Cisco Kid wrote: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?
Keith wrote:Cisco Kid wrote: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?
Cisco Kid wrote:Mrs Keith must be very proud.
Cisco Kid wrote:I wont be coming back.
Cisco Kid wrote:...this is a board for the middle-aged to bicker!
Keith wrote:Cisco Kid wrote: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.Cisco Kid wrote: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 wrote: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.
Shrimp Girl wrote: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.
Shrimp Girl wrote: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...
Cisco Kid wrote:If you can't see the issues, you need some other independent modorators.
By the way sexism is illegal, ask any employer.
Keith wrote:Cisco Kid wrote: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 wrote:
By the way sexism is illegal, ask any employer.
al1 wrote:Womens cricket ball weighs 4.94 to 5.1 ounces,mens ball is 5.5 to5.75 ounces!
Potted Shrimp wrote: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!
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 34 guests