Double Standards

DarkJager · 25-01-2011 6:29pm #1

I know this is a topic visited many times here, but todays sacking of Andy Gray for comments he made has got my blood boiling again.

His comments (which by the way weren't even broadcast on air) have resulted in him losing his job. However, just watching TV this afternoon, I have seen 2 different "womens" chat shows making derogatory comments about men. This was on air, not some recorded conversation leaked afterwards. I just can't understand this and to me it shows what a complete and utter farce this anti-sexism **** is.

The TV shows were debating about current issues. One of them managed to turn a topic which had nothing to do with genders into a 5 minute male bashing fest, with the cretinous hosts bawking at their own jokes about male stupidity. The other, decided to rip on males about "fashion choices" - something I'm sure none of us really give a **** about because we aren't as vain or clothes obsessed as the opposite sex.

However, it got me thinking how pointless the sacking of Andy Gray actually is. Why was it done? To appease female viewers of Sky Sports? (which I'd be interested to know what majority they make up of its viewership). Already countless forums are being filled with pissed off sky subscription customers saying they will cancel because of this. Meanwhile, these ****ing self obsessed idiots are making a joke out of our gender for entertainment on afternoon tv shows.

When do we say enough is enough? When do we start lodging complaints about dopey bints making snide remarks ON AIR, about our gender and then having a great old guffaw about it? It makes me worry that we, as men, are simply satisified to sit back and watch and allow this to happen, while someone like Andy Gray gets fired from his job over comments he didn't even make while the programme was being broadcast. We can't even have a ****ing advert for Hunky Dorys with female models because its sexist, yet we are treated to the sexist **** that is the RSA "He Drives, She Dies" advert year after year and are supposed to ****ing take it all in our stride?

Are we ever to going to find the balls to call a halt to this sexist nonsense, or does society see us as having to be acceptant of taking this on the chin and going on with life? Are we now supposed to suffer humilation as a gender now because people who aren't even breathing anymore, gave women a hard time before we were even born? I find myself getting more and more infuriated with these double standards we allow to happen. I am sick to my teeth of watching this absolute bull**** carry on, without even a second glance from my gender.

When does it stop lads? When do we start taking back our pride? I don't want to sound completely anti-female but the more I see this happen the more I can't hating their arrogance and societys blind eyes for allowing to them carry on with it.

Wolfe Tone · 25-01-2011 6:30pm

Gray is suing a Murdoch paper...... guess who owns sky?

Galvasean · 25-01-2011 6:41pm

The RSA recieved numerous complaints re: the "He Drives, She Dies" ads IIRC. However, they were dismissed on the grounds that statistically* more male drivers crash cars than female ones.

*I say 'statistically' as this is the statistic provided by the RSA. As far as I know this statistic does not take into account of how much time particular genders spend on the roads. - Just thought I'd say that, not meaning to go off topic.

As far as those afternoon chat shows go; does anyone ever lodge complaints? Out of curiosity have you done so OP? I suppose it takes someone to start... Although I would imagine they'd be excused under 'harmless light-hearted banter' or something, which I personally think it is exactly like the Sky sports presenters' bit.
Dismissing the linesman (that's the term, I'd rather not get bogged down by semantics) for being female is potentially damaging to Sky Sports (and indeed football in general) as it potentially scares off female viewers who are an increasingly high market share.
However, in the case of afternoon shows where slagging men is commonplace, they probably don't care as much since men make up such a small viewing figure and will dismiss complaints more readily.
Let's make no mistake here. This is not about sparing people's feelings or standing for what is right. This is about a TV network (Sky) looking after it's market share.

Red Hand · 25-01-2011 6:48pm

If you are watching stupid television shows, then that is part of the problem imo.

Rubik. · 25-01-2011 7:23pm

What actually got him the sack was this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cS8OkAiXCI

and rightly so.

Galvasean · 25-01-2011 7:26pm

Rubik. wrote: »

What actually got him the sack was this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cS8OkAiXCI

and rightly so.

Reallly? i better sack half the office so...

Wolfe Tone · 25-01-2011 7:28pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Reallly? i better sack half the office so...

That was just a bit of bant

parker kent · 25-01-2011 7:33pm

Galvasean wrote: »

TDismissing the linesman (that's the term, I'd rather not get bogged down by semantics) for being female is potentially damaging to Sky Sports (and indeed football in general) as it potentially scares off female viewers who are an increasingly high market share.

This is pedantic, but the term is not linesman. It is assistant referee and has been for a long time.

Rubik. · 25-01-2011 7:37pm

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

That was just a bit of bant

That's not banter, its someone acting like a complete dickhead.

fatmammycat · 25-01-2011 7:43pm

http://www.talksport.co.uk/radio/drivetime/blog/2011-01-25/matterface-andy-gray-wasnt-very-popular-among-people-he-worked

More perspective on it.

Pherekydes · 25-01-2011 7:51pm

DarkJager wrote: »

However, it got me thinking how pointless the sacking of Andy Gray actually is.

[...]

Are we ever to going to find the balls to call a halt to this sexist nonsense...

What double standards are you referring to?

citytillidie · 25-01-2011 8:40pm

Loose woman have always been very sexist show against men how is it still on air?

Otis Driftwood · 25-01-2011 8:55pm

While I believe the sacking is an excessive sanction how is this different to Ron Atkinson calling Marcel Desailly a "big f**king ni**er"?The FA has spent millions on their "respect" campaign,the Premiership has made billions for Murdoch so obviously it has as much to do with commercial reasons as any else.As for day time TV slating men,Im sick of hearing this arguement,if blokes are so offended by it then why dont they report it to Ofcom or whatever the Irish equivalent is?IMO its because the overwhelming majority couldnt care less,myself include,about what some muppet on TV3 says on a Tuesday afternon.

stupidusername · 25-01-2011 9:06pm

What pisses me off about all this stuff, is that if it hadn't been leaked to the public nothing would've happened! I mean they either have a problem with him making remarks like this, or they don't, you can't just say oh we better please the general public :rolleyes: have some standards, and stick to them!

I've noticed remarks being made in the Midday program on tv3, if anyone ever watches it. there was a discussion on it one day similar to this, probably about a sexist (against women) comment made by someone, and they discussed it. and then the next day there was some frivolous comments made all over the place about men, and how useless they are around the house. or something. and it was made a joke about them being stupid and having to be told every thing. no complaints about that though. (the panels are generally all female).

Just saying. To be honest I don't really know where I stand on this. I mean I wouldn't like women feeling uncomfortable in a job that is usually done by men, but at the same time where does the PCness stop? :rolleyes:

citytillidie · 25-01-2011 9:20pm

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

While I believe the sacking is an excessive sanction how is this different to Ron Atkinson calling Marcel Desailly a "big f**king ni**er"?The FA has spent millions on their "respect" campaign,the Premiership has made billions for Murdoch so obviously it has as much to do with commercial reasons as any else.As for day time TV slating men,Im sick of hearing this arguement,if blokes are so offended by it then why dont they report it to Ofcom or whatever the Irish equivalent is?IMO its because the overwhelming majority couldnt care less,myself include,about what some muppet on TV3 says on a Tuesday afternon.

Because when they do complain told there will be no investigation such as the recent boots ad that received 96 complaints but they will not investigate it

http://www.malehealth.co.uk/21836-boots-ad-should-not-have-been-made

liah · 25-01-2011 9:22pm

Men get called out on sexist remarks because women care enough to report them. I see no reason why men can't do the same.

If you see a problem, fix it.

citytillidie · 25-01-2011 9:25pm

liah wrote: »

Men get called out on sexist remarks because women care enough to report them. I see no reason why men can't do the same. If you see a problem, fix it.

Only works if the complaints by men are followed up and investigated. I shall refer to you my post before yours

liah · 25-01-2011 9:29pm

citytillidie wrote: »

Only works if the complaints by men are followed up and investigated. I shall refer to you my post before yours

And why is there no male effort to chase them down to follow up and investigate?

If you harass them enough, things will change.

Otis Driftwood · 25-01-2011 9:34pm

citytillidie wrote: »

Because when they do complain told there will be no investigation such as the recent boots ad that received 96 complaints but they will not investigate it

http://www.malehealth.co.uk/21836-boots-ad-should-not-have-been-made

How many complaints does it take for an ad to be investigated I wonder?TBH,96 isnt that many considering the likely millons of men that saw the ad.And in fairness,if a bloke avoids going to the doctors for fear of getting laughed at then he has more to worry about than a flu.:)

douglashyde · 25-01-2011 9:34pm

I think most of us can understand that in certain situations things are allowed be said in banter about both males and females and common sense needs to be applied about when to say these things. Football is a lads game, which involves lad banter and opinions. So in this context my opinion of what Andy said is acceptable.

The clip that Andy Gray was fired over showed him making joking gestures about Charlotte Jackson - now a quick image search of Charlotte Jackson will find plenty of raunchy photoshoots of her - and it is quite clear why Sky hired her; to appease the male testosterone driven masses - so I have no sympathy for Charlotte or Sky.

However, by firing Andy over making these gestures suggests Sky is sending the message "You can think it BUT you can’t say it!"

citytillidie · 25-01-2011 9:40pm

douglashyde wrote: »

I think most of us can understand that in certain situations things are allowed be said in banter about both males and females and common sense needs to be applied about when to say these things. Football is a lads game, which involves lad banter and opinions. So in this context my opinion of what Andy said is acceptable.

The clip that Andy Gray was fired over showed him making joking gestures about Charlotte Jackson - now a quick image search of Charlotte Jackson will find plenty of raunchy photoshoots of her - and it is quite clear why Sky hired her; to appease the male testosterone driven masses - so I have no sympathy for Charlotte or Sky.

However, by firing Andy over making these gestures suggests Sky is sending the message "You can think it BUT you can’t say it!"

If he was fired for that clip then why was he not fired when in happened in December and not 1 month later?

SugarHigh · 25-01-2011 9:41pm

People are way too sensitive and just love the chance of getting offended even if it's on behalf of someone else.

People get taken the piss out off for loads of reasons I don't think making a sexist banter is any worse than slagging someone for being ginger.

Before someone jumps in with"Buh buh what if it was about race" my opinion would be the same.

SugarHigh · 25-01-2011 9:44pm

liah wrote: »

And why is there no male effort to chase them down to follow up and investigate?

If you harass them enough, things will change.

Maybe the solution isn't to try and match their over the top sensitiveness but instead maybe they should just get on with it and stop finding crap to be offended about.

citytillidie · 25-01-2011 9:46pm

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

How many complaints does it take for an ad to be investigated I wonder?TBH,96 isnt that many considering the likely millons of men that saw the ad.And in fairness,if a bloke avoids going to the doctors for fear of getting laughed at then he has more to worry about than a flu.:)

What about 673 complaints like the ovenpride

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8057792.stm

liah · 25-01-2011 9:48pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

Maybe the solution isn't to try and match their over the top sensitiveness but instead maybe they should just get on with it and stop finding crap to be offended about.

Largely I agree, though I don't think those sorts of comments (to either gender, for the record) belong in a work environment. Same as I think taking the piss out of someone who's gay or black or anything else doesn't belong in the work environment. And regardless of whether or not it was on or off air, it was still at their workplace. They can say whatever the hell they like outside of it and should never be penalized for it if it is outside of the building, but it wasn't.

If it pisses people off, and it clearly does by the OP, it's not really anyone's responsibility to tell them how they feel is invalid, and if it bothers them they should do something to fix it.

iptba · 25-01-2011 9:49pm

Rubik. wrote: »

What actually got him the sack was this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cS8OkAiXCI

and rightly so.

Can somebody transcribe what he said? It shouldn't be much work - not many words. I can't make out what he said - guessing others may have same problem.

Sounds like a slightly different situation (maybe some form of sexual harrassment?) to talking about an individual (assistant referee) amongst a few individuals.

Rubik. · 25-01-2011 9:51pm

iptba wrote: »

Can somebody transcribe that for me? It shouldn't be much work. I can't make out what he said.

Charlotte can you tuck this in here for me luv...Charlotte?

fatmammycat · 25-01-2011 9:55pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

Maybe the solution isn't to try and match their over the top sensitiveness but instead maybe they should just get on with it and stop finding crap to be offended about.

Who is this 'they' business? I know plenty of men who don't appreciate Andy Gray's kind of boorish carry on, indeed a lot of the footballing sites today were happy to call him on it. He was sacked by SKY, do you really think women are the power behind this decision? He was stupid enough to display his crass behaviour on film and gave SKY all the ammunition they needed to get rid of him. 'They' doesn't really come into it.

SugarHigh · 25-01-2011 9:58pm

liah wrote: »

Largely I agree, though I don't think those sorts of comments (to either gender, for the record) belong in a work environment. Same as I think taking the piss out of someone who's gay or black or anything else doesn't belong in the work environment. And regardless of whether or not it was on or off air, it was still at their workplace. They can say whatever the hell they like outside of it and should never be penalized for it if it is outside of the building, but it wasn't.

If it pisses people off, and it clearly does by the OP, it's not really anyone's responsibility to tell them how they feel is invalid, and if it bothers them they should do something to fix it.

It's interesting you say this because the actual girl involved accepted the apology and doesn't seem to care less. If she was worried about idiots she probably wouldn't be doing the job she is. It's other people who pretty much demanded they get the sack and sky gave in because they wanted rid of these two anyway.

I don't like how people can just get offended by something and then demand it's changed, like everyone else in the world has to fit around them.

I disagree about not allowing sexist jokes in the workplace. It's obviously done to make it more comfortable for people who are easily offended but the consequence is it creates a stiff atmosphere where a slip of the tongue gets you the sack. There are certain environments where people who are easily offended shouldn't work in and a football stadium is one of them.

fatmammycat · 25-01-2011 10:02pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

It's interesting you say this because the actual girl involved accepted the apology and doesn't seem to care less. If she was worried about idiots she probably wouldn't be doing the job she is. It's other people who pretty much demanded they get the sack and sky gave in because they wanted rid of these two anyway.

I don't like how people can just get offended by something and then demand it's changed, like everyone else in the world has to fit around them.

I disagree about not allowing sexist jokes in the workplace. It's obviously done to make it more comfortable for people who are easily offended but the consequence is it creates a stiff atmosphere where a slip of the tongue gets you the sack. There are certain environments where people who are easily offended shouldn't work in and a football stadium is one of them.

You know it's not actually that difficult to go around NOT offending people. Having a bit of tact, manners and civility makes a working environment pleasant for MOST people.

liah · 25-01-2011 10:03pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

It's interesting you say this because the actual girl involved accepted the apology and doesn't seem to care less. If she was worried about idiots she probably wouldn't be doing the job she is. It's other people who pretty much demanded they get the sack and sky gave in because they wanted rid of these two anyway.

I don't like how people can just get offended by something and then demand it's changed, like everyone else in the world has to fit around them.

I disagree about not allowing sexist jokes in the workplace. It's obviously done to make it more comfortable for people who are easily offended but the consequence is it creates a stiff atmosphere where a slip of the tongue gets you the sack. There are certain environments where people who are easily offended shouldn't work in and a football stadium is one of them.

Personally, I think banning things like that in the workplace are fairly useful measures that cause people to look at things a bit differently. Based on the old cliche, 'if you hear something enough times, you start to believe it'. I don't think the workplace is a necessary outlet for things like that, there's a time and a place and work isn't one of them.

If sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. epithets are allowed (even casually) it gives grounds to breed hate. Nip it in the bud and there's less to worry about or moderate; it can be incredibly tricky to define what's genuinely meant to offend and what's a casual comment sometimes, so it's easier to just ban it all while in the work environment to cause less hassle for everyone involved.

Your work environment is meant to be a place where you work and are professional, it's not your back yard where you can say what you like.

Double Standards

Comments