Is “man” an offensive word?

Not at all. How come the word ‘person’ gets you so uppity though ? Can’t see how it’s a big deal either way.

I suppose the words do matter to some people and I suppose if it matters to some then it should be changed to accommodate them. It doesn’t do anyone any harm… except it seems it does upset people who like to point out it’s just a word in the first place…
 
LA1 Seasider said:
Not at all. How come the word ‘person’ gets you so uppity though ? Can’t see how it’s a big deal either way.

I suppose the words do matter to some people and I suppose if it matters to some then it should be changed to accommodate them. It doesn’t do anyone any harm… except it seems it does upset people who like to point out it’s just a word in the first place…
Click to expand...
What a load of bollocks! Noticed today on Sky it was “player of the match” not “man of the match”!
 
LA1 Seasider said:
Not at all. How come the word ‘person’ gets you so uppity though ? Can’t see how it’s a big deal either way.

I suppose the words do matter to some people and I suppose if it matters to some then it should be changed to accommodate them. It doesn’t do anyone any harm… except it seems it does upset people who like to point out it’s just a word in the first place…
Click to expand...
Think you’re looking at this the wrong way.

For a very long time in the men’s game the word man was used to describe men.

For some reason, in recent years some people became very uppity about the word man being used to describe men in the men’s game and decided not using the word man and stopping it being attached to other words to describe men was a big deal.

Why do you think that was?
 
Qblock said:
Because it’s completely unnecessary. In a man’s game of football, if one player is sent off then they can only be down to 10 men. No ambiguity, no offence to absolutely anyone. So no need to change it. Who has time to actually think up this bollox?
Click to expand...
Personally think it’s part of the effort to treat men and women equally. By making it player of the match the awards the same in both the men’s and women’s game - there’s some who still say the womens game is rubbish etc and by making the MOTM the POTM you even it out I suppose. Ultimately the best player is the best player.

I don’t think it’s necessary but I also don’t think it’s anything to get upset about. Ultimately it means something to someone for them to change it. The people it doesn’t affect still aren’t impacted whilst those it does see whatever benefits they do.
 
LA1 Seasider said:
Personally think it’s part of the effort to treat men and women equally. By making it player of the match the awards the same in both the men’s and women’s game - there’s some who still say the womens game is rubbish etc and by making the MOTM the POTM you even it out I suppose. Ultimately the best player is the best player.

I don’t think it’s necessary but I also don’t think it’s anything to get upset about. Ultimately it means something to someone for them to change it. The people it doesn’t affect still aren’t impacted whilst those it does see whatever benefits they do.
Click to expand...
Who's getting offended though that in the men's game a man of the match is awarded?

In the women's game it can be woman of the match.

No normal person is bothered by this, only seems to be absolute lunatics looking to be offended by anything.
 
LA1 Seasider said:
Personally think it’s part of the effort to treat men and women equally. By making it player of the match the awards the same in both the men’s and women’s game - there’s some who still say the womens game is rubbish etc and by making the MOTM the POTM you even it out I suppose. Ultimately the best player is the best player.

I don’t think it’s necessary but I also don’t think it’s anything to get upset about. Ultimately it means something to someone for them to change it. The people it doesn’t affect still aren’t impacted whilst those it does see whatever benefits they do.
Click to expand...
But it's not for you to decide what people should get upset about or why they shouldn't pass comment?

If one section of the public can get upset by terminology then why can't another - or have a right to reply.

Especially when it's idiotic and benefits nobody.
 
Macseasider said:
But it's not for you to decide what people should get upset about or why they shouldn't pass comment?

If one section of the public can get upset by terminology then why can't another - or have a right to reply.

Especially when it's idiotic and benefits nobody.
Click to expand...
For the record I personally don’t see the issue either way, however the argument would be that one set of terminology is by its nature devisive in that it’s specific to one particular gender whereas the other is neutral by design and applies to both simultaneously. A lot of effort is being made to achieve equality and using neutral language is just another tool to achieve that.
Does it need to be ‘man of the match’ - not necessarily as wether it’s a male or female game determines that. But by having ‘player of the match’ as a universal term it puts the same value on the award regardless of whether it’s the mens or womens game specifically.

I think as men we don’t necessarily see the power language has had over time. An example being that ‘man of the match’ is very strongly associated with football and things like that go some way to making out that football is typically a man’s game. That’s been the case for generations and the effort now being made to change that perception requires a change of language as one of the means of achieving the goal.

So yes. It may seem idiotic and pointless to men generally, but we’re not the reason for the change. The reason for the change is the young boys and girls who we hope see football as equally important and attractive to them regardless of the gender they happen to be.

There’s no secret that over the last 100 years or so football has primarily been dominated by men - and it doesn’t really seem ok to me to keep excluding 50% of the population. Using gender neutral terms hopefully helps break down the cultural barriers that certainly do exist.
 
Last edited:
LA1 Seasider said:
For the record I personally don’t see the issue either way, however the argument would be that one set of terminology is by its nature devisive in that it’s specific to one particular gender whereas the other is neutral by design and applies to both simultaneously. A lot of effort is being made to achieve equality and using neutral language is just another tool to achieve that.
Does it need to be ‘man of the match’ - not necessarily as wether it’s a male or female game determines that. But by having ‘player of the match’ as a universal term it puts the same value on the award regardless of whether it’s the mens or womens game specifically.

I think as men we don’t necessarily see the power language has had over time. An example being that ‘man of the match’ is very strongly associated with football and things like that go some way to making out that football is typically a man’s game. That’s been the case for generations and the effort now being made to change that perception requires a change of language as one of the means of achieving the goal.
Click to expand...
All valid points but you're using rational thought which is a waste of time on here.
 
JJpool said:
Who's getting offended though that in the men's game a man of the match is awarded?

In the women's game it can be woman of the match.

No normal person is bothered by this, only seems to be absolute lunatics looking to be offended by anything.
Click to expand...
If that's true then why be bothered about it either way?

If it really doesn't matter then person should be fine as well as man/woman.

I'm sure if you choose to say man/woman of the match noones gonna correct you, but if they do that's when you know they're a nob.
 
I think it’s possibly all a bit silly... but I don’t understand why some of you are bursting veins over it. Who cares man.
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
If that's true then why be bothered about it either way?

If it really doesn't matter then person should be fine as well as man/woman.

I'm sure if you choose to say man/woman of the match noones gonna correct you, but if they do that's when you know they're a nob.
Click to expand...
Because there's no need to drop words to pander to a lunatic minority, the twitter hate mob of gender activists. They are a tiny minority who attack people who disagree with their narrative.
 
JJpool said:
Because there's no need to drop words to pander to a lunatic minority, the twitter hate mob of gender activists. They are a tiny minority who attack people who disagree with their narrative.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming it’s done purely to satisfy a tiny minority (activists). I’d suggest it’s being done to encourage equality between men and women generally (women of whom are actually the majority) and to encourage the massively underrepresented (women) to engage with football - which typically has been and still is dominated by men.
 
LA1 Seasider said:
You’re assuming it’s done purely to satisfy a tiny minority (activists). I’d suggest it’s being done to encourage equality between men and women generally (women of whom are actually the majority) and to encourage the massively underrepresented (women) to engage with football - which typically has been and still is dominated by men.
Click to expand...
Definitely. Noone says women's tennis is worse do they? I'd say the famous female tennis athletes are just as famous as their male counterparts. It's just that mens football has been shoved down everyone's throats by the media for however long. Now they're trying to do the same for the women's game!

The fact is that in 40 years when the kids of today have grown up seeing the women's game grow alongside the mens it will all be totally normal to them.

Also want to say that words have a lot of power, just a small shift can change the perception of people over time. But then again, there are still racists around today, if you get my drift...
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
Definitely. Noone says women's tennis is worse do they? I'd say the famous female tennis athletes are just as famous as their male counterparts. It's just that mens football has been shoved down everyone's throats by the media for however long. Now they're trying to do the same for the women's game!

The fact is that in 40 years when the kids of today have grown up seeing the women's game grow alongside the mens it will all be totally normal to them.

Also want to say that words have a lot of power, just a small shift can change the perception of people over time. But then again, there are still racists around today, if you get my drift...
Click to expand...
Noone? Peter Noone?😄😄
 
LA1 Seasider said:
You’re assuming it’s done purely to satisfy a tiny minority (activists). I’d suggest it’s being done to encourage equality between men and women generally (women of whom are actually the majority) and to encourage the massively underrepresented (women) to engage with football - which typically has been and still is dominated by men.
Click to expand...
This is the men's game, there's no need for equality when calling a man a man. It's already correct.

Everyone knows it's a man playing, calling him a person isn't going to encourage a load of women to suddenly attend.

You can encourage more women to come by growing the women's sport, also growing our own fanbase, making it a nicer place to be.

This never ending drive for so called equality in every area is getting silly with thr wording side and in others, men and women are different in ways and that's fine. The failure of some to admit this is the problem.

We've never been a more equal society in rights. In fact, in some ways women get far more but of course that doesn't fit the narrative.
 
JJpool said:
This is the men's game, there's no need for equality when calling a man a man. It's already correct.

Everyone knows it's a man playing, calling him a person isn't going to encourage a load of women to suddenly attend.

You can encourage more women to come by growing the women's sport, also growing our own fanbase, making it a nicer place to be.

This never ending drive for so called equality in every area is getting silly with thr wording side and in others, men and women are different in ways and that's fine. The failure of some to admit this is the problem.

We've never been a more equal society in rights. In fact, in some ways women get far more but of course that doesn't fit the narrative.
Click to expand...
Over 50% of the population are female. Why is there maybe at a push 15-20% of any crowd at a football match female ? Why is there such a small proportion of women and girls playing the game compared to men ?

If you can’t see that massive discrepancy and can’t therefore acknowledge that’s there’s a very real problem and that maybe making a few changes may encourage females to engage with the game then I can’t really debate it with you as your point blank refusing to see something right in front of your face.

We literally banned the female game in this country for half a decade ! Men probably do owe the ladies.
 
LA1 Seasider said:
Over 50% of the population are female. Why is there maybe at a push 15-20% of any crowd at a football match female ? Why is there such a small proportion of women and girls playing the game compared to men ?

If you can’t see that massive discrepancy and can’t therefore acknowledge that’s there’s a very real problem and that maybe making a few changes may encourage females to engage with the game then I can’t really debate it with you as your point blank refusing to see something right in front of your face.

We literally banned the female game in this country for half a decade ! Men probably do owe the ladies.
Click to expand...
Anyone can go if they want no problem with pushing it to as many women as possible, but a lot of women have different interests. Which is just a fact.

Why do women mother or girls like dolls and men like cars or toys. Some of it is genetics, some is stereotypes from birth.

Go and ask 100 women what they'd rather do be at football or go shopping, you'll get your answer.

The women's game can be pushed and it shouldn't have been banned, I enjoyed the women's England games. No issue at all with it.

People seem to expect everything to be 50 or there's something wrong. You said yourself women are half the population or slightly more. But it's wrong to assume everything should be liked equally.

Being a very tribal and often aggressive game at times it's obvious why it's suited to and liked by more men. This is the men's game.

As for my previous question about why do women like dolls or to mother and men like cars, some might think that's wrong and should be even.

But it no it's proven that certain things are hard wired into our brains.

The constant push for perceived equality in every area is daft. Equal opportunities yes of course, but if men and women tend to like different things, that's fine and normal.


Men and women ARE different and it's just a scientific fact that some lunatics cannot accept.

You can see the woke nonsense even in that video, saying the results are 'controversial' they aren't at all, facts are facts. They are only controversial to nutters who ignore science and instead push silly agendas.
 
JJpool said:
Anyone can go if they want no problem with pushing it to as many women as possible, but a lot of women have different interests. Which is just a fact.

Why do women mother or girls like dolls and men like cars or toys. Some of it is genetics, some is stereotypes from birth.

Go and ask 100 women what they'd rather do be at football or go shopping, you'll get your answer.

The women's game can be pushed and it shouldn't have been banned, I enjoyed the women's England games. No issue at all with it.

People seem to expect everything to be 50 or there's something wrong. You said yourself women are half the population or slightly more. Bit it's wrong to assume everything should be liked equally.

Being a very tribal and often aggressive game at times it's obvious why it's suited to men. This is the men's game.

As for my previous question about why do women like dolls or to mother and men like cars, some might think that's wrong and should be even.

But it no it's proven that certain things are hard wired into our brains.

The constant push for perceived equality in every area is daft. Equal opportunities yes of course, but if men and women tend to like different things, that's fine and normal.


Men and women ARE different and it's just a scientific fact that some lunatics cannot accept.

You can see the woke nonsense even in that video, saying the results are 'controversial' they aren't at all, facts are facts. They are only controversial to nutters who ignore science and instead push silly agendas.
Click to expand...
I literally just opened Twitter and there’s a Stoke fan saying to female Blackpool fan she can’t talk about the football as she doesn’t have balls ffs.

Get your head out of the Daily Mail coloured sand, stop believing in the culture wars conspiracies and recognise that equality is important.

If you’ve got a daughter or a girlfriend or a wife or whatever then surely you want them to have the same opportunities as any male ? Well currently there’s massive barriers to those opportunities and whilst you may not like it (and clearly don’t understand it) changing the use of language is a step towards breaking down those barriers. That’s a fact.
 
LA1 Seasider said:
I literally just opened Twitter and there’s a Stoke fan saying to female Blackpool fan she can’t talk about the football as she doesn’t have balls ffs.

Get your head out of the Daily Mail coloured sand, stop believing in the culture wars conspiracies and recognise that equality is important.

If you’ve got a daughter or a girlfriend or a wife or whatever then surely you want them to have the same opportunities as any male ? Well currently there’s massive barriers to those opportunities and whilst you may not like it (and clearly don’t understand it) changing the use of language is a step towards breaking down those barriers. That’s a fact.
Click to expand...
Oh well if you opened twitter and saw a woman saying she can't talk about it then that settles it then. That must be true. 🙄

What does that have to do with anything?

Of course she can talk about it.

Ahh so now it must be because of the daily mail, you feel the need to stereotypes because you can't make a basic argument, btw stereotyping is the thing you wanted to cut out earlier, now its OK I guess. 🙄

I've said equal opportunities is great and is what we have generally. But just because men and women like different things is no cause for alarm.

What barriers are stopping women attending? This is the men's game and will always have lots of men there.

I'm sure as the women's game grows more women will like football over time. But I don't expect the numbers of women attending the mens game to ever match men, as stated above with scientific fact, men and women are different.

Is that something you can accept?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top