

    • Goran says:

      10:39am | 27/01/10

      Goran Ivanisevic won wimbledon as an unseeded wildcard, so yes, a man could do it.

    • Bruce says:

      10:39am | 27/01/10

      Totally agree, and the organisers and the media know it. I remember a comment by organisers that when Anna Kornakova was at her mediocre best, it was said she was worth 10,000 more bums on seats. Most times she could not get past the quarters much to the dissapointment of the organisers. Having said that, my eyes have been damaged by some of the fashions I have seen in the last few days. Oh god !!

    • Martin G says:

      10:41am | 27/01/10

      Sport is the last bastion for men to get equal or above-equal media coverage. Everything else you see is female-dominated.

      When women play 5 sets in Grand Slam Tennis and stop pretending to be fashionistas, the attention might actually turn to their game and not their clothes or looks. Perhaps they should take themselves seriously, then maybe others will too.

      Face the facts that the standards of women’s sport bar netball tend to be lower than the male equivalent.

    • clementine says:

      11:58am | 27/01/10

      Are you serious? I suppose that would explain why every comedy panel, news panel, music panel, news room, radio roster and so on and so forth is ‘dominated’ by women. Men just can’t get a fair go, can they?

      Until we get over the idea that ‘one woman, two men’ on a radio show or ‘two women, five men’ on a panel show somehow counts for equality in gender representation, it’s patently ridiculous to say that women receive more media coverage than men.

    • Blackadder says:

      10:43am | 27/01/10

      As per other comments here, women’s tennis is simply boring.

      They’ve clamoured for equality in match payments and got it - yet matches go for under an hour. Look at how many 5-set epics there’s been already in the men’s side of the tournament. By and large, the women’s matches are lop-sided thrashings, making a mockery of rankings. The female players are so decked out in jewellery and make-up, you’d think it was a fashion parade and not a sporting contest. Coupled with the fact that they squeal and grunt like stuck pigs every swing of the racquet - and not only during the shot…one Russian player was actually squealing BEFORE the shot ! And to cap it off, they all stand at the baseline and thump the ball - no finesse, no net play, no variety - all equates to no interest. In short, it’s an extremely poor quality spectacle, both in sight and sound.

      And this from a person who played competitive tennis for 20 years and went to the Australian Open as a visitor, every year for many years - but no more, as it’s a complete waste of money.

    • Budz says:

      11:19am | 27/01/10

      I agree with you 100%! Watching mens tennis is far more interesting than watching 2 women squeal and try to out power each other.

      How on earth can you compare Nadal Vs Murray last night to any womens matches?

      I think this argument is very simply a supply vs demand argument. If people wanted to watch more womens sport, then TV stations would put more of it on.

      Kate, if you want women to get paid better + more coverage etc, then get together all your friends and see how many of them would rather go to a womens cricket, league or AFL game instead of a mens one.

    • Macka says:

      11:22am | 27/01/10

      Blackadder, I could not have said it better if I invented all those words. Spot on!

    • Eric says:

      10:44am | 27/01/10

      Ben@10.55: Your ignorance of men’s issues is a product of the lack of coverage which they get in the mainstream media.

      Fortunately, we have the Internet now. If you are sincerely interested in what men’s issues are, simply Google “men’s rights” and spend an hour or two reading through the links.

    • Nigel says:

      10:57am | 27/01/10

      Eric, I think iot’s you who should google ‘real men’ and stop this self-loathing that is perpetrated by a bunch of preening nobodies who are content to mince around bitching about how difficult it is being a man.
      Give it a rest.

    • Scott says:

      10:51am | 27/01/10

      Just curious, TV coverage is 9% women’s sport and 81% men’s. So what is the remaining 10%? Equine? Motor racing?

    • Jimbo says:

      10:51am | 27/01/10

      You tell Sarina or Venus what they can and can’t wear because I am sure they decide for themselves to be fashionable.

    • Macka says:

      11:09am | 27/01/10

      Who watches more sport, men or women? Men.
      Do men want to watch women playing sport? No.
      BUT, will men watch women playing sport if they look good? Yes
      Question Answered.

    • Simonious says:

      11:10am | 27/01/10

      Look at the NFL in the US. The only way they can get people to watch women play the game is to make them play in underwear and they call it lingerie football. While womens sports continue to do this they will never be taken seriously. Dont believe me check it out. http://www.lflus.com

    • Greypower says:

      11:16am | 27/01/10

      anyone out there old enough to remember Wimbleton and Georgeous Gussies?  When Wimbleton ‘uniform’ was all white - lots of frills on the knickers - made the headlines!

    • SM says:

      11:21am | 27/01/10

      Womens sport is of little interest to sports watchers because the standard is so poor.  International womens cricket, as Ms Ellis refers to, is about the eqivalent standard of boys under 12 cricket

    • Zeta says:

      12:09pm | 27/01/10

      @ Eric - you’re so fast. 6:23am! Does your alarm go off when someone puts forward a feminist agenda? Does a red phone ring and does your bookcase slide open to reveal a fireman’s pole that takes you to the Man Cave?

      What concerns me about Kate Ellis’ article, and women’s sport, is not women’s sport. I don’t care about women’s sport. Or sport for that matter. I like the Winter Olympics, but they’re not really sports. It’s like watching So You Think You Can Dance only with that cool skiing - shooting combo between skimpier figure skating outfits, and less of the screeching woman. Also, I can pretend it’s cold outside when it’s really 40+ degrees.

      No what concerns me is that Kate Ellis’ department commissioned a report into the content and quality of women’s sport coverage. That’s just so ridiculous it makes that woman who baked gingerbread cookies based on Lady GaGa costumes look like Stephen Smith. Our Government, that we pay taxes too, that we expect to be defending us from external and domestic security threats and administering a nationwide economic regulatory system is spending money on determining the quality of women’s sports coverage. I want that money back. I want Kate Ellis to figure out how much of the tax I gave her last year was spent on that report per ratio to the population and I want a few cents returned to me.

      That’s just too stupid for words. Can Kate Ellis please tell us how much this insanity cost? Or actually, I’ll take a break from my stream of thought rant to find out for the Punch’s benefit. Hold steady. (Nice Google-Fu btw, type Kate Ellis and any combination of words into Google and you still get diverted to her tax payer funded website. Except when I type in ‘Kate Ellis + Marilyn Manson’ which means those rumours aren’t true and they’re not dating).

      Back. Got to the combing through Budget papers stage and gave up. We deserve to know how much money was wasted on telling us what we can figure out by switching on the television. There is no coverage of women’s sport on television. And you needed a report to tell you this. How about I save Kate Ellis the cash and tell you some other things that aren’t covered on television. The 9/11 Truth movement. Adult Entertainment related news (Sasha Grey doesn’t count, she went mainstream). Bridge. Dungeons & Dragons. Positive LSD stories. The media releases of Warren Truss. All these things are denied a place on our airwaves. But we don’t need our money wasted to tell that.

      I don’t write to my local MP asking for a report into why the latest news from the annual GenCon Role Playing Game convention in Brisbane wasn’t aired on the 6 o’clock news sports report. I don’t get upset because 9/11 Truthers are maligned and relegated to the funny pagers. I don’t need too, because just ten short years ago, Al Gore invented the internet, and now I can get these things whenever I want. I have Fleshbot to tell me when Stoya and Belladonna will be releasing a sequel to adult classic ‘Pirates’. I have millions of 9/11 Truth blogs. I probably even have a Warren Truss website if I ever decided to look for it.

      Women’s sport, like Warren Truss is a fringe activity. There is an internet for a reason.

      So

    • Ben says:

      02:58pm | 27/01/10

      baahhahhahahhahhha!!!!

      hilarious!!!

      PENBO - get Zeta writing all the time for THE PUNCH!

    • Rusty says:

      12:12pm | 27/01/10

      Women sport, in particular Tennis, Netball and AFL which are mentioned in various comments, is an inferior ‘product’ for public consumption, which doesn’t sell advertising while producing high TV ratings.  That’s just a FACT, it’s not because blatant sexism by high executive blokes in TV networks.  To illustrate that point further, on the first evening at the Australian Open Tennis, the mens match was Nadal playing Peter Luczak, with the womens match to follow and had Australia’s Dokic playing after the men.  Once the mens match concluded, at least a quarter of the crowd left and didn’t return for the women’s match.  It had nothing to do with a TV network, ratings, or advertising, people simply made a conscious decision with their feet. The same thing happened when the women’s match was scheduled first, the crowd was lacking, and once the mens match started, the crowd came in.

      There are MANY female government and philanthropic funded programs that are available for women that encourage participation and promote skill for advancement in sport administration at grass roots and elite level sport which should be maintained.  I do agree these same programs don’t exist for males, or people with a disability.  I think removing the ‘women’ tag and making those programs accessible to all regardless of gender and basing it on merit is the correct step. A fact that seems slurred with this issue seems to be there is a heavy male representation at an elite administration and executive level doing their best to shun women out of the sport spotlight, which isn’t the case.

      It’s simply a fact the ‘product’ is inferior to the male product, and until administrators and policy makers address the issue of making it more appealing, it will remain that way.  Introducing mandates for equal representation in the media will simply result in the public resenting women’s sport further.

    • ELBOWGREASE says:

      12:15pm | 27/01/10

      Why don’t you re-purpose some Olympic funds into womens sport miss Ellis?

    • PG says:

      12:18pm | 27/01/10

      When you strip it all away sport is a just another means like business or economics of deciding who winners are and who losers are.Sexually men don’t care if women are winners or losers—however this is important to women as they choose mates who will be able to provide security and resources for them and their children (and deny it to others). Meaning Men are interested in mens sport as it can associate them with winning and thus desirable and women are interested from their sexual perspective. What we can say is useful about women sports is that it makes them healthy compared to the high obesity levels in men

    • mike j says:

      12:31pm | 27/01/10

      Oh, right, the vicious cycle affecting women’s sports. I like how you did that. You know, tried to make the lower market share of women’s sports seem like a self-perpetuating cycle rather than any sort of function of merit or quality.

      I also like how you gave statistics on men’s sports getting more coverage, conveniently presented in the absence of statistics on popularity and gender participation in competitive sports which, presumably, didn’t help your argument.

      You pose the question: ‘do we really want to be driving a market based on sex, fashion and drama?’ You… don’t really understand what a market is, do you Kate. Why don’t you have a chat to Wayne Swan. I know the current Labor government seems to think it can dictate to people what they want, but I’m afraid it just doesn’t work like that.

      Sadly, I think the alternative you propose, a market based on tokenism, would fail.

    • Cal says:

      12:34pm | 27/01/10

      Nick,

      I think that the problem lies more with Channel 7’s cavalier attitude to covering the sport than the fact it was a game of women’s tennis. Yesterday afternoon Andy Roddick was waging a spirited fightback against Marin Cilic pushing the match to 5 sets (these are two top 15 male tennis players as well) and instead Home & Away gets aired after the news/TT double-act. That is just the most recent example, I can name four or five from this year’s tournament alone.

      Even with something as simple as advertisement breaks the coverage often crosses back after the next game has started and action is missed - across matches involving either gender.

    • Scott says:

      12:35pm | 27/01/10

      As has been mentioned previously. Funny how women complain about such things but do nothing to support womens sport. I happened to wander down to a domestic women cricket game before Christmas and their was less than 50 people at it, majority of them were still male. So ladies if you have a problem how about you start supporting your gender and sport by attending it?

    • Carol says:

      09:19am | 28/01/10

      Because many of us are too busy looking after the bloody kids and cleaning the house on a Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday when our husbands are at their unpaid “second job” of suburban sport.

    • Daniel says:

      12:39pm | 27/01/10

      Women will get equal coverage when they are judged by the free-market to have matches that are equally worth watching. 
      Equal pay for at most 3/5ths of a match doesn’t really seem fair either.
      Or perhaps you could do an article on lower coverage of male models? (although that gap is reducing thanks to the (re)sexualisation of the male body)

    • bec says:

      09:37pm | 27/01/10

      Ha! Annual tennis competitions have no incentive to make women play five sets. It’s way more economical to give them equal pay for those three sets than it is to actually stage five sets.

    • Dazl says:

      12:44pm | 27/01/10

      Kate
      As you well know
      “Commercial Sports” coverage is dictated by Viewer interest (attendance No’s, viewer No’s) and Sponsorship ($ invested by advertisers e.g. golf). This gives us the % media coverage that we have.

      Marketing and performance assisting ploys such as fashion choice and tight compression garments tend to favour an individual athletes (finanial)sponsorship and coverage rather than increase the coverage of sport as a whole.

      I cant recall the coverage of athletics increasing in reverse proportion to the amount of clothing worn, but I can see renewed interest in Venus Williams.  A sponsor (and Venus?) will want to put a logo that isdisplayed every time that her tennis skirt / dress heads North. The percentage of time given to coverage of all Womens Tennis wil remain roughly in the same ball park but Venus’ percent coverage will increase.  Would this be the same ploy that Kate uses when an attire is chosen for an event?

    • Miles says:

      12:57pm | 27/01/10

      T Chong has pretty much summed it up.  It’s the players themselves that are doing this - nobody is forcing them to constantly compete in the fashion stakes.  They’ll do whatever it takes to raise their profile and land that next sponsorship deal…

    • Gary says:

      01:00pm | 27/01/10

      Maybe women should be complaigning about their sisters in countries where female genital mutilation occurs like Saudi Arabia. Where women are stoned to death. I like sport as much as the next person but I think there is too much sport already and far too much money being spent in general on sport. It’s high time we evolved to the point where more money is spent on Medical and Scientific research than people with good hand/eye co-ordination. maybe then we could eliminate both breast and prostate cancer.

    • Vicki PS says:

      01:06pm | 27/01/10

      Quote: “We have unsung heroes, great achievements and the sort of sporting accomplishments that we should all be holding up proudly”.  What?  It’s professional sport, for God’s sake.  These people (ie. professional sportsmen and women) are highly paid entertainers.  Some may find professional sport enthralling, but frankly I don’t look to that sphere for heroism and great achievements.  Earning large amounts of money for keeping the masses entertained is just them doing their job, isn’t it?

    • adam macleod says:

      01:22pm | 27/01/10

      Women’s tennis seems to have maintained the same level of popularity for as long as I can remember.  The fashion seems to have made no difference at all. 

      Maybe one thing that has changed is the professionalism in the sport…..could the ladies play 5-set matches?  Best of 5 sets is more entertaining becuase it allows more shifts in momentum throughout the course of a match.

      Anyway,  9% is a very low figure for ladies sport overall.  As a father with 2 young daughters, I would like them to be able to see more womens sport on telly…..this in turn helps with increased participation.

    • Alleged chauvenist says:

      01:37pm | 27/01/10

      Kate,

      The reason that women’s sport does not (and never will have) as much media coverage as men’s sport is that the standard simply isn’t as high. No woman could come close to competing with the best male athletes in the world in any of the most popular sports in Australia, it is therefore unreasonable to expect the same level of sponsorship and media coverage as the competition is second-rate at best.

    • John Adams says:

      01:39pm | 27/01/10

      My only point of debate is wasn’t it Serena and not Venus?

    • Mo says:

      01:51pm | 27/01/10

      I’ll be honest.  I’m a male who enjoys watching women’s sport when good looking women play it.  Tennis - a big fan of Caroline Wozniacki and Daniella Hantuchova while golf - nothing beats watching Natalie Gulbis and Paula Creamer.

      As immature and degrading as it sounds these are my reasons.

    • James says:

      01:52pm | 27/01/10

      You can’t just say you want to see more women’s sport because it’s “fair”. The fact is, Kate, your percentages of coverage will be directly proportional to ratings, i.e. what people want to see and what they will pay to attend.  Bring the audience then you will get the coverage, not the other way around.

      Furthermore, considering your job, you’re completely overlooking participation rates!  Look at the numbers of teenage boys playing sport compared to girls.  Any sort of pattern developing??

      Forgetting any sexism debate you could name dozens of sports that get no TV coverage for the same reason - low participation, low audience, low interest!  Very few people are willing to watch rowing, or gymnastics, or international frisbee.

    • nb says:

      01:54pm | 27/01/10

      I might actually care about women’s sport if it was actually entertaining. But it’s not, it’s boring, hence why no one watches it and why the sponsor dollars dont come in. Given a choice of watching a five set epic between Feds and Nadal or a straight sets trashing handed out by Serena, I know which I’d be choosing. I don’t see any reason for women to complain anyway, their prizemoney for the grand slams is the same as the men yet they spend alot less time on court than the guys do.

    • Barro says:

      01:56pm | 27/01/10

      Interesting to note that the most watched sporting event featuring a woman in Australia’s history was Cathy Freeman winning the 400m in Sydney. Now Kate, you have been so proud in denouncing the quantity of olympic funding .....  what hypocrisy you speak!
      As for what the tennis players wear, blame the sports brands, Nike pay Sharapova $70 million to design tennis dresses, as well as unknown amounts to Venus and Serena for the same.

    • sam says:

      02:14pm | 27/01/10

      bitching and moaning about the disproportionate levels of coverage for female vs male sports is patently ridiculous. one can whine on and on about the talented women performing in their given sports, but at the end of the day, there is NOT A SINGLE SPORT PLAYED BY WOMEN that is as enjoyable to watch as men’s sports. the athleticism, speed, strength etc of women is not just second rate, but closer to 4th or 5th rate compared to professional male athletes.

      the advent of fashion taking a greater part of the coverage of the sport is clearly indicative of the sub-standard quality of women’s sport. have you even looked at the quality of women’s tennis of late? take for example henin and clijsters. they take off a huge chunk of time, come back and are instantly competitive - clijsters even won the US for crying out loud. this says far less about the talent and ability of clijsters than it does about the low quality of the women’s tour.

      women get less media coverage and less money through that because they are selling a sub-standard package. women athletes DO NOT have some inalienable right to people’s wallets. they have to make us want to see (and pay to see) their endeavours. i respect the hard work all these athletes put in, and the sacrifices they make, but that alone doesnt make me want to go watch a sport thats being played at less than 50% of the ability and athleticism of what the men are doing.

    • MarK says:

      05:34pm | 27/01/10

      Womens tennis was one sport where the entertainment value actually became close to being comparable to mens tennis… while they lakced the speed power and athletic ability, they had an aesthetic advantage… but then they all started grunting louding than a bunch of baboons….

    • Bo says:

      02:15pm | 27/01/10

      Most guys don’t care about female sports except for the perve as the standards are not as good, and most women don’t care about female sports, what are you gonna do? You can’t force poepl to enjoy 2nd rate competitions.
        When men compete against women and they start to win only then will you change the opinions of most, and that ain;t gonna happen.

    • SB says:

      02:25pm | 27/01/10

      i dont like most sport and would happily see it exist only in some pay TV channel or magazine extra. The fact that it ranks as NEWS is beyond me. But besides that, if sport remains SO popular, it is for one reason - people like to compete and see the ‘best’.. its a case of optimal skill. Women unfortunately rank below men (cant compete with them) and then we have the handicapped sports.. and kids sports and so on.. it makes sense that the TOP performers would be the most watched. Duh

    • Phuong says:

      03:03pm | 27/01/10

      Its jealousy really. Male tennis players really need to look at what they wear. Its boring. Thank god for the Williams sister for putting on a show. Mixing fashion and skills. Thats talent people. You don’t deserve the 1 seed title if you can’t co-ordinate. Bring the Beckham into tennis i say.

    • Ferret says:

      03:08pm | 27/01/10

      Lets look at snowboarding. Females have a natural advantage in the ability to spin and shift their body position due to the difference in the centre of gravity to males. My wife and I watched a snowboardingg show and the guys are pulling crazy tricks. Next up the females all perform 180s and a little board grab here and there. The girls were completely boring, even my wife was condemning them. We watch women’s basketball, boring. Tennis? Women can only play base line slug fests mixed with a round of grunts. Netball? Well as mentioned before they screwed themselves with their media deal. Cry me a river and get over it, until female sport is of a quality and professionalism that I am not wondering whether the local under 12s are playing I will not bother my time with watching it, this includes volleyball.

    • SM says:

      03:23pm | 27/01/10

      Myself, I make an exception when it comes to womens volleyball…

    • E says:

      03:10pm | 27/01/10

      maybe we should just get over sport, and rather than attempting to raise womens sports to the semi-religous fervor and multimillion dollar farce which is mens sport, just pull the plug on the lot and spend time doing more important things?

    • SM says:

      03:18pm | 27/01/10

      Ms Ellis, now that you’ve commissioned this report and been alerted to the fact that no-one’s interested in watching womens sport, apart from coming on here and telling us what the findings were, what do you intend to do in response?

    • 6clegs says:

      03:39pm | 27/01/10

      *ahem*

      and then there’s Equestrian where both genders compete—- get-ready-for-it—- Each Other!
      Imagine that?! men and women competing on the same ‘playing field’ Dressage Arena/Show Jumping course/Eventing course/Endurance track/Carriage Driving/Showing arena.
      It’s just too shocking for words!
      And, they wear the SAME outfits. WoW. Thats just too radical!

      So, Ms Ellis, have you ever wandered out to SEIC or Werribee and watched men and women compete against eachother?

      No, thought not. (least i’ve never seen you out there at any of the big/international events… )

      as for Tennis players and chocolate coloured undies, why is that even a story!?

    • bananabender says:

      10:02pm | 27/01/10

      It is really the horses that are competing with each other not the riders. A good rider on great horse will always beat a great rider on an average horse. The horses used in international equestrian events are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    • IMHO says:

      03:46pm | 27/01/10

      @Zeta (1:09pm) very cool post!

      @KateEllis (sports minister): Why would you want to dictate to people what they should watch! Why is sexism implied in the 9% figure! If I don’t like or buy Aboriginal art, does that make me racist?

      Zeta is so right….why is this labour government wasting so much of our money on crap like this!!??

      Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!! (An expression of mild frustration)

    • Jon G says:

      04:27pm | 27/01/10

      Tennis is the worst possible example that the Minister could have used to illustrate superficial interest in female sport. The Williams sisters have been shilling their respective clothing lines for years, Sharapova is a walking billboard for a watch manufacturer and Kournikova will always be known for image not results. That the best players in the world have followed Kournikova’s lead is an indictment of the mercenary nature of modern female tennis players, not the commentators or spectators.

    • Max says:

      04:59pm | 27/01/10

      It’s pretty obvious.  It’s the same reason we don’t see much college sport, high school sport, B grade sport etc.  People normally want to watch the highest level of sport, and that’s almost always the men’s competition.

    • money talks says:

      07:18pm | 27/01/10

      When I watch sport, I want value for my time and money. So the sport with bigger, stronger, quicker, more able athletes, will always get my support. When female athletes can match male athletes in these areas, then they will get my business. Until then, the girls are just a sideshow attraction that are easy on the eyes.

    • The Imam says:

      11:05pm | 27/01/10

      Women’s sport will gain respect at about the same time as politicians selected for their youthful looks earn their ministerial positions…

    • Realist says:

      03:05am | 28/01/10

      Poorer contests, less sets, less interest.. yet they demand (and get) the same prize money. At least fashion talk gets them in the papers. Let’s be honest - when you think of tennis greats, the first 10 names that come to mind will not be women.

    • Noreen says:

      05:08am | 28/01/10

      There should be some ruling on the clothes women were on court it is SPORT not a fasion shown.AGREE/???

    • Leanne Tander's helmet says:

      06:25am | 28/01/10

      Give it up, Kate.  Men like it this way as it’s all about them. I noticed that you don’t even mention that mens’ sport coverage almost exclusively dominates weekend television viewing, when both men AND women are at home after a working week (and aren’t all interested in sport) and in some time slots there is absolutely no alternative.  Men don’t have any right to cry poor about this issue at all.  This is why women grow up with the idea that sport is a waste of time. It’s not worth the bother, as there is nothing to strive for. The inequities start way down at school level, where the resources, time and coverage are poured into boys’ sporting teams and development while girls are largely ignored. I wouldn’t have a problem if there were something (it doesn’t have to be sport) that the girls got access to equally, but there isn’t. Girls aren’t encouraged to participate in anything that leads to this kind of opportunity or celebrity (because there’s no equivalent opportunity for women), only to ‘support the boys’, in the traditional role. The few that do make it onto the sporting celebrity stage are so few and far between that they really do stand out, and so attract the perverse kind of celebrity that you describe.  When men’s sport is only valued insofar as how physically attractive its players are (which, lets face it, is the only thing a lot of ‘sports’ people have going for them), then we’ll all be equal.

    • Tim says:

      08:46am | 28/01/10

      When women compete at the same level as men and don’t complain about how unfair everything is, then we will all be equal.

    • Drew says:

      10:05am | 29/01/10

      I agree TIm - those statistics need context.

      My own first class limited overs strike rate is 200. It sounds good like that, but then I point out that I only ever faced three balls, blocking one, hitting a six, then being bowled out.

    • cats says:

      12:21pm | 29/01/10

      Tim, please explain how/why women are not competing at the same level as men?

    • Tim says:

      03:11pm | 29/01/10

      Cats,
      Tennis- Men 5 Set games, Women 3 Set games.
                Mens serve 220km/hr, Womens serve 190km/hr
      And that’s barely scratching the surface.
      If women want equal coverage, then they should enter the men’s competition and see how they go.

    • cats says:

      04:50pm | 29/01/10

      Tim, please explain how women are supposed to transform their bodies to match a man’s strength to be able to serve that fast, or have the same stamina as men?

      There is a reason women and men don’t compete against each other in sports. To do this would put women at an unfair disadvantage.

      But you already know this. So why are you saying women should compete against men to be equal, if we can’t?

    • cats says:

      04:52pm | 29/01/10

      Look i honestly don’t care about women’s sport, i just think that your statement was really stupid.

    • Bill says:

      07:46am | 28/01/10

      ‘She became the first female cricketer to be inducted in the Australian Sports Hall of Fame with a bowling average of 11.80 – compared to Shane Warne’s 25.41 and a Test average of 57.46 runs compared to Ponting’s.’  Was Ponting’s average of 55.67 left out intentionally because Betty was just two above it?  I wonder?

      She played 11 Tests.  That’s right 11.  Way to skew statistics when comparing them to someone who’s played nearly 150 tests.  Let’s not let open disclosure and accuracy of reporting get in the way of a good story though.

    • retired says:

      09:00am | 28/01/10

      Do politicians go to sport to watch, or be watched? A great way to increase media interest in women’s sport would be if it were attended by the pollies who otherwise attend AFL/ARL Grand Finals or Test cricket. But perhaps not. Neither the pollies nor the sport is interesting.

    • ELBOWGREASE says:

      01:15pm | 28/01/10

      I agree with the Imam.
      From miss Ellis’ form so far not much serious work just a lot of school girl moaning about it not being, like, you know, fair.

    • Johanna Adriaanse, Chair International Working Gro says:

      02:28pm | 28/01/10

      Thanks Kate, for your stance on this issue and funding the research.  These data confirm the shocking lack of progress re. media coverage for women’s sport.  But there is hope!!  At the next 5th IWG World Conference on Women and Sport in May in Sydney with the ‘best and brightest’ in town we are determined to address it.  Sports women deserve coverage and sponsorship opportunities!!  Girls need sports women as rolemodels!!

    • IMHO says:

      03:25pm | 28/01/10

      I was reading the above post from Johanna, and thinking what wonderful satire it is!

      It is satire….isn’t it?

    • Bill says:

      05:34am | 29/01/10

      Nothing like gratutious sucking up is there?

    • &rew; says:

      10:34am | 29/01/10

      Answering for myself, there are some sports I like to watch, and some I don’t.

      For example, I don’t much like rugby league, basketball, volleyball, squash, badminton… No disrespect to people who play, watch and love these sports - they just don’t do it for me. So I wouldn’t watch the Lakers play the Celtics, and I wouldn’t watch Brazil play the USA (apparently the two highest ranked women’s volleyball nations?), even if they played naked.

      I do like soccer, AFL, rugby union, American football, netball, tennis, cycling…. I watched a lot of the matches in the 2007 FIFA Women’s World Cup, as well as the 2008 Under 20 Women’s World Cup, where fashion is not a consideration. And I love a good, close, Trans Tasman Netball stoush, and still would if the players wore baggy knee-length shorts.

    • IMHO says:

      12:06pm | 29/01/10

      Well…OK…maybe if they were naked…

    • Fan says:

      04:49pm | 13/03/10

      If you wan to watch a female sport where fashion is non existant, try Rugby Union. The Wallaroos are the most successful rugby team in Australia at the moment (7’s). They are in a World Cup year. Currently funding will seise after this campaign, despite their success. The women in this team train 2-3 hours a day ON TOP of their normal working jobs. They have been asked to source their own accommodation for their next camp and they don’t get paid. Men who play club rugby get paid more than these National Athletes. These women play the sport for the pure passion and love of the game. They wear Green and Gold and don’t ask for anything else. They are loyal to their club and state teams and don’t jump teams to get paid (at all). This is not just a job for them. it is a sport, it is a life and it is heaven, where rugby is played. Maybe if the Wallabies played their game with as much dedication and passion as these women, they might me a little more successful?

    • LP says:

      12:08pm | 22/05/10

      I’m just a teenaged girl and at the momment in my sport class were studying “Women coverage in sports.” It disgust me to think that men out there are impowering the women. Their are female athletes who have more talent then many other male athletes but aren’t getting the media’s coverage. Have any of you ever looked at the newspaper, there is at least ten pages about male sports and you would be lucky to find at least one article about females. If you do find an article about a female sport, the male demographic transforms a serious athlete into a sex object. Think of young girls, isn’t this setting a bad example for us, no one to look up too, no hero or inspiration in female sports. Women need to be treated with more respect, treated equally to men in sports. What has our world come to?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

@markatextor @AgnessMack Ha. Ancient history mate.

Malcolm Farr

@markatextor I mist be old because I was furious at some kiddie journos in Brisbane last week calling the Leader of the Opposition Tony.

Paul Colgan

@JohnBurnsST great story about Cork -I suspect many are of the view that the tradition continues on Friday and Saturday nights down there

Paul Colgan

RT @irfurugby: Congratulations @leinsterrugby, you're once, twice, three times a champion! Commiserations @UlsterRugby you did us proud! #irishrugby#proud

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld

The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld

Reluctant as I am to bowl up consecutive columns on the same subject, the spectacularly tawdry and ever-evolving…

The brave chronicler of Mexico’s deadly drug war

The brave chronicler of Mexico’s deadly drug war

Ciudad Juarez, which shares a border with El Paso, in Texas, is the most violent city on earth. But you…

A fulfilling marriage is more about sext than text

A fulfilling marriage is more about sext than text

Text to my husband: “Have sorted meatballs and worm tablets.” Except I inadvertently send…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

241 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter