Deebles McBeebles wrote: » Gray was fired for making sexist comments, very different to sexually harassing women. That's not to downplay what he said but its a lot lower on the disgusting behaviour scale.
Greyfox wrote: » Yes male players should be given priority but if a woman happens to know what their talking about they should be allowed to do the job without people saying they don't want to listen to a woman. Saying a women shouldnt be a pundit on men's football is very clearly a sexist statement.
Silentcorner wrote: » The amount of people who care about being accused of sexism or being a misogynist is growing smaller by the day....
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » No it's not... Those jobs are very well paid, and quite handy jobs. I can guarantee you, there is a very long que of ex-players who would jump at the chance to take her seat in that studio if they were asked... but they've reached their quota, so hard luck chaps! (Maybe consider a sex change to improve your chances!:pac:)
Greyfox wrote: » It is sexist.
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » No it's not... It can't be sexist, to show favouritism towards men in men's professional football... that is completely illogical. And Alex Scott is bang average, so it's not like you could even make an argument based on her being better than all the male alternatives! (And I would still say she should be in the women's game, helping her own sport, even if she was that good... )
ohnonotgmail wrote: » To say that a woman is not capable of doing the same job as a man because she happens to be a woman is the definition of sexist.
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » I never said she wasn't capable... I said she had no actual entitlement to be there. (capable or otherwise) Unlike most other areas of life, where she probably would have that entitlement if she was qualified. There's nothing wrong with favouring men, and excluding women, in men's professional sport. It's perfectly natural actually. There is nothing sexist about it. Most areas of life, it is right and proper that you afford equal opportunities to both sexes... but we are not talking about those other areas. We are talking about the very unique world of gender-specific sports!
ohnonotgmail wrote: » So that is even more sexist than before.
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » Nope, nothing even remotely sexist in what I said... If you believe that women have the right to equal opportunities in men's professional football... then why does women's professional football even exist? By extension, you must also believe then, that women should be given equal opportunities to compete out on the pitch too? Why stop at the TV studios? If you want to use your logic, then you cannot exclude the game itself... that would not be true equality of opportunity!
ohnonotgmail wrote: » It is a job in tv not a job in sport.
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » If you believe that women have the right to equal opportunities in men's professional football... then why does women's professional football even exist?
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » You're wrong. It is a job in sport. The TV program doesn't exist, unless there is a match to watch... so it is all part of the sport. .
sbsquarepants wrote: » You really do struggle with the thin line separating watching something on telly from actively taking part don't you! Bizarre.
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » I'm not struggling with anything. It's very clear to me - men's football is for men. Women's football is for women! You do seem a bit confused by this though! It's actually very simple really. And nothing sexist about it....
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » I never said she wasn't capable... I said she had no actual entitlement to be there. (capable or otherwise)
Skylinehead wrote: » Yeah, nobody does. What a bizarre point.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » I’d be a follower of national hunt racing, and I’ve never felt that having women pundits on RTÉ or ITV was ever a token gesture. Just very knowledgeable people about the sport. As an aside, there’s a very good chance Rachel Blackmore will be top jockey at Cheltenham. Again, there’s no allowances being made for her being a woman. She’s just one of the top 5 jump jockeys on the planet through innate talent.
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » There's nothing wrong with favouring men, and excluding women, in men's professional sport. It's perfectly natural actually. There is nothing sexist about it.
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » I'm not struggling with anything. It's very clear to me - men's football is for men. Women's football is for women!
Greyfox wrote: » "excluding women" in a job a woman can do is the same thing as telling a woman she can't deliver post as a man normally does that job. Your deciding a woman isn't fit for the job BECAUSE she's a woman.
A football player and a pundit are very different jobs, one is same sex and the other isn't
Yeah because no women watch men's football
ReginaldSmythV wrote: » Having a woman football player on to talk about men’s football is about as relevant as having a golfer on to talk about it.
Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: » A postman/woman is not a gender-specific career. Men's professional football is a gender-specific sport/career. They're both part of the same sport. So they're not very different.
sbsquarepants wrote: Maybe even a tad gay? (Not that there's anything wrong with that, just not my particular cupán tae)
ohnonotgmail wrote: To say that a woman is not capable of doing the same job as a man because she happens to be a woman is the definition of sexist.
ohnonotgmail wrote: And i'm sure you can tell me in what ways it is different. Why dont you educate us all?
Ironicname wrote: » Well the first thing would be the probability of severe injury being much higher in the male sport so the balance between defence and attack would be very different than it would be for women. It's why trans MMA fighters/boxers competing against biological women is a nightmare. But I'm sure in your mind it's all the very same. Because men and women are identical.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a76cb640f98d9dcd3d00bb9366a306.svg)
