Chris Evans on 'Girls' Olympic Football

[HipHopSkipJumpomous]

I listen to his show briefly on my drive to work. This morning he was interviewing a member of the GB Women's football team who are progressing in the Olympics.

He started to talk about 'girls' football.
"Women's football" the player corrected him.
To paraphrase his reply to his clumsy error 'ladies, girls, women's, female whatever, it doesn't really matter'
"It's women's football" she reiterated.

I cheered the player and was thankfully spared from listening to the rest of it (oh cringe) by arriving at work.

FFS Chris get with it - when have you EVER spoken of 'boys' football!!!!

He's a major broadcaster on the BBC and he should know better. I hope he learnt something this morning.

"If you don't believe yourself that you're equal, and go looking to be discriminated against, of course you will feel like society doesn't treat you equally."

Sigh!

Oi! Stop discriminating against Jesus, tethers! Don't you know he prefers Christ?!

All his own fault, really ...

Yes it was sexist to use the term girls football, it implies a less important game than mens football which is not referred to as boys or junior football although this seems to be the presenter's style and the sexism was unintentional. However, what was then extremely sexist was to go on a "whatever" rant after being corrected - he was then clearly saying, women's opinions on what this game should be called are of no interest to me and, furthermore, I think the female captain of this team is not entitled to make her point. I am the man here, and I will not allow any feminist nonsense about terminology to knock me off my stride. He belittled the whole subject of the importance of the women's game compared to that of the men's and that is what makes the comments extremely sexist.

rosabud, maybe, just maybe, he uses all the terms interchangeably and would have said the same to the men's gymnastic team after he referred to them as boys. You are seeing sexism here because you really, really, really want to.

'But it's not about what he sees.'

totally agree

No, I'm not. I've acknowledged that, although the original comment was sexist, it was obviously unintentional as it ws part of his style which includes interchanging these terms. My point is, the sexism comes with his refusal to acknowledge the female captain's correction. As the reason for her request was clearly linked to a desire to have her sport taken as seriously as men's football, his refusal to grant this request and, worse, his belittlement of it, is clearly sexist.

It's not sexist if he would have said the same to the boys team. Sexism is about treating the sexes DIFFERENTLY.

'If a male player had corrected him, he wouldn't have been so dismissive of him.'

At what point in your thought process does conjecture become an absolute, positive, unequivocal fact ?

I think wider context also determines whether something is sexist.

Even if CE calls all men 'boys' and all women 'girls', even if he would have responded exactly the same to a man - there's still a different context for women being called 'girls' than there is for men being called 'boys'. It's not CE's personal fault, but it's true.

Bingo.

Well, you can pick on me, or pick on the sexism. I think I know which way you will go.....

I can pick on you and the sexism at the same time, too. But I won't, because it'd be rude.

I will say, it is tedious that you're jumping on SGM's comment in order to find something, anything, 'worse' than Evans' comment. Before, you weren't even admitting it was comparable to sexism. Now, it seems it is. But only because you can point the finger at something someone else said ... because a woman saying something you think is sexist must be worse than a man saying it, of course!

Let me be clear. CE was wrong not to graciously correct himself, he may just be a sexist twat of the highest order. I really don't know.

Now over to you. Do you think SGM was wrong to say what she did? Was she sexist? Because I would rather she answered herself, but she isn't here, it seems.

'...because a woman saying something you think is sexist must be worse than a man saying it, of course!'

Nope. But what I don't like are double-standards.

Well, she's had all of half an hour and she's not at your beck and call, so I suspect she will be along at some point to talk to you.

I don't have any experience of Chris Evans, so I'm not in a position to judge either way.

In general, I think it is unlikely that men treat women exactly as they treat men, or vice versa. Of course, there will be exceptions. But we do live in a sexist society - sex is one of the basic categories, if not the basic category, we use to discriminate. So it's not particularly shocking to observe that, yes, people do tend to treat men and women differently.

For me to be clear: I don't get the impression that Evans is a horrible person, a terribly misogynist. I'm quite prepared to believe he simply made a mistake, floundered, and thought no more about it.

But that's the thing, isn't it? He may not have thought much about it ... but the woman who corrected him obviously did. Some of us obviously do. Because we don't have that privilege of being in a position to shrug off treatment of women that is different from the way men are treated.

That's fine LRD, and in that last post I think we are in broad agreement.

I see you have chosen to completely ignore my two questions at 22:22 though.

I cross posted, love, just like normal people do. Just like SGM isn't immediately here the moment you choose to invoke her name.

I think it is a double standard to make out that a woman saying something you think is sexist (I'm not sure I agree) is somehow worse than a man saying it.

Okay then, not worse. Exactly the same?

What I do find worse is that people will turn a blind eye. That would make me sigh too. But I don't want to bully or harangue. We know what is going on. And I would be genuinely interested to know why you are not sure you agree.

I think I already posted about wider context, and frankly, I feel a bit odd continuing this before SGM sees it ... I'll let her explain, as I am sure she will do so more eloquently than me, whether or not I end up agreeing with her.

fwiw I really don't think being corrected by a bloke would have made much difference at all - prob would have triggered a sort of "wink, whatever" sort of response. To which I'd hope the theoretical bloke would have pressed the point as well as the woman did, at least.

Sorry if I've crossed posted with anyone, love.

Meglet
"One of the female TV presenters talked about 'boys swimming' today as it made me prick up my ears. I was like "HA"! So rarely do you hear it the other way around."

And up and down the country 'the boys' gave not one single [ahem].

Well, you might get the odd anally retentive left-wing type who'd ponder the sociopolitical implications of this disempowering gender-based language. Thankfully this sorry breed of creature is largely confined to the chattering classes of Islington and usually spends its abundance of spare time torturing itself with abstract guilt complexes. Most average blokes couldn't care less, assuming they'd even notice.

You see to get one's knickers in a twist over the use of 'girl', or 'boy', is to betray one's own social insecurity, a typical affliction of the middle classes, from whom the feminist movement draws the bedrock of its support. Complaining about this language is simply an indirect expression of class-based angst.

It is not the uncovering of some subversive linguistic scheme to cripple the social status of British females.