Judge Mental's Sexism and Misogyny Topic

[Mark Albrighton]

28 minutes ago, luckyeddie said:

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.

How does her “distracting us with her body” by wearing a dress mean she’s acknowledging her football analytical skills are not up to much? You seem to be suggesting that an intelligent person is incapable of wanting to be perceived as being attractive. Do I have that correct?

What is the appropriate outfit a woman should wear at a (in this case) non football social function in order for her to not have her football punditry credentials questioned - is she allowed to show ankle?

[DCJonah]

1 hour ago, luckyeddie said:

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.

Andrew Tate?

[luckyeddie]

4 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Andrew Tate?

No

[luckyeddie]

25 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

How does her “distracting us with her body” by wearing a dress mean she’s acknowledging her football analytical skills are not up to much? You seem to be suggesting that an intelligent person is incapable of wanting to be perceived as being attractive. Do I have that correct?

What is the appropriate outfit a woman should wear at a (in this case) non football social function in order for her to not have her football punditry credentials questioned - is she allowed to show ankle?

Alex Scott is not wanting to be seen as attractive but more outrageous and getting attention, as being attractive can be done in many ways without going braless and wearing a see through top.

I don't get your euphamism of showing some ankle, she is showing her nipples, which is a completely different thing. One is an erogenous zone one isn't.

I also think she is a poor pundit, many people do. I would also bet my last dollar, if she was a top notch pundit, she would not be seeking attention on this way.

[luckyeddie]

12 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Andrew Tate?

How on earth do you equate the fact that I think it is inappropriate for a woman to use her sexuality to further her career with a man who has allegedly trafficked and sexually exploited women? Maybe you should think twice before throwing out the insults.

[Zatman]

Female commentators and pundits bring out a weird side of football fans

[bobzy]

1 hour ago, luckyeddie said:

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.

It's nice to know sexism is still rife in society  

[luckyeddie]

5 minutes ago, bobzy said:

It's nice to know sexism is still rife in society  

It's not sexism, because I would have the same attitude if it was a man.

[bobzy]

Just now, luckyeddie said:

It's not sexism, because I would have the same attitude if it was a man.

Link me to your comments when Gary Lineker was in his underwear on MOTD please.

[luckyeddie]

17 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Link me to your comments when Gary Lineker was in his underwear on MOTD please.

I have not commented on GL, I was talking about AS.

Let's not play the "link me to your comments" game, as I am sure there are some attrocities you have not commented on, but I do not believe you condone them.

[bobzy]

Just now, luckyeddie said:

I have not commented on GL, I was talking about AS.

Let's not play the "link me to your comments" game, as I am sure there are some attrocities you have not commented on, but I do not believe you condone them.

Aye.

[Mark Albrighton]

1 hour ago, luckyeddie said:

Alex Scott is not wanting to be seen as attractive but more outrageous and getting attention, as being attractive can be done in many ways without going braless and wearing a see through top.

I don't get your euphamism of showing some ankle, she is showing her nipples, which is a completely different thing. One is an erogenous zone one isn't.

I also think she is a poor pundit, many people do. I would also bet my last dollar, if she was a top notch pundit, she would not be seeking attention on this way.

I’m being flippant on the point of her showing some ankle, when back in the day women would have to remain covered up because of standards on how they could dress typically dictated by men. Scott has had criticism directed at her by people (mostly men) for wearing a far less revealing dress before now so whether it meets your standards of decency doesn’t matter because someone else will be on hand to offer criticism on another dress.

You disliking Scott as a pundit, based on her presenting skills and her opinions on football is fair enough and valid. 

You determining that she is only dressing like that to seek attention and to try and hide her limitations is fairly flawed. She IS already getting quite big punditry roles already. She is a fairly big name in the sport presenting world, hence how you (and all the other people you reference) have the opportunity to dislike what she brings to the role.

Is she trying to gain some attention with the outfit? Probably. That’s something all high profile women will consider when they decide what to wear as their choice will be commented on way more than what men wear. 

Does she think “Oh I better show my nipples at this event otherwise they’ll replace me on Football Focus with Jermaine Jenas.”? I highly doubt it. I think she’s got it made in that regard, she’s probably one of the first names they want presenting/contributing to these shows.

Basically you seem to see this dress as proof that she’s a poor pundit. It’s confirmation bias for your own opinion. “Ah got her nipples out, knew it! She has nothing offer intellectually.” It’s not really, it’s a young woman wearing a provocative dress for a bit of attention which has happened since the year dot. 

Put it this way, if Jennifer Lawrence turns up at the Oscars wearing a low cut dress is that an admission on her part that she’s not very good at acting and all those awards and critical acclaim she’s received throughout her career go out the window as soon as we see her cleavage? By your rationale it must mean that, right? 

[luckyeddie]

2 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I’m being flippant on the point of her showing some ankle, when back in the day women would have to remain covered up because of standards on how they could dress typically dictated by men. Scott has had criticism directed at her by people (mostly men) for wearing a far less revealing dress before now so whether it meets your standards of decency doesn’t matter because someone else will be on hand to offer criticism on another dress.

You disliking Scott as a pundit, based on her presenting skills and her opinions on football is fair enough and valid. 

You determining that she is only dressing like that to seek attention and to try and hide her limitations is fairly flawed. She IS already getting quite big punditry roles already. She is a fairly big name in the sport presenting world, hence how you (and all the other people you reference) have the opportunity to dislike what she brings to the role.

Is she trying to gain some attention with the outfit? Probably. That’s something all high profile women will consider when they decide what to wear as their choice will be commented on way more than what men wear. 

Does she think “Oh I better show my nipples at this event otherwise they’ll replace me on Football Focus with Jermaine Jenas.”? I highly doubt it. I think she’s got it made in that regard, she’s probably one of the first names they want presenting/contributing to these shows.

Basically you seem to see this dress as proof that she’s a poor pundit. It’s confirmation bias for your own opinion. “Ah got her nipples out, knew it! She has nothing offer intellectually.” It’s not really, it’s a young woman wearing a provocative dress for a bit of attention which has happened since the year dot. 

Put it this way, if Jennifer Lawrence turns up at the Oscars wearing a low cut dress is that an admission on her part that she’s not very good at acting and all those awards and critical acclaim she’s received throughout her career go out the window as soon as we see her cleavage? By your rationale it must mean that, right? 

Lot to unpack there, thanks for the reply

I do not rate her, yes but that is only a subjective opinion (and I thought that before I saw her nipples). I listen to women like Maggie Alphonso and Alison Mitchell, top notch commentators who do not need to behave like this (we may be of a different generation, so may have differing standards. I do not know your circumstances, but how would you react if your daughter, sister, wife or mother went out in that outfit, knowing it would be plastered all over the press the next day).

My opinion is that it is ashame that women have to / decide to do this to gain attention and recognition. It would be preferable if they could be rated for their ability rather than their appearance (as the two examples above), but as you say it has happened forever, sex sells.

I do believe there is a correlation between her lack of punditry ability and exposure.

As an actress, Jennifer Lawrence has performed full frontal nudity, and also has a " leaked" picture collection, so I think it is comparing apples to oranges. Nudity is part of acting but not punditry.

Basically I am saying let their skills speak for themselves, and leave sex appeal out of it. To me it's like Page 3 models, most men like looking at attractive topless models, but not within the context of serious news. There's a time and a place for each of them.

[osmark86]

3 hours ago, luckyeddie said:

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.

Are you being serious? Sorry but this is one of the dumbest things I've read on here in a long ass time.

[bobzy]

6 minutes ago, luckyeddie said:

My opinion is that it is ashame that women have to / decide to do this to gain attention and recognition. It would be preferable if they could be rated for their ability rather than their appearance (as the two examples above), but as you say it has happened forever, sex sells.

I can’t get my head around that you think this is solely for attention/recognition.

The far bigger shame is that (mostly) men cannot view clothing without thinking solely with their balls. Low cut top? Slut. Short skirt? Slut. I guess it’s happened forever, but sad that we can’t move on from it. 

[luckyeddie]

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I can’t get my head around that you think this is solely for attention/recognition.

The far bigger shame is that (mostly) men cannot view clothing without thinking solely with their balls. Low cut top? Slut. Short skirt? Slut. I guess it’s happened forever, but sad that we can’t move on from it. 

I guess your first paragraph is our differing opinion, fair enough.

I agree with your second paragraph (although I don't think she is a slut), but women can sexually exploit men, because men let themselves be exploited. It's as old as time itself. And as you say it is a shame (for both sexes).

[luckyeddie]

18 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

Are you being serious? Sorry but this is one of the dumbest things I've read on here in a long ass time.

Fair enough, but do you see the irony of claiming something a dumb and then writing "long ass time" . 

Also, don't apologise if you don't mean it, it comes across as insincere.

Edited November 17, 2023 by luckyeddie

[osmark86]

13 minutes ago, luckyeddie said:

Fair enough, but do you see the irony of claiming something a dumb and then writing "long ass time" . 

Also, don't apologise if you don't mean it, it comes across as insincere.

Semantics. Fine I'll rephrase myself to your standards:

Were you being quite earnest before? Pardon me, but what you declared is filled to the brim with absolute ignorance and, quite frankly, the most utterly void of any discernible intelligence content mine eyes have witnessed in eons.

Edited November 17, 2023 by osmark86

[DCJonah]

2 hours ago, luckyeddie said:

How on earth do you equate the fact that I think it is inappropriate for a woman to use her sexuality to further her career with a man who has allegedly trafficked and sexually exploited women? Maybe you should think twice before throwing out the insults.

Seemed very similar to his toxic view of women. 

 

[luckyeddie]

14 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

Semantics. Fine I'll rephrase myself to your standards:

Were you being quite earnest before? Pardon me, but what you declared is filled to the brim with absolute ignorance and, quite frankly, the most utterly void of any discernible intelligence content mine eyes have witnessed in eons.

You still haven't offered a counter argument, just spat your dummy out twice, and given an over inflated opinion.