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

[BeanAboutTown]

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

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.

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.

What an arsehole.

Red card.

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? 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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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!

Yeah, what Buffy said

Does racism only exist amongst white males?

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.

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".

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 ) 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.