Joey Barton sacked

[G STAR RAM]

12 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

It is only your assertion (and Barton's, I suppose) that they are hired on that basis.

Yes, its an assertion I'm more than happy to stand by, unless there is any evidence to the contrary?

[Anon]

5 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

It’s weird, it’s like you’re arguing against me, but proving my point at the same time.

a white kid, or a white male kid from a happy family, is statistically more likely to find it easier to find well paid jobs and have a happy successful life.

have you never seen that exercise where they give kids a head start on a race if they meet certain criteria and there’s some poor kids still sat on the start line when some others get a 50m head start.

thats the advantage your kids have. I don’t know you or your kids, maybe there are other reasons that they are disadvantaged, but even if a white kid has dyslexia, for example, they’ll still find life easier than a black kid with dyslexia. There are just generally a lot less barriers in the way for white kids. Maybe it’s not about having an advantage, it’s about not having hurdles to jump over. So a better analogy is two people running 100m, but one has hurdles on his track. It’s no fault of the other person, but it’s clearly not fair.

yes, if your white male kid goes for a job as a football pundit, and they’re up against a black female candidate, and they’re equal in every way, but the company needs to tick a box, your kid might miss out. That’s just a fact of redressing the balance. As I explained with the scales, there has to be some disproportionate representation to enable minorities to catch up. As with many things, past generations have screwed it up for our kids. It’s not a perfect situation. But if you were a black family, or if one of your kids comes out as transgender in the future, wouldn’t you fight tooth and nail to allow them to have the same opportunities as anyone else?

There doesn’t need to be campaigns for representation down coal mines, the point is to enable kids to aspire to anything they want to be. Imagine if there was a campaign that said ‘if you work really hard, maybe you can aspire to be a dust man’ (no offence to dust men). Lower paid jobs and manual labour are already open to all, ahead of their time really. Probably over represented by minorities. That’s specifically the imbalance that needs to be redressed. 

I couldn't disagree more with the points you've made in this thread. You don't fix or atone for racism with more racism. You have a generation growing up in this country who have been taught and (mostly) believed that everyone should be treated equally and judged as individuals, yet now they've had the rug pulled from under them because older generations feel guilty about how they previously behaved. For any older people who feel like they've been disproportionately advantaged in their lives I suggest you give away your house(s) and your money to minorities, rather than blithely stymie the career prospects of your children/grandchildren.

Edited January 7 by Anon

[ram59]

7 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

That’s the point. Representation isn’t proportional. It’s meant to skew the balance. That’s not a mistake, that’s part of the design. 

As I said, it’s about giving the under represented communities a chance to catch up. The kids of today don’t need to see white men on tv. There’s plenty of those. They’ve been seeing those for generations.

 

Is this design flawed though? You say that the kids of today have been seeing white men on tv for generations, if they're kids they haven't been around for generations. If you tip the balance too far, you're likely to cause problems on the other side of the coin. White boys, the majority, seeing that you can only get anywhere in life by being black or female, will become disillusioned and will be become easy targets for recruitment by far right groups, which is similar to how the nazis come to power in Germany in the 1930s. If todays kids are subjected to a generation of positive discrimination, I fear that they will grow up into resentful adults. This could result in the complete opposite of what you're trying to achieve.

There's such a delicate balance to be addressed and I just hope that we end up going down the correct path, whatever that is.

There is no place in a proper society for the likes of Barton, but I fear that too much positive discrimination  only serves to give people like him an excuse to sprout his rubbish.

[Returning ram]

Personally think Barton's assertion is wrong, although I agree that it annoys me more when women commentating on the game. I'm not afraid to say though that's probably a generation thing, as the rest of my family dont have an issue with it.
 

That's why I think he is wrong though, it's not a box ticking exercise, the world has moved on, football has moved on, a lot more girls play the game now and therefore a woman commentator is more appealing to the wider target audience than it used to be. 

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, ram59 said:

Is this design flawed though? You say that the kids of today have been seeing white men on tv for generations, if they're kids they haven't been around for generations. If you tip the balance too far, you're likely to cause problems on the other side of the coin. White boys, the majority, seeing that you can only get anywhere in life by being black or female, will become disillusioned and will be become easy targets for recruitment by far right groups, which is similar to how the nazis come to power in Germany in the 1930s. If todays kids are subjected to a generation of positive discrimination, I fear that they will grow up into resentful adults. This could result in the complete opposite of what you're trying to achieve.

There's such a delicate balance to be addressed and I just hope that we end up going down the correct path, whatever that is.

There is no place in a proper society for the likes of Barton, but I fear that too much positive discrimination  only serves to give people like him an excuse to sprout his rubbish.

It is a delicate balance. But everyone that argues against this positive discrimination seems to think that it’s going to directly affect their kids’ prospects. In the grand scheme of things, Sol Campbell getting an interview for a managers job, or Eni Aluko on the tele is not going to make a difference to the average person’s job prospects either way.

i have sons and daughters. I don’t feel like my daughters having more opportunities specifically means my sons have less opportunities. I’m not worried about that at all. I’m just glad my daughters have more opportunities in a fairer society.

positive discrimination is not going to bring down society. It will bring more positivity than negativity, but the joey Barton’s of this world would have you believe it’s the end of the world.

the other problem is, people are too quick to say ‘I didn’t get that job, some black lady with one arm got it because they had to tick a box, I’m against positive discrimination.’ It doesn’t work like that. The black lady with one arm is just better at the job, but people are too willing to blame society for their own deficiencies.

joey Barton will miss out for a managerial role to a black manager, and he’ll blame society, not considering he might just be a shot manager (unless it’s Paul ince, then there’s something dodgy going on).  

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, Anag Ram said:

I think Joey wants us to know he prefers men.

As far as that thug is concerned, you're either a cigar smoker or an ashtray.

[Eddie]

[Stive Pesley]

11 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes, its an assertion I'm more than happy to stand by, unless there is any evidence to the contrary?

So you have hard evidence that it IS true? Hence your 100% insistence that you will happily stand by the assertation?

I hope so - otherwise you just look a bit like a reactionary old bloke who holds intransigent opinions based on no evidence whatsover

 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

So you have hard evidence that it IS true? Hence your 100% insistence that you will happily stand by the assertation?

I hope so - otherwise you just look a bit like a reactionary old bloke who holds intransigent opinions based on no evidence whatsover

 

Nope, its called an opinion.

Do you have any hard evidence that they are there on merit and not just for filling quotas?

If not....actually I won't even bother going there 😂

[Stive Pesley]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

Do you have any hard evidence that they are there on merit and not just for filling quotas?

No - obviously not, but I can look at the situation and have a guess. The women's game has had a lot more success than the men's game in the past few years, and unprecedented numbers of girls are taking up the game at grass roots level as a result. I think we can all agree that as a good thing,

Therefore broadcasters would have to be pretty daft to not want to show a bit more representation in their coverage. Does that make it "box-ticking". Of course not. It is however a bit of a red rag to a bull*

 

*sexist/misogynist

[G STAR RAM]

18 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

No - obviously not, but I can look at the situation and have a guess. The women's game has had a lot more success than the men's game in the past few years, and unprecedented numbers of girls are taking up the game at grass roots level as a result. I think we can all agree that as a good thing,

Therefore broadcasters would have to be pretty daft to not want to show a bit more representation in their coverage. Does that make it "box-ticking". Of course not. It is however a bit of a red rag to a bull*

 

*sexist/misogynist

They could of course televise more womens games and have them commentating on that?

You know a game played at a level that they are familiar with?

Whether the broadcasters are daft are not will be reflected in viewing numbers of course.

[ram59]

I think that in today's multiracial and multi sex society, any time you see one particular group not present, it is noticeable and creates debate.

Soccer Saturday with a mixture of black, white, male and female pundits doesn't draw any attention. But, if the panel was suddenly to exclude white male ex players because of positive discrimination, it would attract comment, which I don't believe would help.

Likewise, there's an advert on TV, which makes me uncomfortable, the pixel phone advert featuring the Arsenal women's football team, is very conspicuous because every player is white. It seems though, that women's football is almost entirely made up of white players. Whereas, the men's game is much more multiracial, with the exception of Asian players.

[Returning ram]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

They could of course televise more womens games and have them commentating on that?

You know a game played at a level that they are familiar with?

Whether the broadcasters are daft are not will be reflected in viewing numbers of course.

I'm struggling with that view to be honest. So because my daughter is a female, she would be better suited to watching that version (women's) of the game, because that's a level she is more familiar with ?

Rather than having someone she can relate to more, commentating on the men's game which she prefers ?

[G STAR RAM]

18 minutes ago, Returning ram said:

I'm struggling with that view to be honest. So because my daughter is a female, she would be better suited to watching that version (women's) of the game, because that's a level she is more familiar with ?

Rather than having someone she can relate to more, commentating on the men's game which she prefers ?

No, not at all but is the game going to be more attractive to her because there are female commentators and pundits?

[BaaLocks]

16 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

But then you still had Jim Crow, and the tulsa massacre. And Rosa Parks and segregation. Some people will never accept a change to status quo, when the status quo benefitted them. 

Even when repatriations equivalent to the value of each freed slave was paid to the plantation owners. In what is not much of a surprise, the slaves themselves were not compensated from being torn from their homeland and made to work in penury - meaning the status quo for them didn't really change and most simply ended up being 'free' but working for the same 'employer' at rates that left them bonded.

Humans are garbage, and too prone to accept the laws and ways of the land even when it is clear to see they are horrifically biased. Sadly, this is still inherently true today.

[Anon]

15 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

They could of course televise more womens games and have them commentating on that?

You know a game played at a level that they are familiar with?

Whether the broadcasters are daft are not will be reflected in viewing numbers of course.

I don't agree with this line of argumentation. You don't have to have played the sport to be a good commentator or pundit in my opinion. I'm already fed up at the prospect of listening to ex footballers like Gary Neville, Jamie O'Hara, Chris Sutton, Gabriel Agbonglahor forever more. I quite like the balance provided by someone who didn't play professionally.

Where I do agree is that I don't see how ex female players would have any unique insight into the men's game. Perhaps it doesn't matter, but we'll see when a panel of exclusively male footballers commentate on a women's game, because that will definitely happen right? Seeing as these picks are apparently made on merit without any thought towards hitting diversity quotas. Statistically we will surely see an all male punditry team for a women's game fairly soon. Right?

[Alty_Ram]

On 07/01/2024 at 08:13, G STAR RAM said:

The guy is a knob, always has been, but I think there will be an awful lot of fans out there who agree with his point.

If anyone can seriously tell me that all of these women are there for their knowledge of the mens game then I'm afraid you're just kidding yourselves.

Football has become one massive box ticking exercise over the last 5/10 years whether you like to admit it or not.

My chief issue with his rantings are that apparently, being a man makes you understand the men's game better than being a woman. Based on the widely accepted MCHI (Mean Chest Hair Index) a barely professional non-league player who has never played in front of a crowd bigger than the queue at the chippy is (according to Barton) better qualified to talk about top flight men's football football and pressures that come with situations than a woman who has played in front of 80,000 crowds in major tournament finals and all the additional pressure and psychology that goes with that situation. Actually, by Barton's logic, some bloke called Dave who works on the burger van outside the ground knows better than said highly decorated women's international.

The thing is also that his original comment was "Any man who listens to Women commentary or co-comms needs their heads testing…". So he's not even just talking about the supposedly 'expert' technical punditry with detailed analysis of the key events, no, he is seemingly objecting to the idea that women in media are anywhere near the men's game at all in any capacity. In light of this revelation by Mr Barton, perhaps someone could write to DCFC and ask for a discount for our female fans as bless them, they are clearly not properly appreciating what they are watching as their MCHI count is too low and they are probably just thinking about makeup tutorials and what to make for tea for the man in their life and trying to remember where they put his slippers because they are such a silly little scatter brain.

As for his comment about keeping women out of roles in football in case there is some inappropriate interaction. Why does that apply to footballers and not men and women in other workplaces then Joey ? Oh that's right, footballers are special and aren't responsible for their own actions and can't help themselves. Perhaps I should have a word with my bosses and demand that they keep women out of my department in case any of them are overwhelmed with desire on account of me being so attractive and all ? I'm a line manager don't you know !

[BaaLocks]

54 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

No - obviously not, but I can look at the situation and have a guess. The women's game has had a lot more success than the men's game in the past few years, and unprecedented numbers of girls are taking up the game at grass roots level as a result. I think we can all agree that as a good thing,

Therefore broadcasters would have to be pretty daft to not want to show a bit more representation in their coverage. Does that make it "box-ticking". Of course not. It is however a bit of a red rag to a bull*

 

*sexist/misogynist

Women's football has not been successful, imho, because some do gooders suddenly decided to level the field. It has been because our terrestial broadcasters got completely squeezed out of being able to afford the men's game and so it was in their interest to promote women's football as the next best thing. Clubs were drawn to it also as it provided another revenue stream, pulled more fans in (from socio-economic groups that can neither afford, nor want to, watch the men's game) and - without a doubt - there was a fair dollop of virtue signalling in there. Inherently, for the reasons you mention about the grass roots element - it's only been a good thing as you say and one would have to be pretty curmudgeonly to suggest otherwise.

As for those suggesting that women shouldn't be pundits or commentate, especially under the pretence of their not being good enough, need to give their head a wobble. The same sort (or at the least, borne out of those) who think that black footballers can't do it on a cold Wednesday in February or women shouldn't drive buses or be Prime Minister (sadly, on the last of those points the evidence they can at least from the UK is less than robust - that's a joke btw).

 

[Returning ram]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No, not at all but is the game going to be more attractive to her because there are female commentators and pundits?

As I alluded to earlier, when I moan about them, the response I get (in addition to say I moan about everything), is what difference does it make to me and that football is about opinions and if therefore she (my daughter) hasn't played at this level, would hers not count or be wrong ?
 

She would agree and she plays, that women's football is nowhere near the standard of the men's, she would also never watch the women's as she doesn't like it, however asking her if a male or female commentator is better, the response is, what does it matter and why ask that in the first place ?

[Ram-Alf]

11 hours ago, Eddie said:

I'd sooner go to bed with Mary Earps as she'd be good at catching balls, Where If I went to bed with Joey Barton he'd kick the balls  😁