Judge Mental's Sexism and Misogyny Topic

[StefanAVFC]

7 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

That reminds me, no old guys  

So that's 4 for sex of presenter, plus blondes. Another 25 or so races, multiplied by 4 for the previous categories.

Then age as well.

What a hiring mess.

[MakemineVanilla]

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Preference is not a problem, prejudice can be. 

Prejudice is a predetermined idea of something not based on experience or reason.

If someone does not think a presenter is very good, then that would be a preference and not a prejudice.

However, I wouldn't deny the possibility of misogyny being a factor because I think a lot of men resent the fact that women have forced their way into traditional men's spaces, but do their best to keep men out of their own.

[Demitri_C]

53 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'm not listening to any **** blondes though, so let's have a 4th.

Whats gabby logan ever done to you u blondist sexist pig

[Mic09]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

Being devil's advocate for a moment, I guess you could argue that all men and all women are biologically identical to each other, regardless of ethnicity, and therefore there is no logical justification for treating people differently on the basis of 'race'. 

 

Unless you are an extreme justice warrior activist type, I don't think it's logical or right argue that all men and women are biologically the same.

Heck, no 2 men are biologically the same.

The real conversation starts when we accept that;

1. Everyone is different

2. It doesn't matter that everyone is different

3. We accept them on merit rather than looking at a specific biological traits (be it a penis, skin colour, height, age, etc)  because we established that, well, everyone is different. 

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

So that's 4 for sex of presenter, plus blondes. Another 25 or so races, multiplied by 4 for the previous categories.

Then age as well.

What a hiring mess.

Trans too. That's another option on the red button.

And disabled.

And then trans disabled

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

Unless you are an extreme justice warrior activist type, I don't think it's logical or right argue that all men and women are biologically the same.

Heck, no 2 men are biologically the same.

The real conversation starts when we accept that;

1. Everyone is different

2. It doesn't matter that everyone is different

3. We accept them on merit rather than looking at a specific biological traits (be it a penis, skin colour, height, age, etc)  because we established that, well, everyone is different. 

Well, yes, I agree. But what I meant was that we're all the same species - 'race' is mostly a false construct. When a paramedic treats an injured person, they don't need to do anything different based on the patient's ethnicity. But they may need do so, to based upon their sex (e.g. pregnancy). All men are functionally the same as all other men. All women are functionally the same as all other women. But there are functional differences between men and women. That opens the door for all sorts of (probably spurious) arguments for treating women differently, that wouldn't be so easy to argue in an ethnicity context. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by mjmooney

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

Trans too. That's another option on the red button.

And disabled.

And then trans disabled

Since when is being disabled a gender?

Edited October 10, 2023 by Demitri_C

[Mic09]

25 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Well, yes, I agree. But what I meant was that we're all the same species - 'race' is mostly a false construct. When a paramedic treats an injured person, they don't need to do anything different based on the patient's ethnicity. But they may need do so, to based upon their sex (e.g. pregnancy). All men are functionally the same as all other men. All women are functionally the same as all other women. But there are functional differences between men and women. That opens the door for all sorts of (probably spurious) arguments for treating women differently, that wouldn't be so easy to argue in an ethnicity context. 

I don't know if all men are functionally the same. What do you mean by that?

I agree there are certain chemical similarities (such as XX/XY chromosomes) but in a sea of differences (age, upbringing, race, sexual preference, physical performance, weight, height, personal beliefs, disability, and a million other things) I don't know if comparing two men on basis of type of chromosomes is even an important variable in a vast sea of other variables. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Mic09

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

So that's 4 for sex of presenter, plus blondes. Another 25 or so races, multiplied by 4 for the previous categories.

Then age as well.

What a hiring mess.

You have created the hiring mess by adding all these categories no one else

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Since when is being disabled a gender?

Good lord

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

You have created the hiring mess by adding all these categories no one else

[CVByrne]

Mens football and womens football are essentially different sports given the scale of the gap in quality due to biology and maturity of the professional games.

But a pundit giving analysis is down to the quality of the individuals analysis. What level they played football is irrelevant. Mourinho was a translator and became a brilliant coach and analyst when he did brief stints of punditry. 

Quality analysis isn't tied to the level of football the person played. 

[CVByrne]

6 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Preference is not a problem, prejudice can be. 

Science is now prejudicial though 

If science goes against a person's views science must be disregarded.

See climate change and transgender in sport for examples. 

[LondonLax]

6 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Science is now prejudicial though 

If science goes against a person's views science must be disregarded.

See climate change and transgender in sport for examples. 

Science is not prejudicial, that is precisely the opposite of what science is. However we can arrange our societies however we see fit. Science is just one input in that.  

[CVByrne]

33 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Science is not prejudicial, that is precisely the opposite of what science is. However we can arrange our societies however we see fit. Science is just one input in that.  

Denial of the scientific evidence is a primary way many people want to input into how we arrange our societies 

Edited October 10, 2023 by CVByrne

[fightoffyour]

 

19 hours ago, Rich192 said:

I mean who would you rather listen to, Alex Scott or Danny Murphy?

 

[UpTheVilla26]

Just seen what Alex Scott wore to the GQ awards

Surely the BBC need to reprimand her for it? I don't see how these females presenters can waffle on about equality and men being sexist towards female pundits, then walk around like that?! 

 

[Mark Albrighton]

23 minutes ago, UpTheVilla26 said:

Just seen what Alex Scott wore to the GQ awards

Surely the BBC need to reprimand her for it? I don't see how these females presenters can waffle on about equality and men being sexist towards female pundits, then walk around like that?! 

 

It’s two different things really.

There’s sexism in the “nice tits, love” type comments. Which I’m sure she and female contemporaries regularly receive.

If I’m honest, wearing that sort of dress probably isn’t going to help matters with THAT sort of sexism, but it’s her choice and those people need to find a way to rephrase or better yet refrain from making that type of comment. It’s a bit blame the victim (“she’s asking for it dressed like that”).

Then there’s the sexism that I think Scott typically refers to. That being “you’re a woman, what do you know about football? Get back to the kitchen, raise children, darn my socks, etc etc”. And “You want to be paid the same as the male pundits as well, love??”. That’s the sort of sexism she’s on about.

Wearing a dress that reveals her body doesn’t preclude her from being able to discuss football. It doesn’t make her less knowledgeable about the game. If David Beckham (or an equivalent) models underwear would his footballing knowledge be questioned on the back of that?

[luckyeddie]

2 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said:

It’s two different things really.

There’s sexism in the “nice tits, love” type comments. Which I’m sure she and female contemporaries regularly receive.

If I’m honest, wearing that sort of dress probably isn’t going to help matters with THAT sort of sexism, but it’s her choice and those people need to find a way to rephrase or better yet refrain from making that type of comment. It’s a bit blame the victim (“she’s asking for it dressed like that”).

Then there’s the sexism that I think Scott typically refers to. That being “you’re a woman, what do you know about football? Get back to the kitchen, raise children, darn my socks, etc etc”. And “You want to be paid the same as the male pundits as well, love??”. That’s the sort of sexism she’s on about.

Wearing a dress that reveals her body doesn’t preclude her from being able to discuss football. It doesn’t make her less knowledgeable about the game. If David Beckham (or an equivalent) models underwear would his footballing knowledge be questioned on the back of that?

In life, if you can get by using your brain, you know you do not have to exploit your body. Basically she is indicating that she knows that what she has to say is not up to scratch, so she will distract us with her body (classic magician's assistant deception). Some might think this is thinking like a caveman, but we basically are and she is exploiting it. Basic biology.

I could not take her seriously before that dress, and still can't now.

[The_Rev]

Some mental gymnastics going on there.  Lineker once turned up to MotD in his boxer shorts.