|
|
Post by axegas on May 24, 2023 12:13:09 GMT
That cheap labour from abroad prevents our health and social care from collapsing so that those with disabilities can live better, more independent lives. Debatable,from over 20 years personal experience I have never seen any benefit to the disabled community,it's a full on battle to get any support whatsoever and as for Employers completely disregarding Disability legislation ,well!! That's true but that's got nothing to do with 'cheap labour from abroad'. |
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on May 24, 2023 12:14:47 GMT
For those who aren't overly happy with coverage, don't forget what happened historically when women’s football was banned for being too popular. Think of it as making up for lost time. "But this isn’t a new discovery. We knew it a century ago — at which point men’s football effectively banned its competitors. The bans lasted decades and hamper women’s football to this day. In the coming new edition of our book Soccernomics, the economist Stefan Szymanski and I argue for reparations: a large-scale programme of investment in the women’s game, paid from men’s football’s revenues, to start redressing the damage. Female football took off in Britain during the first world war, when men left for the front. Women replaced men in factories, and soon formed their own factory teams, the most famous of which was Dick, Kerr Ladies in Preston. They reached their apogee on Boxing Day 1920, beating St Helens 4-0 in front of 53,000 paying spectators at Everton’s sold-out Goodison Park. That terrified the male-run English Football Association. With the war over, and women being returned to the kitchen, in 1921 the FA forbade its affiliated clubs from letting women use their fields. The association’s ruling stated: “The game of football is quite unsuitable for females.” " www.ft.com/content/782659ef-81dd-4238-9b20-968c9c318b37I wasn't going to bite but I will at this comment. I think this FT article demonstrates the agenda of the modern Media to perpetuate this concept of a patriarchy/men bad when they are just perpetuating an agenda that isn't helpful to anyone. The whole tone of the article is us against them but it fails to actually give the facts. 'Men's' football didn't ban women's football. FA introduced a ban on Women's teams being allowed to play football at league grounds. This didn't stop women's teams playing matches and in actual fact women formed the English ladies FA and carried on playing. Dick Kerr carried on as a team until 1965. So to say 'Men' banned the game is deceitful and just not true. As to the reason they FA banned it at league grounds. There were two stated reasons. The first reason. The women's games mentioned were actually one off charity games, there wasn't a league system. They were games played to raise monies for families and war veterans who needed the money to live. This is why so many attended. It was nothing to do with women's football being popular but the fact that they were raising money for people who fought in the war. The FA were concerned that these charity games were not all above board and the monies being mis used (or it could have been they weren't happy at getting a slice of the pie). The ban was to stop the use of FA league grounds for these charity matches The second point is football was deemed not suitable for women by the FA and hence stopped matches at football league grounds on this basis too. The full quote of the FA article was: “Complaints have been made as to football being played by women, the Council feel impelled to express their strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and out not be encouraged. Complaints have also been made as to the conditions under which some of these matches have been arranged and played, and the appropriation of the receipts to other than charitable objects. The Council are further of opinion that an excessive proportion of the receipts are absorbed in expenses and an inadequate percentage devoted to charitable objects. For these reasons the Council request clubs belonging to the Association to refuse the use of their grounds for such matches.”
It's funny how people like the author of the FT article only quote the not suitable for women bit and fail to mention these were charity games. It's easy to see life through our 2023 lens but life was so different back then. People were living in slums with no quality of life, Life expectancy was 50 if you were lucky, No medicines, no antibiotics, high child birth mortality, No NHS, no contraception, no sanitary products, no abortions, no benefits system etc etc. There was a clear divide between a man's and a woman's role in life (as there had been for the whole of history up to that point). With the woman being the homemaker and mother and the man being the breadwinner and the one who went out to war. Through the developments on the 20th century we are now able to live in a world where everyone can look to be equal, follow their dreams and there are very few barriers to do what you want to do in life. What winds me up is articles like the FT one which is done with deceitful rhetoric. Quotes like "redressing the damage", "Female football took off ", "That terrified the male-run English Football Association", "women being returned to the kitchen" show the prejudice mind of the person writing it. As for reparations, oh please.
I think it is fantastic the women's game has come on so much. My daughter plays it and it's great she has that opportunity. This has only been made possible by the interest that has come into the sport in recent years. It's great there is the finance that's going into it. Digging back into history to create more divide serves little purpose to me. I too will bite. 🤔 Come on heartofgas, I didn’t expect that given I often agree with most of what you post. By doing what the FA did and banning women’s football from FL grounds it had the same effect as banning it. It was immediately limited and a glass ceiling imposed on the level women could play to. It immediately stopped equality of opportunity for women to play football. And to believe that is being very disengenuous. ”There wasn’t a league system….” No there wasn’t and it is the FA s job to provide one, anyone else doing that would be called ‘unauthorised‘ I suspect. So provide a league system which of course they didn’t. The idea of misused funds…… evidence? The idea of football being unsuitable for women is laughable. Yet they were suited to be sent to France as undercover agents, work in munition factories and all others kinds of work. But not play football…. Sorry but that idea from the FA a is ridiculous. And for anyone to justify it is just perpetuating peoples stances. Im glad your daughter is enjoying her football, it’s great that she can. Just a shame that others completely capable of doing something similar were stopped from doing so by a group of over-entitled men. Btw I don’t want to fall out with anyone over this but we have to learn from history or else… UTG! |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on May 24, 2023 12:19:47 GMT
Debatable,from over 20 years personal experience I have never seen any benefit to the disabled community,it's a full on battle to get any support whatsoever and as for Employers completely disregarding Disability legislation ,well!! That's true but that's got nothing to do with 'cheap labour from abroad'. The point I am trying to make is that the availability of cheap labour doesn't facilitate employers trying too hard to to provide the appropriate level of support. |
|
|
|
Post by axegas on May 24, 2023 12:25:15 GMT
That's true but that's got nothing to do with 'cheap labour from abroad'. The point I am trying to make is that the availability of cheap labour doesn't facilitate employers trying too hard to to provide the appropriate level of support. There's a labour shortage at the moment, a lot of employers I know are struggling to fill those minimum wage jobs. There's a lack of funding for disability support, lack of enforcement of employment laws that protect disabled people and a lack of drive by the government to support schemes that try and get disabled people back to work. That's where the issue lies. Fed up of this insinuation that every social problem this country faces must pivot back to migration. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on May 24, 2023 12:39:26 GMT
Think of young children. Think of the health benefits, think of the social benefits and the developmental benefits of young, female in this example, participating in organised team sport. It's not just about middle aged men choosing to like or dislike, in fact it is nothing to do with them. The fact that your wife (your example you chose to post up) is "infatuated" with social media covering "foodie" and skin care products rather makes my point. I mean no disrespect to your wife, obviously but I have twin female grand children, 5 years old. I know which path their parents are taking them down and it won't be that, but participative sport is definitely on the table. One of the barriers they will have to overcome is the image of males fighting at football games, male fans exalting the violence and their favoured team's manager advocating reward. In my lifetime, various sports have always been accessible for young children, either in an organised environment, or ad hoc in the parks, fields, streets. My niece has been playing organised football in her primary school for 3 years, she also plays for a team at weekends, this pre-dates the popularity of the Lionesses - the opportunities to play were available, and she got involved. She has attended a few of the local women's games - usually via free tickets being given out. For her generation it is the norm for girls to play football, so the money poured into this has been successful. At the other end of the spectrum, I caught some of the Everton v Brighton ladies game on television at the weekend, I'd be surprised if there were 1,000 people there. This was a Super League match, with Everton in the top half of the table. Not great, considering that Merseyside is supposed to be a hotbed for football. With regard to your final sentence, I can't speak for other clubs, but I haven't witnessed any noteable incidents of males fighting at The Mem in recent years, and there are lots of women and young children attending our games. I don't know which teams have managers who advocate reward for fighting - maybe it's in the Premiership, which isn't particularly on my radar. Your last paragraph. The incident in Holland recently featuring West Ham. It was all over the media with video clips and there was praise for participants. Including by our manager |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgas on May 24, 2023 13:20:47 GMT
I wasn't going to bite but I will at this comment. I think this FT article demonstrates the agenda of the modern Media to perpetuate this concept of a patriarchy/men bad when they are just perpetuating an agenda that isn't helpful to anyone. The whole tone of the article is us against them but it fails to actually give the facts. 'Men's' football didn't ban women's football. The FA introduced a ban on Women's teams being allowed to play football at league grounds. This didn't stop women's teams playing matches and in actual fact women formed the English ladies FA and carried on playing. Dick Kerr carried on as a team until 1965. So to say 'Men' banned the game is deceitful and just not true. As to the reason they FA banned it at league grounds. There were two stated reasons. The first reason. The women's games mentioned were actually one off charity games, there wasn't a league system. They were games played to raise monies for families and war veterans who needed the money to live. This is why so many attended. It was nothing to do with women's football being popular but the fact that they were raising money for people who fought in the war. The FA were concerned that these charity games were not all above board and the monies being mis used (or it could have been they weren't happy at getting a slice of the pie). The ban was to stop the use of FA league grounds for these charity matches The second point is football was deemed not suitable for women by the FA and hence stopped matches at football league grounds on this basis too. The full quote of the FA article was: “Complaints have been made as to football being played by women, the Council feel impelled to express their strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and out not be encouraged. Complaints have also been made as to the conditions under which some of these matches have been arranged and played, and the appropriation of the receipts to other than charitable objects. The Council are further of opinion that an excessive proportion of the receipts are absorbed in expenses and an inadequate percentage devoted to charitable objects. For these reasons the Council request clubs belonging to the Association to refuse the use of their grounds for such matches.”
It's funny how people like the author of the FT article only quote the not suitable for women bit and fail to mention these were charity games. It's easy to see life through our 2023 lens but life was so different back then. People were living in slums with no quality of life, Life expectancy was 50 if you were lucky, No medicines, no antibiotics, high child birth mortality, No NHS, no contraception, no sanitary products, no abortions, no benefits system etc etc. There was a clear divide between a man's and a woman's role in life (as there had been for the whole of history up to that point). With the woman being the homemaker and mother and the man being the breadwinner and the one who went out to war. Through the developments on the 20th century we are now able to live in a world where everyone can look to be equal, follow their dreams and there are very few barriers to do what you want to do in life. What winds me up is articles like the FT one which is done with deceitful rhetoric. Quotes like "redressing the damage", "Female football took off ", "That terrified the male-run English Football Association", "women being returned to the kitchen" show the prejudice mind of the person writing it. As for reparations, oh please.
I think it is fantastic the women's game has come on so much. My daughter plays it and it's great she has that opportunity. This has only been made possible by the interest that has come into the sport in recent years. It's great there is the finance that's going into it. Digging back into history to create more divide serves little purpose to me. I shouldn't bite, but I will. To quote "the Council feel impelled to express their strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and out not be encouraged" Classic Victoriana. Best consigned to the dustbin of history. Then "There was a clear divide between a man's and a woman's role in life (as there had been for the whole of history up to that point). With the woman being the homemaker and mother and the man being the breadwinner and the one who went out to war." Really? "Until the 16th century, when hops first came into use in England and brewing developed into a substantial industry, most ale and beer was still produced by women, known as brewsters. Records from our home town of Faversham in 1327 show all 87 brewers operating in the town were women." www.shepherdneame.co.uk/did-women-create-beer#:~:text=Until%20the%2016th%20century%2C%20when,by%20women%2C%20known%20as%20brewsters. If you deny history you are likely to repeat it. Did anyone mention Bletchley Park? My point over the division of roles was that whatever actions were taken weren't done out of trying to keep women down it was just the way society was then and there was a clear divide between what women could do and men could do, as always there are always exceptions people can point to. My overall point was that the FT article is very misleading about the whole 'banning' of football, which wasn't true. |
|
|
|
Post by bluestickgas1 on May 24, 2023 14:01:32 GMT
In my lifetime, various sports have always been accessible for young children, either in an organised environment, or ad hoc in the parks, fields, streets. My niece has been playing organised football in her primary school for 3 years, she also plays for a team at weekends, this pre-dates the popularity of the Lionesses - the opportunities to play were available, and she got involved. She has attended a few of the local women's games - usually via free tickets being given out. For her generation it is the norm for girls to play football, so the money poured into this has been successful. At the other end of the spectrum, I caught some of the Everton v Brighton ladies game on television at the weekend, I'd be surprised if there were 1,000 people there. This was a Super League match, with Everton in the top half of the table. Not great, considering that Merseyside is supposed to be a hotbed for football. With regard to your final sentence, I can't speak for other clubs, but I haven't witnessed any noteable incidents of males fighting at The Mem in recent years, and there are lots of women and young children attending our games. I don't know which teams have managers who advocate reward for fighting - maybe it's in the Premiership, which isn't particularly on my radar. Your last paragraph. The incident in Holland recently featuring West Ham. It was all over the media with video clips and there was praise for participants. Including by our manager Oldie, I may be mistaken but I haven’t seen anyone praising the thuggish behaviour that took place? What I’ve seen from our manager and others was an individual being recognised for his actions in trying to protect others - families- by putting himself inbetween the thugs and them and providing some way of self defence…. The 2 are very different and I would hope that any of us in that situation would do anything to protect our loved ones from unprovoked aggression and attack? |
|
|
|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on May 24, 2023 14:13:29 GMT
Your last paragraph. The incident in Holland recently featuring West Ham. It was all over the media with video clips and there was praise for participants. Including by our manager Oldie, I may be mistaken but I haven’t seen anyone praising the thuggish behaviour that took place? What I’ve seen from our manager and others was an individual being recognised for his actions in trying to protect others - families- by putting himself inbetween the thugs and them and providing some way of self defence…. The 2 are very different and I would hope that any of us in that situation would do anything to protect our loved ones from unprovoked aggression and attack? Correct - I saw lots of people on social media praising this person for stopping the thugs, who were looking for violence, from reaching the families and friends of club officials. The video seemed to back this up, without question. |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgas on May 24, 2023 14:29:02 GMT
I wasn't going to bite but I will at this comment. I think this FT article demonstrates the agenda of the modern Media to perpetuate this concept of a patriarchy/men bad when they are just perpetuating an agenda that isn't helpful to anyone. The whole tone of the article is us against them but it fails to actually give the facts. 'Men's' football didn't ban women's football. FA introduced a ban on Women's teams being allowed to play football at league grounds. This didn't stop women's teams playing matches and in actual fact women formed the English ladies FA and carried on playing. Dick Kerr carried on as a team until 1965. So to say 'Men' banned the game is deceitful and just not true. As to the reason they FA banned it at league grounds. There were two stated reasons. The first reason. The women's games mentioned were actually one off charity games, there wasn't a league system. They were games played to raise monies for families and war veterans who needed the money to live. This is why so many attended. It was nothing to do with women's football being popular but the fact that they were raising money for people who fought in the war. The FA were concerned that these charity games were not all above board and the monies being mis used (or it could have been they weren't happy at getting a slice of the pie). The ban was to stop the use of FA league grounds for these charity matches The second point is football was deemed not suitable for women by the FA and hence stopped matches at football league grounds on this basis too. The full quote of the FA article was: “Complaints have been made as to football being played by women, the Council feel impelled to express their strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and out not be encouraged. Complaints have also been made as to the conditions under which some of these matches have been arranged and played, and the appropriation of the receipts to other than charitable objects. The Council are further of opinion that an excessive proportion of the receipts are absorbed in expenses and an inadequate percentage devoted to charitable objects. For these reasons the Council request clubs belonging to the Association to refuse the use of their grounds for such matches.”
It's funny how people like the author of the FT article only quote the not suitable for women bit and fail to mention these were charity games. It's easy to see life through our 2023 lens but life was so different back then. People were living in slums with no quality of life, Life expectancy was 50 if you were lucky, No medicines, no antibiotics, high child birth mortality, No NHS, no contraception, no sanitary products, no abortions, no benefits system etc etc. There was a clear divide between a man's and a woman's role in life (as there had been for the whole of history up to that point). With the woman being the homemaker and mother and the man being the breadwinner and the one who went out to war. Through the developments on the 20th century we are now able to live in a world where everyone can look to be equal, follow their dreams and there are very few barriers to do what you want to do in life. What winds me up is articles like the FT one which is done with deceitful rhetoric. Quotes like "redressing the damage", "Female football took off ", "That terrified the male-run English Football Association", "women being returned to the kitchen" show the prejudice mind of the person writing it. As for reparations, oh please.
I think it is fantastic the women's game has come on so much. My daughter plays it and it's great she has that opportunity. This has only been made possible by the interest that has come into the sport in recent years. It's great there is the finance that's going into it. Digging back into history to create more divide serves little purpose to me. I too will bite. 🤔 Come on heartofgas, I didn’t expect that given I often agree with most of what you post. By doing what the FA did and banning women’s football from FL grounds it had the same effect as banning it. It was immediately limited and a glass ceiling imposed on the level women could play to. It immediately stopped equality of opportunity for women to play football. And to believe that is being very disengenuous. ”There wasn’t a league system….” No there wasn’t and it is the FA s job to provide one, anyone else doing that would be called ‘unauthorised‘ I suspect. So provide a league system which of course they didn’t. The idea of misused funds…… evidence? The idea of football being unsuitable for women is laughable. Yet they were suited to be sent to France as undercover agents, work in munition factories and all others kinds of work. But not play football…. Sorry but that idea from the FA a is ridiculous. And for anyone to justify it is just perpetuating peoples stances. Im glad your daughter is enjoying her football, it’s great that she can. Just a shame that others completely capable of doing something similar were stopped from doing so by a group of over-entitled men. Btw I don’t want to fall out with anyone over this but we have to learn from history or else… UTG! But women's football never was a big thing at that time. The teams played half a dozen charity games a year. As i stated, According to the article from the FA it was just as much about not wanting these charity games as about it not being suitable for women (which the medical profession agreed with) This is why the FA took action. I guess you can choose to believe or not the sincerity of the FA on this. As I stated the women's game did carry on and a separate FA was created for ladies. Having said that of course the women's game was limited by sexism and I am in no way trying to defend that. However it was an ongoing thing rather than down to one event in 1921. There was a general mockery and ridiculing of the game and comments from Sepp Blatter like they should wear hot pants etc. and yes the ban should have been lifted much earlier than 1971. Regarding leagues I would say it is the other way round. A group of teams propose a league and they apply to be affiliated to the FA. The FA doesn't create leagues. The part about misuse of funds was related to them being charity games not the fact it was women. They must have had just cause to believe these matches were being used to defraud and the funds weren't ending up with the charitable cause. I think we may be at some cross purposes here though. I am no way justifying what the FA did or suggesting it should have happened. I think anyone who wants the best for society would agree everyone should have equal opportunity to do whatever they want in life. and I think we have learnt from history that discrimination is a bad thing.
As for football now. I would say there is a general lack of investment and amateur-ness about youth grassroots football. Both Boys and Girls. When my eldest son started going to football i was surprised that to have a team relied on a parent stepping forward and running the team. I couldn't imagine that in any other sport. These kids are then being coached by people who are complete novices to coaching. If the FA wanted to do something good of the game they should be looking to finance more professional approach to youth football, both boys and girls. Like I said I think it's fantastic the women's game has come on and these opportunities are there and yes I am glad that my daughter could easily find a local girls team to play for that wouldn't have been there 10 years ago. The fact that it is a professional game for women now also makes a big difference. It's great that this has changed but we can't change history only learn from it as you say. No falling out, we all have different opinions and that's all good. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on May 24, 2023 14:30:39 GMT
The point I am trying to make is that the availability of cheap labour doesn't facilitate employers trying too hard to to provide the appropriate level of support. There's a labour shortage at the moment, a lot of employers I know are struggling to fill those minimum wage jobs. There's a lack of funding for disability support, lack of enforcement of employment laws that protect disabled people and a lack of drive by the government to support schemes that try and get disabled people back to work. That's where the issue lies. Fed up of this insinuation that every social problem this country faces must pivot back to migration. The big boys want us to believe it, it controls us 👍🏼  |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on May 24, 2023 17:14:59 GMT
There's a labour shortage at the moment, a lot of employers I know are struggling to fill those minimum wage jobs. There's a lack of funding for disability support, lack of enforcement of employment laws that protect disabled people and a lack of drive by the government to support schemes that try and get disabled people back to work. That's where the issue lies. Fed up of this insinuation that every social problem this country faces must pivot back to migration. The big boys want us to believe it, it controls us 👍🏼 Oooh,Jock...spot on |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on May 24, 2023 18:32:19 GMT
Because he's being disingenuous. He's playing a game with his words, which he often does. Setting out a controversial view, wondering why those who disagree with it are wanting to manipulate society, and then saying it's not something he is personally invested in. It's his style and it's rather sly. A style which gets some likes because it's sugar coated and seemingly acceptable, but some of us can see through it. And why oh why do we have to resort to this 'would you say it to him in person' stuff? It's a bloody internet forum. If every heated discussion on the internet were to be resolved with a showdown at dawn in the car park, the participants would be queuing for weeks. So the answers no then ? You wouldn’t say this in person ? Thought so 😂😂😂 Wrong. I don't think there's anything I say on here that I wouldn't be willing to say to someone's face in a civilised discussion, even if we disagree. Please don't accuse me of hiding behind a phone. That's a meaningless comment when it's an internet forum we're all part of. How else are we supposed to make our comments? Take megaphones to Broadmead? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2023 19:54:52 GMT
So the answers no then ? You wouldn’t say this in person ? Thought so 😂😂😂 Wrong. I don't think there's anything I say on here that I wouldn't be willing to say to someone's face in a civilised discussion, even if we disagree. Please don't accuse me of hiding behind a phone. That's a meaningless comment when it's an internet forum we're all part of. How else are we supposed to make our comments? Take megaphones to Broadmead? That’s the thing , i think your comments weren’t overly civilised and if talking to the wrong person , in that manner , it’s likely you’d get chinned. *please note this is not a threat as I’m an over weight 40 year old who couldn’t knock the skin off a rice pudding* |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on May 24, 2023 21:04:50 GMT
Wrong. I don't think there's anything I say on here that I wouldn't be willing to say to someone's face in a civilised discussion, even if we disagree. Please don't accuse me of hiding behind a phone. That's a meaningless comment when it's an internet forum we're all part of. How else are we supposed to make our comments? Take megaphones to Broadmead? That’s the thing , i think your comments weren’t overly civilised and if talking to the wrong person , in that manner , it’s likely you’d get chinned. *please note this is not a threat as I’m an over weight 40 year old who couldn’t knock the skin off a rice pudding* No point continuing this discussion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2023 21:25:42 GMT
That’s the thing , i think your comments weren’t overly civilised and if talking to the wrong person , in that manner , it’s likely you’d get chinned. *please note this is not a threat as I’m an over weight 40 year old who couldn’t knock the skin off a rice pudding* No point continuing this discussion. No problem sir |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on May 26, 2023 4:48:52 GMT
I don’t think there was any need for that to be honest , why did you feel it necessary to post such a lippy remark , when everyone else is being civilised , my question to you is , would you be so brave without hiding behind your phone ? Because he's being disingenuous. He's playing a game with his words, which he often does. Setting out a controversial view, wondering why those who disagree with it are wanting to manipulate society, and then saying it's not something he is personally invested in. It's his style and it's rather sly. A style which gets some likes because it's sugar coated and seemingly acceptable, but some of us can see through it. And why oh why do we have to resort to this 'would you say it to him in person' stuff? It's a bloody internet forum. If every heated discussion on the internet were to be resolved with a showdown at dawn in the car park, the participants would be queuing for weeks. [br There is nothing to see through. You're desperate to get an "AHA" moment and 'prove' I'm a racist/sexist because you're unable to appreciate other views as you view everything as a dichotomy, and can’t think beyond unsophisticated partisanship. You’re going to view this as a sugar coat because deep down, you can’t fathom that anyone who doesn’t share your view as being anything but a malignant, bad influence dressing things up for their cause. Don’t forget I was one of you once and I know exactly how it works. I don’t think you’re doing it disingenuously, I know full well you believe what you’ve written, but I’m saying it’s ironically sourced from an intellectual place of solipsism and bigotry, the latter of which I sense is what you suspect lies behind the sugar coat! Your second point I agree with. You’re welcome to say as you please online, that’s the game and I take no offence provided it doesn’t get personal. That’s the like in my opinion. Other than that feel free to spar, I often give as good as I get and I rather enjoy it. As I’ve said, my objection is to bandwaggoning, and as Ive said, i think its progressives like you who want to push this because its a form of activism on gender equality. So Im not playing. This doesn't mean i want to prevent women playing or attending games, far from it. I dont really care if they do or don't - its up to everyone to pursue their own interests. That's basically a libertarian position, which you struggle understanding. You aren’t automatically on the opposite team, there’s a 3rd position, roughly “give your politics a rest and let people be”. Just because I don't want to get with "tHe MeSsAgE" doesn't mean i have some counter programme or message. I just wish they would F off and leave people alone and stop jamming politics into football and everywhere they can. |
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on May 27, 2023 7:43:10 GMT
Because he's being disingenuous. He's playing a game with his words, which he often does. Setting out a controversial view, wondering why those who disagree with it are wanting to manipulate society, and then saying it's not something he is personally invested in. It's his style and it's rather sly. A style which gets some likes because it's sugar coated and seemingly acceptable, but some of us can see through it. And why oh why do we have to resort to this 'would you say it to him in person' stuff? It's a bloody internet forum. If every heated discussion on the internet were to be resolved with a showdown at dawn in the car park, the participants would be queuing for weeks. [br There is nothing to see through. You're desperate to get an "AHA" moment and 'prove' I'm a racist/sexist because you're unable to appreciate other views as you view everything as a dichotomy, and can’t think beyond unsophisticated partisanship. You’re going to view this as a sugar coat because deep down, you can’t fathom that anyone who doesn’t share your view as being anything but a malignant, bad influence dressing things up for their cause. Don’t forget I was one of you once and I know exactly how it works. I don’t think you’re doing it disingenuously, I know full well you believe what you’ve written, but I’m saying it’s ironically sourced from an intellectual place of solipsism and bigotry, the latter of which I sense is what you suspect lies behind the sugar coat! Your second point I agree with. You’re welcome to say as you please online, that’s the game and I take no offence provided it doesn’t get personal. That’s the like in my opinion. Other than that feel free to spar, I often give as good as I get and I rather enjoy it. As I’ve said, my objection is to bandwaggoning, and as Ive said, i think its progressives like you who want to push this because its a form of activism on gender equality. So Im not playing. This doesn't mean i want to prevent women playing or attending games, far from it. I dont really care if they do or don't - its up to everyone to pursue their own interests. That's basically a libertarian position, which you struggle understanding. You aren’t automatically on the opposite team, there’s a 3rd position, roughly “give your politics a rest and let people be”. Just because I don't want to get with "tHe MeSsAgE" doesn't mean i have some counter programme or message. I just wish they would F off and leave people alone and stop jamming politics into football and everywhere they can. Without getting too deep, what i see if that women’s football is being piggybacked ( if that’s even a word)? Into football TV programmes, instead of having stand alone women’s football programmes. It has really disappointed me as i had a routine of soccer am , even though it’s not what it was and then FF but the latter really has changed, to the detriment of it’s viewers and overall. I think it should be allowed to grow of it’s own accord but i have been called a misogynist and sexist due to those views. Unfortunately life is politics and politics is life. I don’t hate on any of it but it does grind me gears that it’s not been allowed to grow as a stand alone product |
|
|
|
Post by bluestickgas1 on May 27, 2023 9:55:11 GMT
I agree that women’s sport and football is equally deserving of growing as its own product rather than piggybacking onto the male equivalent. That’s not to say it can’t be talked about in the same breadth or alongside but it should have its own dedicated support just as the men’s game does. This would include equal funding, sponsorship, airtime etc as it is no less of a product as the men’s game….
However, we must recognise that in comparative terms, the female game is in its infancy in the UK with the advent of fully professional leagues etc relatively new - this is why there may seem to be more incentives and promotion to help generate and entice interest initially with a view that that will sustain. It is no different to what happened when the men’s game first began to become established, no different to ongoing promotions that clubs etc run (kid a quid, free tickets, reduced match ticket prices for certain games etc etc)
The Women’s Super League show is a dedicated show for the women’s game that is on typically after Match of the Day and is a decent watch if you can stay up for it….
My thoughts are that at some point when the lower leagues become stronger it would be good to have other leagues on tv as well as WSL and maybe at a more mainstream air time rather than at midnight…
I appreciate that women’s sport isn’t for everyone as some people don’t find it as interesting but that doesn’t mean it is any worse or better than the men’s game.
Question - if the Gas Girls were in the Women’s Super League and playing European football etc would people still hold the same views as they have expressed on here?
On a separate note, the Gas Girls won Gold at the Women’s Football Business Awards yesterday (I think) beating the likes of Chelsea, Southampton, Wrexham etc…
|
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on May 27, 2023 10:39:30 GMT
I agree that women’s sport and football is equally deserving of growing as its own product rather than piggybacking onto the male equivalent. That’s not to say it can’t be talked about in the same breadth or alongside but it should have its own dedicated support just as the men’s game does. This would include equal funding, sponsorship, airtime etc as it is no less of a product as the men’s game…. However, we must recognise that in comparative terms, the female game is in its infancy in the UK with the advent of fully professional leagues etc relatively new - this is why there may seem to be more incentives and promotion to help generate and entice interest initially with a view that that will sustain. It is no different to what happened when the men’s game first began to become established, no different to ongoing promotions that clubs etc run (kid a quid, free tickets, reduced match ticket prices for certain games etc etc) The Women’s Super League show is a dedicated show for the women’s game that is on typically after Match of the Day and is a decent watch if you can stay up for it…. My thoughts are that at some point when the lower leagues become stronger it would be good to have other leagues on tv as well as WSL and maybe at a more mainstream air time rather than at midnight… I appreciate that women’s sport isn’t for everyone as some people don’t find it as interesting but that doesn’t mean it is any worse or better than the men’s game. Question - if the Gas Girls were in the Women’s Super League and playing European football etc would people still hold the same views as they have expressed on here? On a separate note, the Gas Girls won Gold at the Women’s Football Business Awards yesterday (I think) beating the likes of Chelsea, Southampton, Wrexham etc… Just to answer your question, i do not enjoy ladies football but also actually hate seeing them fight. I was raised to view them as the fairer sex so i could accept being called a dinosaur. |
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on May 27, 2023 10:40:29 GMT
I agree that women’s sport and football is equally deserving of growing as its own product rather than piggybacking onto the male equivalent. That’s not to say it can’t be talked about in the same breadth or alongside but it should have its own dedicated support just as the men’s game does. This would include equal funding, sponsorship, airtime etc as it is no less of a product as the men’s game…. However, we must recognise that in comparative terms, the female game is in its infancy in the UK with the advent of fully professional leagues etc relatively new - this is why there may seem to be more incentives and promotion to help generate and entice interest initially with a view that that will sustain. It is no different to what happened when the men’s game first began to become established, no different to ongoing promotions that clubs etc run (kid a quid, free tickets, reduced match ticket prices for certain games etc etc) The Women’s Super League show is a dedicated show for the women’s game that is on typically after Match of the Day and is a decent watch if you can stay up for it…. My thoughts are that at some point when the lower leagues become stronger it would be good to have other leagues on tv as well as WSL and maybe at a more mainstream air time rather than at midnight… I appreciate that women’s sport isn’t for everyone as some people don’t find it as interesting but that doesn’t mean it is any worse or better than the men’s game. Question - if the Gas Girls were in the Women’s Super League and playing European football etc would people still hold the same views as they have expressed on here? On a separate note, the Gas Girls won Gold at the Women’s Football Business Awards yesterday (I think) beating the likes of Chelsea, Southampton, Wrexham etc… Did winning that gold bring any financial gain, please ? |
|
