Graeme Souness - Men's football

[CombatClaret]

Well that just becomes a whole new debate on English language and the significant changes to many many words and phrases that would be needed to make everyone happy……and it’s the making everyone happy that will be a tough one given that as we know this can change on a regular basis.

The description of “manly” would presumably need eradicating from the dictionary almost entirely….as would womanly, gentleman like, ladylike, child like , to “old head” someone, etc etc
….basically a rewrite of the whole English dictionary starting with the word Aardvark (Blackadder episode reference !!)

Or we could have common sense prevail and just accept that Souness was merely pointing out that it was good to see a bit of aggression back in the game ?!!!

Is aggression a trait of exclusively of men? I'm not aggressive, I know women who are. Why not say aggression, why does aggression have a gender?

Also the hyperbole and strawmen flying here.
We do not remove offensive words from dictionaries or history. We simply stop using them in an offensive context. Would you accuse a co-worker of acting like a woman? No, because that's a gender stereotype. And so is saying the players acted like men in this context.

[Somethingfishy]

Stop being such a big girls blouse Combat...

Oops...

[CombatClaret]

Stop being such a big girls blouse Combat...

Oops...

I laughed. But at the same time, I'm guessing a lot of people here If I said I went to the doctor's they would ask what he said.

I know change is hard and or nice to be told the language you once used it's a bit problematic but as a bunch of white men we've probably had it quite good. No one's trying to bring anyone down, it's about trying to lift others up.

[Somethingfishy]

I laughed. But at the same time, I'm guessing a lot of people here If I said I went to the doctor's they would ask what he said.

I know change is hard and or nice to be told the language you once used it's a bit problematic but as a bunch of white men we've probably had it quite good. No one's trying to bring anyone down, it's about trying to lift others up.

Look...I know you clearly come from a well meaning angle here but there are hundreds of phrases where you could pick up on this. Phrases in everyday use. Souness just used one of them and he is being crucified for it.
It is massively OTT and it is massively unrealistic to expect people to examine literally every figure of speech they use.
Do we stop calling nature "Mother Nature" for example? Who decided it was female? Bit sexist isn't it?

Where do we begin? We don't. We stop. Use common sense and context. Surely people are able to see when someone is being blatantly sexist or racist...or maybe not?

[CombatClaret]

I think the question you have to ask is 'who is this offending?'

We could have a philosophical discussion about hundreds of gendered phrases, concepts, characters. It would be very enlightening. But few will have caused real world offense.

If a retired male footballer says something which offends multiple professional female footballers of the highest level possible that's a clear sign it should not be said.

Even putting to one side that genders should not be used as adjectives.
Pink is not girly, it's just a colour.

[Somethingfishy]

I think the question you have to ask is 'who is this offending?'

We could have a philosophical discussion about hundreds of gendered phrases, concepts, characters. It would be very enlightening. But few will have caused real world offense.

If a retired male footballer says something which offends multiple professional female footballers of the highest level possible that's a clear sign it should not be said.

Even putting to one side that genders should not be used as adjectives.
Pink is not girly, it's just a colour.

Let's be brutally honest here. If they had bombed at the Euros none of them would have piped up with their faux offence at a phrase that we all know what is meant conceptually.
If womens football wants to head down this woke crusade highway it will be shooting itself in the foot. It's now at a point where it has a real chance of positive change in this country at a grass roots level and for it to exponentially grow...and not before time. If they start making a large (i would say majority) of the population believe it is part of this ridiculous woke sledgehammer and cancel culture it would be a tragedy.

[Big Vinny K]

Is aggression a trait of exclusively of men? I'm not aggressive, I know women who are. Why not say aggression, why does aggression have a gender?

Also the hyperbole and strawmen flying here.
We do not remove offensive words from dictionaries or history. We simply stop using them in an offensive context. Would you accuse a co-worker of acting like a woman? No, because that's a gender stereotype. And so is saying the players acted like men in this context.

Nope aggression is not exclusive to men - we’ve already dealt with this several times on this thread.
But if a commentator on a womens game that got a bit feisty started saying she was glad to see the woman’s game was back would that make you feel better ? Or would you be like 99.9% or the population not have a clue what they were talking about ? Whereas the vast majority of people understood exactly the context of what Souness said.

As for stopping using words - it’s pretty much the same as removing them…..as in there’s a hell of a lot of terms you would have to stop using and you would be left with little at the end - if ever there was an end !

And I notice you use another example of stereotype behaviour against women….what do you propose we do about those against men, children, old people ?

[willsclarets]

Is aggression a trait of exclusively of men? I'm not aggressive, I know women who are. Why not say aggression, why does aggression have a gender?

Also the hyperbole and strawmen flying here.
We do not remove offensive words from dictionaries or history. We simply stop using them in an offensive context. Would you accuse a co-worker of acting like a woman? No, because that's a gender stereotype. And so is saying the players acted like men in this context.

Why do you think he was referring to men as an adjective directly opposed to women, and not directly opposed to “boy” ie men against boys, another common footballism? It seems to me he was expressing the opinion that there was a “grown up” nature to the game that had disappeared. The relative histories of the sport across men and women is also relevant. While the womens game is somewhat new, the men’s game has been through several periods of history where the very nature of behaviour on the pitch has changed. Including women in the context of his point makes no sense, because there hasn’t been the same evolution. It seems pretty obvious he’s comparing men with other men and other versions of the game over time. Or men (as opposed to boys)

[ClaretPete001]

I think the question you have to ask is 'who is this offending?'

We could have a philosophical discussion about hundreds of gendered phrases, concepts, characters. It would be very enlightening. But few will have caused real world offense.

If a retired male footballer says something which offends multiple professional female footballers of the highest level possible that's a clear sign it should not be said.

Even putting to one side that genders should not be used as adjectives.
Pink is not girly, it's just a colour.

Ok let's have a proper philosophical discussion. Much of what you are arguing stems from the epistemic relativism of Po-Mo philosophers and critical studies advocates.

In other words, gender has no biological reality but are socially constructed traits within a hierarchical power structure. From this perspective any discussion about male and female gender has a power imbalance, which has to be resolved.

You end up in an absurd position whereby a football pundit describing a game as physical and aggressive as "manly" is perceived to cast aspersions against femaleness even though women cannot play in the same game as men because they are not as physical or aggressive enough.

It then gets even more absurd because female footballers object to a pundit talking in terms of manly aggression and physicality about a game they cannot play in because they are not physical or strong enough.

If the shoe was on the other foot and I argued that prisons are full of men not because men are more physical and aggressive but because they are perceived to be as such by women. It would be laughed at: a) because it is not true men are biologically stronger and more aggressive and b) because generally speaking women have less power than men.

Power is not the only variable here and the point you start proscribing language because it reflects a reality you don't like or a truth you perceive to be problematic is the point where reality simply becomes a social construct to be fought over by whoever has the power to construct reality and win debates.

It is the point where Donald Trump is regarded as having better truths than scientists and experts....!