|
|
Post by kruger on Jul 6, 2023 17:34:14 GMT
Will it be mixed teams next, that's my worry Not outside of schools and charity matches, the two brands are far too distinct. Leaving money aside, the obvious physical nature would rule it out. Ok I was wrong to say what I said after thinking about it, It's the best person for the job that counts, like I said I was a bit worried it could lead to mixed teams next but yeah what you're saying makes sense |
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 6, 2023 17:40:05 GMT
Will it be mixed teams next, that's my worry Is it? Maybe relax a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Kipper on Jul 6, 2023 18:43:47 GMT
Women physios, football managers, and referees, surely the next progression will be mixed teams? Some female pundits might well relish the challenge! What about the half-man half-lady scenarios. The mind boggles. Never mind the physical nature, there are women boxers!!
|
|
|
|
Post by davethegashead on Jul 9, 2023 17:38:04 GMT
As much as I support equal rights, I can’t help think that this is a cynical ploy by Forest Green to try and win more local support. The timing of the announcement, with the Brown court case ruling, is surely to try and persuade disillusioned glos-based gasheads to switch allegiance to a more progressive-minded club down the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 9, 2023 17:41:22 GMT
As much as I support equal rights, I can’t help think that this is a cynical ploy by Forest Green to try and win more local support. The timing of the announcement, with the Brown court case ruling, is surely to try and persuade disillusioned glos-based gasheads to switch allegiance to a more progressive-minded club down the road. Far too Machiavellian, just pure coincidence. |
|
|
|
Post by keygas on Jul 9, 2023 18:35:04 GMT
As much as I support equal rights, I can’t help think that this is a cynical ploy by Forest Green to try and win more local support. The timing of the announcement, with the Brown court case ruling, is surely to try and persuade disillusioned glos-based gasheads to switch allegiance to a more progressive-minded club down the road. Perhaps with the revelation that their owner is sponsoring Just stop oil protesters, maybe disillusioned FGR fans might switch to supporting the Gas, a more successful club down the road. |
|
|
|
Post by gasheadmichal on Jul 9, 2023 19:04:24 GMT
Fear not.
What next? Female wife's? Hehe
UTG
|
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Jul 11, 2023 8:45:11 GMT
There is nothing wrong with a club deciding that a woman has the credentials in the game to be a manager of a men’s team, and that she would be able to lead a team of young men who would listen and do as they are told. There is no inherent reason why not.
Doing so because you believe in a political goal of equality at all costs, bringing legal compulsion to do so, or incentivising it, again, because of political ideas, not meritocracy is morally wrong.
Depends on the reasons. If she’s good enough then why not? I just don’t genuinely believe a lot of competitive young men are going to respect anyone who hasn’t played at the highest level in the game. I don’t think there are many women who actually exist in the world who can tick these boxes, but if the club like the vision and aren’t cajoled by political forces then there is absolutely no reason why not.
|
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Jul 11, 2023 9:31:20 GMT
There is nothing wrong with a club deciding that a woman has the credentials in the game to be a manager of a men’s team, and that she would be able to lead a team of young men who would listen and do as they are told. There is no inherent reason why not. Doing so because you believe in a political goal of equality at all costs, bringing legal compulsion to do so, or incentivising it, again, because of political ideas, not meritocracy is morally wrong. Depends on the reasons. If she’s good enough then why not? I just don’t genuinely believe a lot of competitive young men are going to respect anyone who hasn’t played at the highest level in the game. I don’t think there are many women who actually exist in the world who can tick these boxes, but if the club like the vision and aren’t cajoled by political forces then there is absolutely no reason why not. Players listened to Jose Mourinho and he didn’t play at a decent level |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 11, 2023 9:42:25 GMT
There is nothing wrong with a club deciding that a woman has the credentials in the game to be a manager of a men’s team, and that she would be able to lead a team of young men who would listen and do as they are told. There is no inherent reason why not. Doing so because you believe in a political goal of equality at all costs, bringing legal compulsion to do so, or incentivising it, again, because of political ideas, not meritocracy is morally wrong. Depends on the reasons. If she’s good enough then why not? I just don’t genuinely believe a lot of competitive young men are going to respect anyone who hasn’t played at the highest level in the game. I don’t think there are many women who actually exist in the world who can tick these boxes, but if the club like the vision and aren’t cajoled by political forces then there is absolutely no reason why not. Players listened to Jose Mourinho and he didn’t play at a decent level Wenger, Ferguson? Pretty sure Gary Neville played at a high level but wasn't listened too as a manager. Plenty of examples both ways, a dressing room will have respect if it's earned and it can be earned in different ways. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jul 11, 2023 15:59:50 GMT
There is nothing wrong with a club deciding that a woman has the credentials in the game to be a manager of a men’s team, and that she would be able to lead a team of young men who would listen and do as they are told. There is no inherent reason why not. Doing so because you believe in a political goal of equality at all costs, bringing legal compulsion to do so, or incentivising it, again, because of political ideas, not meritocracy is morally wrong. Depends on the reasons. If she’s good enough then why not? I just don’t genuinely believe a lot of competitive young men are going to respect anyone who hasn’t played at the highest level in the game. I don’t think there are many women who actually exist in the world who can tick these boxes, but if the club like the vision and aren’t cajoled by political forces then there is absolutely no reason why not. Why is it 'morally' wrong? Because you don't believe in it, of course. It might be something that gets your back up, but it's not 'morally' wrong. I think you're confusing ethics and opinions. I can think of a lot of things that might generally be deemed morally wrong, like theft, fraud or embezzlement. Positive discrimination is light years away from that and it is not inherently wrong. Anyway it's a pointless thing to say because there is absolutely no suggestion that the woman in question has been bumped upwards for political reasons. If she fails, she'll be out sharpish. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 11, 2023 18:37:35 GMT
Players listened to Jose Mourinho and he didn’t play at a decent level Wenger, Ferguson? Pretty sure Gary Neville played at a high level but wasn't listened too as a manager. Plenty of examples both ways, a dressing room will have respect if it's earned and it can be earned in different ways. DC hardly played at the highest level but players seemed to listen to him. Somebody better tell Garner to look for a new career as he's clearly never going to make it as a manager. |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Jul 11, 2023 20:11:50 GMT
There is nothing wrong with a club deciding that a woman has the credentials in the game to be a manager of a men’s team, and that she would be able to lead a team of young men who would listen and do as they are told. There is no inherent reason why not. Doing so because you believe in a political goal of equality at all costs, bringing legal compulsion to do so, or incentivising it, again, because of political ideas, not meritocracy is morally wrong. Depends on the reasons. If she’s good enough then why not? I just don’t genuinely believe a lot of competitive young men are going to respect anyone who hasn’t played at the highest level in the game. I don’t think there are many women who actually exist in the world who can tick these boxes, but if the club like the vision and aren’t cajoled by political forces then there is absolutely no reason why not. Why is it 'morally' wrong? Because you don't believe in it, of course. It might be something that gets your back up, but it's not 'morally' wrong. I think you're confusing ethics and opinions. I can think of a lot of things that might generally be deemed morally wrong, like theft, fraud or embezzlement. Positive discrimination is light years away from that and it is not inherently wrong. Anyway it's a pointless thing to say because there is absolutely no suggestion that the woman in question has been bumped upwards for political reasons. If she fails, she'll be out sharpish. Yeah it’s morally wrong because I believe it’s morally wrong. Essentially, because I said so. You don’t see a car you like and say “That’s an amazing car” and then caveat it with “although it’s a subjective mater of opinion” We talk from a perspective called the first person, Aghast. I’m not going to address any of the rest of that you said, I’ll just tap the “morally wrong” sign again, leave you to sit down with some crayons and a bit of paper and perhaps you’ll work out why discrimination is a bad thing on your own accord. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2023 20:42:50 GMT
Why is it 'morally' wrong? Because you don't believe in it, of course. It might be something that gets your back up, but it's not 'morally' wrong. I think you're confusing ethics and opinions. I can think of a lot of things that might generally be deemed morally wrong, like theft, fraud or embezzlement. Positive discrimination is light years away from that and it is not inherently wrong. Anyway it's a pointless thing to say because there is absolutely no suggestion that the woman in question has been bumped upwards for political reasons. If she fails, she'll be out sharpish. Yeah it’s morally wrong because I believe it’s morally wrong. Essentially, because I said so. You don’t see a car you like and say “That’s an amazing car” and then caveat it with “although it’s a subjective mater of opinion” We talk from a perspective called the first person, Aghast. I’m not going to address any of the rest of that you said, I’ll just tap the “morally wrong” sign again, leave you to sit down with some crayons and a bit of paper and perhaps you’ll work out why discrimination is a bad thing on your own accord. Can you honestly not see why incentivising minority inclusion or 'positive discrimination' is different to plain old discrimination? Women have had decades and decades of being left behind and excluded from football (not to mention practically everything else). If you insist they catch up without any help isn't that a bit, well, unfair? Isn't a leg up the right thing to do when people have been discriminated against for so long? I'm not sure if you ever played mario kart but the person in first place never gets given the best weapons, the people in last get that extra help. Depressing that a computer game from the early 90's was more advanced than so many people's way of thinking in 2023. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jul 11, 2023 20:52:03 GMT
Why is it 'morally' wrong? Because you don't believe in it, of course. It might be something that gets your back up, but it's not 'morally' wrong. I think you're confusing ethics and opinions. I can think of a lot of things that might generally be deemed morally wrong, like theft, fraud or embezzlement. Positive discrimination is light years away from that and it is not inherently wrong. Anyway it's a pointless thing to say because there is absolutely no suggestion that the woman in question has been bumped upwards for political reasons. If she fails, she'll be out sharpish. Yeah it’s morally wrong because I believe it’s morally wrong. Essentially, because I said so. You don’t see a car you like and say “That’s an amazing car” and then caveat it with “although it’s a subjective mater of opinion” We talk from a perspective called the first person, Aghast. I’m not going to address any of the rest of that you said, I’ll just tap the “morally wrong” sign again, leave you to sit down with some crayons and a bit of paper and perhaps you’ll work out why discrimination is a bad thing on your own accord. Thanks. So positive discrimination is not morally wrong then. You just don't like it. Glad we can agree. |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Jul 12, 2023 5:07:07 GMT
Yeah it’s morally wrong because I believe it’s morally wrong. Essentially, because I said so. You don’t see a car you like and say “That’s an amazing car” and then caveat it with “although it’s a subjective mater of opinion” We talk from a perspective called the first person, Aghast. I’m not going to address any of the rest of that you said, I’ll just tap the “morally wrong” sign again, leave you to sit down with some crayons and a bit of paper and perhaps you’ll work out why discrimination is a bad thing on your own accord. Can you honestly not see why incentivising minority inclusion or 'positive discrimination' is different to plain old discrimination? Women have had decades and decades of being left behind and excluded from football (not to mention practically everything else). If you insist they catch up without any help isn't that a bit, well, unfair? Isn't a leg up the right thing to do when people have been discriminated against for so long? I'm not sure if you ever played mario kart but the person in first place never gets given the best weapons, the people in last get that extra help. Depressing that a computer game from the early 90's was more advanced than so many people's way of thinking in 2023. Sure, denying people promotions and job opportunities despite them having worked hard and done everything correctly and leaving their families less well off for the sole reason that their skin colour or genitals are “wrong” because of things that happened years ago which have nothing to do with them is completely moral. Your thought process is so faulty, its like a child who's been told not to harm cats so he starts kicking the dog instead. . |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Jul 12, 2023 5:11:16 GMT
Yeah it’s morally wrong because I believe it’s morally wrong. Essentially, because I said so. You don’t see a car you like and say “That’s an amazing car” and then caveat it with “although it’s a subjective mater of opinion” We talk from a perspective called the first person, Aghast. I’m not going to address any of the rest of that you said, I’ll just tap the “morally wrong” sign again, leave you to sit down with some crayons and a bit of paper and perhaps you’ll work out why discrimination is a bad thing on your own accord. Thanks. So positive discrimination is not morally wrong then. You just don't like it. Glad we can agree. Immorality is not an objective truth, it’s a subjective opinion, do I really have to spell this out. Let’s just say that it is for me, it isn’t for you, nor anyone else who believes in inequality (you’re keeping some bad company btw) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 5:48:56 GMT
Can you honestly not see why incentivising minority inclusion or 'positive discrimination' is different to plain old discrimination? Women have had decades and decades of being left behind and excluded from football (not to mention practically everything else). If you insist they catch up without any help isn't that a bit, well, unfair? Isn't a leg up the right thing to do when people have been discriminated against for so long? I'm not sure if you ever played mario kart but the person in first place never gets given the best weapons, the people in last get that extra help. Depressing that a computer game from the early 90's was more advanced than so many people's way of thinking in 2023. Sure, denying people promotions and job opportunities despite them having worked hard and done everything correctly and leaving their families less well off for the sole reason that their skin colour or genitals are “wrong” because of things that happened years ago which have nothing to do with them is completely moral. Your thought process is so faulty, its like a child who's been told not to harm cats so he starts kicking the dog instead. . So how do you suggest we best right the wrongs of the past? Just tell people they have to wait a few hundred years and to stop moaning? It's interesting that it always seems to be the people who have benefitted from this historic discrimination that don't feel comfortable actively doing anything to put it right. Your example is wrong. It is more like if you have a cat and a dog but starve the cat for a week. Then when you decide to start feeding the cat again you say it's unfair on the dog to give the cat a bit extra to help get it's strength back up. |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Jul 12, 2023 18:25:00 GMT
Sure, denying people promotions and job opportunities despite them having worked hard and done everything correctly and leaving their families less well off for the sole reason that their skin colour or genitals are “wrong” because of things that happened years ago which have nothing to do with them is completely moral. Your thought process is so faulty, its like a child who's been told not to harm cats so he starts kicking the dog instead. . So how do you suggest we best right the wrongs of the past?. By not repeating the same mistakes. Everyone has the same legal rights and has done since the 1960s. Employment laws have given complete equality in law for about the same period of time. Certainly within the last 40. The fact some people faced discrimination who are mostly dead today doesn’t affect the prospects today of anyone else. Unless it’s inherited wealth, in which case that’s a question for everyone, not based on gender, as I sure as hell won’t be getting any. I fail to see how a female oxbridge graduate raised in Surrey has some kind of systemic disadvantage over say, a skinny kid from Southmead who’s parents are alcoholics. It was a cute trick by the rich to socialise their guilt amongst people in council houses in Liverpool, and for wealthy lawyers driving range rovers to feel downtrodden by the man who comes to clear the asbestos from their renovation, but I’m not buying it. So I guess I’m saying you’ve got to look at the consequences of identity politics because they balkanise groups and fraudulently promote race and gender ahead of affluence and burden those who’ve done nothing wrong to pay a price to people who’ve never even suffered any substantial form of discrimination in their lives. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 19:58:28 GMT
So how do you suggest we best right the wrongs of the past?. By not repeating the same mistakes. Everyone has the same legal rights and has done since the 1960s. Employment laws have given complete equality in law for about the same period of time. Certainly within the last 40. The fact some people faced discrimination who are mostly dead today doesn’t affect the prospects today of anyone else. Unless it’s inherited wealth, in which case that’s a question for everyone, not based on gender, as I sure as hell won’t be getting any. I fail to see how a female oxbridge graduate raised in Surrey has some kind of systemic disadvantage over say, a skinny kid from Southmead who’s parents are alcoholics. It was a cute trick by the rich to socialise their guilt amongst people in council houses in Liverpool, and for wealthy lawyers driving range rovers to feel downtrodden by the man who comes to clear the asbestos from their renovation, but I’m not buying it. So I guess I’m saying you’ve got to look at the consequences of identity politics because they balkanise groups and fraudulently promote race and gender ahead of affluence and burden those who’ve done nothing wrong to pay a price to people who’ve never even suffered any substantial form of discrimination in their lives. I don't feel a burden. I feel a duty to try and help individuals or groups who have been treated unfairly. Not because I have to but because I believe it is right. You obviously can do as you wish but I couldn't disagree more strongly. I note you didn't comment on how my example with the cat and dog is far more like the situation we are discussing than your example which seems to involve having to kick someone/something. It isn't about doing anyone down but is about trying to level the playing field across the board. Lastly, if you believe that everyone has had the same legal rights since the 60s you are very wrong. No idea why you have that idea. Plenty of groups were legally being discriminated against well in to the 2000's prior to the introduction of the equality act. Mostly women and disabled people. Nearly always being paid significantly less money per hour for the same employment... which even with the introduction of the act sadly still happens today within some organisations. We'll have to just agree to disagree as I have no doubt neither of us will be changing our minds. |
|
