So, about that espnW thing…

ESPN, for women. We’d be remiss as Ladies… if we didn’t weigh in on this ridiculous idea that’s apparently a real thing, and not an Onion article.

Click for source...made by Miss Minda

Miss Minda: Apparently we aren’t smart enough to understand the real ESPN, because it belongs to our dads, our boyfriends, and that cute guy at work we’re always trying to impress.

Games Mistress: What’s kind of worrying me is that they’re going to use this as an excuse to segregate their women’s sports coverage over there.  Which would suck because one of the things I like about ESPN is that they don’t treat women’s basketball like it’s any different than any of the other “minor” sports they cover.

But I am obviously not a “typical” woman, because apparently hardly any women watch the men’s lacrosse coverage, and men’s lacrosse is AWESOME.

Also: the fitness thing again?  Why is it anything specifically geared to women has to comment on our physical appearance?

CuteSports: I feel like this [will be] sports for the women who buy pink jerseys and make their March Madness picks based on uniforms and mascots.

Miss Minda: Agreed. And my question is: Will those women actually consume espnW? I am inclined to think they will not.

Nicole: Yeah, they needed a push to become interested in mainstream sports and presumably have a man they’re trying to connect with by doing so. If they’re barely into NFL why would you think they’ll sit down and watch gymnastics, women’s bball or field hockey.

Games Mistress: See, I think if the problem in getting people who aren’t super sports fans to come to ESPN is that they are intimidated by the detailed coverage, then maybe they should have a series or section of the website that focuses on the basics of different sports — explains the rules, who some of the current stars are, etc.  But it shouldn’t be aimed ONLY at women — there are plenty of men who might find that useful (I’m thinking particularly with soccer) and then you wouldn’t insult all of the women who actually are knowledgable fans.

I get WHAT they’re after here: pretty much anyone in the US who is a big sports fan watches ESPN already, so they’ve basically maximized their viewing audience and now they are trying to find ways to draw new viewers.  But I think they’ve misinterpreted the problem as a gender thing because women are the biggest chunk of the group that doesn’t watch.

Lady Bee:  I’m with you gals on all counts. I find it patronizing. I don’t want my news put through a pink filter. It’s 2010. People need to stop being surprised that women dig sports.

The debate kind of raises questions about what we do in a sense, BUT I would also add that what we do (our general lusting over athletes) is pretty tongue-in-cheek and generally balanced with good analysis and opinion.

THE Blonde Bomber: I find the whole thing commical.  I don’t know if they are attempting to cater to those of us ladies who already dig sports or if they are reaching out to an untapped audience. If they’re gonna water it down for the former, that’s ridiculous. If they are trying to reach out to an untapped audience I hope it’s not in a patronizing way, but then again, as long as there are those girls buying pink jerseys and pretending to like sports to snag dudes, can we blame espn for being busiess people.

I’m actually ok with them showin ladies sports on it… Don’t throw tomatos at me:)

Also, anything think lady sports casters have gotten too close to male territory, so this might be an outlet to switch them to. Men love us on the sidelines in a cowboys cheerleader outfit but not with a mic!