• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Political Correctness & the FA

Status
Not open for further replies.
No it wouldn't.

But we live in a world where we're told to embrace diversity, but you can't acknowledge that there might be any differences between people.

Which kind of defeats the purpose really.
Which reinforces my point that it's not patronising. They're women. In the same way if it was said about men it wouldn't be patronising. In fact it wouldn't even cross anyone's minds that it could be patronising if it was referencing men.

People that try to invent controversy where none exists sicken my fucking hole.
 
Mine too.

Twitter is a minefield. I don't know why any organisations bother with it
 
That's true if you can make allowances for the yawning gulf in pace and power between men's and women's football. I'm afraid I just can't. The football on display even in their World Cup Final is not even in the same galaxy, never mind on the same planet, as that on display in men's football way down the pyramid.

I will say there are some refreshing things about the women's game though. For one, the simulation and feigning injuries that has taken over the men's game is nearly non-existent.

Probably the best thing in the women's game is that the game doesn't stop after every foul so that a crowd can gather around the referee to wave imaginary cards in his face. You rarely see players getting in the refs face and contesting calls.
 
Fair comment. That sort of thing is why I regret the fact that I can't adjust my expectations enough to enjoy women's football.
 
The world's gone absolutely PC mad and it's madder than I can ever recall.

A very wise man once said this and I thought it carried lots of meaning and truth to it.

He said, "We cannot talk about human rights without the right to be human."

I couldn't agree more.

Listen to these powerful words from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Right....

Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world… All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights'. Really ? What’s the basis for this idea ? Where was this noble sentiment grounded ? Because, not every worldview can bear that weight of that bold statement.

Go to rural India, stay there for a good while and you can't help but notice the highly stratified caste system of India. If your ethnicity/clan sit at the bottom of that system, you can be assured to suffer great sadness, pain and misery. And if you're a woman, it's very likely you'll either be sexually abused or trafficked into sexual slavery, most times without a bat of an eye-lid from the governing authorities. Try telling them that 'all human beings are equal'. It's almost like a hollow slap to their faces. It's all fine-sounding platitudes to the severely oppressed, but you see, it doesn't solve anything. Human rights is too valuable an idea to build on sand, it needs a foundation, a worldview that can support it. It needs a worldview that informs a person (creation) that he/she is made in the image of their Creator, which has been proven time and again, that it is the most powerful corrective. It restores worth to a broken person.

Now the above is simply one extreme end of this tangent. Using this framework of thought, we can apply to the tweet too.

"We cannot talk about human rights without the right to be human."

What does it mean to be human ? Well, one of the most basic need is to be able to breathe, to be alive. For instance, it's useless discussing about the right to abort a child, if one denies the child one of its basic need to be human i.e. to live, to breathe.

Same goes for a woman. One of the most celebrated, if not divine, gift of women is their ability to child-bear. To give birth. For without them, all of us wouldn't be around on 6CM. It is something special. It makes a woman human.

So celebrate it for crying it loud ! Be proud of it because the more nobler of men amongst us know the pain you lot go through for those many months you carry us in your wombs. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm in no way claiming the clowns who run the FA are noble men, but to call the tweet sexist, patronizing or whatever - is, in my opinion, pathetic PC gone mad shite.

If I was a woman, I'd say 'damn right we are heroes, not only did we produce the likes of Stevie G, Ronaldo, and co, but we also can kick a ball. Maybe not as good as men, admittedly, but good enough for the nation to cheer for us'.
 
Which reinforces my point that it's not patronising. They're women. In the same way if it was said about men it wouldn't be patronising. In fact it wouldn't even cross anyone's minds that it could be patronising if it was referencing men.

People that try to invent controversy where none exists sicken my fucking hole.

Of course it would patronising if it was about men. The tweet us basically saying that this group of people have been on a special journey where they've given up their normal jobs of being parents and partners etc and been footballers for a few weeks and haven't they done well? The patronising nature of it has nowt to do with gender, it's making out that these people have played at being footballers for a few weeks. They're footballers all year round. Just like they're parents and partners and whatever else all year round. It would be just as patronising if they'd said it about the men's team.

But they never would talk about the men's team in that way.
 
I put 'the admittedly not good as men' as tongue in cheek. Basically, just lighten up.

If we carry on like this, pretty soon we'll have to think twice of every word we speak, in caution of not wanting to offend any people group who randomly create its own set of worldview. All in the name of 'human rights'.
 
If you are trying to tell me I am broken and in need of a creator you can fuck right off.

I dunno if you're jesting or not, but I was actually referring to the Dalits in India. Approx. 75% of their women, including children, if I may add, are born into this world to have their lives and dreams crushed and to be treated as nothing but sexual objects. Pretty tragic and horrid stuff.

Not that we care like. Over these parts of the world, we trip up over more important stuff like the right to be a woman, daughter and mother.
 
Of course it would patronising if it was about men. The tweet us basically saying that this group of people have been on a special journey where they've given up their normal jobs of being parents and partners etc and been footballers for a few weeks and haven't they done well? The patronising nature of it has nowt to do with gender, it's making out that these people have played at being footballers for a few weeks. They're footballers all year round. Just like they're parents and partners and whatever else all year round. It would be just as patronising if they'd said it about the men's team.

But they never would talk about the men's team in that way.
Is it not an accurate reflection?

And no maybe they don't talk about men like that but if they did I definitely wouldn't see it as patronising. You sound like one of those people I described at the end of my last post.
 
Is it not an accurate reflection?

And no maybe they don't talk about men like that but if they did I definitely wouldn't see it as patronising. You sound like one of those people I described at the end of my last post.

Not really. After the olympics did Usain Bolt go back to being a son? No, he was a son during the olympics and was a professional athlete after the olympics. That's my point. Like I said, nothing to do with gender. I think it's patronising because it is suggesting these group of people stepped up and became footballers during the world cup and now it's back to their normal lives.

I sound like someone who tries to invent controversy where none exists? Because I've posted three times now in a thread I didn't start? FYI, that's less than you have. If I started the thread going on about how controversial this all was then maybe you'd have an argument, but I didn't. You don't agree with me, fine, but that's not going to stop me stating my opinion and if you feel that my doing so on a Liverpool forum is somehow creating controversy then I'm not sure where that's coming from.

My actual reaction to the whole thing wasn't a hands flung in the air this is so outrageous reaction, incidentally. It was as Woland says, look at those massive bellends at the FA exhibiting once again how they can't even get something as simple as a congratulatory tweet correct without coming across as massive bellends.
 
It's good fun trying to find the most ludicrous use of 'person' instead of 'man'.

For example, next time I get the chance I'll certainly be ordering a ploughperson's lunch.

There's a shot over here called s "Cock Sucking Cowboy".

I once walked in to a bar owned & run by some lesbians that had the shot advertised as "Gender non-specific Genital Sucking Cowperson".

I left....

..... quickly.
 
To be fair to many of the children I'm sure they must be very proud of their mum becoming a "Lioness", I imagine it would go a fair way to console them for Dad being a turkey baster full of borrowed jizz.
 
You do know the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as with most international covenants, was intended to be aspirational?

They could hardly have opened with something factual like "Well, we know that in some of nations ratifying this piece of crap, women are objectified, minority ethnicities oppressed, the poor downtrodden, and we can't make any promises that things will change even well into the next century..."
 
That's true if you can make allowances for the yawning gulf in pace and power between men's and women's football. I'm afraid I just can't. The football on display even in their World Cup Final is not even in the same galaxy, never mind on the same planet, as that on display in men's football way down the pyramid.


I used to coach women's football over here. My expectations are different but I did enjoy watching the American team. There's a lot of different in there to enjoy.
 
Yes. The American women have been playing since they were infants, such was/is the female-orientation of the sport over there in terms of participation, so I don't know why their victory was hailed as if it was some kind of thrilling achievement. Most of the other teams were way behind them.

This is the stereotypical view. They haven't won it since 1999, and they are thought of as the best country in the world for the game, but they've lost so many semi finals and finals. This is why it's a big deal. Not that dissimilar from us winning the CL.

Some might say - but LFC are a big club, always up there, so why not. Of course they could win. Hindsight.

But you and I would know different because we didn't live hindsight. We lived disappointment after disappointment before it happened.
 
You do know the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as with most international covenants, was intended to be aspirational?

They could hardly have opened with something factual like "Well, we know that in some of nations ratifying this piece of crap, women are objectified, minority ethnicities oppressed, the poor downtrodden, and we can't make any promises that things will change even well into the next century..."


Then there's all that relativistic social science and lit crit stuff that undermines the whole thing by saying 'These are universal and inalienable rights unless of course you live in a country where the culture's very different and things like patriarchy and various other forms of servitude are just different ways of doing things and none of your arrogant western Enlightenment-based business, although you're welcome to write a cynical PhD on how the enslaved are really a bit subversive when no one's looking, if you like'. Good job none of that was around when the Pankhursts were making a fuss, cos it would have put a real crimp in their feminist aspirations.
 
Jesus, now I have to keep up with PC culture in two countries? Heroine is grand over here.

Is actress being phased out as well? I see more and more women called female actors.

It is, yes. I personally refuse to fall in with such nonsense but it's definitely the way the wind is blowing. More's the pity.
 
I honestly can't believe the suffering some people and cultures have to endure in this day and age. I thought we had moved beyond it. But there's so much improvement still to be done.

I admire your humanity but not your humans.
 
Any conversation/thread that starts off with words to the effect "political correctness gone mad" is pretty much guaranteed to be on very thin ice.
 
It is, yes. I personally refuse to fall in with such nonsense but it's definitely the way the wind is blowing. More's the pity.
That's the thing about the English language, it makes it easier for such political correctness.

Can you imagine trying it with other languages where objects can be masculine, feminine or neutral? You would need to rewrite the language.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom