Women's Hoops Blog

Inane commentary on a game that deserves far better

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Mike DiMauro suggest that "Readers missed the point," and then sorta defends Danny-boy's column by writing:

Dan's reasoning was a swing and miss. But he raised a point that is hard to argue: That most of the nation doesn't care about the women's tournament. Perhaps that's hard to fathom in Connecticut. Travel with the Huskies, though, and you'll discover he's right.

And yet Shaughnessy has been identified as a misogynist by some in the women's basketball intelligentsia. Their moral outrage is as myopic as Shaughnessy's rationale.

Umm, Mikey, I think YOU missed the point.

Sure, there's often a knee jerk reaction to columns that criticize women's basketball because they're often not actually critiquing. but mocking what they don't know. And, as in Danny-boy's case, his opinion drew a lot of criticism from "the women's basketball intelligentsia" (can I get a t-shirt that says that?) because not only was he saying he disliked something he didn't know, but he was spouting "facts" that were drop dead wrong -- and a reflection of so much of the crap that clue-free misogynists throw at the women's game.

So, Mikey, we'll stop alienating "potential fans who haven't yet discovered why the women's game is worthwhile by being whiny, proprietary foofs" when writers who profess to be professionals stop being fact-free idiots.

Because it's those writers who, by continuing to add to reams and pixels of bullcrap that is written against the women's game, that are misinforming and turning away "potential fans who haven't yet discovered why the women's game is worthwhile."

Hey, there's plenty to poke at in the women's game. And I promise, I'll be the first one to forgive a "Lady Husky" reference or a "Pat Sumit" (maybe) error if the content reflects a level of thoughtful analysis.

When Danny-boy writes it, send along a link, wontcha Mikey?