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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

Sorry misread your last post.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

He certainly comes across as quite dim.

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.

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?

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.