Dear Guest
Thank you for visiting! est189 will soon be closing its doors (do forums have doors?) please visit the following thread - (to wail & cry perhaps?)
https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4002484#post4002484
Thanjk you.
Paul.S
Sorry, but that's not true anymore. With birth control these days women can go months without having PMS. I've always thought it was having to put up with men that made us go nuts at least once a month.
When there is a crowd of players surrounding an official who could deal with it better a woman or a man?
Women would be much more intimidated by this than a male official.
That's not an argument. You might as well say that the players would be less likely to be aggressive towards a woman. Either way, it's purely speculative.
Fact is, players shouldn't be intimidating referees irrespective of the ref's sex.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
What's all this about his relationship with the chairman though? If it's as bad as it seems then I wouldn't be surprised if he's sacked and to save the chairman's face for the fans the board will claim his rather misogynistic comments to be the reason.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
In light of Mike Newell’s “interesting” comments on women officials in football, what do YOU think?
I don’t consider myself sexist at all, but I also don’t think women should be officiating in men’s football. Women’s football? Fine, but the men’s game is virtually a different sport. IMO it’s like having a cricket umpire in the chair for the men’s singles final at Wimbledon. Different sports.
Why not. I think the question is redundant. You don't have to have a Y chromosome to be a referee. Women are more intelligent than men these days so it makes sense.
We have women on jury's for ****s sake, why is a football match anymore important than that?
Originally posted by Gordon Brown
(1995)
"A weak currency is the sign of a weak economy,which is the sign of a weak government"
What's all this about his relationship with the chairman though? If it's as bad as it seems then I wouldn't be surprised if he's sacked and to save the chairman's face for the fans the board will claim his rather misogynistic comments to be the reason.
It's subjective to say they're misogynistic comments. I don't think they should be officiating i'm not misogynistic, nor a member of Lords CC for that matter.
I stated my reasons previously.
...
Don't take life too seriously or you'll never get out alive.
It's not a fact. Given though that Newell himself said (and I'm quoting your post here):
It is bad enough with the incapable referees and linesmen we have but if you start bringing in women, you have big problems," said Newell.
"This is Championship football. This is not park football, so what are women doing here? It is tokenism, for the politically-correct idiots.
"She should not be here. I know that sounds sexist but I am sexist, so I am not going to be anything other than that."
...then it seems to me reasonable to label his comments misogynistic (from "misogyny=hatred of, or hostility to, women").
I'm not calling him, or anyone else, a misogynist. Let's not go down that road as it leads to hell.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
It's not a fact. Given though that Newell himself said (and I'm quoting your post here):
...then it seems to me reasonable to label his comments misogynistic (from "misogyny=hatred of, or hostility to, women").
I'm not calling him, or anyone else, a misogynist. Let's not go down that road as it leads to hell.
Yes i know that. However, to be pedantic 'sexist' in this context, is a man with a chauvinistic belief in the inferiority of women - not hatred. Its my belief he was a bit flippant at the end anyway. Like you said perhaps its best not to dwell on this too much
...
Don't take life too seriously or you'll never get out alive.
"Let me say for the record, I am not a gangster and never have been. Im not the thief who grabs your purse. Im not the guy who jacks your car. Im not down with the people who steal and hurt others. Im just a brother who fight back."
Tupac
Comment