No plans for AFL to become AFLM

Out of curiosity I just read the rules of the game - there's no reference to sex or gender at all. There is, however, a gender diversity policy that covers off on this area. Essentially, anyone can apply to join either the AFL or the AFLW, but there are a heap of restrictions on men joining the women's league, including height, weight, strength, medical reports, testosterone levels etc. There are no restrictions on women joining the men's league, unless there's a safety risk. So it is all weasel words that boil down to women being allowed in the men's league, but men not allowed in the women's league. Therefore the AFL is an actual open competition, whereas the AFLW excludes by gender.

Gil and Steve must go.

What do the rules say now? What they said in the 1800's is irrelevant.

I'm well aware of that. My point was that the AFLW isn't separate from the AFL. They could have chosen to create their own national league (the AFL doesn't own footy), but they chose to hitch themselves to the AFL's wagon.

A friend is working on a PhD thesis entitled (provisionally) "Gendering Sports in the 19th Century: Missing the Forrest for the Fish?"

While I understand your point, I'm not sure it's helps the AFLW by comparing it to the competition as it was in the late 1800s. But since you do advance this line, I suggest that no commercial network today would televise Aussie Rules 1800s-style. The AFL is driven by revenues - it will support AFLW only to the extent that it's a commercially viable TV product. If the TV audience switches off because it's not a great "product", then that will be that. Nothing else will matter. It won't mean women won't play footy, just that it won't be televised as often or at all. Perhaps the match of the round, the finals, or just the grand final.

Dear Beni, if you read the first rules of the game in the 19th century you will read they use words that denote gender - he, his.

The AFL is Open to everyone - regardless of gender. If you're good enough you can play AFL. There is no restriction based on gender is there? Tell me where in the rules of the AFL it says only men can play in the AFL competition. As far as I can recall from looking at the rules it never says this. Therefore calling it the AFLM would necessitate a change in the rules of the competition to restrict the competition. I think that is the wrong way to go 100%. Keep it an Open competition for the best of the best.

Well, there were separate Women's Australian Football competitions. Where do you think all of these players appeared out of? Thin air? Well, to some extent some did, but most of them have been playing footy somewhere. Obviously the question was always - who is going to pay for any of this? At least as long as TV rights remain elevated that answer is the AFL, though it's about time they started charging for entry for AFLW. $5, $10, $20 for adults, whatever is necessary for the competition to start generating some real income.

Robert Murphy a couple of years ago used AFLM during a radio show, on 1116sen. It created a ripple that quickly died. The AFL is not that old, and the VFL came out of the VFA. Tradition is only as old as it takes one to say it, it is used by many to perpetuate anachronisms or to stop people having to give reasons to maintain the status quo. Language reflects and shapes society. The use of scoring in AFLW to justify its not worth having this argument is disingenuous. In the fourth year of the VFA the state competitions highest score was 5.17, the lowest 0.6 Further note that the AFL is fully professional whereas the AFLW is p/t. I am content for the AFL to become the AFLM, as this shows an equality of gender.

"AWFL are proudly seperate (sic) to the AFL" Oh, they are financially independent of the AFL so soon?

But it's not separate to the AFL. The players wear the guernseys of the AFL clubs. They are representing the AFL clubs. If the women wanted to be separate they should have started their own competition.

The issue is why the question would even be asked at this point in proceedings..

True. But how are AFLW "proudly separate to the AFL"?

Last night on Media Watch the host talked about the results of a survey, conducted by a relevant and neutral organization, which showed distrust (~87% of survey participants) of news outlets, and beliefs that news articles are driven by agenda and opinions, and no fact checking takes place. It kind of suggests people don’t think news outlets are a reliable source for information. Which brings me to this point… Hocking has said nothing here, and the AFL has to issue tweets to deny false reports.

Sloooooow newsweek

AFLW are creating their own history. Yes, the scores aren’t high, but at least the ladies are giving it a go. The overall atmosphere is fun, it feels safe, & it provides a platform for community bonding. AFLW are proudly seperate to the AFL.

Nicole Livingstone dealt with the question quite sensibly and ended by saying "I think it's everybody's responsibility to continue to push and want for more, so we have to get comfortable with that. It's going to be lumpy, it's going to be bumpy, but it's OK." And it is OK too. On the other hand those pushing for more must be realistic. At the end of the first round last week, the women's competition had yet to break the 100 game mark (it is at 97). It's too early to declare victory. Low scoring in AFLW is a problem, no matter how much it's sugar coated. The average points per team and average winning margin (in brackets) in each of the first three seasons were 33 (17), 35 (18), and 36 (22). The average score and margin after Round 1 last week were 24 and 14. High scoring is one of the game's distinctive features - so it could well turn out to be an existential threat to AFLW if it doesn't find a way to fix it. Marking, kicking and hand passing are also distinctive features of the game. Certainly there some players that are very good in one or two areas, but only a few have them all (still I'm not sure that I've seen any player that is two sided). On average skills were already poor and have not been helped by expansion. Mind you, the AFL doesn't acknowledge that the expansion of the bloke's competition dilutes the skill base, so why would it think it would affect the women's? I watch a lot of women's sport cricket, golf, netball, basketball, tennis, athletics, cycling, etc. Of course it's different in some respects to the blokes' version. But not radically. In fact if I had a swing or putting stroke as pure as any of the top 100 women golfers I'd be a happier man. In short: the AFLW should get what it needs to be successful. But that includes facing up to some existential threats.