Is “man” an offensive word?

Macseasider said:
I'm pretty sure that by calling it "player of the match" won't attract my mother, 2 sisters, 2 daughters and partner to football. They absolutely hate it.
Click to expand...
That's a very narrow minded view.

"I don't keep slaves so I'm not really bothered if we abolish it or not!" 🤪
 
JJpool said:
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?
Click to expand...
The point it highlights is that misogyny is rife - particularly in football. A fellow fan - no more or less a fan than you - has been shit down purely because she’s female. That’s exactly the sort of barrier that exists. Not to mention you calling football ‘the men’s game’ ffs.

You’re part of the problem I’m afraid with that attitude and I’m actually really pleased it’s an attitude that is dying out.

Changing language used isn’t going to magically make women come to football in their droves overnight, but it’s a step towards making the football a more inclusive and equal place and that is a step in the right direction.
 
JJpool said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why do you care so much? Player is still correct...
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
That's a very narrow minded view.

"I don't keep slaves so I'm not really bothered if we abolish it or not!" 🤪
Click to expand...

Nah all the girls in my life are free to do what they like and certainly rule the roost. They just don't like football. No changing of terminology is going to change the fact they think 22 women or men running around a field is utterly boring.

A terrible analogy by the way. Football is only a game and a pastime.
 
I have absolutely no problem with any of the terminology that either differentiates, or doesn't. Nor am I that much of a dinosaur to not be aware that every part of life becomes evolutionary in one guise or another.
My quandary is that it's getting to the point where we have to consciously consider what we say (and if there is anybody nearby who could 'overhear' what is being said in case of offending them), who we say it to, and how we phrase it.
Moreover, why is the Women's Super league the Women's Super league, rather than the 'Them Superleague'?
This is all making my brain hurt, so for that reason..... stop the world I want to get off !! 😫
Oh, and can anybody explain why there is only one Monopolies Commission? 🤔 🤣

UTMP (and it's sunny)
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
Why do you care so much? Player is still correct...
Click to expand...
A 'player' can also mean someone who has many sexual relationships, so I'm surprised that one isn't jumped on yet as it's surely demeaning to women calling these idolised men 'players'....

Disgraceful, this might put more women off, don't you care?

🙄
 
Macseasider said:
Nah all the girls in my life are free to do what they like and certainly rule the roost. They just don't like football. No changing of terminology is going to change the fact they think 22 women or men running around a field is utterly boring.

A terrible analogy by the way. Football is only a game and a pastime.
Click to expand...
It's not about football...

It's about equality...
 
JJpool said:
That's a giant leap 🙄
Click to expand...
It's an analogy.

My point is that people thought that changing a few words back then wouldn't make a difference.

Look at the difference it's made.

Look at the bigger picture.

It's not just whether or not your wife/daughter will get really interested in football because they changed it from man of the match to player of the match.
 
JJpool said:
A 'player' can also mean someone who has many sexual relationships, so I'm surprised that one isn't jumped on yet as it's surely demeaning to women calling these idolised men 'players'....

Disgraceful, this might put more women off, don't you care?

🙄
Click to expand...
🤣🤣🤣🤣

You should write to the FA with that one!
 
It's the modern idiom.
We now have to say '10 persons', even though they are all men.
Pathetic.
Must remember to call MrsDP 'Person' instead of the usual 'Love'. 🙁
 
LA1 Seasider said:
The point it highlights is that misogyny is rife - particularly in football. A fellow fan - no more or less a fan than you - has been shit down purely because she’s female. That’s exactly the sort of barrier that exists. Not to mention you calling football ‘the men’s game’ ffs.

You’re part of the problem I’m afraid with that attitude and I’m actually really pleased it’s an attitude that is dying out.

Changing language used isn’t going to magically make women come to football in their droves overnight, but it’s a step towards making the football a more inclusive and equal place and that is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Any mistreatment is wrong.

It IS the men's game, if you can't accept that then there's something wrong.

It's the men's game because it's men who play. Not because it's only men who can attend. Women know it's the men's game as they see the men playing. Everyone knows this.

Please don't try and make out you aren't intelligent enough to understand the difference.

No I'm not. You and the other poster on here are, as you fail to accept facts.

What is the problem exactly? Calling a man a player isn't going to make flocks of women suddenly attend.

There's nothing wrong with pushing the game etc women, promoting it etc, trying to make it more welcoming.

That fine, but let's not get silly and try and paint a picture that doesn't exist.

There's no need to change this particular language.
 
JJpool said:
Any mistreatment is wrong.

It IS the men's game, if you can't accept that then there's something wrong.

It's the men's game because it's men who play. Not because it's only men who can attend. Women know it's the men's game as they see the men playing. Everyone knows this.

Please don't try and make out you aren't intelligent enough to understand the difference.

No I'm not. You and the other poster on here are, as you fail to accept facts.

What is the problem exactly? Calling a man a player isn't going to make flocks of women suddenly attend.

There's nothing wrong with pushing the game etc women, promoting it etc, trying to make it more welcoming.

That fine, but let's not get silly and try and paint a picture that doesn't exist.

There's no need to change this particular language.
Click to expand...
Says a man.

Therin lies the problem.
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
It's an analogy.

My point is that people thought that changing a few words back then wouldn't make a difference.

Look at the difference it's made.

Look at the bigger picture.

It's not just whether or not your wife/daughter will get really interested in football because they changed it from man of the match to player of the match.
Click to expand...
It's a poor one.

Women are equally welcome at games.

The fact is there will be a lot of men there, some women might not be comfortable with that, but there's not a lot you can do if that's the case.

My Mrs goes to every game with me and loves it.
 
JJpool said:
It's a poor one.

Women are equally welcome at games.

The fact is there will be a lot of men there, some women might not be comfortable with that, but there's not a lot you can do if that's the case.

My Mrs goes to every game with me and loves it.
Click to expand...
How is it a poor one?

Both relate to equality.

Both relate to changing the words we use.

You just don't like it because in the analogy your pro slave trade 😉

Maybe that should make you think about your stance a little bit!
 
LA1 Seasider said:
Says a man.

Therin lies the problem.
Click to expand...
This is part of the woke nonsense, someone offenend on behalf of someone else. Creating an issue where there was none, mixing up issues of equality with differences in likes for men and women and looking to change language that most normal people don't see any issue with.

Now, if you'd have maybe highlighted a chant that might be demeaning to woman I could understand.

Focusing on man of the match is the wrong battle and wasting energy here is rather pointless.
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
How is it a poor one?

Both relate to equality.

Both relate to changing the words we use.

You just don't like it because in the analogy your pro slave trade 😉

Maybe that should make you think about your stance a little bit!
Click to expand...
It's a terrible leap and you know it. Has nothing to do with this and calling a man a man isn't in any way the same as saying "I don't keep slaves so therefore I don't care if its abolished", that's not even comparable.

Ridiculous post.
 
JJpool said:
It's a terrible leap and you know it. Has nothing to do with this and calling a man a man isn't in any way the same as saying "I don't keep slaves so therefore I don't care if its abolished", that's not even comparable.

Ridiculous post.
Click to expand...
It was to Mac... who said coz his wife doesn't like football then it doesn't matter... I think it works.

Don't get too upset. It's not your fault your anti-equality. You're only a product of society.
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
It was to Mac... who said coz his wife doesn't like football then it doesn't matter... I think it works.

Don't get too upset. It's not your fault your anti-equality. You're only a product of society.
Click to expand...
I don't like people making accusations or comparisons like that, it's a classic tactic of people who've lost an argument to compare someone to some racist or whatever. Surprised you didn't bring hilter into the argument.

There you go again with you're stereotyping, surely you'd want to cut that out. I'm all for equality.

You often find this with the lunatic left. They're all for equality until someone goes against their argument. Then suddenly they're are judged and attacked beyond belief.

👍
 
JJpool said:
This is part of the woke nonsense, someone offenend on behalf of someone else. Creating an issue where there was none, mixing up issues of equality with differences in likes for men and women and looking to change language that most normal people don't see any issue with.

Now, if you'd have maybe highlighted a chant that might be demeaning to woman I could understand.

Focusing on man of the match is the wrong battle and wasting energy here is rather pointless.
Click to expand...
It’s not all. You’re saying there’s not a problem because you can’t see it. I’m saying there’s a problem because quite frankly it’s glaringly obvious.

The measures being used to solve that problem are obviously up for debate, but changing the wording of something to make it gender neutral isn’t hurting anybody and may in fact be a helpful tool in resolving the issues that do exist.

Don’t you think it’s absolutely bizarre that the argument for not changing it from ‘man’ to ‘person’ is centred on the fact it’s just a word ?? If it’s just a word then why are the people so very offended by the change actually offended by the change ?
 
JJpool said:
I don't like people making accusations or comparisons like that, it's a classic tactic of people who've lost an argument to compare someone to some racist or whatever. Surprised you didn't bring hilter into the argument.

There you go again with you're stereotyping, surely you'd want to cut that out. I'm all for equality.

You often find this with the lunatic left. They're all for equality until someone goes against their argument. Then suddenly they're are judged and attacked beyond belief.

👍
Click to expand...
Compare it to something that might make people think a little bit more about theyre saying when applying a different context? Yeah youre right, well shit 🤣🤣 I think it speaks for its self as you can't actually say anything in retort, you merely attack the argument instead. Well done.

I could have said about the suffrogets if you would prefer that analogy? "Well my wife doesn't care about politics so lets just keep it to the men shall we?" It was an analogy to highlight macs narrowmindedness, nothing more. I'm not saying anyone's racist or sexist, it was merely to show that the world is a lot bigger than his specific wife and daughter who don't like football at all.

Anyway I think it's a worthy comparison. Back then people thought it was normal and alright to be racist. These days there's all sorts of resistance met by people that don't like change. Just because you don't like the negative connotations it represents you with, or it makes you feel uncomfortable, that's your problem.

I'm not the lunatic left. I'm just a normal guy 🤣

You're there going on about lunatic left and attacked and whatever... what does that make you?

Why do you care???

It doesn't affect you.
 
I was watching a WSL game last week on TV in front of not many fans and you could clearly hear the players words during the game. The term “man on” was used many times by many players, so in that example a female doesn’t find it offensive calling another female a man 🤷‍♂️
 
LA1 Seasider said:
It’s not all. You’re saying there’s not a problem because you can’t see it. I’m saying there’s a problem because quite frankly it’s glaringly obvious.

The measures being used to solve that problem are obviously up for debate, but changing the wording of something to make it gender neutral isn’t hurting anybody and may in fact be a helpful tool in resolving the issues that do exist.

Don’t you think it’s absolutely bizarre that the argument for not changing it from ‘man’ to ‘person’ is centred on the fact it’s just a word ?? If it’s just a word then why are the people so very offended by the change actually offended by the change ?
Click to expand...
It's not just about 1 word it's about a push across society to cut out sone language where there's no need, it's only woke nutters pushing for this.

You can say it the other way, what's the need to change this. It'll make zero difference.

What next, we'll stop referring to a player as him because it's not inclusive for those who class themselves as them.

There is no problem here with the language for man of the match, they are men. That's just the end of it.
 
HetzkeBlaster said:
I was watching a WSL game last week on TV in front of not many fans and you could clearly hear the players words during the game. The term “man on” was used many times by many players, so in that example a female doesn’t find it offensive calling another female a man 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Not good, they should be shouting "they on"
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
Compare it to something that might make people think a little bit more about theyre saying when applying a different context? Yeah youre right, well shit 🤣🤣 I think it speaks for its self as you can't actually say anything in retort, you merely attack the argument instead. Well done.

I could have said about the suffrogets if you would prefer that analogy? "Well my wife doesn't care about politics so lets just keep it to the men shall we?" It was an analogy to highlight macs narrowmindedness, nothing more. I'm not saying anyone's racist or sexist, it was merely to show that the world is a lot bigger than his specific wife and daughter who don't like football at all.

Anyway I think it's a worthy comparison. Back then people thought it was normal and alright to be racist. These days there's all sorts of resistance met by people that don't like change. Just because you don't like the negative connotations it represents you with, or it makes you feel uncomfortable, that's your problem.

I'm not the lunatic left. I'm just a normal guy 🤣

You're there going on about lunatic left and attacked and whatever... what does that make you?

Why do you care???

It doesn't affect you.
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with this debate and isn't even close in comparison.

So now you want the debate about slavery or I don't have any retort therefore I must support it.

Absolutely shocking logic there.

You seem to be getting a bit carried away, we're on about wording. But as for opportunities there is equal opportunity for anyone to attend, or are you saying Sadler isn't accommodating for all?

The numbers of men and women attending doesn't have to be equal, only that all who want to attend can and the game is promoted to all.

Inclusive language where necessary yes. It's not necessary here to shy away from calling a man a man.

You're coming across as anything but normal on this one.

If the wording is changed it's no huge deal but why does it need to be to pander to some crazy ideology.

Well just stop calling players he as well then?

I'm only replying to replies on here now. Most people agree there is no issue here.
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
Compare it to something that might make people think a little bit more about theyre saying when applying a different context? Yeah youre right, well shit 🤣🤣 I think it speaks for its self as you can't actually say anything in retort, you merely attack the argument instead. Well done.

I could have said about the suffrogets if you would prefer that analogy? "Well my wife doesn't care about politics so lets just keep it to the men shall we?" It was an analogy to highlight macs narrowmindedness, nothing more. I'm not saying anyone's racist or sexist, it was merely to show that the world is a lot bigger than his specific wife and daughter who don't like football at all.

Anyway I think it's a worthy comparison. Back then people thought it was normal and alright to be racist. These days there's all sorts of resistance met by people that don't like change. Just because you don't like the negative connotations it represents you with, or it makes you feel uncomfortable, that's your problem.

I'm not the lunatic left. I'm just a normal guy 🤣

You're there going on about lunatic left and attacked and whatever... what does that make you?

Why do
Click to expand...
Suffrogets? Abysmal spelling yet again😜
 
Words are both cultural and often generational driven. How do those in their teens and 20s feel about this shift in terminology as it’s more pressing for them as it’s they who will sculpt the future?

Him/Her/They - is this important or critical for that generation or do they get irritated as many on here do?

Do they pressingly want man to be replaced in sporting parlance as it doesn’t work for them?

The media in general (outside of social media) is edited by 40 & 50 somethings and consumed by those over 40 when compared to the under 40s who consume and sculpt the new social media channels (Tik Tok, Insta, SC, Reddit etc).

So how do teens and twenties feel about this. How do they think it should be? (Teachers and parents of, on here can comment more so than I)
 
JJpool said:
It had nothing to do with this debate and isn't even close in comparison.

So now you want the debate about slavery or I don't have any retort therefore I must support it.

Absolutely shocking logic there.

You seem to be getting a bit carried away, we're on about wording. But as for opportunities there is equal opportunity for anyone to attend, or are you saying Sadler isn't accommodating for all?

The numbers of men and women attending doesn't have to be equal, only that all who want to attend can and the game is promoted to all.

Inclusive language where necessary yes. It's not necessary here to shy away from calling a man a man.

You're coming across as anything but normal on this one.

If the wording is changed it's no huge deal but why does it need to be to pander to some crazy ideology.

Well just stop calling players he as well then?

I'm only replying to replies on here now. Most people agree there is no issue here.
Click to expand...
I give up... it's not about racism... ITS AN ANALOGY ABOUT NARROWMINDEDNESS. He used an example about himself only as a reason that it shouldn't be paid attention to by anyone.

It's about making the award for women/man of the match an equal award. Tbh I don't really get it. But I also don't really care. I only care about people saying they don't care enough to say anything but then saying things that they don't care about as if they care when they don't but wouldn't be commenting about it unless they did care which they don't - and neither do I 🤪🤪🤪

Any attempt to level the playing field should be welcomed, not resisted, like petulent children.

But, as my old grandad used to say, don't debate with morons, theyll just make you want to kill yourself 🫠
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
I give up... it's not about racism... ITS AN ANALOGY ABOUT NARROWMINDEDNESS. He used an example about himself only as a reason that it shouldn't be paid attention to by anyone.

It's about making the award for women/man of the match an equal award. Tbh I don't really get it. But I also don't really care. I only care about people saying they don't care enough to say anything but then saying things that they don't care about as if they care when they don't but wouldn't be commenting about it unless they did care which they don't - and neither do I 🤪🤪🤪

Any attempt to level the playing field should be welcomed, not resisted, like petulent children.

But, as my old grandad used to say, don't debate with morons, theyll just make you want to kill yourself 🫠
Click to expand...
You say you give up well give up then.

There's nothing to level here, no uneven playing field, both men and women can get man or woman of the match in there respective games. Or whatever you want to call it.

Calling it player of the match doesn't bring anyone in at all, everyone knows they are men.

So now I'm a moron for not following some ridiculous attempt to make everything gender neutral.

Dw, most of the general public agree with me.

You must be the moron to be wanting to change little things like this that make absolutely no impact.

Maybe focus on something that will make a difference.

Enjoy your minority 👍
 
JJpool said:
You say you give up well give up then.

There's nothing to level here, no uneven playing field, both men and women can get man or woman of the match in there respective games. Or whatever you want to call it.

Calling it player of the match doesn't bring anyone in at all, everyone knows they are men.

So now I'm a moron for not following some ridiculous attempt to make everything gender neutral.

Dw, most of the general public agree woth me.

You must be the moron to be wanting to change little things like this that make absolutely no impact.

Mayhe focus on something that will make a difference.

Enjoy your minority 👍
Click to expand...
I swear you said you didn't care 🤪🤪🤪

Just let me die in peace, please.
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
I give up... it's not about racism... ITS AN ANALOGY ABOUT NARROWMINDEDNESS. He used an example about himself only as a reason that it shouldn't be paid attention to by anyone.

It's about making the award for women/man of the match an equal award. Tbh I don't really get it. But I also don't really care. I only care about people saying they don't care enough to say anything but then saying things that they don't care about as if they care when they don't but wouldn't be commenting about it unless they did care which they don't - and neither do I 🤪🤪🤪

Any attempt to level the playing field should be welcomed, not resisted, like petulent children.

But, as my old grandad used to say, don't debate with morons, theyll just make you want to kill yourself 🫠
Click to expand...
PETULANT not petulent! 😜
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
I swear you said you didn't care 🤪🤪🤪

Just let me die in peace, please.
Click to expand...
That's the thing about these threads, you post a comment and get drawn into an argument and despite not caring that much you end up in massive debates.

I just don't think the wording should change or of it does that it'll impact anything. I also don't think we should pander to a small minority who get offended by basic language.

I then get painted into some corner of not wanting equality which is complete nonsense. I'm all for equal opportunities. Things tend to go too far the other way these days.

There's no real need for insults to fly.
 
BigMicksMagicalMysteryBus said:
It's an analogy.

My point is that people thought that changing a few words back then wouldn't make a difference.

Look at the difference it's made.

Look at the bigger picture.

It's not just whether or not your wife/daughter will get really interested in football because they changed it from man of the match to player of the match.
Click to expand...

You're clutching at straws. Typing a lot and saying nothing.
 
JJpool said:
That's the thing about these threads, you post a comment and get drawn into an argument and despite not caring that much you end up in massive debates.

I just don't think the wording should change or of it does that it'll impact anything. I also don't think we should pander to a small minority who get offended by basic language.

I then get painted into some corner of not wanting equality which is complete nonsense. I'm all for equal opportunities. Things tend to go too far the other way these days.

There's no real need for insults to fly.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I don't care either way. Person/man/woman I don't give a shite what they say, but if they think it'll make a difference then fuxk it carry on!

Anyway, it makes no difference to me what the media call it. I'll probably still say man of the match anyway 🤷 (especially in the women's game 🤣)
 
I’ve no problem with them saying player, makes no difference to me. I’ll continue to say man personally and wouldn’t expect anyone to get offended.

Storm in a teacup.
 
I also noticed at Holy Mass this morning that the hymn “A New Commandment” has been changed in the hymn book so that the line:
“By this may all men know that I am your disciple” has changed to replace the word “men” with “mankind”.

I always thought that men was a general term for the race in that context and not gender specific.
 
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...

The problem is this erases the female gender as well, and, in light of the ongoing trans debates, I'd suggest that most women would be far more concerned about that than a century old tradition of "man of the match".
 
Last edited:
M
Chunkylad said:
Words are both cultural and often generational driven. How do those in their teens and 20s feel about this shift in terminology as it’s more pressing for them as it’s they who will sculpt the future?

Him/Her/They - is this important or critical for that generation or do they get irritated as many on here do?

Do they pressingly want man to be replaced in sporting parlance as it doesn’t work for them?

The media in general (outside of social media) is edited by 40 & 50 somethings and consumed by those over 40 when compared to the under 40s who consume and sculpt the new social media channels (Tik Tok, Insta, SC, Reddit etc).

So how do teens and twenties feel about this. How do they think it should be? (Teachers and parents of, on here can comment more so than I)
Click to expand...
My 22 year old son finds it highly irritating and yet amusing at the same time and often relates ludicrous instances of this madness….
 
The word "man" is a gender-neutral term though, the same as the word "guy".

Probably just a choice to use "player" and probably has no meaning behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top