Jump to content

Why did League Express print this?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

In all seriousness, the idea that people criticising that letter are actually the real misogynists is next level daftness.

In the world of politics it is called 'talking points'.

In reality it is just muddying the waters. 

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


26 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

In all seriousness, the idea that people criticising that letter are actually the real misogynists is next level daftness.

It would be if someone had said that.

What I actually said was: "But the real misogyny is the idea that women are such weak, fragile creatures that any criticism of them should be censored."

Disagree with me if you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

It would be if someone had said that.

What I actually said was: "But the real misogyny is the idea that women are such weak, fragile creatures that any criticism of them should be censored."

Disagree with me if you wish.

Straight back at you Martyn - who has said or even hinted at “ women are such weak, fragile creatures etc”

you are talking utter nonsense, and that’s being kind.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Straight back at you Martyn - who has said or even hinted at “ women are such weak, fragile creatures etc”

you are talking utter nonsense, and that’s being kind.

Don't be so daft!

Or are you just being obtuse?

You seem to be trying your damnedest to misunderstand what I'm saying.

What I said is quite clear.

Do you agree with me that people who view women in that way are misogynistic?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

Don't be so daft!

Or are you just being obtuse?

What I said is quite clear.

Do you agree with me that people who view women in that way are misogynistic?

I’ll leave it for others to decide who’s being obtuse here.

Me agreeing with the statement is utterly irrelevant. Why did you make the statement in the first place?

This is my take on it. Your paper (i.e you) chose to publish that letter, that is perfectly within your right. You’re getting some criticism for it and your response to try and portray those criticising it as misogynistic is pathetic. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hesitate to wade in here, but in my view there are some concepts that are being conflated in an unhelpful way.

Random misogynist bloke is entitled to his view, as is everyone else. But no-one is entitled to have their views published in League Express. That this letter was published in LE is entirely at the discretion of the paper. I think that publishing the letter is a poor decision, mainly because it's a load of old rubbish on its face.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I’ll leave it for others to decide who’s being obtuse here.

Me agreeing with the statement is utterly irrelevant. Why did you make the statement in the first place?

This is my take on it. Your paper (i.e you) chose to publish that letter, that is perfectly within your right. You’re getting some criticism for it and your response to try and portray those criticising it as misogynistic is pathetic. 

You are impossible to argue with because you don't seem to understand the nature of an argument that is put to you.

To think that I portrayed any criticism of the letter as misogynistic requires quite an incredible imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You are impossible to argue with because you don't seem to understand the nature of an argument that is put to you.

To think that I portrayed any criticism of the letter as misogynistic requires quite an incredible imagination.

So what was the point of your post in relation to the thread?

You brought up an argument to a point that nobody made, a total straw man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Healthy spirit of insurrection on this thread. Makes a change from moderator posts that get a flurry of likes from rent-a-toadies.

If I knew how to, I`d post a link to the highlights package of Australia v GB 3rd Test 1996. It`s on the YouTube channel "Rabbitohs Fan TV". Nine minutes long, plenty of good moments, including a mid-range solo try by bona fide RL hero Lisa McIntosh.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

But was his letter misogynistic because he expressed his dislike of women's Rugby League?

You could certainly interpret it that way and some people have.

But the real misogyny is the idea that women are such weak, fragile creatures that any criticism of them should be censored.

  

11 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You are impossible to argue with because you don't seem to understand the nature of an argument that is put to you.

To think that I portrayed any criticism of the letter as misogynistic requires quite an incredible imagination.

Mate. It's literally right there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/08/2022 at 21:54, Tre Cool said:

Ah the old all sides argument. Im not sure you can compare sharing differing views on promotion and relegation to equality and bigotry, unless you're a moron.  Or is equality still up for debate in Brighouse?  

Your being unequal by thinking your view over rides others... thats the point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

So what was the point of your post in relation to the thread?

You brought up an argument to a point that nobody made, a total straw man.

People accused our correspondent of being misogynistic, which is certainly debatable.

But there are various forms of misogyny, I'm sure you would agree, that go beyond simply not liking Women's Rugby League.

So I made clear one type of misogyny that i think is rather too prevalent generally.

If you don't agree with me, or you think that the point is irrelevant, you are welcome to ignore the point I made.

What is striking is that I haven't, to my knowledge, had a woman complain about that letter, unless some of the posters on here with anonymous handles are female. Perhaps they would let us know.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Mate, you're wrong. You should be able to see that the sentence you pick out isn't a criticism of people who took offence at that letter.

Your last post was a vigorous defence of being accused of using a straw man argument. 

And yet here you seem to acknowledge that your post had no relationship to the actual letter printed or criticism of people who took offence at that letter.

You can't have it both ways.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

What is striking is that I haven't, to my knowledge, had a woman complain about that letter, unless some of the posters on here with anonymous handles are female. Perhaps they would let us know.

Certainly is striking.

Probably not in the way you mean, but ...

  • Like 3

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

People accused our correspondent of being misogynistic, which is certainly debatable.

But there are various forms of misogyny, I'm sure you would agree, that go beyond simply not liking Women's Rugby League.

So I made clear one type of misogyny that i think is rather too prevalent generally.

If you don't agree with me, or you think that the point is irrelevant, you are welcome to ignore the point I made.

What is striking is that I haven't, to my knowledge, had a woman complain about that letter, unless some of the posters on here with anonymous handles are female. Perhaps they would let us know.

 

Is it debatable? He wasn't just 'not liking women's rugby league'. I personally don't think that it misogynistic. But he seems offended that someone has deemed to actually write an article on a woman. Labelling that decision, and by extension showing his opinion of the women's game, as a joke. There is no debate there I am afraid.

To describe the writer's misogyny as 'debatable' yet to insinuate that a great many posters on here who have put together well reasoned arguments why his letter is offensive (aka defending women) is frankly insulting.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Is it debatable? He wasn't just 'not liking women's rugby league'. I personally don't think that it misogynistic. But he seems offended that someone has deemed to actually write an article on a woman. Labelling that decision, and by extension showing his opinion of the women's game, as a joke. There is no debate there I am afraid.

To describe the writer's misogyny as 'debatable' yet to insinuate that a great many posters on here who have put together well reasoned arguments why his letter is offensive (aka defending women) is frankly insulting.

It goes even deeper than that though doesn't it.

The feature was a ' Rugby League heroes' section and the letter was essentially saying... I know nothing about Women's Rugby League but there is no way that any female player should be eligible for this section.

It is absolutely impossible to defend this view.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It goes even deeper than that though doesn't it.

The feature was a ' Rugby League heroes' section and the letter was essentially saying... I know nothing about Women's Rugby League but there is no way that any female player should be eligible for this section.

It is absolutely impossible to defend this view.

Yes, absolutely this. The guy is entitled to his view, but it's indefensible, so I still don't understand why LE saw fit to print it.

I talk all kinds of rubbish in my local but I don't get annoyed that the Guardian doesn't print any of it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It goes even deeper than that though doesn't it.

The feature was a ' Rugby League heroes' section and the letter was essentially saying... I know nothing about Women's Rugby League but there is no way that any female player should be eligible for this section.

It is absolutely impossible to defend this view.

It does but I'd already lost my post once from going back to look at the original article so wasn't as thorough as I should have been! Thanks for adding this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

 

What is striking is that I haven't, to my knowledge, had a woman complain about that letter, unless some of the posters on here with anonymous handles are female. Perhaps they would let us know.

 

There have been discussions here before about being welcoming to women.  Maybe with content like that and the response to complaints about it then lots of women don't feel the publication and readership is for them. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lost the flow of the thread a little over the last day or two,  so apologies if this has been raised. 

But, what would be the general view if these points were made about LDRL? Would it be published,  and would the editor be critical of those critical of that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I've lost the flow of the thread a little over the last day or two,  so apologies if this has been raised. 

But, what would be the general view if these points were made about LDRL? Would it be published,  and would the editor be critical of those critical of that? 

I don't know anything about LDRL. But its not for me and we shouldn't be promoting it..whatever it is.

And if any of you defend it. you must be toadies, mysnogists or something left wing and unsavoury.

MS you're good at this stuff can you help me?

Edited by jacksy
  • Like 2

Rugby Union the only game in the world were the spectators handle the ball more than the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...