Given blisset's two blasts--total of 26 lines--using phrases like "the Spanish Inquisition":--I just want to say, 2233 soccer, that I respect and appreciate what you wrote. And the same for what McSkillz wrote earlier.
You forgot "Victorian-age-like moralism": it was equally important to me, And don't worry, I'll keep blasting back against anyone who started blasting at harmless people, trying to shame them for inconsequential trifles. Make it 29 lines, and I won't necessarily stop there.
Y'know though, we've just been through a weeklong news bubble about Aaron Rogers' new haircut. I think your sickness is appropriate if directed at real, actual abuse-- but not at awareness of changed hairstyles. Like everybody else of any gender she surely changes her hair around to look different to those who support her, and it seems respectful to notice the effort, especially if the results seem good. Just as I would with any other person, male or female, young or old. We need to be able to distinguish between exploiting position and registering approval-- it is the difference between evil and good, I think. Throw the bathwater out by all means, and yesterday; but give the baby a soft place to fall.
Unrelated to the current thread direction but I ended up at a party under the Shard after the match and they kept singing this classic... I'm so sick of that Neil Diamond song anyway.
Hmm-- a Phil Spector song the same week as the Yates Report... A Phil Spector song originated by Ike Turner. How insensitive is that?
Does it work the same way, women to men, or women to women? I see women commenting on men's appearance on chat boards allll the time. Now, I learned a long time ago not to comment on women's appearance on a chat board. I'm just wondering if women are willing to live up to the same standard - no commenting on the appearance of male athletes.
First: I won't be silenced, don't hope to shut my mouth or that I'll stop answering to you, because I'll do and I'll keep doing. Second: I'll sure post my 29 lines against sexism when I'll have to answer to a sexist post on a thread I follow (I made clear that comments about hairstyle don't qualify as sexist posts to me). You well know that my 29 lines came to answer some specific posts that I found unfair, so don't try to use trite rethorical tricks, that are way older than you, to retort or to paint me as a sexist without looking like doing it. Why shouldn't you do it? You're free to express your point of view, don't give up to your rights.
All I’m going to say is some of the comments here demonstrate ignorance about the issue. This is about perpetuating a culture that allows the abuse to happen by bad people. I never equated a comment about a hairstyle to be the same sexual abuse.
But you said that they're part of the same culture and you plainly accuse who doesn't agree with that of ignorance: basically, you hold the truth, the others know nothing. Feel free not to respect other points of view; don't be surprised if you then feel like you point of view isn't respected either. I simply don't agree that an honest comment about an hairstyle is "perpetuating a culture that allows the abuse to happen by bad people". Bashing on such things is just ideological: it reminds me of some far-leftist parties of the past that were much more interested in criticizing the other left-parties that weren't "pure" enough in their adhesion to the political line than in actually fighting the far-right offenders who were doing the real harm. Asssociating a random, in-good-faith comment about an hairstyle to the Yates report, putting them in the same sentence and suggesting that they're part of the same culture is exactly that in my eyes, and I would feel offended by such an association if it were directed to me as much as I felt offended that it was directed to the original poster. I disagree with you, @2233soccer. The difference is I don't claim you're ignorant just because you don't agree with me.
So I don't follow the US regularly, but will Ertz be back for the WC? I always thought she put up world-class world cup winning performances in both 2015 and 2019 as a CB and DM. Terrific player.
The fact that so many people, the majority male, are so offended that I felt uncomfortable about the comment that mentioned a female player’s appearance instead of thinking, gee maybe we should be more aware next time we talk about a women’s soccer game is probably why some of us think ignorance. When there’s this need to argue these comments are normal and appropriate. My point was, when I go on forums about men’s soccer, I don’t see men focusing on a player’s appearance, they focus on performance. It happens more frequently on forums on women’s soccer though. The fact that I called someone out and then was retaliated against and made to feel unwelcome on this forum is exactly why nobody wants to come forward in the beginning. Because it starts with a coach commenting on a players hair, then they go further next week and talk about a players weight, and gradually it just gets worst. Nobody equated the hair comment with sexual abuse. My point is that it’s normalized in our society when it has absolutely nothing to do with the game or the performance on the pitch. I’m just as guilty as anyone else by the way commenting on appearances and I’m a woman. After reading the Yates report, I’m more aware of what I say now. I hope that everyone else on here has had a moment of self reflection as well. This will be the last time I comment about this on this thread. I meant no disrespect and I hope I clarified things a little better. Thanks for reading.
I would love to see her come back on the Nat’l team but unlike Crystal Dunn, who has expressed publicly that she was immediately working to getting back to soccer, I don’t think Ertz has commented at all about soccer in almost a year. I wouldn’t be surprised if she makes an announcement that she’s retiring and wants to focus on her family. It would certainly benefit our team if she decides to make a comeback though, I don’t believe we have found a good replacement for holding midfielder.
I'm shocked that you're defending sexism in the name of free speech. I sure hope that you don't comment on athletes' relative attractiveness. That is not welcome anywhere.
Officiating, VAR, AR’s – no no – forget all of that. This Match was doomed on Wednesday morning …. after I checked in and was heading up to my room - when the elevator doors opened and Rose entered from the restaurant floor, I realized I was going to experience my first stay at the Team Hotel after 107 USWNT Matches. I’m not superstitious but I am a littlestitious and Friday was the result we got. So you all can lay this outcome directly at jackdoggy’s feet my little soccer buddies. Things have gone pretty well since I attended my first Match 2,972 days ago … right?? 2 World Cup Championships!!! Overall Awesomeness. Well never again, I’ve learned my lesson, no more - - Meeting Rose’s family. Seeing Crystal’s baby. Reconnecting with Andi’s parents. Feeling the breeze as Kate Markgraf hurriedly walks by (all business all the time) Numerous elevator rides with Team Members. Hell, I even exchanged pleasantries with Alyssa……ALYSSA. I’m now implementing a policy that includes an “emergency back-up” Hotel on USWNT trips. Althooooooooooooooough, staying at the Team Hotel eliminates any need or desire for silly sightseeing tours since the only sights worth seeing on the Planet could be walking through the Hotel Lobby or eating Lunch at the next table. Quite a few surface streets around Wembley are pedestrian traffic only which enhanced the overall vibe and virtually eliminated the chance of getting hit by a double-decker bus. These player banners were pretty cool. Wembley is Wembley, I’d have to channel my Inner-Ernst Hemingway to do it justice. That place was packed to the gills – no B.S. in that sellout status. Overall, more US fans in attendance than I expected and our seats were close to the A/O Section. Of course, the experience was greatly enhanced with the presence of my new drinking buddy – Z-Man. BTW, although you will not find it in any Official Record or Match Recap, I’m happy to report the USA won the party on Friday.
But those comments are normal and at least not inappropriate. We notice Pinoe's hair changes all the time. Do you think she does them as some type of test to see if we are adequately focused on the quality of her play? I cannot speak to the men's forums because I do not frequent (or even rare) them. But I have spent a substantial amount of time in sports bars, conversing about NFL, MLB, NBA etc games and players. Let me assure you male players' hair, weight, clothing, and tattoos are very frequent topics. As I said in another post, I must have seen thirty stories last week which mentioned Aaron Rogers' haircut. (What actually bothered me about them was that not one of them made the obvious comparison to Zerboni's sort of half and half do of a few years ago.) And. And, and-- you can't expect serious fans, male or female to not notice players' weight and how it relates to their play. A McCaskill or a Kirby is a very different player after a couple years of pro level training, and one would be remiss not noticing and commenting on it. What is wrong here is not commenting on it as fans, but coaches using it to play on players' insecurities. A coaching position is nt an entitlement, it is more if a sacred trust... That is the evil that leads to worse evils-- coaches who play head games need to go, period. A coaches' business is to build confidence and strength in all his players, not develop weaknesses they can be controlled by-- and absolutely not to control them for sexual advantages. Indeed, a coach should be past the whole concept that such an "advantage" is an advantage rather than a weakness. It is a church built on sand... Anyway, as for who is responding to you-- I'm a seventy-one-year-old white male, child of moderate affluence, who read Friedan with my sister in 1962, and found it epiphanic. It explained why and how our parents managed to screw each other up constantly despite that they were just doing what all the grown-ups did. I attended a quality college which was also a hotbed of feminism, maybe the hotbed, and the last three years lived in a girl's dorm and was privy to the bull sessions there. There is no ideological error a man can make that I have not seen from women now and then. I have spent my life calling attention to the kinds of issues you do-- I am nothing if not woke as a man can get. I think Ti-Grace Atkinson makes a lot of sense. I own a copy of "Pornogrphy and Silence" and agree with it. I have read Dorothy Dinnerstein and I understand where Germaine Greer goes off the track. I am not the shlub who thinks woso is not equal work. I have lived my last 30 years cohabiting with a bisexual, hardcore feminist remarkable athlete ex- soccer player. I'm reading the 1619 project right now. I'm not the enabler and I'm certainly not the enemy. And I find the report every bit as upsetting as you do. This was precisely what wasn't supposed to happen-- how did these people get in? Who left the door unlocked? But the idea is to remove the conditions that make this stuff possible, not to punish bystanders for not being terrified of creating them. And noticing if someone is one's idea of attractive or interesting isn't really one of them. But when all the evolution has evolved, and when all the needful progress has progressed, and we are pretty much where we want to be, I'm pretty sure we won't all be wearing khaki and combat boots and buzz cuts and telling each other how plain we look. That's letting the bad money drive out the good in a whole new way. There's even a plausible argument that it is racist...
Nope it would be offside if she was ahead of Sophia Smith cross. Doesn’t matter if Pino was offside when Sophia Smith received the ball. Pinoe was behind her after Sophia crossed the ball.
Pino was offside when the ball was played through to Smith. And, she was involved in the play. She was off. All that time, when the broadcasters were looking at Smith, saying she was on at the time of the pass, Pino was on the backside of the field, offside.
I'm going to differ with you on that. 1) she was off. 2) the question is, was she "passively" off. She was extremely involved in the play, the next pass went to her. I'm saying she was off. But, I respect your opinion to the contrary.