These 'minority few' ladies were trained to focus only on details that their limited brain functions could pass an opinion on - details that they could actually pretend to understand. Improving the business and the 'real' drivers behind their job and the success factors that paid for their lemon rice and eggs - were, quite simply, beyond their grasp. They didn't even pretend that they understood stuff that went behind the inner workings of their daily jobs. It was assumed that those were things they didn't have to understand. Of course they unfailingly called other women, who were interested in such details, as 'bitches' or 'women of loose character'. It was their nature to negatively brand their tribeswomen who deviated from "normal" behavior. Such ladies blotted the reputation of women in general. Slowly, men began to associate 'gossip' with women. The managers of such ladies and other ladies in the office who were keen to learn the work and move up the ladder looked upon the 'gossipers' as a necessary evil. Almost with a sort of a sympathy that you reserve for the last rank fellow in class - "I wish he would improve but then I need a few people to get poor marks so that I can look better". These women permanently blotted the records of other women who were, you know, actually intelligent. The time has come to stop this. Is there a correlation between women & gossip? No, I say. The truth is that - there is correlation between stupidity and gossip. If you create an environment where women don't exist or have negligible presence - does this mean that the 'gossipers' and 'dim witted' folks will cease to exist. No. They will still remain.
Those ladies will simply be called - men who write about cricket.
The recent trip by the Indian team to Australia, if not anything else, has shown one thing for certain that the Australian and Indian media/spectators are intent on pursuing the 'T.Nagar ladies club' tradition of focusing on the 'gossip'. The Age, Sydney Morning Herald - The Oz Media contingent; Rediff, Hindustan times - the entire Indian Media contingent, Bloggers et all have become the 'ladies' who spend hours together discussing things that have no relevance to cricket. "Hayden called Harbhajan a weed" (can be replaced with "enna kozhuppu paaren pa avanukku. ippadi sollitaan") says one while stuffing 2 kgs on Lemon Rice in their face. On the other side "these rich people BCCI, have no respect for the game" ("enna pana thimiru paaren pa avaanukku. mariyadhaiye illai") says the Aussie while making mashed potatoes.
The cricket players , who strategize, train hard, discipline themselves and do things that form part of cricket skills pause and look at these 'ladies' and wonder "Do they even know what cricket is?". Probably they look at these gossipers with sympathy reserved for retarded folks and they think "thank god! these folks are so retarded. I get to play for India and earn a million dollars". Rahul Dravid in a recent interview made this uncharitable comment to Atherton about the Indian Media and cricket watching public:
"The media in India have been changing rapidly. I actually enjoy reading the papers over here because I’ll get criticised for how I actually captain the team, the bowling changes I make and the field placings I set, rather than, for example, how many times I clap my hands and something equally irrelevant.”
This is exactly what I am talking about. My point is - it is just not a few sections of the media - it is almost everybody. The average cricket watcher's brain is, by evidence of the articles and blog posts, fairly limited. He does not focus on things that are really 'cricket'. All that is irrelevant to our gossiper. That's because this gossiper does not understand cricket. His limited brain function can talk at length about BCCI's money power, Tendulkar's "choking" ("he is selfish player") and how Bhajji "proved everybody wrong"? This is the processing capacity of the average cricket viewer. Australia is no different. Dumb people is not India's birth right. 95% of media coverage in The Age has not been about cricket. It has been writing stuff that should appear in "Personal Column" section of Femina and Women's Era Magazines. High School girls wouldn't be this gossipy and irrelevant. Couldn't be even if they wanted to be. Quotes such as 'He called him this' - 'oh! but you called me that' is the mature discussion of cricket that the bloggers and Media are indulging in. Whats next for these people? - a pillow fight and tickle competition.
Look at this idiot for instance. His first para blabbers over some cliches. That's the only "cricketing thing" he talks about. The other paras talk about profound things like 'who showed the finger' - 'what hayden said' - 'does ponting look like bush' - and he includes a high school like "Nanananananana...hahahahahahaha... we won the CB series, and you guys didn't." This lady does not surprise me. Someone who uses the word 'menopausal' more times than a generation of gynecologists put together (and probably celebrates her menopause anniversary with cakes and candles) is expected to say this. Not everybody understands the game and can talk about its nuances. However, I am more concerned with the rather "high quality" media folks and bloggers who are focusing on high school gossip instead of writing about cricket. At a minimum we should at least stop calling women 'gossipers' and stop stereotyping them because the new brand of cricket writing, I can safely say, is far worse. Has the collective cricketing intelligence of 2 of the biggest cricket crazy nations gone down the drain? Is the youtube generation limited to talking about cricket in terms on things they understand - gossip and silly pillow fights? India won a tournament down under after 1985 and actually won a test match in Perth. Shouldn't there be more cricketing logic to that than just 'getting back at Ponting'? Is this what makes people enjoy cricket nowadays? You tell me.
About 10-15 years ago there was a series of articles on the air dynamics that cause 'reverse swing' in 'Saturday Sports Special'. I am pretty sure if that is published again no one will read it.