Jump to content

Why did League Express print this?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

See, here is what I don't understand about your position on this thread.

The published letter was not just someone stating that he doesn't enjoy or follow Women's Rugby League, it was a specific request/complaint to say that Women players should not be compared to men and their achievements (hero status!) should not be listed in a feature alongside men - this all despite his admission that he knows nothing of the women's game and the achievements of its players.

Now, this is pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry.

But your first contribution on this thread was defending his right send it and the right of League Express to publish it.  That is all fine.  But you seem to draw the line for your tolerances at people who complain about it.  That just seems really weird.  If you are ok with free speech then be ok with all free speech.  If people want to call out his bigotry then that is entirely their right to do so without it being labelled 'cancel culture' or some other lazy term.

Those suggesting that the person’s viewpoint shouldn’t be heard or that the publication should either not have published it, or that they should have added an editorial are equally guilty of bigotry.

But I guess some bigotry is nicer and cuddlier than others. 
 

and I guess some of the posters get on my nerves generally, so I go out of my way to wind them up. 

Edited by David Shepherd
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, David Shepherd said:

Those suggesting that the person’s viewpoint shouldn’t be heard or that the publication should either not have published it, or that they should have added an editorial are equally guilty of bigotry.

But I guess some bigotry is nicer and cuddlier than others. 

I struggle with this logic.

I have disciplined people at work for sexist language in the workplace.  That was bigotry.

But was I equally bigoted for disciplining them for their sexist language?

  • Like 6

"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

6 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Those suggesting that the person’s viewpoint shouldn’t be heard or that the publication should either not have published it, or that they should have added an editorial are equally guilty of bigotry.

But I guess some bigotry is nicer and cuddlier than others. 
 

and I guess some of the posters get on my nerves generally, so I go out of my way to wind them up. 

You'll only allowed an opinion if it's same as everyone else's lol. Why some people get so worked up is beyond me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I struggle with this logic.

I have disciplined people at work for sexist language in the workplace.  That was bigotry.

But was I equally bigoted for disciplining them for their sexist language?

You're describing misogyny, which is a form of bigotry in action, and is absolutely fair to punish.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryan Bailey was described as a legend, when in reality he was lucky to be part of a very good side. Substitute that for "hero" instead. 😉

 

I'd rather read about a Andrea Dobson than many others in that column. 

Edited by RigbyLuger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Ah, jumping to conclusions that it was sexist language towards a women.

99% of reported sexist language in the workplace is towards women, it is also on a thread specifically about a bigoted letter sent to LE relating to Women's rugby league. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

99% of reported sexist language in the workplace is towards women, it is also on a thread specifically about a bigoted letter sent to LE relating to Women's rugby league. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption.

It was an example given of bigotry. From my experience I have also heard plenty of sexist language towards men in the workplace, I'm not sure your work experiences. It just doesn't get reported or treated the same way.

Anyhow more importantly it was a joke which seems to have gone well over your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

It was an example given of bigotry. From my experience I have also heard plenty of sexist language towards men in the workplace, I'm not sure your work experiences. It just doesn't get reported or treated the same way.

Anyhow more importantly it was a joke which seems to have gone well over your head.

Wasn't a very funny joke if it was, frankly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, John Drake said:

The letter writer is criticising League Express for giving prominence to Women's Rugby League by including a female player in the RL Heroes feature.

He's entitled to his opinion, but given LE does give that level of prominence to Women's Rugby League, including regular weekly coverage of the game, (as does Rugby League World every month) I'm struggling to see how anyone on here could imagine that anyone at LPL might agree with it.

It's a reader's opinion. That's why it is in the mailbag. Letters published in newspapers are reflective of the views of the individual who wrote it, no one else.

Other readers are free to write in and challenge it. That's how letters pages generally work.

It would be great if next week's League Express mailbag was swamped with letters from people extolling the virtues of Women's Rugby League. But someone has to write them first. So, my advice, to all those having a moan in here, is get writing ... and be positive!

https://www.totalrl.com/mailbag/

Those letters are hand picked for publication I assume? 

That's what's being challenged here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Considering people claim dissenting views are cancelled,  there is an awful lot of disagreement here. 

That doesn't add up. 

FASCIST! :kolobok_biggrin:

"We are easily breakable, by illness or falling, or a million other ways of leaving this earthly life. We are just so much mashed potato."  Don Estelle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Those letters are hand picked for publication I assume? 

That's what's being challenged here. 

To be honest if I'd have received that letter I would have presumed it was a wind up and it would have gone in the bin.

It is also a criticism of LE so Im not sure why it belongs on the public letters page. If it was to be printed though, and I personally wouldn't have done, I would have expected some kind of LE reply/editorial basically distancing itself and championing the women's game and its stance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Considering people claim dissenting views are cancelled,  there is an awful lot of disagreement here. 

That doesn't add up. 

This is quite a liberal, in the classical sense of the term, platform and lets be real there is very little risk of any of the threats many face in their day jobs from posting here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no issue with LE printing it, it's what a forum/mailbag/opinion pieces are for.

The issue I have is with Geoffrey himself, the ridiculous and laughable claim that women shouldn't be given the same status as men within the game, then claims he has never watched womens rugby, or indeed, knows anything about it but feels he should tell everyone that it doesn't deserve any media coverage etc

Geoffrey, old lad, try getting involved with and embracing the 21st century, women can and do play rugby, in fact the best moment I've had watching RL in the last 4/5 years, apart from Huddersfield Giants getting to the cup final this year, was watching Huddersfield Giants women beating Warrington in a dramatic and thrilling semi final, then beating Featherstone in an equally dramatic and enthralling final to win the shield final, only 2 years into their existence, and doing it with a load of 16,17 and 18 year old girls, they were certainly 'Rugby League heroes' for me and many others!

Edited by meast
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what confuses me. It was in the paper today.

Now the girlfriend is described as "viciously beaten up". 

Yet, one of his teammates calls him " a great lad".

Yet comparitively there has been far less condemnation than this thread.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11145989/Rugby-stars-fatal-heart-attack-Italian-hotel-room-possibly-drug-related-inquest-hears.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Who was the player that was featured in the RL Heroes section that the letter was opposed to anyway? I didn't see it at the time. 

Lisa Mcintosh.

Here is the article, for anyone who hasn't read it.

https://www.totalrl.com/rugby-league-heroes-lisa-mcintosh/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Niels said:

This is what confuses me. It was in the paper today.

Now the girlfriend is described as "viciously beaten up". 

Yet, one of his teammates calls him " a great lad".

Yet comparitively there has been far less condemnation than this thread.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11145989/Rugby-stars-fatal-heart-attack-Italian-hotel-room-possibly-drug-related-inquest-hears.html

Do you want us to slate him as a vicious thug?  Because we will if that's what's really bothering you. 

Violent,  homophobic,  sexist,  racist players get Al sorts of criticism here,  so I'm really not sure of your point Neil's. 

  • Like 2
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...