Neil Francis

running the roads

I won't comment, I'll let other's do that. His views speak for themselves. I love rugby but haven't felt comfortable in a lot of rugby environs.
http://newstalk.ie/Gay-people-have-very-little-interest-in-sport--Former-rugby-player

Dr. Shrike

Hah. I have this suspicion that traditionally "manly" things like sports and the military are going to become almost synonymous with gay men in the next few decades.

Ambersky

Hah. I have this suspicion that traditionally "manly" things like sports and the military are going to become almost synonymous with gay men in the next few decades.

And .......

Nekarsulm

I played at a club level for 12 years, and it didn't matter if you were black, white, yellow or green, didn't matter what religion you were or if you were gay or straight. Didn't matter if you had been in jail or about to go to jail. What DID matter however, was 1) You turned up for training 2) You always travelled for away games 3) Prepared to play in the front two rows of the scrum. If you met these conditions, you were welcomed with open arms!

ability to give and take a slagging also a benefit.

Peregrinus

Well, if it is (or used in his day to be) true that "rugby dressing rooms are a homophobic place", that might explain his perception that gay people, as a rule, "have very little interest in sport". Gay people are as interested in sport - watching and playing - as anyone else, but in a homophobic environment they might very well choose not to present themselves as gay.

In other words, the likelihood is that Francis has encountered lots of gay sportspeople. He just had no idea they were gay.

.ak

Spot on Peregrinus, and as such Franno's comments are ignorant at best, homophobic at worst.

You'd hope now adays the generations have changed. Franno is from a bygone era really. I remember a few weeks back in training our coach had us doing a a lot of planks during a training session, and while we were doing it he was explaining the muscle groups it would improve, and he said, "Keep doing these every day and your girlfriend will be very happy for it... Or boyfriend!" It got a giggle out of all of us, but he was being genuine, and I'd like to think the giggle was down to the fact that perhaps if the old coach is well aware of the times then times have indeed changed, and people are more open minded/accepting.

Obviously it's different in different environments, we play at a social level so obviously things would be far more acceptable there, but perhaps a professional level things would be different, and that's sad to think.

CatFromHue

Neil Francis is nearly 50, I'd say it's been awhile since he's been in a modern rugby dressing room with people less than the age of say 40 in it. So his views on modern day dressing rooms may be a bit out of touch.

Piliger

The Indo are heavily modding out criticism of him.

dregin

.ak wrote: »

Obviously it's different in different environments, we play at a social level so obviously things would be far more acceptable there, but perhaps a professional level things would be different, and that's sad to think.

In Nigel's autobiography he mentioned that immediately after coming out, captains from the clubs he reffed came up to him to offer their support and to promise that he would get no crap from any of their players. He says he didn't which sounds quite promising.

Anyway, Franno and Nigel are on The Last Word just after 6:30. Looking forward to this being the last I see or hear of Franno.

https://twitter.com/lstwrd/status/435438253261328384

Dick Turnip

Neil Francis on The Last Word now

SpaceTime

Maybe I'm living in a bubble but I always thought that rugby was very progressive in this area.

Think maybe we're seeing generational issues here rather than sporing ones.

Piliger

SpaceTime wrote: »

Maybe I'm living in a bubble but I always thought that rugby was very progressive in this area.

Think maybe we're seeing generational issues here rather than sporing ones.

More like 'persona' issues from someone who is just deeply prejudiced to the core, and no one has had the balls to call him out on his homophobia along the way.

CatFromHue

Piliger wrote: »

More like 'persona' issues from someone who is just deeply prejudiced to the core, and no one has had the balls to call him out on his homophobia along the way.

He said some stupid things yesterday but I don't think he's homophobic.

On The Last Word tonight they were talking about an article he wrote before about a guy he used to play with who was gay. I remember reading that article, which was about 10 years or so ago now so it was in a very different climate in Ireland, and thought it was a very good and ballsy article to write.

Edit: I can't think of other times where I would have said he was coming across as a homophobe or anti gay so if you have any times I'd like to hear about them.

Mex Mick

Is this a case of "homophobes under the bed" ? I heard him and didnt think he said anything untoward. In his experience gay people he met had no interest in sport also when he played the dressing rooms were homophobic places. Both of these are factually correct from his viewpoint

running the roads

The comments were certainly incredibly stupid contentwise. 'Most gay people are not into sport' - well if most dressing rooms are homophobic ,maybe this has something to do with it rather than any link between the gay gene and non-sporting gene? Also 'almost all male hairdressers are gay' and 'they don't like sport, I don't like ballet' whatever about homophobia were incredibly ignorant and vulgar.

His 'apology' was little more than 'I shouldn't have said that', he didn't refudiate the content of his original speech, just that 'it was wrong to say it and he regrets offence, out of charachter'. He didn't take back any of the content. Very stupid.

Mex Mick

running the roads wrote: »

The comments were certainly incredibly stupid contentwise. 'Most gay people are not into sport' - well if most dressing rooms are homophobic ,maybe this has something to do with it rather than any link between the gay gene and non-sporting gene? Also 'almost all male hairdressers are gay' and 'they don't like sport, I don't like ballet' whatever about homophobia were incredibly ignorant and vulgar.

His 'apology' was little more than 'I shouldn't have said that', he didn't refudiate the content of his original speech, just that 'it was wrong to say it and he regrets offence, out of charachter'. He didn't take back any of the content. Very stupid.

Why would he take back the content of the views he expressed of its the reality he has experienced ?

BanzaiBk

I think what he said was badly phrased but I strongly disagree with the masses of people on the internet labelling him as homophobic. Loads of people who didn't actually hear the interview and going on hearsay it seems.

hotmail.com

BanzaiBk wrote: »

I think what he said was badly phrased but I strongly disagree with the masses of people on the internet labelling him as homophobic. Loads of people who didn't actually hear the interview and going on hearsay it seems.

I listened to the interview and it is hard to reach any other conclusion. Either that or else he is woefully ignorant. He stated that the American NFL player was "flamboyant" by the way. I think we all know what he meant.

But he's apologised and retracted his comments, so as for him, the matter is over.

I see all this as a positive thing to get the ignorance out into the public and debate it.

BanzaiBk

hotmail.com wrote: »

I listened to the interview and it is hard to reach any other conclusion. Either that or else he is woefully ignorant. He stated that the American NFL player was "flamboyant" by the way. I think we all know what he meant.

But he's apologised and retracted his comments, so as for him, the matter is over.

I see all this as a positive thing to get the ignorance out into the public and debate it.

The conclusion I reached was "man who is living in the past", not homophobe and I'm as precious as they come about these things.

hotmail.com

BanzaiBk wrote: »

The conclusion I reached was "man who is living in the past", not homophobe and I'm as precious as they come about these things.

He could be a man living in the past that is homophobic.

Lou.m

I don't think anyone environment is going to more or less prejudiced.

I do think though when one or two personalities like a manager or any authority, are prejudiced against any group at all it can become incidous. That is really what allows attitudes to go unchecked and accepted.

wonderfullife

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, if it is (or used in his day to be) true that "rugby dressing rooms are a homophobic place", that might explain his perception that gay people, as a rule, "have very little interest in sport". Gay people are as interested in sport - watching and playing - as anyone else, but in a homophobic environment they might very well choose not to present themselves as gay.

In other words, the likelihood is that Francis has encountered lots of gay sportspeople. He just had no idea they were gay.

I really don't think he is guilty of anything other than a gross generalisation. Along the lines of "Nearly every Irish person i know likes a Guinness; hence all Irish people must like Guinness".

In my personal experience, the gay/transgendered people i know haven't the faintest interest in sports. But that's a small sample of people (over 10, less than 15) and i could name a similar amount of straight people i know with no interest in it either. If i was silly enough to take that sample and make sweeping generalisations i'd end up sounding as silly as Francis.

It's very possible the gay people he knows have no interest in sports and he took it to the max with his generalisation.

Can't see what the fuss is about. All he's guilty of is a lazy subjective generalisation. People trying to create a fuss over it are being equally silly.

The rush to condemn/highlight people for "homophobic" remarks is counter-productive. One look at the message boards on the Indo and elsewhere and you'll see the average citizen of this country seems to feel bullied by the "gay lobby". Which is sort of ironic given the bullying suffered by the LGBT community for years.

Singling out 'clumsy' remarks like these and hopping on them isn't going to help any cause. All it succeeds in doing is fermenting the notion out there that you can't say anything that could be remotely construed as "homophobic" without being hopped on by the "gay lobby".

From the words and tone of his interview, he originally meant "of the gay people i know and/or have come across, they have very little interest in sports". That's a fair enough comment and the fact he butchered it in his wording is no reason for this faux outrage.

wonderfullife

Incidentally you're right Peregrinus (on not knowing).

I know of one current Irish international rugby player who is bisexual at the least. A mutual friend had compromising pictures of said player from their "time together". Now i don't know him personally nor do i know his reasons for "staying in the closet" nor would i seek to find out, but i wouldn't be surprised if they were some of the reasons you mentioned and, of course, monetary reasons - fears over sponsorship etc.

P_1

He said something stupid and quickly retracted it as being a stupid statement. I'd have thought that someone quickly realising that they made a public boo booh and calling themselves up on the fact would've been a good thing no?

Ignorant and lazy generalisations.

Nigel Owens is probably the best referee in our game, a proud and out gay man. Gareth Thomas, a centurian capped international gay man and Nigel have both spoken about how difficult life was in sport and how the reactions since coming out have been so strong.
http://www.thescore.ie/nigel-owens-neil-francis-1319186-Feb2014/

Francis should probably try to use larger sample sizes than "the ones I know" when making hugely general comments in future.

Daith

wonderfullife wrote: »

From the words and tone of his interview, he originally meant "of the gay people i know and/or have come across, they have very little interest in sports". That's a fair enough comment and the fact he butchered it in his wording is no reason for this faux outrage.

You're saying it's a fair enough comment when he didn't even say that? You're putting words into his mouth to justify it.

You might argue that the "gay lobby" are throwing around homophobia but equally there's a bunch of other people saying nobody can use that word and we have to use other words. So he's not a homophobe, he's a dinosaur, etc.

.ak

SpaceTime wrote: »

Maybe I'm living in a bubble but I always thought that rugby was very progressive in this area.

Think maybe we're seeing generational issues here rather than sporing ones.

Defo. Franno doesn't represent rugby in it's current generation in the slightest.

Daith

.ak wrote: »

Defo. Franno doesn't represent rugby in it's current generation in the slightest.

No not at all. I actually wonder if he did believe that though and was surprised by people making a fuss?

.ak

wonderfullife wrote: »

Incidentally you're right Peregrinus (on not knowing).

I know of one current Irish international rugby player who is bisexual at the least. A mutual friend had compromising pictures of said player from their "time together". Now i don't know him personally nor do i know his reasons for "staying in the closet" nor would i seek to find out, but i wouldn't be surprised if they were some of the reasons you mentioned and, of course, monetary reasons - fears over sponsorship etc.

Yeah I've hard that too.

Which in reality is a real shame, and quite sad. As Nicole Incalculable Trainee said, Gareth Thomas has had quite a decent career whilst being out.

.ak

Daith wrote: »

No not at all. I actually wonder if he did believe that though and was surprised by people making a fuss?

Maybe. Generations are different. All of our dads say things that would be completely taboo if our generation said them.

Lyaiera

I know for a fact there's at least one Team Fortress nerd on the Irish team.

I've followed rugby all my life and I am incredibly proud of Nigel Owens coming out while he was in the middle of the big time, and he's gone on to become one of, if not the best referee in rugby. I've seen fans threaten to helpfully escort people out of stadiums for saying homophobic things for him and I would imagine that even if there is homophobia in the sport, the far more numerable tolerant heads would stamp it out fairly quickly.

All that being said, I'm transgender and I have to say for years it's been one of my dreams to be in the terraces cheering at a rugby match as I want to be without having to worry about the people around my. I have no idea how it'd go but someday I will find out.

running the roads

I'm transgender too and have always been a sports fan, his belief system is depressing. He didn't after all say that he didn't believe these things,only that he shouldn't have said them.

Peregrinus

He may believe them, but if so he is not necessarily directly to blame for it. One of the effects of homophobia is that it fosters the closet, and one of the effects of the closet is that it reduces the visibility of gay people, and one of the consequences of reducing the visibility of gay people is that it creates a climate in which homophobia can flourish.

his is a vicious circle, and if Francis is trapped in that circle and genuinely thinks that there are fewer gay people in sport than there actually are, well, it may not be entirely his fault. And if he now turns around and acknowledges the limitations of his perceptions and understandings, that's a small step towards breaking the vicious circle. We should encourage that, and we should be gracious about it, if only because being snarky about it discourages people from taking that step, and why would we want to do that?

Piliger

Peregrinus wrote: »

He may believe them, but if so he is not necessarily directly to blame for it. One of the effects of homophobia is that it fosters the closet, and one of the effects of the closet is that it reduces the visibility of gay people, and one of the consequences of reducing the visibility of gay people is that it creates a climate in which homophobia can flourish.

his is a vicious circle, and if Francis is trapped in that circle and genuinely thinks that there are fewer gay people in sport than there actually are, well, it may not be entirely his fault.

I'm sorry but I don't buy that in 2014. If he lived in a cottage in some backwoods village in west clare and this is his first time to the big smoke .... then I might have some sympathy. But for goodness sakes he is supposed to be educated. Doesn't he listen to other people ? read the news ? books ? meet people ? talk to people ? travel abroad ? I see no excuse whatsoever in spouting that kind of nonsense other than personal prejudice.

And if he now turns around and acknowledges the limitations of his perceptions and understandings, that's a small step towards breaking the vicious circle. We should encourage that, and we should be gracious about it, if only because being snarky about it discourages people from taking that step, and why would we want to do that?

If he did. But has he ? I don't believe so. An oficial press apology is just a business manoeuvre imho.

Trojan

I've played rugby for 20-odd years now. Never once had a teammate tell me they were gay, nor did I ever ask. By the odds, I've played with at least 10, maybe as many as 20 gay teammates. I've also played against Celtic Warriors several times, didn't notice any lack of macho when front rows hit in those games.

If you're my teammate, I don't particularly care about your sexual orientation. Are you a good tackler, or do you have a good lineout throw, can you run good attack lines? Can you kick? Do you say stupid sh!t and give away penalties? Those are the important issues.

I see that Neil Francis has done a 180 on his initial interview. I don't see how he can reverse entirely from it as it sounds pretty clear cut what he said, but I can't say that I've never said anything really, really stupid either.

Some things people from my parents' generation say are truly cringeworthy, and clearly a product of those folks' upbringing and culture, but even they have largely moved with the times.

For my generation playing rugby since ~1990, it's been a total non-issue.

running the roads

Matt Cooper asked him a few times if he was genuine in his apology, as he didn't appear so, It was clear that these are still his views, nothing has happened in the past few day's to change them, only that he shouldn't have expressed them. He may not have wished to offend people, but they are still his views, which are horribly ignorant.

feardeas

Chatting to mates the other night and we replayed a match from 2010 championship in detail. Our County lost it as it happens...... still raw. At the end of the conversation one of them said jasus your man francsis should meet you.

Look he said what he said. Fairly stupid imo but not a major thing really. Winds of change are blowing attitudes change and sometimes I think the best thing to do is laugh at some of the odder opinions.

floggg

What a found most offensive about his comments wasn't the stereotyping but questioning why Sam came out and implying it was for hype or celebrity.

Obviously a gay athlete who wants to live openly has to come out so he can disclose on his own terms rather than some tabloid catching him outside a gay or with a bf and plastering it over the front page in a trashy manner.

The implications from those sort of why come out comments though is that gay people should just keep this things to themselves, in a don't ask don't tell manner.

It's all well and good if you're gay as long as you hide it and don't expect the same recognition for your life as straight people get.

Piliger

feardeas wrote: »

Look he said what he said. Fairly stupid imo but not a major thing really. Winds of change are blowing attitudes change and sometimes I think the best thing to do is laugh at some of the odder opinions.

Fair point. But I think we need to make sure that ignorance and prejudice like this is challenged and challenged vigorously, otherwise this crap will keep happening in dressing rooms and sports teams across the country. They need to know that it is NOT ok, and the rest of the people find their attitude repugnant.

Aard

I wish people would just stand by their comments and not be coerced into issuing an apology, either by the media, the outraged public, or publicists.

holyhead

Surely Neil Francis is entitled to his opinion and his having to apologize is frankly depressing and speaks of some power deciding what you can and cant say. Obviously when you right for a national paper your opinion is open to debate be that praise or criticism. He obviously holds his view and has apologized under pressure. He has said nothing inflammatory or racist or insulting from what I've read. Fair enough if people think his views are outdated or stereotypical or ignorant. But he IS entitled to his opinion and should'nt have to apologize for it.

Piliger

holyhead wrote: »

Surely Neil Francis is entitled to his opinion and his having to apologize is frankly depressing and speaks of some power deciding what you can and cant say. Obviously when you right for a national paper your opinion is open to debate be that praise or criticism. He obviously holds his view and has apologized under pressure. He has said nothing inflammatory or racist or insulting from what I've read. Fair enough if people think his views are outdated or stereotypical or ignorant. But he IS entitled to his opinion and should'nt have to apologize for it.

You only emphasise his personal weakness. Who is this 'power' that is forcing him to apologise ? Could it be his agent who is pointing out the effect on his wallet ? Yeah ... poor lad.

His comments are deeply insulting and offensive and embarrassing. Shame on him.

floggg

holyhead wrote: »

Surely Neil Francis is entitled to his opinion and his having to apologize is frankly depressing and speaks of some power deciding what you can and cant say. Obviously when you right for a national paper your opinion is open to debate be that praise or criticism. He obviously holds his view and has apologized under pressure. He has said nothing inflammatory or racist or insulting from what I've read. Fair enough if people think his views are outdated or stereotypical or ignorant. But he IS entitled to his opinion and should'nt have to apologize for it.

It is very much insulting - the suggestion was that gay men are all effeminate stereotypes, and that sports is too manly for us.

It's inaccurate, ignorant and offensive plain and simply.

And yes, he is entitled to his opinion, very much so.

But he also makes a living out of offering those opinions to the public. So when those opinions are inaccurate, ignorant and offensive then the public can and will call him out on that bull****.

The reason he apologised is because he likes the living he makes from offering his opinions. So he needed to apologise so that people don't realise how out of touch he is and cease paying any heed to his opinions.

holyhead

His apology was driven by commercial necessity. He risked being a pariah if he hadn't. There something badly wrong in our society when someone feels compelled to apologize when all they have done is air their personal opinion on something. If you disagree with him fine but let us tolerate different view points.

Piliger

holyhead wrote: »

His apology was driven by commercial necessity. He risked being a pariah if he hadn't. There something badly wrong in our society when someone feels compelled to apologize when all they have done is air their personal opinion on something. If you disagree with him fine but let us tolerate different view points.

Why did he HAVE to apologise ? Who forced him ?

holyhead

Commercial necessity Pilliger.

Piliger

holyhead wrote: »

Commercial necessity Pilliger.

Exactly. No one forced him or pressured him. It was good old selfish motivation.

eviltwin

He's entitled to his opinion but freedom of speech comes with a responsibility. It's one thing to come out with that comment in the pub with your mates, another thing entirely to say it on national radio. The guy is not a fool, he's a media figure, he must have known how his comments would be taken regardless of the fact they were made on a macho sports show. His 'apology' and the pr stunt he's doing on the Mooney show are meaningless imo, it's all self serving and will probably work but he's shown his feelings about the gay community now, a lot of people won't forget that.

Piliger

eviltwin wrote: »

He's entitled to his opinion but freedom of speech comes with a responsibility

Agreed. Also ... freedom of speech comes with having to face the consequences. When you pi$$ people off and insult them, you need to realise that they, and people who support equality and justice, also have freedom of speech and are entitled to criticise you and call you out.

floggg

holyhead wrote: »

His apology was driven by commercial necessity. He risked being a pariah if he hadn't. There something badly wrong in our society when someone feels compelled to apologize when all they have done is air their personal opinion on something. If you disagree with him fine but let us tolerate different view points.

Did you read my post?

He makes a living sharing his views. He is free to share them, but nobody is obligated to pay him for the privilege.

He gets paid to do so by the media only so long as they are considered to be intelligent, relevant and informed.

Last week, he exposed himself as not being very intelligent, relevant or informed - at least on this issue.

So now he's back pedalling to try and undo the damage.

I find this "everybody is entitled to their opinion" defence to be really uninformed and actually shows a lack of understanding about free speech.

He is entitled to believe that, and he is entitled to say that - absolutely. He does not however have any right or entitlement to be listened to or agreed with. When he proffers his opinion for public consumption, the public also has the right to their opinion on what he says. And if they find it to be ignorant, misinformed and out of touch they are allowed to say so.

They are also allowed to stop listening to his opinions.

It's as simple as that. If you are suggesting that he or anybody else should be allowed say something without a right of reply, then you're the one arguing against freedom of speech and expression.

holyhead

If you are suggesting that he or anybody else should be allowed say something without a right of reply, then you're the one arguing against freedom of speech and expression.[/QUOTE]

Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion but shouldn't be pilloried for doing so.