O/T The Cisco Kid & Keith bickering thread

[Old Man Kensey]

I think the discussion was who can give the best opinions and insights into a sport.
Surely someone who has played the sport to the highest level should fill that brief.
So I have no concerns if the BBC use a full female team for Women's Euro's or for that matter a full male team for the Men's Euro's.
I have no concerns if it is deemed best to have a mixed team, so long as everyone is there as they are the best person for the job.

I'll also add that having read the thread a couple of times I'm at a loss to see what Keith has said wrong.

[captain sparkle]

Yes, I think Shrimp Girl's got it, Keith is ultimately responsible for whatever's posted on here (that's why i wouldn't want to run a forum) So...IT'S ALL HIS FAULT!!
But, how shall I put it, I've seen a lot worse on "Soshul Meeja" in general,
AND I don't think they'll get a lot of support on here.
It's giving us chance to do this! for example, and also to see what other people think about things.
We wouldn't have that chance if it was moderated away (straight away).
Personally I don't care who commentates on what, as long as they genuinely know what's going on, and they have a bit of personality,(but not too much!) I like to be entertained too!


Anyway, who'll be commentating when the Monkey Tennis starts?

[Freez]

Glen and I are free??

[captain sparkle]

Thankyou!

The paranoia was starting...............

[Potted Shrimp]

What I hate the most about women’s football is the fact that people are not allowed to criticise it, or say they don’t like watching it because the standard is poor - which indeed it is in comparison to men’s football.

Anyone who does is sexist, misogynist or chauvinist or whatever. It’s diabolical and is representative of today’s modern woke culture.

The interest in the game is minimal therefor tickets are ridiculously cheap or free and the only reason why tv/radio are covering it so much is because if they don’t they will be criticised.

I can barely watch 5 minutes of women’s football personally - it’s dreadful. And I couldn’t care less if that offends anyone!

[Freez]

And your opinion is just that. Yours.
It’s not offensive to have an opinion, but the opinion in itself may offend someone, and they may well argue the opposite. That’s surely what a message board is intrinsically for??
I don’t mind womens footy, it’s isn’t as physical, or as athletic, and comparing it to mens is an obvious thing to do, but for me it is similar to watching boys football, it’s different. Same game, played differently.
But that’s just me.

[Bristol Shrimp]

There's arguing back and then there's this kind of attacking though; it does seem that if you don't like it, you're sexist and a terrible person. I don't see that as arguing a case so much as attacking the other person for having that opinion? I personally like women's football, I see it as our best chance to win another competition (euro 92 will not be repeated with the change in backpass rule)

[Keith]

You are the custodian of the site if I am correct?

Would you allow Racist discussion
Would you allow an anti gay discussion?

But Sexism is OK?

Take out female presenter and substitute for any of the above and see if you would have stepped in to modorate?

Each post has a button to report it for inappropriate content. Did you choose to report anything inappropriate? No, you chose to pass that by and not report it, SHAME ON YOU! If you saw a homophobic post, would you report it? If you saw a racist post, would you report it? But something misogynistic, you don't report it, you just have a flounce.

See how this works in both directions?

You then rely upon a straw man fallacy. If, to follow your argument, there was a tournament that only black players were allowed in, or only gay players were allowed in, then there may be a reasonable debate about whether there should only be black or gay commentators at that tournament. I suspect there would be a lively debate then.

This discussion moved on to being about the quality of pundits and whether someone needed to have played at the highest level of the game in order to be a good pundit? You'll notice that the majority of response was actually to say this was not the case, my own position included. I have no problem with female pundits in the male game. They don't need to have won Premier League titles to have a knowledgable opinion of the game.

You could have joined the discussion to explain why the comments that you disagreed with were wrong. This is after all, a 'discussion board'. But you didn't do that either.

I have half-watched one game, yesterday's Spain v Germany match. The error by the Spanish keeper for the first goal was pretty poor and in my opinion, the standard is generally National League/League Two-ish, so I'm not fussed about watching it. If England reach the semi-final, I'll probably make a point of watching. Is that sexist & misogynistic? Well, I've also said elsewhere that I think it is disgraceful that the men's World Cup is being played in Qatar due to their dreadful human rights record and treatment of women. A woman who is raped in Qatar can go to prison if she reports it, for having sex outside of marriage. Gay male footballers better hadn't take their husband/partner or they face prison too. I won't watch a game, even if England meet Wales in the final. Clearly I'm a misandrist and should hang my head in shame?

[P/T Indie]

I went years ago to watch England v Sweden with a very open mind it must have been 15-20 years ago, I am sure the game has moved on a lot since then but it was very poor.

What small bits I do watch on TV with the atmosphere and style of play it always reminds me of a friendly. Also the crowd is just loads of kids screaming and doing Mexican waves etc it sounds more like the crowd at soccer aid.

I think if you are new to football or don't watch much live football it is probably ok but when you have watched the physicality of non league and league 2 for years you can't help compare then it becomes a harder watch. I suppose you need to treat them as completely separate events a bit like you might if watching rugby league v rugby union.

[Cisco Kid]

You are the custodian of the site if I am correct?

Would you allow Racist discussion
Would you allow an anti gay discussion?

But Sexism is OK?

Take out female presenter and substitute for any of the above and see if you would have stepped in to modorate?

Each post has a button to report it for inappropriate content. Did you choose to report anything inappropriate? No, you chose to pass that by and not report it, SHAME ON YOU! If you saw a homophobic post, would you report it? If you saw a racist post, would you report it? But something misogynistic, you don't report it, you just have a flounce.

See how this works in both directions?

You then rely upon a straw man fallacy. If, to follow your argument, there was a tournament that only black players were allowed in, or only gay players were allowed in, then there may be a reasonable debate about whether there should only be black or gay commentators at that tournament. I suspect there would be a lively debate then.

This discussion moved on to being about the quality of pundits and whether someone needed to have played at the highest level of the game in order to be a good pundit? You'll notice that the majority of response was actually to say this was not the case, my own position included. I have no problem with female pundits in the male game. They don't need to have won Premier League titles to have a knowledgable opinion of the game.

You could have joined the discussion to explain why the comments that you disagreed with were wrong. This is after all, a 'discussion board'. But you didn't do that either.

I have half-watched one game, yesterday's Spain v Germany match. The error by the Spanish keeper for the first goal was pretty poor and in my opinion, the standard is generally National League/League Two-ish, so I'm not fussed about watching it. If England reach the semi-final, I'll probably make a point of watching. Is that sexist & misogynistic? Well, I've also said elsewhere that I think it is disgraceful that the men's World Cup is being played in Qatar due to their dreadful human rights record and treatment of women. A woman who is raped in Qatar can go to prison if she reports it, for having sex outside of marriage. Gay male footballers better hadn't take their husband/partner or they face prison too. I won't watch a game, even if England meet Wales in the final. Clearly I'm a misandrist and should hang my head in shame?

I think I get it now.

If you see something, report it quietly , don't call it out publicly.

Not sure what the rest of your foam mouthed rant was about, but it looks like it was twisted to suit your narrative.

"Agreed, their natural shape means they cant roll around.
All for equality, so why are mens tv games now headed by women and womens games by, err, women"

Perfectly unsexist opinion, well articulated



It's like the F1 they have a female "pundit" from the women's series but sorry that is like taking a kid out of F3 or some other junior formula and asking them for their expertise on how to drive an F1 car.

I just find it hard to understand how some of them have the relative experience to be an expert on such matters

They don't, but the TV companies have to tick their diversity boxes!

Females to be banned from having an opinion on F1 altogether?



I see the same thing in cricket. They always have a female commentator on men's games. In no way are the 2 games similar.

Get back to the kitchen!

When they say to a female footballer you have played in cup finals before or large international games and experienced this type of game/atmosphere, it's not really the same is it.

What?

Cisco Kid is right. Keith, your own post is not offensive, but if anyone were to "read the thread properly" they would find all the tripe about female commentators/pundits and judge SV contributors accordingly. I was hoping a mod would flag up some kind of warning on the content, as it's precisely this sort of 'banter' that makes some women feel they can't be arsed with it all. It's exactly what the recent Her Game Too initiative was about, and its depressing that a few people on here don't have that respect for female players, presenters and fans

Someone gets it!

Anyway, I shall slink off into the night, before Keith's "I am always right" wrath explodes again in my direction.

At the end of the day, there are some misogynistic views on here and by not calling them out, you are indirectly supporting them Keith. In my opinion, of course.

Mrs Keith must be very proud.

[Keith]

Mrs Keith must be very proud.

Funnily enough, my wife is a person in her own right and very much has her own opinions, rather than being my chattel.

I wont be coming back.

Thirty posts in fourteen years, three of them in this thread. I'm sure we will miss your insights and contributions.

[Keith]

From January 23rd...

...this is a board for the middle-aged to bicker!

Oh the irony!

[Cisco Kid]

Mrs Keith must be very proud.

Funnily enough, my wife is a person in her own right and very much has her own opinions, rather than being my chattel.

I wont be coming back.

Thirty posts in fourteen years, three of them in this thread. I'm sure we will miss your insights and contributions.

But still you don't address the issues raised by myself and Shrimp Girl? That makes you part of the problem in my opinion.

As I said, Shame on you.

Most of those posts were last season when I came across the forum again by chance. I had watched for a while and had spotted how you try and destroy anyone who crosses you, but decided to join in anyway. Never mind.

If you get 5, have a read of this https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/misogyny-womens-sports/127929/ Maybe ask Mrs Keith her opinion.

[Keith]

The issue is, you believe I should censor the discussion board, rather than challenge negative comments. And that by allowing relatively free discussion, I'm at "shame".

There were no comments made that fall under 'hate' speech. None of the comments were illegal. Therefore, challenge them. There were more supportive comments, than negative. There were no comments suggesting that the women's matches shouldn't be covered and shown live on TV. The comments were about the standard and punditry.

Are you genuinely suggesting that the England women would be equal to the England men?
Or, are you simply saying that there is no room for discussion, and anyone suggesting such a thing should be censored & banned?

I've only ever regularly watched Morecambe 'live', most of the time in non-league. I was never deluded enough to believe that Morecambe were as good as Liverpool or Manchester United. But I only cared about Morecambe. I was entertained by watching Morecambe, even during the 1980's, when 'entertainment' was thin on the ground. Therefore, I completely accept that women's football is entertaining. But that does not mean it is equal in standard.

As you are so interested in my wife, the only 'top flight' games I've ever been to both involved Burnley, the team she supports.

In terms of punditry, I have said, I don't believe that playing at top level is a requirement to be a decent pundit, anymore than it is a requirement to be a great manager. A knowledgable, engaging woman pundit is far better than a Premier League winning, dull and dim male pundit. I'm not sure how you are struggling to understand that?

Challenge the negative comments with a reasoned argument. ...that's why it is called a 'discussion board'.

And I don't "try and destroy anyone who crosses" me. If I was so inclined, it would take a moment to disable your account. If people disagree with me, then as long as it isn't abusive, fine. I'm not stopping your freedom to post challenges to me. But equally, if you do want to cry 'shame', then expect me to defend myself.

[Cisco Kid]

The issue is, you believe I should censor the discussion board, rather than challenge negative comments. And that by allowing relatively free discussion, I'm at "shame".

There were no comments made that fall under 'hate' speech. None of the comments were illegal. Therefore, challenge them. There were more supportive comments, than negative. There were no comments suggesting that the women's matches shouldn't be covered and shown live on TV. The comments were about the standard and punditry.

Are you genuinely suggesting that the England women would be equal to the England men?
Or, are you simply saying that there is no room for discussion, and anyone suggesting such a thing should be censored & banned?

I've only ever regularly watched Morecambe 'live', most of the time in non-league. I was never deluded enough to believe that Morecambe were as good as Liverpool or Manchester United. But I only cared about Morecambe. I was entertained by watching Morecambe, even during the 1980's, when 'entertainment' was thin on the ground. Therefore, I completely accept that women's football is entertaining. But that does not mean it is equal in standard.

As you are so interested in my wife, the only 'top flight' games I've ever been to both involved Burnley, the team she supports.

In terms of punditry, I have said, I don't believe that playing at top level is a requirement to be a decent pundit, anymore than it is a requirement to be a great manager. A knowledgable, engaging woman pundit is far better than a Premier League winning, dull and dim male pundit. I'm not sure how you are struggling to understand that?

Challenge the negative comments with a reasoned argument. ...that's why it is called a 'discussion board'.

And I don't "try and destroy anyone who crosses" me. If I was so inclined, it would take a moment to disable your account. If people disagree with me, then as long as it isn't abusive, fine. I'm not stopping your freedom to post challenges to me. But equally, if you do want to cry 'shame', then expect me to defend myself.

Clearly you are that fixed in your ways, you refuse to address the issues.

If you can't see the issues, you need some other independent modorators.

Someone puts that the women don't roll around on the floor is because of their breasts and you don't see anything wrong?

Someone suggests that women are taking men's jobs, because of box ticking and you don't see anything wrong?

I could go on. No hate speech but morally wrong and dangerous attitudes.

Read the article. It is embarrassing and shameful. I am sorry but you must carry some of that by letting it slide by.

Shrimp Girl's post has been conveniently glossed over to focus on me. I don't mind. I won't stand by either. Too many in power stand by and don't like to be challenged.

However you want to argue or pontificate, you are, in my opinion, enabling this kind of thing by giving it a platform and standing by.

By the way sexism is illegal, ask any employer.

[Shrimp Girl]

I accept there's no 'hate speech' on here. I accept that everyone has different opinions about women in football, commentary, punditry etc. What I would challenge are the examples of knee-jerk 'facts' used to justify those opinions when a lot of them have no foundation and are based in outdated sexist attitudes. 'Ticking the diversity boxes' well I think Ian Wright's demolition of the same argument from Alan Sugar deals with that one. Something to do with Ian Botham being replaced by someone who uses a lighter ball, this is classic whataboutery and not relevant to anything. Women's football is a minority interest - really? Four million watched the England/Austria game, that's some minority there. People are only going because the tickets are free or very cheap, err, how is that different from Morecambe's current pricing policy?
Thing is, if you're a young girl watching this you suddenly have a whole bunch of role models that were largely hidden from view until the last few years. If you're an older woman like me, you see barriers coming down and that's so uplifting. Ellen White's celebration on Monday was so joyful I nearly cried.
I mentioned the Her Game Too initiative earlier on. It's here if anyone missed it https://www.hergametoo.co.uk/
Worth a read, whatever your views on women in football.

And thanks for the support Cisco Kid, your post crossed with mine. Women readers (however many that is) will appreciate it.

[Gone_Shrimping]

I accept there's no 'hate speech' on here. I accept that everyone has different opinions about women in football, commentary, punditry etc. What I would challenge are the examples of knee-jerk 'facts' used to justify those opinions when a lot of them have no foundation and are based in outdated sexist attitudes. 'Ticking the diversity boxes' well I think Ian Wright's demolition of the same argument from Alan Sugar deals with that one. Something to do with Ian Botham being replaced by someone who uses a lighter ball, this is classic whataboutery and not relevant to anything. Women's football is a minority interest - really? Four million watched the England/Austria game, that's some minority there. People are only going because the tickets are free or very cheap, err, how is that different from Morecambe's current pricing policy?
Thing is, if you're a young girl watching this you suddenly have a whole bunch of role models that were largely hidden from view until the last few years. If you're an older woman like me, you see barriers coming down and that's so uplifting. Ellen White's celebration on Monday was so joyful I nearly cried.
I mentioned the Her Game Too initiative earlier on. It's here if anyone missed it https://www.hergametoo.co.uk/
Worth a read, whatever your views on women in football.

And thanks for the support Cisco Kid, your post crossed with mine. Women readers (however many that is) will appreciate it.

I mentioned Ian Botham but I didn't mention a lighter ball. As far as I know the ball is the same in both games but someone else may know better.

[Keith]

I accept there's no 'hate speech' on here. I accept that everyone has different opinions about women in football, commentary, punditry etc. What I would challenge are the examples of knee-jerk 'facts' used to justify those opinions...

I'm not disagreeing with you, and have appreciated and supported many of your well thought out posts over a long period of time. My issue (as I'm sure he knows really) is that 'Cisco Kid' called 'shame' on me, not because of my opinions, but because I failed to censor other people, who, as you stated, posted out of date opinions, but not 'hate speech'. Having opinions that differ is not something that should be censored, they should be challenged with reasoned argument.

[Keith]

If you can't see the issues, you need some other independent modorators.

By the way sexism is illegal, ask any employer.

Well, there are other moderators, you just didn't call "shame" on them for not censoring the posts.

"Sexism" is NOT illegal, even in the work place. Sexual harassment and sexual discrimination are both illegal. Acting in a sexist manner towards a female at work, is almost always likely to be illegal as it is almost certainly harassment or discrimination, however, "sexism" in itself is not. For example, it is not [currently] illegal for a man to 'wolf-whistle' or 'cat call' at a woman in the street. It is pretty abhorrent and clearly 'sexism', but not, as you claim, "illegal".

And, the last I knew, no-one is 'employed' by Shrimpsvoices anyway.

I know you are avoiding it, but a simple yes/no answer to the question I asked you...

Do you think the current women's England team are on a par with the men's England team in terms of quality?

[Cisco Kid]

If you can't see the issues, you need some other independent modorators.

By the way sexism is illegal, ask any employer.

Well, there are other moderators, you just didn't call "shame" on them for not censoring the posts.

"Sexism" is NOT illegal, even in the work place. Sexual harassment and sexual discrimination are both illegal. Acting in a sexist manner towards a female at work, is almost always likely to be illegal as it is almost certainly harassment or discrimination, however, "sexism" in itself is not. For example, it is not [currently] illegal for a man to 'wolf-whistle' or 'cat call' at a woman in the street. It is pretty abhorrent and clearly 'sexism', but not, as you claim, "illegal".

And, the last I knew, no-one is 'employed' by Shrimpsvoices anyway.

I know you are avoiding it, but a simple yes/no answer to the question I asked you...

Do you think the current women's England team are on a par with the men's England team in terms of quality?

That has nothing to do with my issues with this thread. You know fine well what the issues are here and it is YOU avoiding them.

Did you read the article?

When you are down to the bare bones of the semantics between sexism and sexual discrimination, you know it's over.

I didnt know there were other modorators. They could have stepped in too. This site seems to be your personal board to be fair.

Did you change the name of the thread? Using your power to try and intimidate or belittle me? Proving me right again.

I am going to leave it there now before it descends even further into embarrassment.

[Keith]

Yes, I changed the title of this thread, because clearly, no-one would be talking about the football.

I wonder if perhaps the issue is that you believe, if I don't censor views, I'm endorsing them? I don't agree with the [not very funny] 'joke' or other comments. But, as you admitted, they were not 'hate speech'.

I did take offence to you calling "shame" on me, personally, for not censoring others, yet you didn't mention anyone else by name, who had written the comments that you objected to. You didn't even 'report' the comments.

By the way sexism is illegal, ask any employer.

It isn't semantics to point out that this comment was factually inaccurate. You claimed something was "illegal". It simply isn't correct.

[vanillaturtle]

cole stockton sodded me off in the back of gordon ramsay''s fish and chips

[al1]

Womens cricket ball weighs 4.94 to 5.1 ounces,mens ball is 5.5 to5.75 ounces!

[Gone_Shrimping]

Womens cricket ball weighs 4.94 to 5.1 ounces,mens ball is 5.5 to5.75 ounces!

Thanks for that. It would still hurt though !

[red shrimp]

What I hate the most about women’s football is the fact that people are not allowed to criticise it, or say they don’t like watching it because the standard is poor - which indeed it is in comparison to men’s football.

Anyone who does is sexist, misogynist or chauvinist or whatever. It’s diabolical and is representative of today’s modern woke culture.

The interest in the game is minimal therefor tickets are ridiculously cheap or free and the only reason why tv/radio are covering it so much is because if they don’t they will be criticised.

I can barely watch 5 minutes of women’s football personally - it’s dreadful. And I couldn’t care less if that offends anyone!

Here Here! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, can't say any negative about anything these days, the world has gone mad! I personally can't get into woman football, as the standard doesn't entertain me, doesn't mean I am sexist. It is just not for me..