to be absolutely furious about football chief and emails referring to women as 'gash'??

(358 Posts)
BeanAboutTown Mon 12-May-14 09:46:04

Sorry if there are other threads about this, couldn't find any.

Richard Scudamore, head of the Premier League, has been merrily sending emails referring to women as 'gash' and 'skinny big-titted broads', 'irrational' and lots of other incendiary misogynist shite.

Oh but he's apologised. That's nice eh, nothing to see here

Apparently he reports to the Premier League Board, which is two people, one of whom is errrrrr Richard Scudamore

AIBU to think an apology is nowhere near enough and he should bloody well resign?

It's been reported that the Premier League's women's officer has been told not to make any comment. Wouldn't want the shiny-suited money-making boys' club to be unnecessarily disturbed by any harpies would we

Anyone for a Premier League boycott next season? (Congrats to Man City by the way) How about we all give our money to the women's game instead

soverylucky Mon 12-May-14 09:48:46

His secretary would surely have a good claim for sexual harassment at work? Those comments are disgusting.

ProbablyUnderACushion Mon 12-May-14 09:48:54

It's a sobering exercise to substitute a few racist terms for the ones used above, and imagine what would happen.

BeanAboutTown Mon 12-May-14 09:51:04

Exactly what I thought Probably - see what (absolutely rightly) happened to Ron Atkinson when he used racist terms.

But apparently having your Chief Exec use one of the most disparagingly disgusting terms about women is AOK with the Premier League. After all it's not as though women are human or anything

SirChenjin Mon 12-May-14 09:52:25

WTAF?? shock

YANBU - an apology doesn't come even halfway to what is required. A boycott of the Premier League won't happen sadly, but I hope the Press run with this and he's forced to resign.

LucilleBluth Mon 12-May-14 09:56:07

This kind of thing needs a zero tolerance approach. Get rid of him, use him as an example.

Crumblemum Mon 12-May-14 09:56:47

What makes me really angry about this (apart from the words) is the fact that the media have largely ignored it. Probably is absolutely right, think of the bro-ha-ha around Jeremy Clarkson, but this guy is actually responsible for improving women's participation in premier league football.

I can only assume all the journos not covering are worried they'll lose their reporting rights and access to the games. Would love to be proved wrong!

I don't think a boycott would work, but this guy at the very least has to apologise publicly. Would love to know what his wife and daughters think!

Bobtailstrikesagain Mon 12-May-14 09:57:04

YANBU - he should be strung up.

I used to work in football and although some attitudes have changed sadly these misogynistic views are still widely held. Hence why I no longer work in the game.

ConferencePear Mon 12-May-14 09:57:53

Compare this with what happened to the hapless DJ who lost his job for playing a record he didn't know contained racism -
makes you wonder doesn't it ?

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 10:01:49

Well he looks stupid and nasty, and I would say his position is damaged beyond repair as no politician or other senior figure can now afford to take him seriously or be associated with him.

I think he is doomed.

BeanAboutTown Mon 12-May-14 10:02:08

We must have some sports journos on here who could tell a tale or two...

BMW6 Mon 12-May-14 10:09:32

He should be sacked immediatly, no question. angry

Fleta Mon 12-May-14 10:11:01

Abhorrent human being.

There shouldn't even be a question as to whether he's sacked. It is incredibly obvious that the only thing to do is sack him with immediate effect.

JohnFarleysRuskin Mon 12-May-14 10:11:46

Crikey, I didn't know it was that....That is very shocking.

I have heard the term among 14 year olds - never a grown(?) man.

fifi669 Mon 12-May-14 10:12:10

shock gash? Really? He sounds like a charmer...

specialsubject Mon 12-May-14 10:14:40

feel sorry for the wife who finds herself married to someone with attitudes like this. Hope she'll sack him too!

as someone notes, substitute in racist terms and imagine the (equally justified) furore.

FobblyWoof Mon 12-May-14 10:19:04

What a dickhead. It's so sad that people like this actually exist.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm so fucking fed up of having to get angry at this shit. I get frustrated because it's happened and angry because there's always a fucking fight to change things/people's attitudes/hold people to account.

thenightsky Mon 12-May-14 10:25:28

We shouldn't even have to debate this. He should be long gone. Totally unacceptable.

Nocomet Mon 12-May-14 10:39:22

I normally think the PC brigade are far to harsh in general banter and jokes, but exchanging them on works email copied to female colleagues is out of order.

I live a sheltered life, I had to google 'gash' shock
not for the squeamish
Sorry, but that word alone goes way beyond banter and jokes and equals instant dismissal in my book. angry
He's not a 10y repeating something he's heard in the playground, he knows what it means. To me, as a woman, it feels very much equivalent to a deeply racist term. I'm very hard to offend, but that's vile.

EatSleepRaveRepeat Mon 12-May-14 10:57:59

I agree how can Female ref's , lines women etc ever get respect on the pitch from fans when the head of the premier league talks like this.

BolshierAyraStark Mon 12-May-14 10:59:12

Wow, who knew there were so many terms for the fanjo?

Read the article yesterday-pathetic man but unlikely to be sacked as its only sexist & that's ok right? hmm

BennyB Mon 12-May-14 10:59:19

I disagree. Of course, I am not keen on what he said, obviously but he has apologised and that is enough. Who among us has not said insulting things about men in general, either in jest or in anger? Come on, censorship is not the answer and no one should lose their job over something they said or wrote. That way is thought police territory.

waits for the collective scowl of MNetters

mammamic Mon 12-May-14 11:03:34

outrageous. definitely should be sacked. totally unacceptable.

If it had been similar comments about a minority or race or any other targeted group actually, there would be no question. but it's only about women so that's OK.

I'm totally freaked out that some men actually use gash in that context. I really thought that was one of those 'coming of age' things - I am a teenage boy but want to be a man so how can I impress my other silly teenage friends. Use the word gash. In my day, it was the work 'bird' which offended. how innocent we were!

shocking.

Suzannewithaplan Mon 12-May-14 11:08:00

It's vile, and it makes him sound like a horrid sniggering twelve year old boy

JohnFarleysRuskin Mon 12-May-14 11:08:37

I don't go around insulting men, somehow I manage not to - I don't believe I'm the exception. I especially wouldn't go around insulting men in a sustained way over several months to my colleagues and in front of a male colleague/secretary.

How do you mean its 'thought police?' Thoughts are just thoughts, the problem is that this man actually DID write this shit. He didn't just think it.

His poor wife.

BTW: "It was meant in a Frankie Howerd style way."? Poor Frankie Howerd would be turning in his grave.

nicename Mon 12-May-14 11:08:44

Was this leaked by his secretary? It was on radio 4 a couple of days ago (not what he said).

What an idiot. He has a wife, a mother, sisters, duaghters I assume? I hope they show him the error of his ways. How are women in footall/sports/general life to have respect if that type of crap is spouted?

But then, football isn't exactly a model of good behaviour is it? It seems that every few weeks there is a player in court for rape/assault.

They won't sack him for bringing the game into direpute.

SteadyEddie Mon 12-May-14 11:11:19

I hope he is sacked.

Sacking always seems much worse than resignation, because it means that his peers have come together and agreed that what he said was unacceptable.

They sacked Andy Gray and the other Man whose name I cant remember for a similar incident.

The other problem for me is that the FA have spent time and effort to make the ladies game more accessible and high profile after years of neglect and this will destroy that if they don't act.

BennyB Mon 12-May-14 11:14:30

No, I mean thought police as in the conformist PC demand that anything "not nice" must immediately be punished. We need to grow up.

By the way, the comments were made in his private email account that an employee somehow gained access to. Not a workplace event or even a work email. Just some distasteful laddism.

mammamic Mon 12-May-14 11:14:47

Benny B - are you for real or trolling for some reaction? Or simply naive/stupid!!!

This man is employed and PAID a hefty sum, amongst other things, to PROMOTE THE OTHER SIDE OF A BEAUTIFUL GAME.

It is not just some bloke exchanging emails with his sad little dirty friends. IT WAS ON HIS WORK EMAIL.

His FEMALE PA, WHO HAD NO CHOICE, WAS EXPOSED TO THIS OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOUR.

If you have kids, I sincerely hope they never have the misfortune to come across someone like him. It would be interesting to know how you would feel if you discovered your husband/son/son-in law was referring to you/your daughter in law/your daughter as 'gash' to his work mates over email and making lewd jokes about who does and does not shaft whom in such a derogatory manner.

Freedom of speech, censorship, decency, privacy. You need to have a think about what they all actually mean.

and yes - I've referred to men/women in insulting ways (I've had to 'censor' this very post to avoid possibly insulting you), politically incorrect was and so on. NEVER ON WORK EMAIL, I'M NOT PAID TO DO THE OPPOSITE, I'M NOT A FIGUREHEAD OF A HUGE BODY, AND, most importantly NEVER EVER EVER IN SUCH A DISGUSTING VILE WAY.

And apologies to the group - YES I AM SHOUTING.

BarbarianMum Mon 12-May-14 11:17:15

Maybe this will show him the error of his ways (ie to make him more cautious about what he puts in writing) but I don't suppose being forced to apologise is going to make him suddenly see half the world's population differently. So yes he does need to be sacked.

JohnFarleysRuskin Mon 12-May-14 11:23:06

The soccer boss has publicly claimed the league strives to be at “the leading edge” of the “whole equality agenda”.

How can he possibly carry out the equality agenda now? If the head of 'kick racism' out of football had behaved similarly, using racist terms, would you think, ah, he should just apologize?

His emails were sent to his PA ­automatically.

BennyB Mon 12-May-14 11:29:57

No, mammamic, not trolling although I see you have taken the moral high road by calling me names. This is not a playground. It might be healthier if it were, perhaps you might recall the little playground ditty about sticks and stones, etc.

The man works in public to promote women in the sport. He wrote a few emails with some nasty words about women. I just do not see it as a sacking offence.

I know it is unusual for someone to break out of the conformist condemnatory consensus of MN threads like this but hey ho. I just thought an alternative view should be aired. I'll get my coat.

Kewcumber Mon 12-May-14 11:30:12

Anyone stupid enough to write this using a work email should be fired for being too stupid to be in charge of a major organisation even before getting started on whether he has contravened use of email in work policy (hopefully they have one!).

If I had ever referred to any group of people in this way in a work email I would have been disciplined.

What was his apology "I'm sorry I got caught"?

mammamic Mon 12-May-14 11:34:33

Well done City fans

And to put it into perspective...

there's a person who is paid millions to promote racial equality in [put in your own 'whatever' here - sport, arts, film, society].

A temp employee, however it came about, comes across emails that used racial slurs and offensive bigoted language to work colleagues, private friends etc repeatedly. would they have to apologise or would they be dismissed?

but it's only about women and they are irrational, emotional, over sensitive big titted broads. Gash to shaft. so no harm done

Kewcumber Mon 12-May-14 11:36:10

I'm not sure if its a sacking offence or not Benny that should be for the FA's disciplinary processes to decide.

But I would beg to differ that saying/behaving in a work email in a manner which is totally in opposition to something in your job spec would undoubtedly be a disciplinary offence.

Someone talking about wogs and pakis and making racist jokes when part of their job is to promote racial equality would be OK too then?

Someone whose job is partly safe guarding children is OK to talk about sexy kids and make jokes about boffing 10 year olds?

Really? You don't see the problem.

If I was his employer - I would consider him too stupid to be let out on his own with those kinds of emails being copied to a (female) PA. Or doesn;t he think PA's are real people?

mammamic Mon 12-May-14 11:42:55

I didn't call anyone names - I simply made a supposition based on your comment.

and it's got nothing to do with "unusual for someone to break out of the conformist condemnatory consensus of MN threads like this but hey ho". It's about giving my opinion as you gave yours - that's the point of talk threads is it not.

I don't usually feel so strongly about this type of thing but I'm sick of having to shut up and put up. My daughter is growing up in this 'society'.

I don't want my daughter, or anyone's daughter, to have to live in this society where it's becoming more and more acceptable to refer to women and girls, horrifically, as lesser beings, objects, adulterated and air brushed, referred to by anyone as 'gash' or whatever other horrible term is trendy at the time.

It is unacceptable and people should be held responsible for their 'unfortunate' (wtf does that even mean in this context!?) gaffes.

don't worry about getting your coat - I've left already

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 11:46:41

Mmm! Benny does have a point. OK, Scudamore is a child in a man's suit and he does sound quite 'the lad'.

But I was a bit nonplussed by some of the interpretations - save the cash in case you find some gash, if about golf clubs as claimed, would not have any sexual connotations at all. Gash, in that context would mean going cheap, spare, surplus to requirements.

I am not excusing him but am, as usual, pissed of at lax journos making 'brilliant' headlines, sometimes at the expense of the truth. I mean there is enough less salacious stuff in there to condemn the man as a sexist pillock without over egging the pudding and making the message seem ridiculous, lessening its severity.

He should be investigated and fined, as they do all others within the FA's aegis. He should be publicly censured, as they do with all others within the FA. And he should be facing the possibility of losing his job for abusing the work email - as with all employees everywhere. Bringing your employer into disrepute, causing annoyance/aggravation to other members of staff, harassment etc.

But the meeja hacks who wrote it up also need a good slap. In their zeal to get a good story they have undermined the message.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 11:52:35

I don't condone what has been said but I think to suggest he needs sacking is a bit OTT.

How many times have you seen men being described by their abs and muscles in magazines etc?

Gash means vagina which Is inappropriate I get that. But Dick means penis and how often are men referred to as dicks? Or knobs?

Actually come to think of it cunt also means vagina yet people on her call others a cunt all the time which I think is a tad hypocritical.

BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted Mon 12-May-14 11:53:00

Unfortunately in some circles this is the way men refer to women when they think none of them are in earshot.

In his case, like many others, a quick apology is code for "I'm sorry for myself that I've been caught".

He should be sacked, and banned from having anything to do with the sport ever again. Or any other sport for that matter. Unfortunately I suspect there's a queue of blokes wanting to buy him a beer or two.

LucilleBluth Mon 12-May-14 11:53:03

It's especially offensive if you are a woman who loves football and has grown up around it. My dad is a huge fan of his home team and as his only child and a DD he would take me to the football, I grew up going to football stadiums and although I don't go now I still watch my team on the TV......my dad still goes and now my mum does too.

There is simply no excuse for this in 2014 this type of language and behaviour alienates female fans. It is like we are less valid. The FA have made major progress in stamping out racism......let's try to give women the same respect.

GreenShadow Mon 12-May-14 12:09:34

I personally don't find his comments particularly offensive. He is quite entitled to use what ever words and opinions he likes - they are only words after all.

BUT I find it incredible that someone thought worthy of such a high position in any organisation does not have the common sense and decency to avoid using phrases such as these in works emails. As an employer it is astounding that he has no thought for his PA and from this point of view, I would be more than happy to see him sacked immediately.

CommunistLegoBloc Mon 12-May-14 12:09:45

If he had made comments deriding black people, would some of you still be saying that sacking is an overreaction?

Why is it acceptable to be sexist in a private sphere? Not that he even was - he should know that as a head of a major organisation, he is accountable for emails especially as they go straight to his PA.

Have some respect for yourselves as women and acknowledge that this type of gender-aggressive language is one of the factors holding women back from true equality in the workplace and beyond.

BeepBoop Mon 12-May-14 12:14:10

So surprised that the Premier League isn't a bastion of equality hmm

Not that I'm rushing to defend Scuadmore, but according to that Mirror article, it was his mate who called women gash, not him. The pedant in me couldn't let that slide.

The experience with the "double decker" girlfriend's dad must have been very recent as he sounds about 12.

wtffgs Mon 12-May-14 12:15:51

Sack the knobhead! (mature wink)

Seriously, sack him, put him in a time machine and send him back to the Neolithic Era. angry

mummymeister Mon 12-May-14 12:18:48

most sports in this country are run by men for men. just listen to 5live and see how many time women and womens sports are mentioned. it is getting better but still nowhere near where it should be. just as there has been kick racism out of football there should be a kick sexism out of sport campaign. look at the back pages of most newspapers - all men and all mens sport. No wonder so few young girls get involved in sport at school when all they see is boys and men doing it. I absolutely think this man should resign. He is paid a lot of money. this was a work e mail. how many people on here would be reprimanded if they did this on their work e mail. one rule for us and another for them.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 12:22:53

If he had made comments deriding black people, would some of you still be saying that sacking is an overreaction?

What on earth has racism got to do with it? He didn't mention a black person to deride them so why bring it up? It's not relevant.

Why does everyone always bring racism Into the mix? This has litterally fuck all to do with racism.

LittleBearPad Mon 12-May-14 12:25:23

He should be sacked with immediate effect. How can anyone take anything he says seriously in reference to women's football now.

And his poor children. Apparently the Chinese one child policy is the right plan. Which of the five he has do you think he wishes didn't exist.

And his poor wife to be married to such a disgusting excuse for a man.

LittleBearPad Mon 12-May-14 12:26:49

Because if he had used racist terms he would have been sacked immediately but because he uses sexist ones he get to hang on to his job for the moment and apologise.

They are equivalent wrongs but sexism isn't treated as such.

BeanAboutTown Mon 12-May-14 12:28:40

Oh heck you're right beepboop blush

The FA and the Premier League are two different things I think. Premier League is all about making money for hyper-zillionaires, they don't give a stuff about the grass roots of the game, men's or women's.

ExcuseTypos Mon 12-May-14 12:29:38

shock I had heard about this and was frustrated that they hadnt repeated what he'd said. Now I know they couldn't repeat it!

He should be sacked immediately. As someone else said, if this were racist slurs he'd have gone- its only about women, so who actually gives a tossangry

jaggythistle Mon 12-May-14 12:37:37

Because gotnotimeforthat sexism like this should surely be just as unacceptable as racism?

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 12:46:34

Yes, but bringing it into a sexism debate has 2 outcomes:

1. It's a version of Godwin's law, but with racism instead of the nazis

2. It further undermines the validity of rebuking sexist pillocks because it obviously needs something bigger to shore it up, to remind everyone how bad it is.

The fight against sexism doesn't need hyping or shoring up. It needs to be seen to be as bad as, but not the same as, racism. It does not need to be linked to racism in order to be given credence. So we need to stop adding racism to our sentences.... especially us women!

JohnFarleysRuskin Mon 12-May-14 12:48:34

Racism has a lot to do with it. Can you not see that? We crack down on racism but sexism is fine.

OK, lets try another example: the head of an organisation which is receiving millions of pounds to promote gay rights, sends plenty of emails to his colleagues (which also oopsie, go to his gay PA) talking hilariously in a demeaning way about (sorry for the offence) shirt-lifters, bum-bandits, etc, etc.

Do you still think he's the best man for the job?

His poor wife AND kids.

FairPhyllis Mon 12-May-14 12:54:07

He should be sacked immediately.

However seeing as these kinds of attitudes seem to be prevalent throughout every level of football I'm not holding my breath.

Actually I think the emails contain some racism too. Scudamore uses the phrase 'very clever those Chinese' which is a variant of an expression that is a racial stereotype.

Perhaps in the end he will go down for the racism but not the sexism?

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 12:56:38

Sorry JohnFarley, but I really do disagree with your first sentence - racism has NOTHING to do with sexism!

Your example is obvious, but still has nothing to do with sexism.

Sexism does not need to be equated with racism to prove how bad it is!

JohnFarleysRuskin Mon 12-May-14 12:57:41

I think he should go down for an abysmal sense of humour.

I mean really. He forwarded this:

“Once upon a time a Prince asked a ­beautiful Princess, “Will you marry me?” The ­Princess said, “No!” And the Prince lived happily ever after and rode motorcycles and banged skinny big t****d broads...”

How fucking embarrassing is he?

jaggythistle Mon 12-May-14 12:58:26

No racism doesn't need to be added on as a mention to beef it up, but I guess I was trying to comment on how one type if offensive comment should not be any more acceptable than another.

JohnFarleysRuskin Mon 12-May-14 12:59:22

The point is, obviously, that while racism is seen as unacceptable, sexism is permitted. Comparing the two is perfectly valid.

vitaminZ Mon 12-May-14 13:02:49

Presumably women refer to him as "dick"?

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 13:04:43

Sorry, jaggy. I have a thing about sexism needing its hand held.... like it is the 'little woman' of unacceptable behaviour smile

And JohnFarley, sexism may be permitted in your world, you may have guessed it isn't in mine smile

I really do find the conflation extremely aggravating.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 13:05:01

Actually I think the emails contain some racism too. Scudamore uses the phrase 'very clever those Chinese' which is a variant of an expression that is a racial stereotype

Now that's just petty. I'm sure you can find racism in a lot of things most people say if you look hard enough which you clearly have

SelectAUserName Mon 12-May-14 13:08:27

He has denied that the emails were sent using his work email - is claiming that it was a private email address which a temporary member of staff accessed without instruction to do so, which is presumably a big factor in why he has avoided a sacking. Now, as Mandy Rice-Davies once said...

Whatever mealy-mouthed apologies he utters won't change the fact that he has exposed his true sexist colours. Misogynistic peabrain.

jaggythistle Mon 12-May-14 13:11:35

Thanks. nomama smile

When I got in a rage about a stupid comment made at work I actually just said "you wouldn't say that about a man would you, so shut up"

Rage makes me terribly eloquent. blush

It was a discussion (which seemed to go on for ages, hence the rage) between several male colleagues about how a woman that they used to know got such a high up job. You can probably guess the suggestions.

CommunistLegoBloc Mon 12-May-14 13:16:53

I was using racism as an alternative example, because people (rightly) do not accept deriding people because of their ethnic origins. However, deriding people because of their genitalia is seen as somehow less awful.

I don't think this evokes Godwin's Law at all. Racism and sexism are equally unacceptable.

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 13:19:00

Just read the 'one child policy / very clever those Chinese' remark, which can reasonably be read as a 'joke' about what a pain the ass the women in his family are to him.

His family should sack him off, just for starters.

What a nasty, arrogant, unfeeling heap of shit.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 13:21:32

How can you not understand that there is a corollary between sexism and racism? Racism is prejudice based on race and universally decried, with individuals expressing racist views in private being viewed as unsuitable for positions which are public or in which they manage others. Why is a prejudice based on a different bodily and genetic effect considered less serious? When you suggest that people use racism to shore up the impact of sexism, what you actually do is reveal that you personally do not regard sexism as seriously as racism.

This is the whole problem that posters are trying to underscore. Sexism and racism are based on the same error of thought applied in different contexts. If you think one is more acceptable (sexism) you are overlooking this fact because you believe that the differences you perceive in that social group (women) mean that they deserve less status in relation to the others and it is fine to be derogatory toward them as a social group.

This means you are sexist, unfortunately, by which I mean you regard women as a group to have specific qualities that arise out of their femaleness and that those qualities are meaningful for the way you should view their intellectual and social capacities. Being sexist does not mean that you look at a women and feel hate, it means you look at a women and think that you understand her capacities - intellectual, social and emotional - because they are inherent to her gender.

People like Scudamore seem to believe those fundamental qualities can be encapsulated in words like 'gash' which has an element of hatred and disgust in it, as well as inferring that having female genitalia is akin to having a wound; women are damaged people. He may be entitled to think these things but he is unfit to manage others because he necessarily is discriminatory towards 51% of the population, who are not in the objective sense a minority; women's issues are described as minority as a political marker and not as fact. It makes uncomfortable aspects of sexism easy to ignore, like the fact that two women a week are killed by their partners in acts of 'domestic violence' - a cultural form of violence practiced in patriarchal systems.

No one is saying sexism is racism. But if you can't understand that the same thought processes and errors that produce racial prejudice are the same ones that produce sexism, you are not recognising the role of processes, structures and assumption and the way that these produce our perceptions of the social world. You are also ignoring the consequences of sexist attitudes, which are socially and sometimes physically damaging to women in general. Alternatively you may be an idiot.

ThisBitchIsResting Mon 12-May-14 13:22:00

shock

Oh my god this is just awful. This is someone who manages people, right? Who plans according to their best interests, who strategises and promotes opportunity? Whilst thinking and sharing these abhorrent views?! Disgusting and dinosaurish. Get him out

It is very telling that BennyB hasn't answered to question as to whether he'd like his wife/daughter/mother/female friends referred to as 'gash'. Either he would be happy for this to happen, but realises that admitting that on here would result in instant condemnation, or he would find it very offensive, but can't say that because it would undermine his argument that this is just laddish banter.

mellicauli Mon 12-May-14 13:24:01

I was so disgusted that I emailed the Premier League to say that he should resign. He has shown such contempt for the people who pay his wages.

At

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 13:26:04

OutsSelf Yes, I agree with your argument.

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 13:26:34

mellicauli Would you care to share that email address, please?

CommunistLegoBloc Mon 12-May-14 13:30:01

Couldn't agree more, OutsSelf.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 13:35:00

outself

This means you are sexist

So nomama and I are sexist because we believe that we should stay on topic instead of making the situation seem worse by comparing it to a bunch of made up 'what it's' about racism.

JohnFarleysRuskin Mon 12-May-14 13:36:32

"making the situation seem worse"??

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 13:40:25

* john* probably not the best wording to use. Sorry I'm currently mid BF. but you get my drift.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 13:42:54

You are not 'merely' insisting we stay 'on topic'. You are insisting that there is no equivalence between racism as a form of discrimination and sexism as a form of discrimination.

People who don't see an equivalence between racism as a prejudice and sexism as a prejudice, believing one to be bad and the other to be of less concern/ a completely different issue are necessarily saying one form of discrimination is more acceptable. In this case, if you are saying that the way that we treat racist comments should have no equivalence to how we treat sexist comments, you are saying that sexism is not as discriminatory or important as racism; this means necessarily you regard some degree of discrimination on the basis of sex as acceptable; ergo you are sexist.

BomChickaMeowMeow Mon 12-May-14 13:44:25

I think the fact it was in a private email makes it worse, as it betrays his underlying views. No-one expressing those views should be allowed to continue in a high-profile role.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 13:44:32

outself

People like Scudamore seem to believe those fundamental qualities can be encapsulated in words like 'gash' which has an element of hatred and disgust in it, as well as inferring that _having female genitalia is akin to having a wound; women are damaged people_

That's how you interpret it. You could ask a number of men that have used that word and I bet barely any of them will interpret it that way.

I think the word gash is used more for the appearance of the vagina. I don't think it is supposed to imply we are broken at all.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 13:44:34

Outself, there is no corollary... racism does not lead to or cause sexism, or vice versa.

There are similarities, many of which you posted. But no corollary, you cannot make the statement that X is racist therefore he is sexist too.

And if any of the rest of that post was aimed at me, maybe if you re-read my post you might understand the point I was trying to make. You seem to have missed it entirely.

mammamic Mon 12-May-14 13:47:16

pls 'friend' me - best thing I've read on here for some time!

CommunistLegoBloc Mon 12-May-14 13:47:45

'Making is worse' seems the best wording for you to use, gotnotime given that your point seems to be that racism is worse than sexism as an act of discrimination.

If sexism isn't as bad as racism then some aspects of sexism must be acceptable to you, or at least more acceptable? Doesn't make a lot of sense though, that. Something is either acceptable because it is not offensive, or it's is not acceptable because it is.

You don't call people 'a bit' racist. You don't call people 'a bit' sexist either. You are or you ain't. If you espouse a discriminatory view, then that's what you are. No increments in strength of wording to describe you.

KERALA1 Mon 12-May-14 13:50:26

Never understood why racism so unacceptable but misogyny isn't makes no rational sense.

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 13:51:08

'Worse' is the comparative of 'bad' so at least there is acceptance that what Scudamore has done is bad. BAD.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 13:53:13

outself

Could you possibly quote me on where I said that sexism is not as important as racism?

I said it was irrelevant to the topic. He wasn't being racist so there is no need to bring it into the conversation. Just like there is no need to bring in homophobia or agism or any other ism for that matter. This doesn't mean I think in is more important than the other it means that we are talking about a man making sexist remarks so why on earth are we talking about racism instead.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 13:54:05

Agree sexism and racism do not cause each other. They are both discriminatory ways of thinking and therefore should face the same degree of social sanction. After all, we object to racism because it is discriminatory.

Your point that the battle against sexism does not need shoring up misses the point of comparing the two: people are in fact pointing to the way that sexism is minimised. Saying sexism is not as bad as racism is a way of minimising sexism.

Men or women using the word gash have to be absolutely stupid not to think of it as a derogatory word. Cunt, which has also been cited as hateful, is hateful in terms of its usage. But gash literally means a wound. I think it would not in any way harm anyone's self image to refer to their genetalia as a cunt, but it is inescapable when we say gash that we are also saying wound.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 13:55:59

I think it was where you said 'seem to make it worse' that was pounced upon, gotnotime!

I read it as a continuation of previous posts, but obviously it was taken as a standalone comment and judged with the big judgey knickers well and truly hoiked up to chin level smile

It's an emotive subject, isn't it, the outrage, the outrage smile

mammamic Mon 12-May-14 13:59:28

gotnotime - so 'gash' is in reference to appearance. I haven't seen enough 'gashes' to be sure, but of the 'gashes' I have seen, I can categorically say that none has every looked like a gash ('a long, deep cut or wound').

I'm also happy to say that thankfully, as far as I am aware, none of the men I know would use the word gash to describe a female.

It can be dressed up/down/explained as much as ppl like - gash is offensive. It is meant to be offensive. Any human with a few brain cells would be aware that this is the case. And those same men who use the work gash also probably use other friendly, none offensive, unfortunate, non sexist, non bigoted expressions like 'axe wound' as well. Another lovely image conjured up to describe the part of a human that, for most of the population, was our safe, perfectly evolved introduction and aid to getting where we are today - and don't read too much into it - just birth is enough. Forget the wisdom, love, and complete dedication that most gashes give for their whole lives from when their gash helped them give birth.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 14:01:37

Could you possibly quote me on where I said that sexism is not as important as racism?

By insisting that they are not equivalent: they are both forms of discrimination based on physical and genetic effects. In this sense they are equivalent. Insisting that they aren't; and that racism is used to 'make the situation worse' suggests that sexism is not as bad as racism, which ergo is sexist, for reasons I've already stated.

The thing we apparently do not agree on is that racism and sexism are manifestations of discriminatory thinking. If you accept this then you must accept that they should be treated with equivalence. That they are not is evidence that sexism is minimised. You sound like you are minimising sexism by saying a comparison of racism and sexism makes the situation worse; I think the comparison exemplifies the ways in which sexism is minimised because it is deemed more acceptable than racism.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 14:01:51

outself

You keep mentioning how we think racism is worse than sexism yet none of us have actually said that. You are pulling that out of thin air.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 14:02:30

But I have not said sexism is not as bad as racism... you may have conflated my view with that of others and, in doing so misinterpreted me and put words in my mouth.

I have not missed the point that sexism is minimised, I am pointing out that, in my view, persisting in linking it to racism is denigrating it, belittling it, reducing its importance. That is the point you have missed.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 14:03:15

outself

By insisting that they are not equivalent

No I insisted it wasn't relevant. I haven't once said they wasn't equivalent.

mammamic Mon 12-May-14 14:04:25

and I am not understanding the lack of understanding to OutsSelf's post.

At no point did OS say that racism causes sexism or that if someone is racist then they are sexist too. I've re-read the whole thread a number of times and cannot find this.

What OS did say was that the two are most definitely linked (and they are - no doubt there - it is fact) when looking at attitudes and reactions. It is used as an example - that's all. nothing more or less.

seems clear but maybe I missed something.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 14:06:42

I think my outrage is related to the way that causual sexim relates to wider, societal violence against women. The small bodily acts of violence in which self hatred is cultivated in girls and women. The mundane acts of social violence which mean that just to walk down the street minding my own business is not regarded as my entitlement. And the acts of domestic violence which kill two women a week, put countless more into unstable housing with their children, and routinely see (routine as in 1 in 5) women subject to non-consensual sex. It's hard not to feel outraged that my daughter must walk among this, being as she and all other babies are, utterly perfect and blameless.

KERALA1 Mon 12-May-14 14:07:47

It's discriminating and judging someone negatively for something fundamental about themselves that they cannot help - colour of skin or gender. Identical concepts don't understand why they are treated any differently.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 14:07:54

But if they both discriminatory attitudes, surely how we treat one form of discrimination is pertinent to how we treat the other?

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 14:08:13

nomama

^ I have not missed the point that sexism is minimised, I am pointing out that, in my view, persisting in linking it to racism is denigrating it, belittling it, reducing its importance. That is the point you have missed.^

That's the point I was trying to make.. You just worded it better smile

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 14:10:23

When you say, comparing racism to sexism 'makes the situation worse' you are saying that it wasn't originally as bad as racism, so we've made it so. That itself - though not directly, as an effect of logic - means that a sexist situation is not as bad as a racist one.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 14:14:48

mamamic

Outseld said that to suggest racism is not relevant to this man being sexist makes myself a sexist.

Because apparently relevant and equivalent now have the same definition

FobblyWoof Mon 12-May-14 14:16:15

No one has said at any point that sexism equals racism. The point of bringing race into the debate is merely to point out that had the remarks been racist instead of sexist then a lot of the population would be up in arms about it. There would be no debate on the issue. Yet, because it was sexism, not racism, all he's done is apologised and is allowed to carry on. No media attention. Nothing.

No one is saying that if you're a racist you're also sexist and vice versa. They are the same form of discrimination (genetic) and yet they treated completely differently. What part of this are you not understanding? confused

People only bring racism into the argument as a comparison, not an accusation.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 14:16:54

Okay, if you think that sexism is just horrible enough to be treated in its own way, but in relation to this and other 'media moments' see that it is not being treated even as seriously as racism, can you see why posters might think it useful to point to the discrepancies? How the FA in the past has handled discrimination (on the basis of race) should be an exemplar of how it is treated here. Except it is not yet. There is therefore a tacit assertion that sexism is not as bad as racism. And if we insist on treating sexism and racism as entirely separate rather than simple instances of discriminatory practice, we are asserting that there is something fundamental to issues of race and gender which mean discrimination on their basis is either more or less acceptable, correlatively. Which in itself is potentially sexist and/or racist.

FobblyWoof Mon 12-May-14 14:18:14

And I do actually now want to marry OutsSelf for all her post on this thread. It's like you've read my mind and written down my thoughts in a more eloquent way than I ever could. <shameless gushing>

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 14:18:23

Outself - only you have said that we (I?) have not seen that. I have not disagreed, have not said anything to the contrary and I think that where you think gotnotime has said that is using a sentence out of overall context. That context is explained a few times in the posts immediately above your last one.

All that is happening is that you are re-stating yourself and ignoring anything we/I have to say that may, in some way, disagree.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 14:22:16

Fobbly, Outself did ay that. S/he said that sexism is a corollary to racism. S/he also called me a sexist because I didn't understand that, or some other point.

It is the constant comparison that I object to. For reasons I have explained.

I mean, how would you like it if you were only ever referred to in context of your husband/brother/other make relative?

You know, how we little women used to be referred to, Mrs Male Nomama.

The constant comparison, to my mind, undermines the sexism debate in much the same way.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 14:23:43

Right, I'm honestly trying to engage directed posts at me. You just don't accept my counter argument. That's not the same as me ignoring you. I've been responding to gotnotimeforthat's posts. I'm sure you'll see the way that they do attempt to respond directly to her posts. The one thing that I also responded to was that dismissive, 'the outrage, the outrage' thing that you posted. Because I think it right and proper to be outraged about sexism given that it's right this second killing women in this country. And to laugh about people's outrage is a way of dismissing or minimising this.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 14:26:57

outself surely you don't think that sexism only works one way? You mention all these women dying, being in abusive relationships etc yet you don't mention how it's not just women on the receiving end of that.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 14:30:28

I did agree to the counter point that they are not correlative in that they don't cause each other. But I have made the repeated assertion that as they are both instances of discriminatory practice it is pertinent and relevant to describe them as equivalent. To be clear: I refute the idea that they are not 'relevant' or 'related;' I further assert that insisting that they are is a way of minimising one in relation to the other. This is why I regard such arguments as sexist.

The reason we aren't talking about ageism or homophobia is because the most recent and persistent exemplars of discriminatory practice relate to race in the FA. And because we have achieved at least in the public sphere a general agreement that discrimination on the basis of race is unacceptable. For the same reasons, discrimination on the basis of gender should be unacceptable and subject to the same sanctions.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 14:35:45

Of course patriarchy is sexist about men and women. Yet 94% of all violence committed in this country is by men, against men and women. So it's less of a concern the other way. Sexist systems sometimes have consequences for the socially dominant group that individual members of that group disagree with - some men complain it's harder to get parental leave in the workplace for example, and that is true. But it is as an effect of an overall system of privilege for men that I object to. Weirdly, that puts me in some senses on the same side as campaigners working against the ways that men feel some negatives of patriarchy - young men are the subject of violence more than young women, for example. But I'm not going to apologise for focusing on the negative effects on women in general, because they are more systemic, more general, more numerous and more limiting that the effects on men; and because men in general have more social agency by which they could do something about it.

LittleBearPad Mon 12-May-14 14:39:41

If he had made racist statements he would have been sacked within the day.

Sexist statements he gets to apologise.

They are equal discrimination but in society's eyes one is clearly more acceptable than the other.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 14:40:01

So you missed the big judgey knickers comment, too! I doubt that any time I smile I directly affect the outcome of someone's life - that's a bit like saying 'I don't believe in fairies' and killing off Tinkerbell!

Again, I have not disgreed with what you say about both being discriminatory and similar. So I have not said that they are not relevant or related. I have not said that one is any worse than the other. That you keep asking me why is moot.... we do not disagree on those points.

BUT can you not see my point at all?

LittleBearPad Mon 12-May-14 14:41:04

It is relevant because of the outcome of both as I have said above.

One would lead directly to sacking. The other doesn't.

LittleBearPad Mon 12-May-14 14:41:34

Sorry misread your last post.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 14:43:08

Yes, I think I have responded to it:

Okay, if you think that sexism is just horrible enough to be treated in its own way, but in relation to this and other 'media moments' see that it is not being treated even as seriously as racism, can you see why posters might think it useful to point to the discrepancies? How the FA in the past has handled discrimination (on the basis of race) should be an exemplar of how it is treated here. Except it is not yet. There is therefore a tacit assertion that sexism is not as bad as racism. And if we insist on treating sexism and racism as entirely separate rather than simple instances of discriminatory practice, we are asserting that there is something fundamental to issues of race and gender which mean discrimination on their basis is either more or less acceptable, correlatively. Which in itself is potentially sexist and/or racist.

I didn't think you actually wanted any comments on 'big judgey knickers' as it just again seems like jokey 'lighten up you feminists!' stuff which I've already said why I find quite annoying.

DoctorTwo Mon 12-May-14 14:47:36

I only know about this via MN posting a link to this thread on FB. I agree, this 'man' should be sacked.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 14:48:11

Lighten up you feminists..... really?

So I have, somehow, identified myself as a non-feminist, antifeminist?

But that underlines how much you have misunderstood the point I am trying to make. I understand that you too have a point you are trying to make, I have acknowledged it, agreed with it and added my own corollary, which you are not acknowledging/understanding. At least not in any of your replies.

I find that annoying as it means we may have spent the last 3 or 4 pages arguing about nothing. If you have understood but disagree with me fine, but please stop asking me to justify a perspective I don't hold and have not claimed.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 14:55:06

I'm not asking you to justify anything, as I've said I was really responding to gotnotitmeforthat's posts except your one, jokey, judgey panty the outrage the outrage post, then your assertion that I was just repeating myself and not listening to anyone.

Can you say what you think I haven't answered to? Because I've repeatedly said why I think you are wrong about the comparison, it is useful from my point of view, they do have equivalences and the way that they are being treated differently in this instance is in itself sexist. Not because sexism isn't important enough on its own, but because treating them as fundamentally different implies inherent qualities of sex or gender which makes them more acceptable/ or less acceptable in context of public life. Which is itself discriminatory.

BennyB Mon 12-May-14 15:02:58

I am a woman. If someone called me a gash, I would not like it but I would not think they deserved to lose their job over it.

I'm not sure how 'telling' that is but read into it what you will. Ultimately, I believe in freedom of speech.

BennyB Mon 12-May-14 15:07:20

Apologies - my last comment was directed at SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius who assumed I am a man and wanted to know how I would feel if my mum/sister/wife whatever would feel about being called a gash.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 15:08:04

"If someone called me a gash, I would not like it but would not think they deserved to lose their job over it."

I think there are people who wouldn't necessarily lose their job over it because their apparent sexism could have no overall effect on how they do their job.

However, in the case you are someone's line manager, or your post involves decisions and practices that have a direct effect on members of a social group which you have described in discriminatory terms, you have got to lose that job because you can't be trusted to be non-discriminatory. Whether or not the individual you described in that way had an objection. It is not the personal offence to the individual but the way that this indicates a discriminatory attitude.

Nocomet Mon 12-May-14 15:21:51

No man who uses that word respects women. No man who uses that term can be trusted to be a fair and non discriminatory boss, line manager or colleague of female staff.

He has a very prominent public role that is supposed to move football forward into the 21st century as a game that respects all creeds, colours, races, genders and sexual preferences.

Sorry, but he's failed not putting his foot in it 101 and he should go!

Benny, is it 'censorship' when people are told not to use the n*** word about Black people?

Fact is this guy has sent a stream of crude, insulting, prejudiced emails about a group of people who suffer from discrimination. If he'd targeted racial characteristics, instead of gender, he'd have been sacked PDQ. Somehow because it's 'only' women people like you think it doesn't matter. Not sure how you work that out.

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 15:35:51

He certainly comes across as quite dim.

SybilRamkin Mon 12-May-14 15:39:42

Yes, certainly rather dim, uneducated and unworthy of such a high-profile position.

I feel very sorry for any women who work for him, they have a very strong case for gender discrimination.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 15:49:03

So I'm assuming after now realising how offensive being refered to as a gash/vagina is we will all now stop calling people twats,cunts,dicks, tits, knobs etc?

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 15:50:11

How on earth did such a dim man get such a high profile job?

I think if you used any of those terms to describe colleagues, in company emails, you might well find yourself facing disciplinary action, gotnotime.

PoundingTheStreets Mon 12-May-14 16:04:03

If someone called me a 'gash' I would consider them an idiot and probably not give it too much more thought.

If someone whose job was promoting gender equality called me a 'gash' I would consider that person totally inappropriate for the role and someone who had a huge conflict of interest between their own personal views and their public role.

Regardless of whether we should compare sexism and racism, the analogy here would be like asking Nick Griffin to be in charge of promoting multiculturalism.

Callani Mon 12-May-14 16:05:01

I think his comments are appalling and show a deep seated lack of respect for women - to me they show that he considered his job to be paying lip service to the idea of equality whilst "realising" (in his little world) that women are anything but equal.

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 16:05:34

Precisely, edam and Pounding. That's not hard to grasp, surely?

JohnFarleysRuskin Mon 12-May-14 16:06:01

He is referring to women, as a group, (as a group he is responsible for bringing equality in football for) as 'gash'.

That is quite different from someone calling an individual a dick - which he is.

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 16:07:50

Just how does a man who is so utterly stupid get through an interview process for that particular job? Who interviewed him??

Spiritedwolf Mon 12-May-14 16:10:36

It isn't just an opinion is it though? Its hate speech. Talking about women as if they are lesser human beings because they have different genitalia and an X instead of a Y chromosome.

The comments about his daughters were really upsetting, and proof if it were needed that referring to women in general in a derogatory and sexually explicit way betrays attitudes which also refer to the contempt afforded to real individual women - colleagues, spouses, daughters, sisters and mothers.

Its not just having a laugh, it affects real people. Whilst I can understand why some commenters here are fed up with the comparison with society's treatment of racism, I do think it is valid to say that society's attitude towards racist hate speech has changed to consider it more unacceptable and that if a culture change is possible with race, it ought to be with sex/gender too.

I don't think its not giving sexism its own space or the equivalent of referring to me as Mrs [husband's names], though of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

We obviously shouldn't lose sight of the fact that some women do suffer both sexism and racism in discussions which suggest they affect different people (though nobody said this directly in this discussion and I'm sure you all know about intersectionality, I did feel that they were discussed in a some people suffer one, and others another, sort of way).

lionheart Mon 12-May-14 16:11:08

I think that comparison in not the same as equation, or doesn't have to be.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 16:13:37

edam

No not just at work I mean in general? Personally i see no difference between calling a woman gash and calling a man a dick.

LittleBearPad Mon 12-May-14 16:17:25

That's a maybe gotnotime but I presume you don't use either about colleagues? And that if you did your company wouldn't be impressed.

I wasn't aware of 'gash' as derogatory term used to insult and demean women until today, gotnotimeforthat, so have no idea how it compares to dick or prick or any of the others.

I doubt very much it is used affectionately between female friends, in the way that prick or dickhead is between men, though.

JohnFarleysRuskin Mon 12-May-14 16:19:38

But he's not even calling a particular woman he dislikes a 'gash'. (not that that would be remotely acceptable from a person in his position). He's calling all women 'gash'. He clearly has no respect for any women. - Which when you're in a role of promoting equality is quite a quandary.

Gotnotime, do you know men who routinely would call women 'gash'? Is this normal in some areas?

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 16:21:21

littlebear no I do not. But to be honest I doubt the company would be bothered. Although that's just speculation.

LittleBearPad Mon 12-May-14 16:22:55

Mine would be livid and I'd find myself facing a disciplinary for embarrassing them in this way.

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 16:25:42

Who do you work for, gotnotime?

The Premiership?

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 16:26:48

"Gash" isn't used to describe an individual. The term is not "a gash"

The term is "gash" used to denote women in general as no more than the split between their legs that looks ugly, like a bleeding wound. Completely sexually objectifying and demeaning. Anyone who uses it has no respect for women at all.

The extension "gashaholic" or "gashmonster" refers to a man that sees women as no more than a gaping hole to fill and be discarded afterwards.

This man has a family ? Deary me.

ocelot41 Mon 12-May-14 16:28:18

Vile vile vile...this kind of symbolically violent language would not be ok'd if it referred to people of different religions or ethnicities. So why should an apology cover it when its about gender? Kick him out PL.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 16:29:37

edam

I compare them because up thread a poster mentioned how gash means vagina and that to call a woman a vagina is unacceptable because this shows that all they are only seen for their genitalia Which is sexist.

So I switch it around. Calling a man a dick or a knob is surely the same? After all you are referring to them by their genitalia.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 16:31:13

My place of work does not concern you linerunner

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 16:31:23

"gash" and "vagina" are not equivalent in meaning

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 16:34:44

Ooh, touchy.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 16:38:03

anyfucker

That depends on who you ask I guess, I know a lot of people that use that word use it to describe the vagina and not the woman.

I'm not saying there isn't people who use it to describe women too.

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gash

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 16:39:22

Then they would be wrong and I would question the company you keep

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 16:40:11

This thread is actually about Scudamore's usage.

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 16:40:50

And what Anyfucker said.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 16:41:19

anyfucker

I knew these people a long long time ago. I do not associate myself with them now.

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 16:42:11

That's good to hear. And yet you still defend them.

PoundingTheStreets Mon 12-May-14 16:43:57

'Gash' is to 'vagina' what 'nigger' is to 'black'.

Sorry to keep harping on with the race comparisons, but in some communities it is acceptable for one black individual to call another black individual a "nigger" as a term of endearment. It's a mock insult, just as men may call each other dick or women may call each other bitch. It is used in social relationships where there is an informal language use agreed on by all involved and where the 'insults' are actually free of any derogatory meaning. Most importantly, there is equality between the users. Personally I still find it distasteful but each to their own.

It is something completely different when someone outside that group uses those terms in a derogatory and offensive fashion and when that person is in a position of power and authority over those he or she is using those terms about.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 16:44:18

Woah how am I defending them?

I simply compared calling a woman gash and a man a dick.
There's no defending there.

myitchybeaver Mon 12-May-14 16:44:46

You know the majority of men high up in football talk disparagingly about women in football? This is rife in the sport and they almost all do it. It's shocking, but he will get away with it because they'll all be giggling about and all secretly agree. Shocking.

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 16:48:41

It is considered to be attempting to mitigate when one puts forward a "but they do it too" argument

Typically turning it around into a WhatAboutTheMenz whining refrain

Have the grace to fully concede calling women as a group "gash" is nasty and wrong. You will not be struck by a Feminist Lightening Bolt and turned into a hairy manhater overnight, I promise.

Cretaceous Mon 12-May-14 16:48:45

If there were a similar, mainly female, powerful organisation headed by a woman, and she had used similar language about men, while at the same time claiming to be encouraging male participation, without doubt she would have been sacked. Holding those views is incompatible with inclusion. Would he have been appointed if he had shown that side at the job interview? Does he have daughters?

(I wanted to use a similar powerful female (adult) organisation as an example, but just couldn't think of one!)

Cretaceous Mon 12-May-14 16:50:37

"Would he have been appointed if he had shown that side at the job interview? "

Having seen MIB's post, perhaps that attitude was wot got him the job. smile

yes you are defending it, gotnotimefor. At least have the honesty to own your point of view. If you posted too quickly to see Pounding's post, immediately below your own, please consider what she says:

'Gash' is to 'vagina' what 'nigger' is to 'black'.

Do you get it now?

And do you understand the context? That this foul man is responsible for increasing access to football and tackling discrimination, on grounds of race, gender, etc.? Yet he insists women are 'irrational', describes them as 'big titted broads' and that he told someone to keep a female colleague 'off your shaft'?

He didn't send one poorly-phrased email, this is normal currency for him. Foul-mouthed misogyny, demeaning and insulting individual women colleagues and women in general.

Really think he's an example of someone talking reasonably and normally? Apparently he's a father of girls as well, fgs.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 16:57:49

anyfucker

That wasn't my intention. I meant surely we should stop calling people dicks altogether. I wasn't implying that if dick is acceptable so is gash.

Have the grace to concede its wrong? I didn't say it was right.

Cretaceous Mon 12-May-14 16:58:35

"Apparently he's a father of girls as well, fgs."
sad

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 16:59:51

edam

I am not defending it, that I can assure you. I was sincere in my suggestion to stop calling people cunts, twats and dicks etc.

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 17:00:06

If you counter with "but what about X, Y or Z...." then what else does it mean ?

Did you read the rest of Pounding's post?

"Sorry to keep harping on with the race comparisons, but in some communities it is acceptable for one black individual to call another black individual a "nigger" as a term of endearment. It's a mock insult, just as men may call each other dick or women may call each other bitch. It is used in social relationships where there is an informal language use agreed on by all involved and where the 'insults' are actually free of any derogatory meaning. Most importantly, there is equality between the users. Personally I still find it distasteful but each to their own.

"It is something completely different when someone outside that group uses those terms in a derogatory and offensive fashion and when that person is in a position of power and authority over those he or she is using those terms about."

Do you understand the difference?

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 17:06:19

anyfucker

I'm sorry I'm not following you. What about x,y or z ? Huh?

Wikipedia says he has five children, including at least two girls (one other has a name where gender isn't immediately obvious).

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 17:09:04

biscuit

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 17:11:27

edam

Yes I read it. And I completely understand what she means.
But it isn't just friends that call each other dicks is it? I've Been called a cunt numerous times by women on here, womm whom I have never spoken to before. I have also seen women refer to numerous men mentioned in threads as dicks etc.

Vintagecakeisstillnice Mon 12-May-14 17:18:36

From the little bit I've seen in the media about this I assumed he'd said/written Cunt as they're all hat printing

Somehow, to me anyway Gash is so much worse. I not sure why?

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 17:22:09

Gash isn't the same as cunt, though is it? Cunt doesn't specifically name genitalia as wound like, or damaged. Gash does. It's particularly used as a collective noun here; thereby defining a whole class of people by their genitalia at the same time as naming that genitalia as a wound; women as a class are a damaged class in this specific instance NOT in the general use of the word cunt for an individual.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 17:27:49

Outself, I am sorry, but this is silly. I have said that the comparison itself is a valid one. So we agree there.

Have you really said that you agree / disgree, understand / not understand my view that the constant linking of the two could have a negative effect on the way that sexism is viewed?

If so I have missed it. All I can remember is that you said that not seeing your perspective made me sexist!

You want sexism to be seen as a very bad thing, and it should be. But, and here is my opinion again, the constant linking, ooh you wouldn't say that they had said nigger, is, I think, undermining the very argument you are trying to make.

Sexism is not just like racism. It has some similarities and should be considered as inimical as racism, but,as men like Scudamore show, is not yet seen by society as a wholly unwanted phenomenon. It retains more acceptability than racism. In my opinion, we (women) would be best served/eradicated by focussing purely on sexism... and not conflating it with anything else.

Don't dilute / confuse the message. That's all.

BoffinMum Mon 12-May-14 17:32:09

Vile man.
Sack him.
Knob. <whoops>

waterlego Mon 12-May-14 17:37:39

gotnotime You are still citing examples of individuals calling another individual a cunt or a dick.

In this e-mail exhange, the men refer to women (plural, ie, ALL women) as 'gash'.

Can you think of a situation where you would ever use the word 'cock' instead of the word 'men'? (Not MAN, but MEN).

An e-mail between two female friends or colleagues, for example:

'Well, that's cock for you. They can't muti-task!'
'Looks like all the cock in the office has had a pay rise!'

It doesn't really ring true, does it? One might call an individual man a cock, but I don't think you'd refer to ALL men by a slang name for men's genitalia.

And that's a generous example anyway, since the word 'gash', as has already been pointed out, suggests women's genitals are ugly or flawed. Cock doesn't have the same connotations.

waterlego Mon 12-May-14 17:41:01

Disclaimer: reference to multi-tasking was deliberate, tongue-in-cheek, and does not reflect my true beliefs. grin

Aside from this example, the only other time I've seen/heard a man refer to women as 'gash' was on The Inbetweeners. That says it all really.

KERALA1 Mon 12-May-14 17:41:58

waterlego and pounding have it. Indefensible and vile. He looks really shifty I would LOVE to see him sacked.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 17:43:19

Okay then lets forget about gash or the fact it was used as a plural for a moment.

If a man was to refer to a woman (not all women) as minge or something similar would that be okay?

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 17:46:37

I think that's a bit nit picky, waterlego. The point is a valid one, why is it considered more acceptable to disparage men using their genitals as descriptive insult, but not women?

I know that in a male hegemonic society the female derogation is far more damaging and has much more potential to damage the lives/progression of women and gender equality, however, pots and kettles do spring to mind.

Or are we all to become Ladettes in order to become equal?

ChelsyHandy Mon 12-May-14 17:47:49

What a weirdo.

In Belgium, right now, he would be getting investigated for having committed a criminal offence.

The lawyer should be subject to a disciplinary hearing by the Law Society too, if not struck off.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 17:53:09

Talking of lawyer, didn't he say that Scudamore was referring to golf clubs when he used the word gash?

As I said way back up thread, if that is true (if, I said if) then the meaning of the word would be very very different - spare, not being used, as in going gash.

And Chelsy, why would his lawyer be subject to disciplinary? Their job (as unpalatable as it must be sometimes) is to put their clients case. Defence lawyers can't be held responsible for the lies/bigotry of their clients. They wouldn't be able to do their job otherwise.

Caitlin17 Mon 12-May-14 18:00:09

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread but at least one person has commented pn the Frankie Howard comment. Frankie Howard managed , a bit like Samantha on I'm sorry I haven't a Clue of pulling off being absolutely filthy without being offensive.

Swannery Mon 12-May-14 18:05:32

From what I read, Scudamore and lawyer have claimed that when they were emailing about how hard it was to keep a female colleague off the lawyer's "shaft", whether hard or soft, they were talking about golf clubs. Frankly, that ridiculous lie tops it all.
Lawyers are not supposed to behave in this kind of disreputable manner, and the lawyer could be reported to his professional body for that.

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 18:05:36

Okay then lets forget about gash or the fact it was used as a plural

Why? That's what the thread is about. That's what Scudamore wrote.

LimburgseVlaai Mon 12-May-14 18:10:09

Why is there so little about this on other news sites? It's not on the BBC or the Guardian - in both cases I had to search for his name. Has the story been hushed up?

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 18:14:07

Euuuuugh, Swannery, I just went back and re-read that bit. Oh what jolly japes, what times they had, what lads they are!

If the Prem don't handle it the FA should. I think he falls under their aegis and could be fined/reprimanded by them....

But I have only read the Mirror, and that's a bit like relying on the Sun for info. I'm off to see if I can find a report that precedes the Mirror.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 18:22:51

Seems like all stories begin with the Mirror. All else comes after it or refers to it directly. Wonder why?

But I am sick of reading "What is important is that Richard has said he is sorry and has recognised it was unfortunate"

Yeah, and I am sorry I killed your cat/stole your husband/got you sacked/licked your biscuits .... and I am really sorry I got caught.

Knowing I will be undermining my own earlier argument, he is indeed a prick! I hope the women in his life/home make him suffer.

JaneParker Mon 12-May-14 18:23:22

Has he any idea how bad this apology sounds to women. he saying it's fine to be so sexist as it was with friends. That does not change things. Nor does he say he is going to change his views on women or learn how to treat them properly.

"These were private emails exchanged between colleagues and friends of many years.

'They were received from and sent to my private and confidential email address, which a temporary employee who was with the organisation for only a matter of weeks, should not have accessed and was under no instruction to do so.

'Nonetheless I accept the contents are inappropriate and apologise for any offence caused, particularly to the former employee. It was an error of judgement that I will not make again.'

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 18:24:34

He is not intelligent enough to be holding that post.

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 18:25:17

Yep, he hasn't actually stated that the terminology he used was wrong.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 18:28:06

LineRunner, think about what you just typed.

He is an advertising johnny, 'elevated' from Yellow pages to selling football. He has always worked in the most sexist of industries. He has become institutionalised, poor man.

Have a heart people, this man needs your help, your sympathy.

Blech!

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 18:30:32

I suppose I could do a charity gala night to raise awareness of the horror that is Scudamore.

EddieStobbart Mon 12-May-14 18:32:05

But the comparison with racism is valid as the point is that one form of discrimination based on genetic factors is still seen as more acceptable than another. Surprise surprise but the Daily Mail comments section is awash with "get over yourself ladeez" chat in a way that I really don't believe would have been the case if racist terms had been used.

It's the violence of the term "gash" that sets it apart for me and the fact there is no element of behaviour attached to it. Twat, cunt, dick etc tend to be linked with something someone has done ie someone being a total cunt, bit of a dick, whereas I've never heard of gash being linked to behaviour - it's just a state of being ie female. If a group of men were referred to as "dicks" I'd assume it's because they had been behaving in an unpleasant manner whereas a group of gashes - I'd think the reference was to a group of women being, well, women.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 18:36:07

Why? That's what the thread is about. That's what Scudamore wrote

Because I got flamed for comparing it to calling a guy a dick.
And I'm trying to make you see how the hypocrisy of thinking its fine to call a man a dick has flown over many heads.

Had scudamore referred to a single woman as gash, minge, pussy cunt or whatever there would still be an uproar because it is sexist.

Yet calling a man names that refer to his gender is fine because 'that's what friends do'

Besides if people can compare this to racism then i can compare it to sexism towards men.

waterlego Mon 12-May-14 18:37:25

Nomama I don't understand what you posted to me. What's nitpicky?
I wasn't condoning name-calling of any type. I was trying to explain to another poster the difference between calling an indivdual a name, and referring to a whole group by a particular name. I didn't say either was ok.

But actually, yes, I would and have called individuals names. 'Twat', 'prick', 'cock', being the ones I would be most likely to use.

It isn't the same as using one such word for an entire group.

LimburgseVlaai Mon 12-May-14 18:39:33

From the BBC website:

Sexist emails sent by Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore are as damaging as racist comments made by ex-LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling, according to John Amaechi.
Sterling was fired by the NBA but former basketball player Amaechi says Scudamore will escape punishment.
Amaechi said: "He has pulled a Donald Sterling but he will get away with it."

Again: why is the Sterling story in the "Most Read" section, and the Scudamore story nowhere to be seen? Is there a threat of legal action?

Caitlin17 Mon 12-May-14 18:40:26

I don't use any of those words to describe anyone. The difference is all of them apart from this awful word will be used in a specific situation with reference to one person. They might be used aggressively in anger, with or without justification, or they might be used affectionately.

As many others have said this was used as a generic term for all women.

Do you think he didn't realise one was meant to laugh at not with The Inbetweeners?

Caitlin17 Mon 12-May-14 18:43:16

EddieStobbart exactly right. All the other words are predicated on behavior not just being.

waterlego Mon 12-May-14 18:43:35

Totally agree Eddie.

gotnotime, I can't speak for anyone else, but I would not feel offended at a man calling an individual woman one of those names. I might think it was unpleasant, but not necessarily sexist- it depends on the context.

e.g. If Scudamore had said in an e-mail that a woman of his acquaintance was 'being a cunt about XYZ', I would certainly find it coarse, and might wonder what the woman had done to deserve such wrath, but I wouldn't regard it as inherently sexist.

As Eddie said, using one of those terms for an individual is usually because they have behaved in a way that the speaker doesn't like.

Referring to ALL women as 'gash' is reducing them to nothing more than a set of ugly genitals. To me, the context, meaning and connotations are completely different, but if you don't see that, I don't know how else to explain it.

EddieStobbart Mon 12-May-14 18:45:19

Gash, minge and pussy are simply used to refer to women in a derogative way.
Men do get called cunt because it's been adopted as an insult re: behaviour.
I've never heard a man being called a dick for just existing and I can't think of an equivalent term.
Men get reduced to their genitalia when behaving unacceptably, women get reduced to theirs when walking down the street.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 18:45:25

Waterlego, another perspective is that it isn't the group/individual name calling that is the only issue.

Using genitalia to disparage someone/anyone is also an issue. Why is there a difference? Is it because women feel that they must meet fire with fire? Must we really join them? Become ladettes? I hope not. There are some things about being female I value, not being crude is one of them.

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 18:46:55

Men get reduced to their genitalia when behaving unacceptably, women get reduced to theirs when walking down the street.

Yep.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 18:49:41

waterlego

I completely 100% understand what you are saying. I'm just being a bit nitpiky as earlier in the thread another's posters main problem was that this word referred to a vagina. Meaning that that's all they are a walking vagina.

So I thought I would switch it around that's all.

CommunistLegoBloc Mon 12-May-14 18:52:37

Eddie has it for me.

I can't believe so many people on here simply couldn't accept the race comparison. I guess it just goes to show how ingrained and accepted sexism is within our culture. I suppose if anything, the reaction here supports the overarching point that women are so constantly discriminated it's just become normal, whereas racism is clearly seen as deviant.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 18:57:50

Communist, no-one has said that the race comparison is unacceptable. That was one poster who interpreted something I, and another, had said. Putting words into my mouth.

My point was slightly different, and still remains unacknowledged by that poster.

So you are right not to believe that so many people on here simply couldn't accept the race comparison - they haven't. Everyone has accepted the similarities.

waterlego Mon 12-May-14 19:01:15

I see what you're saying gotnotime.

Some of the objectors are objecting only to the context, while others are objecting to the word itself, AND the context in which it's been used.

I'm offended by the context. Although, the more I think about it, I am also offended by the word itself because of its connotations. It's not a word I've ever used.

Twat and cunt just aren't as metaphorical, I guess.

I don't even think 'metaphorical' is the right word, but hopefully you'll understand what I'm trying to say.

CommunistLegoBloc Mon 12-May-14 19:02:51

Yes, they have. Godwin's Law has been mentioned FFS! This whole thing spiralled when I posted 'what if he'd said racist things about a black person, would you all still think he shouldn't be sacked?'

Apparently bringing race into it was irrelevant. Several separate posters stated this.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 19:07:19

I was the Godwin poster, I was very specific as to why. Didn't think it was to you, though it was so long ago I can't remember!

I think my original point got lost in the accusations of racism/sexism and general stupidity.

Reading around the defensive posts, we all agree the man is a pillock and needs to be pilloried, at the very least.

CommunistLegoBloc Mon 12-May-14 19:09:55

Agreed. The man is a sexist pillock who needs to lose his job in order for sexism to be publicly identified as an act of major discrimination that affects 51% of the population.

gotnotimeforthat Mon 12-May-14 19:14:23

water

Yeah I understand smile

just wanted to join in With the devils advocate

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 19:14:32

Sadly football isn't really 'real' - see the Andy Gray debacle. Sacked from one job and walked straight into another. Punditry, indeed smile

It has taken 40 years for football to get to grips with racism, sort of. Getting to see the point of us little women may take a few centuries longer!

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 19:20:27

It will be interesting to see if Ched Evans walks straight back into a premiership striker position (as an aside)

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 19:24:12

Ooh, don't. That was one weird set up. All horrible men and stupid women... and as for the website protesting his innocence! Words fail me.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Mon 12-May-14 19:56:08

"Just how does a man who is so utterly stupid get through an interview process for that particular job? Who interviewed him??"

LineRunner, I give you Paul Flowers and the Coop Bank.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 19:59:34

Nomama I have responded to your point that you think the comparison of sexism with racism undermines the cause of sexism. I have extensively disagreed with this assertion and explained why. I think they are discriminatory practices based on innate bodily qualities, and to try to sequester one from the other implies that there is something innate to either sexual or racial identity than means that we should view discrimination based on those factors as fundamentally different. True, the assumptions made about non white ethnicities are not the same assumptions made about women and in this sense as you say, sexism isn't just the same as racism. But in the sense that sexism is a form of discrimination based on innate bodily identity, it is just the same as racism and shouldtreated as such.

By treating one expression of discriminatory thought as fundamentally different from another you imply that the social classes they pertain to are fundamentally different; that assumption is itself discriminatory.

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 20:02:53

Old Boys Club, innit. These people never get their jobs on merit Heaven Fucking Forbid

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Mon 12-May-14 20:07:55

. Which is why I can't stand the "ooh, if we had quotas we might get not-the-best-person-for-the-jobbery." Yep, cause there are never any fuck ups currently...

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 20:10:51

Indeed. Such hypocrisy is rank bollocks.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 20:10:56

Outself I have responded to your point that you think the comparison of sexism with racism undermines the cause of sexism

But that is NOT the point I was making. That has been the sole reason I have continued to post back to you. You have misunderstood what I did post.

It is not the comparison that is the sticking point for me. It is the constant linking of the two. As though sexism itself is not a strong enough concept to stand alone, but needs a bigger, stronger, more obviously wrong behaviour to show people the error of their ways.

Caitlin17 Mon 12-May-14 20:11:19

I wonder which Law firm is involved. If this were mine there would be crisis meetings of the board. It violates our equality and diversity policy and our core values policy. Even if you are cynical enough to think we just pay lip-service to them (and even if that were true the chairman and managing partner don't) the damage to reputation is potentially awful. I can think of several of our clients who would want an explanation of how the firm would intend dealing with this behaviour. And my firm is not in the least bit a lefty/legal aid/championing causes sort of place.

AnyFucker Mon 12-May-14 20:11:52

Such rank hypocrisy is bollocks ?

You get my drift...

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 20:14:35

I got the impression it was a friend who happened to be a solicitor (Scudamore did a law degree) rather than a solicitor acting for him.

But, as I understood it from friends trying for the bar, your private actions are deemed public - like public drunkeness/lewdness - and are actionable by the Law Society. So I would expect that his Firm would be in full on panic mode.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Mon 12-May-14 20:15:23

Nope, I think very stinky bollocks is quite a good analogy!

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Mon 12-May-14 20:17:53

Nomama, it isn't the people drawing analogies between sexism and racism who are undermining sexism as a serious concept - it's an effective way to get the point home to those who see sexism as a bit of banter but racism as beyond acceptable (not saying that's the view on this thread but it's pretty common in society). I've used it myself to good effect.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 20:19:04

Right, well I think they are linked. I do not think that people linking them in any way imply that sexism is not as bad as racism and we have to link them. I think that people link them because they are comparable examples of discrimination yet people respond as if sexism were not as important or as racism, and they think it valid to point to the discrepancy.

Roshbegosh Mon 12-May-14 20:20:17

To respond to the original question, yes I am furious, upset and offended. He is a hateful man and not fit to be around women. Disgusting horrible person.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 20:27:24

Sorry, that was hopelessly garbled. I mean, people are not saying that racism is more wrong, so let's compare. They are saying, why do we not respond to this equivalent behaviour in equivalent ways. Racism is only 'more wrong' if you think some aspects of sexism are acceptable. Which is sexist.

Nomama Mon 12-May-14 20:32:40

Doctrine, I get that, it a useful analogy. But Outself's take on what I said is what I am talking about.

Outself, again, I am not suggesting that sexism is not as bad as racism. I am suggesting that there is a section of society that thinks so, that thinks, as Doctrine says, it is just banter. So you see we do have common ground.

And, again, I do not think they are linked. I think you may not have intended to say that exactly as I read it... as discussed earlier, one does not cause or imply the other. They are similar, not linked (though that could be the science pedant in me).

And who has pointed to a discrepancy on this thread? I am not sure if you mean me or 'people in general'. Either way that is the point I am trying to make. By always using racism to explain sexism you make racism the yardstick and sexism takes the minor role, it has to 'measure up'.

If we always talked about sexism alone, as an important concept in its own right, it might gain more ground with such idiots as Scudamore. People/men like him need to be educated, severely. Single concept arguments, don't confuse them by conflating 2 ideas.

It is just my opinion, as yours is yours. But I do like to be understood for what I have said. Happy to argue a point, but only if the point is clarified.

roguenight Mon 12-May-14 20:38:33

He'll be alright and it will blow over as he is fortunate that it has come out at the same time as the final day of the Premier League season and the naming of the England squad which are dominating the news at the moment.

LittleBearPad Mon 12-May-14 20:41:34

But it's not conflating too ideas - it's pointing out that society's response takes one considerably more seriously than the other.

The response to sexism has to be compared and contrasted to the response to racism in order to get the Neanderthals who have finally understood the latter is not acceptable in football to realise that they can't behave as they do to women. That in actual fact speaking on derogatory terms about any body of people, a race, a gender isn't acceptable.

SomethingOnce Mon 12-May-14 20:50:53

What an arsehole.

Red card.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 20:52:26

I recognise that you don't think they are linked; it's that I disagree. The same structures of thought - principally that you can know what an individual's capacities are through their biological expression of being female / a particular ethnicity - are the basis of discriminatory attitudes. This is not conflating one with another but pointing to actual equivalence in order to ask questions about the lack of sanction in this case.

I would say that people like Scudamore less likely to internalize the problematic of sexism if they are allowed to regard it as a discrete issue and in no way related to discriminatory practices.

Is "linked" necessarily causal in scientific discourse? <curious> Because I can think of lots of linked but not casually related concepts. If this has been the problem, I should clarify that I don't think they cause each other but I do think they are related and rest on the same basic assumption: that biological identity is socially, intellectually and/or emotionally predictive in an absolute way that applies to all members of a particular "class" and that members of that class are individually responsible for their own lack of social position or.agency because of certain innate qualities, rather than because the cards are stacked against them.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 21:01:06

I see you haven't pointed to a discrepancy because you don't think they should be treated as the same problem with a different expression. I disagree and think the discrepancy is indicative of sexism and the way sex discrimination is marginalised. The way we respond to racism should be a yardstick and when we respond to it as a lesser offence than racism, it is the attitudes and beliefs of those responding which doesn't measure up, not the veracity of the feminist position.

To suggest that the discrepancy is indicative of the way sexism "doesn't measure up" is only logical if you think the response to sexism is proportional to the transgression, and that in the way that we don't respond to it as we would to racism, we point to weaknesses in its arguments. People like me who do think it should be linked think the response to sexism isn't proportional and doesn't go far enough and are trying to assert that it should be as clear and unequivocal as the response to racist comments.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 21:05:31

Can I also say I am not using racism to explain sexism, but using racism as a way to consider how we respond to discriminatory practices. If we are agreed that racism as a discriminatory practice is unacceptable and we should respond to it with sanction, we must also regard sexism as unacceptable to the same degree and respond accordingly.

OutsSelf Mon 12-May-14 21:13:03

I also think this is a single concept argument: the issue is discrimination based on biologically "determined" social identity. Race and gender are examples of this. If being sacked is the sanction for race discrimination, it should also be the sanction for sex discrimination. The reason that they are wrong and the degree of their acceptability is related to the fact that they are forms of discrimination and not because of the relative value off those at whom they are targeted (which is of course, equal)

I get you outs and I agree.

LineRunner Mon 12-May-14 22:15:29

Scudamore has a law degree??

I think the point is what can be done about this. Personally I think the racism comparisons are valid, clearly some don't.

Just looking at the various media websites shows you that none of them are interested in this. It's not on the BBC or the guardian or even the mail. Can't we register a protest that this man who is in charge of promoting women's football clearly has no respect for 51% of the population? When a football manager resigns it's a top story but insulting and demeaning women doesn't even register?

insertrandomnamehere Mon 12-May-14 23:40:37

Agree with all points made. If he was caught making racist 'banter', he'd be out on his ear. Sadly there's been next to no media coverage.

merrymouse Tue 13-May-14 07:31:49

"They were received from and sent to my private and confidential email address, which a temporary employee who was with the organisation for only a matter of weeks, should not have accessed and was under no instruction to do so."

Never mind the sexism, he should be sacked because of the incredible stupidity of not realising that his PA could see his 'private' e-mails.

Also, the idea that it is fine to use offensive terms as a matter of course in private as long as you don't do it in public shows either a complete misunderstanding of equality or a complete disregard for equality. Either way he is in the wrong job.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 13-May-14 07:44:52

He does go on to say "however, I apologise"

I think he is trying to make the point that he didn't either use the corporate email address (which presumably is potentially gross misconduct) or send them directly To the PA (which is potentially sexual harassment).

The use of the phrase "should not have accessed and was under no instruction to do so" is ambiguous. It makes it sound like she hacked into the account or looked at it in his computer when he was away from his desk; however, another interpretation is that she should not have been given access and that was someone's mistake.

They were presumably sent on work time, so that is up to his employer.

If he chooses not to resign, his employer will have to follow due process regarding any disciplinary action.

It would have been far better if he'd started with "I apologise unreservedly" and gone on to clarify that it was a personal account.

Nomama Tue 13-May-14 09:22:44

Is there anyone here who understands what I am trying to say?

I ask as I cannot seem to explain it clearly enough. I appreciate your trying to explain, outself and others, but it still niggles me that a) you seem to think I don't agree regrading the severity of sexism or that the sanctions should be the same - I do and have said so often enough, and b) that I cannot get across the very simple issue that I do have.

Maybe I should just go with the flow rather than trying to move on the debate or (as I see it) the cause of women in the 21st century!

Outself - regarding 'the discrepency' I have completely lost what you might mean by that.

As for linked, it means connected. I cannot see how the 2 are connected. They are not bonded, 2 parts of the same thing, they are similar. Expressions of hatred/dislike based upon appearance (as I don't think racists or sexists ponder the genetics of the object of their hatred, just the appearance of it). One is not part of the other. They both exist discretely.

But I suspect that boils down to semantics. As is the fact that I cannot adequately explain what I mean, despite numerous attempts at clarification.

My interpretation of what you tried to say Nomama was that you felt that comparing sexism to racism was an attempt to shore up sexism, because people didn't see the latter as sufficiently serious? But you felt sexism should be regarded as sufficiently serious in and of itself without needing to be boosted by any other isms?

My interpretation of the views posted by those who disagreed with you was that they weren't making the comparison in order to shore up sexism, they were making it in order to draw attention to how differently those two isms are treated, currently.

I think that everyone agrees that sexism and racism (and other isms) are of equal seriousness.

I think everyone agrees that they can be interlinked (one person can be subjected to more than one ism, it isn't simple).

The point of departure seems to be with the value of pointing out how differently our cultural institutions seem to treat racism as compared to sexism:

Senior football man makes racist comments in private email, likely to be sacked, major news story, is disgraced, at least for a while.

Senior football man makes sexist comments in private email, makes mealy mouthed excuse apology, limited news coverage, keeps job and carries on as normal.

As an aside, I do personally think that racism and sexism are linked, in that they both maintain the powerful social position of an elite group of white males. As does the oppression of all difference (or deviance, as the cultural hegemony perpetuated by those with social power would probably regard it).

But there are many and varied interpretations of what 'linked' might mean. For me, it's that they have the same root cause: the maintenance of power and privilege through oppression.

Nomama Tue 13-May-14 10:07:02

Thanks Buffy, that was my point and my understanding of the posts of others.

And yes, male hegemony is at the root of many social ills. But, not all!

For me, the racism / sexism comparison can be useful as a way of showing up hidden prejudice among people who regard themselves as free from it.

So asking the question "what do you think would have happened if emails showing he'd called his colleagues n-words or p-words?" can highlight the double standard that exists among other privileged people.

It's not to say that sexism is worse than racism or vice versa, nor that they are an either/or problem. It's that the people with social power are much more sensitive to racism and much more likely to find it abhorrent than they are sexism. People with social power are likely to regard sexism as just a joke or banter; the person didn't mean it. Whereas that defence would not wash with racism, within institutions like the PL and the mainstream media.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 13-May-14 10:28:53

Yeah, what Buffy said

grin

What social ills can be traced to sources other than white male hegemony, Nomama? Out of interest...

SirChenjin Tue 13-May-14 10:50:10

Does racism only exist amongst white males? hmm

Nomama Tue 13-May-14 10:52:41

But not so long ago the racism was also just banter. Football has had Kick It Out in place for decades (1993), look at sledging in cricket, that is making headlines and being excused as part of the game!

The word 'banter' is possibly one of the most dangerous words in the English language at the moment (I know, OTT). I teach 16 - 19 year olds and they pass everything off as 'just banter', it hides a multitude of bullying, hatred and 'isms'. That their idols do it too just compounds the problem.

My point was based on the trend for single issue causes like Kick It Out. That could have included sexism (one part of it did for a while) but it was decided that one simple message at a time was more likely to be supported and understood - yet the culture still exists, bananas are still being thrown, racist chants still heard every week. But slowly progress is being made.

I would like to see an equally concerted, longitudinal effort made specifically for sexism. Not as part of a package of unwelcome behaviours and isms, but as THE unwelcome behaviour that carries with it legal and social penalties.

Use the lessons learned in combating racism by all means, it would be ridiculous and time/money wasting not to. But don't append sexism to racism.

But that is only my viewpoint, I understand that it may not make sense to many others, but from my own experience it seems to be something that needs to be considered fully.

SirChenjin if that was to me, then the answer is no, of course it doesn't. But the people in charge of the Premier League are white males and that social group is typically the very powerful elite. Does that answer the question posed by your hmm?

SirChenjin Tue 13-May-14 11:04:38

Yes, that was to you, Buffy, in response to your generalised question "What social ills can be traced to sources other than white male hegemony".

Nomama Tue 13-May-14 11:08:58

Oh don't get me started on white, middle class masculine hegemony. I had a wonderful lecturer many years ago (she is quite famous and has even been on Grand Designs smile) who could discuss the ills of men, as a breed not as individuals, for many hours.

If you start from the premise that masculine hegemony seeks to keep men superior and all things it defines as feminine inferior you begin to see the massive scope.

Female health - contraception, female circumcision
Female education - recent stories form around the world abound
Female slavery - from Germans with cellars to SAHM with no cash
Female emancipation - slowly becoming the norm, but not everywhere
Female prestige - glass ceiling and page 3, for example

There are many more. But in all cases the belief in male superiority, of manliness and its inherent violence, with its concepts and roots in dispossession, poverty, greed, nationalism, racism, the concept of 'honour', of being 'male' contributes to the many social ills that still befall women in all countries around the world.

The flip side is that such hegemony has been a genetic imperative in years gone by. From hunter gatherers to war zones throughout history. Men reclaim dominance in times of unrest. The imperative being to protect the children and therefore their mothers. It is only in times of peace that the masculine hegemony is questioned.

JaneParker Tue 13-May-14 11:10:12

I think it is a really helpful tool to substitute black for woman in sexist comments as it shows up how much society is more than happy to do women down all the time but is in uproar over racism. They are both as bad as each other but we seem to tolerate sexism on an hourly basis in way we don't with racism. It is time that distinction stopped.

The point here is that even in private correspondence this man was a fool and has been shown up in his true colours. The fact that he thinks it would have been fine had it not been found out because it's fine to be sexist in private shows what an idiot he is. It is like saying although a lesser extreme it's fine if I beat up my wife or say all blacks have a low IQ as long as I only say it at home.

But that question doesn't imply that the only people who are racist are white men [confusion]. Or at least it wasn't meant to suggest that. White male cultural hegemony, to me, means a culture that is largely controlled by white males. In other words, that white males dominate the upper echelons of the professions and the media, academia, business and government. I apologise if that wasn't clear, it's rather a short hand for me but I see how it could have created the impression that I was ignoring the nuance.

I am so confused I cannot even type confused

grin

Nomama Tue 13-May-14 11:12:46

And I misread your post - other than you said! Sorry.

Well that gets stickier as you have then got to look at minorities as oppressors, including women, religion, etc.

That becomes less easy to state and less welcomed when you do.

SirChenjin Tue 13-May-14 11:18:26

No, my fault for not being clearer - 2 laptops open at the moment, one for work and the other for MN, and not really giving either my full attention blush. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make (in response to your question) was that social ills can be traced to other sources than the white male hegemony.

They probably can… But I asked the question because I can't actually think of any that can't be traced to some form of either white or male hegemony. And usually both.

Perhaps because I am thinking that the people who set the tempo and who have the power to do something (change laws, develop alternative fuels, do something about world hunger etc) are almost exclusively wealthy powerful white men. Sometimes wealthy powerful black men. Occasionally wealthy powerful white women. And yet they choose to preserve their own interests, largely financial ones. At the expense of everyone else.

merrymouse Tue 13-May-14 11:34:03

I think they were open to the PA in the same way that a PA will open all letters that land on her desk. I have no idea about the rest of this man's behaviour, but it wouldn't be the first time somebody had difficulty understanding the difference between their work life and their personal life when dealing with a PA.

If it was a completely private e-mail account there would be no reason for the e-mails to pass through a work computer at all.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 13-May-14 11:39:02

Not trying to defend him - I think he's a nincompoop. But the exact status of the emails and the access probably do impact on the available disciplinary measures.

insertrandomnamehere Tue 13-May-14 11:50:36

I'm not sure they do. He brought the premier league into disrepute through his private actions. In any case I believed he used his work email account?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 13-May-14 11:54:52

Good point - he put "private and confidential" rather than " personal" in the "apology".

insertrandomnamehere Tue 13-May-14 11:56:53

Just looked at my works disciplinary procedures - I must not do anything in my private conduct that might discredit my employer.

I'd argue that Scudamore's private comments have discredited much of the PL's work with women.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 13-May-14 12:01:28

I agree but wouldn't necessarily like my chances at tribunal if the case was about comments sent between friends on Hotmail in their own time. I think private conduct is probably intended more for "public events in your own time"

Nomama Tue 13-May-14 13:42:07

Buffy. I think it is as you say. But there is another distinction also. Men tend to dominate whole groups and women individuals.

Men tend to dominate and women to smother. It comes back to that genetic imperative and it having nowhere to go in today's society. So, very broadly, stereotypically, a man will control a population, allowing it some autonomy as long as it is to his benefit. Women will smother and coddle and tightly control, taking away all autonomy of an individual.

So the social ills you can trace back to women tend to be less obvious and individualistic. You can think about historical instances where a woman's attempt at control was enacted as smothering to the great detriment of a nation, Agrippina, Lady Macbeth for example. Such women bring up their male offspring with fatal flaws or become the fatally flawed puppet master themselves.

Much of this also then has the bonus effect of reinforcing the masculine view of women not being able to handle power, of being weak and flawed... or, on the flip side, if a woman is successful in control and power, she is evil or loses her femininity. So the masculine hegemony is again reinforced.

But (and if this is the wrong thread, happy to be told to take this discussion elsewhere) aren't you talking about two different levels of problem here? And isn't that really just saying that bad men are bad because they had mommy issues?

Men-as-a-class with their privilege and cultural hegemony versus individual women who might not be very good mothers and who occasionally are not very effective at bringing up sons who are powerful tyrants... Where's the power there?

But it's quite possible I've missed your point. In which case, sorry about that...

SirChenjin Tue 13-May-14 13:52:11

See - I totally disagree with this, and find it rather an outdated way of thinking. It certainly doesn't reflect how my teens view women in power, for example. Angela Merkel springs to mind immediately - neither evil nor unfeminine (whatever the hell that means), but a very astute, clever person who is an exceptional leader.

I work in a female dominated organisation - women there are as capable of exhibiting all the negative stereotypes of the male hegemony as they are of demonstrating strength, vision, leadership and so on.

The above post might just be the most lacking in clarity I've ever contributed grin

OutsSelf Tue 13-May-14 14:06:33

See, I think when we observe characteristics, such as smothering or domineering, controlling or organising, etc. we are always looking at socially produced characteristics, and not innate qualities of biology. If any given quality of character was innate to biology, all people of that biology would express it. So my question about the qualities of 'smothering' - gosh what a pejorative word! - etc. would be what is it in the existing social structures that produce those characteristics in that SOCIAL class. For example, I read Lady McBeth as basically exercising power in the only spheres that are made SOCIALLY available to her, and would assume in the case she had actual political agency she'd just, you know, take power for herself and act on her own behalf. If she wasn't an entirely fictional construct onto which we were projecting our own assumptions and fantasies...

And also (and I hope with more clarity) if this smothering mother trope really had any power, why exercise it via the males in her life? Why not just demand whatever it was she is assumed to want, for herself, in her voice and on her own terms?

The answer, I think, is because women tend to have their access to power mediated by men. Individual men and men as a class. Whether the men concerned realise this or not.

SirChenjin Tue 13-May-14 14:27:58

women tend to have their access to power mediated by men

I think that's over-generalising to a massive extent Buffy. I'd also be interested in your definition of 'power'.

I'm also conscious that this discussion has moved away from the OP somewhat grin

Power in a sort of Foucaultian way, but though I am doing some reading I am not a Foucault expert so I may have got some bits wrong.

In other words, I mean the sort of social power that is derived from your social status. The sort of power that makes people listen to you, not interrupt you, assume you are competent. And then basic, obvious power like who sits on an interview panel, who is sitting with Mr Shiny in no. 10 making the rules. I think these two are linked and self-reinforcing.

As a class therefore, it is my perception that women have significantly less access to power as defined above than do men. Individual exceptions exist, of course. But as a whole, I think women are listened to less, believed less, their writing is often dismissed, their contributions erased from history. There was a blog post on this by Joanne Harris, let me see if I can… here it is.

And by 'mediated' I mean that women's access to power is often given to them by men. Caroline Criado-Perez's campaign to get Austin on the £10 was aimed at convincing men at the Bank of England to agree to it. The NMP3 campaign is aimed at influencing a man to make a decision. Many SAHMs have to influence their partners to get access to joint finances. This observation isn't meant to detract from women's abilities or achievements, merely to point out the additional barriers they face.

So yes, a generalisation, but one that I think is defensible as a statement that has value and isn't disproven by the fact that a small number of powerful women exist.

Panwearsrosa Tue 13-May-14 14:42:22

So bringing it back to the OP....smile. I'm a footie fan (Man U) and am not so amazed that RS is still in post. Just this season we had a manager head butt an opposing team's player on the side line, on tv and in the Prem. Footie appears to be above any concept of what is acceptable sometimes.

As for RS specifically, his emails were part of his official duties as the PA used them to organise his diary. They are in his professional domain. IF I ever linked my emails to my work accounts and this came up I'd expect to be sacked for gross misconduct (tho' I'd resign first probably).

SirChenjin Tue 13-May-14 14:54:48

Hmmm - not sure I agree with your definition of 'power' in terms of competency at all. In fact, thinking of all the women who hold the power in the organisation I work for (and the organisations I've worked for on a freelance basis) definitely not! I am more inclined to agree with power being limited to fewer women at the top, but whether or not that's mediated by men....

Anyway, yes Pan - back to the OP grin. I completely agree - the levels of understanding of what is acceptable when it comes to football (at all levels imo) is very limited.

SirChenjin Tue 13-May-14 14:57:17

Hiding this thread now - am too distracted and not working effectively!

No, no, not defined in terms of competency, the opposite if anything. Defined by cultural assumptions of competency, which is different. An individual woman's actual competency makes no difference when enough people look at her and subconsciously think "woman, must be flaky"

Apologies for derail and for rush, need to dash off to school. Might be tempted to start another thread on this, if you're interested Sir?

OutsSelf Tue 13-May-14 15:05:32

Well, further to the discussion of power, what I would point to is the way that public institutions, and I include businesses in this, only fifty years ago would have had no women in those positions of power that are now in your organisation Sir. At some point, the men in those organisations have sat in panels to grant access to those women to those positions. In the historical sense, then, this power has been mediated by men. Those top level roles very often are sort of man shaped in that they are not really accessible or friendly to someone with extensive childcare responsibilities. In the sense that one has to alter one's way of approaching any given role to be more 'man like', those positions are mediated by men. So many of the structures that regulate and determine public role and economic agency assume a basically house-kept man that I would argue that public and coporate life is still mediated by men, even when individual women take up those roles. It is in this sense that you can argue that Margaret Thatcher was not feminist because the basis of her power was her ability to act think and behave in ways which made her fit into a pre-existing male order, where a feminist would have challenged that order to enable more women to take part - by for example, insisting that the House sat during parent friendly hours instead of starting and finishing late.

And (triumphantly back on track but still late) this is especially worrying when men who mediate women's access (Diversity Champions in male-dominated organisations, for example) think it's OK to refer to women as "gash".

Panwearsrosa Tue 13-May-14 17:03:08

"He also mocked "female irrationality" and forwarded one joke from a pal about a prince who "banged skinny big t****d broads".

In one email he wrote: "You will learn over time that female irrationality increases exponentially depending on how many members join your family.

"That should keep you within the Chinese government's one child per family enforcement rules. Very clever those Chinese."

Sorry if this has been c n' p before.

IN what known universe can anyone in a position, power and influence where there is a mixed gender representation even begin to argue that they should not resign their position. And of course this will not be the first time RS will have made jokes/mailed his backward views, as likely as not.

Panwearsrosa Tue 13-May-14 17:14:27

of course on a personal note, the female members of his immediate and extended family must be very proud and gratified.

Kewcumber Tue 13-May-14 17:21:33

He also mocked "female irrationality"

To be fair that a woman is apparently prepared to share a house/life/air/bed with any man who thinks as he does about women probably reinforces his view of female irrationality.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 13-May-14 17:37:16

<off track> Lady Macbeth is a fictional construct created by a man. And I never noticed anyone accusing Mrs Thatcher of (s)mothering the nation.

Nomama Tue 13-May-14 18:20:21

Mrs Thatcher was one of those women who 'forsook her femininity' inorder to get the job done... if you wish to see any string woman from that perspective (I think there may have been an assumption that I believe the smother mother scenario is 100% true, whereas I find it an interesting description of a certain type of strong mother - again mediated through men).

Sirchenjin describes the 'versons' of strong women well, I would ask what arena, is it traditionally 'female'?

I did say broadly speaking, stereotypically and that it gets sticky when you try to discuss it online. You can pick every word apart, we can counter any argument but it comes down to nature vs nurture and the inevitable fact that 'Men come from Mars' was not a throw away statement.

Outself (and here I will end my derailment, sorry) I believe the biological imperative is shaping social behaviours and in turn reinforcing and being reinforced my social mores. I cannot divorce one from the other - that is why some of what I believe sounds old fashioned.

I believe that some of the old fashioned male/female social divisions are at the root of our gendered society. They are, in times of unrest, the genetic imperative being lived. We are, after all, only 70 odd years out of global conflict and have been constantly embroiled in other wars for centuries. But our need for male hegemony is lessening with every decade, here in the UK. But could tip back tomorrow, entirely depending upon the country you live in and the levels of stability at any given time.

A quick look round the world and yiu can see this in action in many countries. It is a good indicator of a country's stability.

(I'll stop now. My hobby horse has been put away)

NeilDiamondRocks Tue 13-May-14 18:21:27

So we have a powerful man, in a position of huge responsibility, whose job role includes the promotion and development of women, and he writes derogatory, demeaning emails about women while using his work email.

And this genius has the brass neck to mock WOMEN'S irrationality???

Men who use degrading terms about women make my skin crawl...I can't even bear to think how their filthy, grubby minds work ugh! They really are a toxic mess in society. But there is something really skin-crawling about supposed intelligent, older, married men behaving in such a way

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 13-May-14 18:28:39

I disagree, nomama, but as you say, it's OT for the thread.

Swannery Tue 13-May-14 18:42:57

Have been reading in the paper that it would be wrong to discipline him for misconduct for writing personal emails.
Regardless, he is not suited to have the job position he holds, promoting women's football, and has made his position untenable. Whether you call it misconduct or loss of trust and confidence or "some other substantial reason for dismissal", he should be sacked.
But he won't be. Because other men like him believe women to be fundamentally different from men and basically put in the world to provide them with opportunities to have sex. So what's wrong with emailing about them in those terms?

Suzannewithaplan Tue 13-May-14 18:43:06

Men who use degrading terms about women make my skin crawl

I also find it deeply unpleasant, but I think that it is sometimes a way that men 'bond' they emphasise their common interests by deriding women, similar to the corporate visits to lapdancing clubs.
It's to do with excluding women and reinforcing masculine solidarity.

I'd like to think that to most people that sort of behaviour looks puerile and anachronistic, but then again I'm not so sure sad

Panwearsrosa Tue 13-May-14 18:47:45

On the good side, he was loudly boo-ed by the crowd when he presented the Premiership trophy to Man City on Sunday. That will have left an impression on the Prem authorities.

Kewcumber Tue 13-May-14 19:34:06

On the good side, he was loudly boo-ed by the crowd

Was he really?

Goodness, football crowds have just gone up a notch or two in my estimation.

OutsSelf Tue 13-May-14 19:50:31

Oh, that is good news - the booing. I'm another one newly impressed by football crowds.

Panwearsrosa Tue 13-May-14 19:53:07

As much as it pains me to say, Man City crowds are the far more community-based and "ethical" when it comes to supporters imo so it was unfortunate for RS he was appearing at their stadium.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 13-May-14 19:53:19

I'm really pleased about that.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 13-May-14 19:53:47

But fortunate for football, Pan.

Panwearsrosa Tue 13-May-14 19:58:34

Indeed. It was the worst/best place for him. My lot (the evil empire across the canal) wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

JohnFarleysRuskin Tue 13-May-14 21:58:13

Really, he was booed?

He is so lucky there is so much going on in football at the moment (or Praps not luck!) this story has hardly been anywhere.

Panwearsrosa Tue 13-May-14 22:35:23
Crumblemum Wed 14-May-14 08:08:42

I read a quote yesterday from a member of Fifa condemning this. English football is in a bad place when Fifa can take the moral high ground.

Kewcumber Wed 14-May-14 08:25:04

English football is in a bad place when Fifa can take the moral high ground.

Never a truer word said!

The bigwigs at FIFA probably squeaked with excitement at the opportunity.

JohnFarleysRuskin Wed 14-May-14 08:47:42

I looked for it in The Times and on the BBC but couldn't find it...

Swannery Wed 14-May-14 10:14:14

There was a little piece in the Independent, saying he should be able to say what he wants in personal emails.

Crumblemum Wed 14-May-14 10:34:44

And to think all this is happening against a backdrop of England trying to bid for the 2019 women's world cup. Please. This guy really should have some shame.

LJL1 Wed 14-May-14 11:12:26

Would it be appropriate to update his Wikepedia page about the response to this?
There is a small entry but not much said...

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Wed 14-May-14 11:15:25

It's been on the bbc web page.

KatieMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 14-May-14 13:09:53

Hi all. Just to let you know the Telegraph have reported that Richard Scudamore is to face a formal hearing over his emails.

LineRunner Wed 14-May-14 13:12:29

Thank you, KatieMN, and a bloody good thing too.

CommunistLegoBloc Wed 14-May-14 13:20:07

YAY! But this should be the expectation and the norm.

KatieMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 14-May-14 13:23:04

Additional comment from Alex Horne, General Secretary of the FA too

“It is important I communicate to all staff how disappointed all of us are in the tone and nature of the content of these emails which we believe is totally inappropriate.

“Richard is not an employee of the FA and the matter is one for the Premier League to address considering their respective policies. The issue is something we will continue to monitor.”

ExcuseTypos Wed 14-May-14 13:24:52

Fantastic news about the hearing.

ExcuseTypos Wed 14-May-14 13:25:31

I hope they make him read them out infront of the hearing panel.

LineRunner Wed 14-May-14 13:27:30

Told you he was doomed. No senior figure in sport or politics wants the Scudamore albatross hanging round their necks.

Threads like this, showing up as 'Active' on an influential website, do help.

JohnFarleysRuskin Wed 14-May-14 13:27:35

That is progress.

Crumblemum Wed 14-May-14 13:35:15

First question:

Would you write these 'jokes' on headed paper?

Crumblemum Wed 14-May-14 13:35:50

Second question

How would you feel as a woman working in this organisation?

Any more?

LineRunner Wed 14-May-14 13:36:50

Do you feel your position remains tenable, and if so, how?

Crumblemum Wed 14-May-14 13:39:26

Are you an asset to England's bid to host the 2019 world cup?

BeanAboutTown Wed 14-May-14 13:41:21

As an manager, how would you have responded if one of your staff had done this?

BeanAboutTown Wed 14-May-14 13:42:19

And, do you think you are qualified to head up efforts to promote and celebrate the women's game?

whatsthatcomingoverthehill Wed 14-May-14 13:42:41

Not defending Scudamore at all, but in terms of use of 'gash', wasn't that something the lawyer wrote not him?

ExcuseTypos Wed 14-May-14 14:06:46

Did you realise the way you referred to women, was inappropriate? <Head tilt>
If so why did you do it?

LineRunner Wed 14-May-14 14:16:56

Was your 'joke' about the Chinese one-child policy an oblique reference to female infanticide? Could you explain that further?

merrymouse Wed 14-May-14 15:02:22

Personal emails or not, the attitude in them is so bad that I think it's a bit the equivalent of a doctor letting slip that she isn't actually qualified. I know it might not stand up in court, but however the information was found out, he is clearly in the wrong job.

ifyourehoppyandyouknowit Wed 14-May-14 15:07:42

My Scudamore, what would you say to all the young women out there who want to pursue football? Other than 'sorry'?

CommunistLegoBloc Wed 14-May-14 15:49:28

From the BBC:

*Moya Dodd, a Fifa executive committee member and vice-president of the Asian Football Confederation, told BBC Sport: "It's important for football to take sexism as seriously as it is taking racism.

"If this can happen at the highest levels of football in a country that prides itself on gender issues and is bidding for the women's World Cup in 2019, then that's bad enough.
"But it also makes you contemplate how much more difficult it is elsewhere in the world, trying to gain the respect and credibility they need to make a contribution to the game."*

She echoes an argument made by many articulate MNetters.

GeekLove Wed 14-May-14 16:40:14

This should be a message to all who use email in a personal capacity. Assume that (1) it is forever and (2) would you write it on headed paper and sign it for all to see?

Swannery Wed 14-May-14 17:13:23

The view on Yahoo seems to be that there has been a gross violation of his privacy, he was just being a bit non-PC like everyone is, and the PA who leaked the emails should be punished - preferably prosecuted.

GeekLove Wed 14-May-14 17:15:46

Personally I think she is more a whistle-blower. If it was just banal everyday stuff what would be the point in leaking that? I don't think this is for personal glory, no-one looks glorious here.

Kewcumber Wed 14-May-14 17:16:40

you aren't usually entitled to privacy when you're working and using work assets

CommunistLegoBloc Wed 14-May-14 17:36:41

Prosecuted?! shock Bloody hell, that's more misogyny for you. Woman receives sexist email in her professional capacity. Women shares sexist email to highlight high-up man's disgusting views and attitudes. Woman is the one to take the flak.

The mind boggles.

KatieMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 14-May-14 19:19:07

Hi there. Just to say we've tweaked the title of this thread to clarify in light of whatscomingoverthehill's comment.

Smokinmirrors Thu 15-May-14 00:55:12

Has scudamore got a a tiny penis?

Google images can be such a let down.

We need facts. Images. Information.

Are his testicles a little bit hairy and smelly? Is he quite short? Does his breath stink?

Does he sweat when he's shagging? Does his belly sag into the woman he is having sex with, almost killing her or suffocating her?

Does he have stinky armpits? Poo around his back passage after not wiping his bottom properly?

Does he snore and dribble like most men his age?

Does he lean to one side when he's reading the paper and let out a stinky fart?

Does he drop towels on the floor where he's standing? Scratch his backside?

Just a couple more to go...

does he and his colleagues sit around in VIP booths talking about titties and arses and do they watch aggressive porn (is there any other kind)

only asking.

PrincessBabyCat Thu 15-May-14 04:43:55

That's why you keep your work emails clean and professional. You keep all that other crap for your personal emails outside of work.

JaneParker Thu 15-May-14 06:46:04

Wise change. No one thinks Scudamore used that word. It is 100% clear someone writing to him did which is a totally different thing (although he seems to have been rather sexist in the words he did use).

KateHMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 15-May-14 10:25:05

Hi all,

I just wanted to point you to a new thread on Richard Scudamore here. What questions do you think he should face at his hearing on Tuesday? Let us know on the other thread and we'll compile the best into a page on the site.

Thanks
MNHQ thanks

MrsLS Fri 16-May-14 07:32:56

This was smutty male humour in private - I'm hoping that people really aren't naive enough to think that this type of humour will go away. It has been going on for centuries and will continue in all areas - whether it be an office private email or changing room. Mr Scudamore now has a witch hunt after him- wasted time that could be directed on really pushing sexism out of football. Do we really think that every person that makes these types of joke is truly sexist? It's a very sad state of affairs, he should have kept the smut of the work email, but as far as sexism within football is concerned - this is nothing compared to what is going on. The bigger picture will not be changed by singling him out.

Do we really think that every person that makes these types of joke is truly sexist?

Yes sad

The bigger picture will not be changed by singling him out.

I disagree. I think that criticism from women will make fuck all difference to this person, who clearly regards himself as a superior being. But being sanctioned officially sends a message that this misogynistic behaviour won't be tolerated among the football establishment.

Without a basic respect for women as people, all the initiatives to encourage women to get involved will mean fuck all in real terms.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 16-May-14 07:50:26

"The bigger picture will not be changed by singling him out."

He's not Joe Bloggs, shelf stacker, with no power or influence. He is head of an organisation that is trying to promote women in football - if it's not him that should be singled out, then who?

LineRunner Fri 16-May-14 07:54:17

Of course he should be singled out, precisely because of who he is and what he is paid to do.

MrsLS Fri 16-May-14 08:05:41

I didn't say he shouldn't be singled out, I said it will (sadly) not change the immense problem that sport has where sexism is concerned.

LineRunner Fri 16-May-14 08:11:14

I think it will change something.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 16-May-14 08:12:20

Part of changing racism in football was singling out those who made racist comments.

LineRunner Fri 16-May-14 08:14:10

It's a very instructive technique.

The big picture is made up of lots of little things. Enough little things change, the big picture will. Pennies, pounds, etc.

MrsLS Fri 16-May-14 08:38:34

I hope you are right and it does result in a change and not just that these men will be a bit more careful with their emails. There are people making huge advances and working tirelessly on anti discriminatory boards within football (at all levels). They are putting procedures in place to stop all forms of discrimination. In my experience, I would say that we are years away from making the progress that has been made in tackling racism in sport. This is still a "jobs for the boys" industry, chauvinism runs deep within the actual clubs/industry. Look at Richard Keys disgraceful comments - they are back with their own radio show again!? (Sorry...have gone off at a tangent!)

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 16-May-14 09:10:09

Tbh even men becoming more careful with their emails is something.

No, whatever consequences are in store for this delightful chap won't, on their own, achieve much. But they will achieve more than him skipping off with none.

If you analyse humour like this, to me it seems founded in the basic inferiority of the group being mocked relative to the mocker, backed up by the idea that society quietly agrees and supports this. So, removing that tacit support helps the banter lose some of this acceptability. Like how making crude racist jokes just isn't funny among most people.

And if all that is achieved by whatever consequences he will face is that sexist old men like him are more circumspect, this will have the effect of starting to change football's culture. And in a while, these old men will retire and the hidden prejudices will disappear with them. If they aren't told in no uncertain terms that their nasty prejudices are unacceptable, then they will endure.

JohnFarleysRuskin Fri 16-May-14 09:37:44

Mr Scudamore now has a witch hunt after him- wasted time that could be directed on really pushing sexism out of football.

You think its a waste of time to challenge one of the men whose role is to push sexism out of football on his own sexism?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 16-May-14 09:57:29

The people running Scudamore's hearing wouldn't otherwise be using those free hours to stamp out sexism, they would be doing other employment related matters.

And I investigating sexist comments made by someone so high profile would be sensible even if it came out of the "sexism fighting hours"

LineRunner Fri 16-May-14 10:25:31

And it's not a 'witch hunt'.

Language is so revealing, isn't it smile

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 16-May-14 10:33:53

It's a wizard hunt!

Wizard hunts are easy, just look for the pointy hat poking above the office partition. That'll be your Wizard, right there.

grin

sashh Fri 16-May-14 10:50:32

Do we really think that every person that makes these types of joke is truly sexist?

Yes.

And it is as bad as racism, disablism etc.

merrymouse Fri 16-May-14 14:52:15

It isn't Scudamore's smutty 'humour' that is objectionable - it is the clear evidence that he is unable to see 50% of the population as functioning human beings, yet he is employed to promote equality.

This isn't a witchhunt, it is questioning whether he is able to do his job. Poor soul, what with the inability to understand email and the dinosaur attitudes, clearly he isn't.

WoolleyThinking Mon 19-May-14 14:12:57

Scudamore is a fool for broadcasting his filthy language to female colleagues using work email.

The words he used are deliberately shocking to cause the recipient (his mate and colleague) to have a laugh.

I don't think using those terms in jest, in a private conversation with another man who clearly doesn't find the terms offensive implies sexism or misogyny. The fact that he emailed them to a 3rd party who happened to be female shows he is computer illiterate, that is all.

For the record, "Gash" was not a term he used, he said the other things - it was his colleague that used that term. I personally think it's quite a funny word just like many words for the male genitalia are quite amusing.

I think the Though Police are overstepping the mark here. Scudamore she make a big donation to women's charity and get some IT skills!

nonmifairidere Mon 19-May-14 14:17:29

WooleyThinking - good choice of non.

nonmifairidere Mon 19-May-14 14:18:48

nn - obvs.

Kewcumber Mon 19-May-14 15:05:18

He didn't accidentally email them to a colleague who happened to be female. His emails were all copied to his PA (who didn't become a woman when he wasn't looking) which he knew.

He either didn't care that his PA read all this claptrap or didn;t think her opinion matters or didn't think his opinion to be a problem.

I have a problem with any one of those scenarios in a work environment and question his capacity to do his job effectively which is what his employers should do (and I believe are).

I believe that women in his workplace are entitled to a degree of protection from their employer from being subjected to this during working hours.

Maybe he's going to claim he didn;t think his PA could actually read.

Nomama Mon 19-May-14 20:29:39

And he got off without even a wrist slap. They accepted his apology and he will make sure he isn't caught doesn't do it again!

merrymouse Tue 20-May-14 07:57:22

Apparently 'representative woman' Karren Brady thinks Scudamore isn't sexist. I can't argue with that being her opinion, however, I suspect that, having got her big break working for David Sullivan, her sexism perception radar is set a little differently to mine.

This isn't the thought police. Obviously there are many idiots around who think that the 50% of the population with ovaries are irrational and that is perfectly legal. The issue here is that one of those idiots is being paid to promote equality. It disqualifies him from the job.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now