Kevin Keegan

[Mattoon]

5 minutes ago, elbee909 said:

 

I wasn't talking about you in the first place, I was talking about Orphanage!

 

Fair enough, came straight after my comment so presumed it was aimed at me, apologies if that's not the case.

[Dr Venkman]

3 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Also, no one’s changing their opinion of Keegan. He’d have to kill someone for me to start thinking twice about him. He’s basically my favourite living person that isn’t family or a friend 

I’m not changing my opinion of Keegan, although I am undoubtedly entitled to.

[Pancrate1892]

53 minutes ago, Mattoon said:

 

I don't think he's said much wrong, he's entitled to an opinion, whether others like it or not. I also don't think it was misogynistic as he wasn't specifically aiming it at their gender, rather their experience within the game.

That's what i think. Yes people can think he's wrong, absolutely, but the whole sanctimonious stance is a bit over the top. 

 

He's not said hes into Hitler

[Dr Venkman]

1 minute ago, Pancrate1892 said:

That's what i think. Yes people can think he's wrong, absolutely, but the whole sanctimonious stance is a bit over the top. 

 

He's not said hes into Hitler

You’ve proceeded very, very quickly to ‘at least we’re not Nazi’s’, always the sign of a solid argument.

[Pancrate1892]

48 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

"Entitled to his opinion" such a crap argument. It's no different to the people who cite a right to 'free speech' when being abusive or offensive.

 

My answer is the same to you as to them - freedom of speech does not entitle you to freedom from consequence of that speech. Keegan has every right to say what he did, but we have every right to judge him for it.

What so your going to just castigate every fucker you don't agree with?? 

If you can't at least drift slightly toward any common ground or impartiality then your never going to be able to be open to debate. 

 

It's a completely narrow minded point of view. At least try and encourage to change people's minds with some good points instead of just saying 'im right and I don't care what you think'

[Cronky]

Another Yorkshireman with dodgy views - 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY4tD2Hbg_A

 

[Chris_R]

1 minute ago, Pancrate1892 said:

What so your going to just castigate every fucker you don't agree with?? 

If you can't at least drift slightly toward any common ground or impartiality then your never going to be able to be open to debate. 

 

It's a completely narrow minded point of view. At least try and encourage to change people's minds with some good points instead of just saying 'im right and I don't care what you think'

 

Pretty bold strategy to declare broad-minded people narrow-minded for condemning narrow-mindedness. I'll admit that wasn't the trajectory I thought the arguments would take.

[Jaqen]

I think lot of people just like a familiar face or voice, someone they have a reference point to from the sport. Unless you follow women's football you probably have no idea who you're even watching/listening to for the most part. I think that's a bit different from valuing mens opinions more than women's. 

[Chris_R]

5 minutes ago, Jaqen said:

I think lot of people just like a familiar face or voice, someone they have a reference point to from the sport. Unless you follow women's football you probably have no idea who you're even watching/listening to for the most part. I think that's a bit different from valuing mens opinions more than women's. 

 

Well surely you say "I don't like new commentators", then?

 

[Pancrate1892]

8 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

Pretty bold strategy to declare broad-minded people narrow-minded for condemning narrow-mindedness. I'll admit that wasn't the trajectory I thought the arguments would take.

Mate that makes absolutely no sense. 

 

You've declared yourself (and some others) broad minded for not being prepared to listen to other people's points of view? 

 

I'm prepared to listen to your point of view but you haven't got one apart from that fact you think your right and whoever disagrees with you is wrong. That's narrow minded no matter what bullshit you  post 

[Skeletor]

29 minutes ago, Pancrate1892 said:

That's what i think. Yes people can think he's wrong, absolutely, but the whole sanctimonious stance is a bit over the top. 

 

He's not said hes into Hitler

 

"Hitler's early work was a little too Nu-Roman Empire for my tastes. However, when the September Campaign came out in 1939, the Nazis really came into their own, commercially and artistically."

[Pancrate1892]

Just now, Skeletor said:

 

"Hitler's early work was a little too Nu-Roman Empire for my tastes. However, when the September Campaign came out in 1939, the Nazis really came into their own, commercially and artistically."

I was unaware of that, I just know that he fucked off to Argentina and married some wife and lived to 135

[Jaqen]

4 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

Well surely you say "I don't like new commentators", then?

 

 

I just think that's the main reason why people like Michael Cox won't be hired by sky etc for punditry too. Nowt to do with gender. The average viewer doesn't care that much about the content rather who it's coming from. Keane is a terrible pundit, offers nowt in terms of analysis but him saying he wants to chin a Man United player or going on massive rant will be lapped up. 

[Orphanage]

29 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

Pretty bold strategy to declare broad-minded people narrow-minded for condemning narrow-mindedness. I'll admit that wasn't the trajectory I thought the arguments would take.

Its pretty much the definition of narrow mindedness to say someones a woman hater because they preferred MOTD or whatever as it was . 

[Skeletor]

I'll happily listen to any pundit male or female if they can do the basics. For example:

 

- Pardew and Bruce were shit and are not nice guys

- Mike Ashley was a cancer on this club

- We are not deluded geordies who expect to win the league

- We haven't spent hundreds of billions of oil money

 

Etc...

 

They'd be one up on pretty much every other idiot in the pundit world.

[Orphanage]

I mean there are lots of legitimate viewpoints . I havent called anyone for preferring Alex Scott to ( insert male presenter name here ) ?

[elbee909]

If we can all agree we hate to an infinite degree the likes of e.g. Michael Owen's commentary or punditry; agree that he's a man, thus agree there are likely women better than him at doing those things; then we're all good.

[Chris_R]

29 minutes ago, Pancrate1892 said:

Mate that makes absolutely no sense. 

 

You've declared yourself (and some others) broad minded for not being prepared to listen to other people's points of view? 

 

I'm prepared to listen to your point of view but you haven't got one apart from that fact you think your right and whoever disagrees with you is wrong. That's narrow minded no matter what bullshit you  post 

 

Read back, I've never said I'm right. These are opinions, they can never be "proven" which is what you need to be able to do to be right.

 

But my opinions on certain topics just aren't negotiable. I won't debate racists, homophobes or sexists because there is never and will never be any room in my world view for racism, homophobia or sexism. I will however always call people out for those views because I think they're abhorrent and we have a duty to call such things out when we see or hear them. That's what I've done here on the topic of sexism. If you want to call me narrow minded for that, well, erm, crack on I guess?

 

15 minutes ago, Orphanage said:

Its pretty much the definition of narrow mindedness to say someones a woman hater because they preferred MOTD or whatever as it was . 

 

As above, read back - I've never called anyone a woman hater. But people seem to not want women commentating just because they're women, which is at least a bias against women for just being women. That's sexism, not hatred of women.

 

Some people have tried to say it's not sexism because they like established voices or because those people haven't played at what they consider a high enough level, but when challenged on new male commentators or old pundits who've not played at the highest level, they go suspiciously quiet. Which just leads back to it being because they don't want them commentating because they're women, which is sexist.

 

Any blanket "I don't want women doing this" is sexist. If it's not because they're women, don't mention women. Say you don't want people commentating for reasons other than their gender if their gender isn't the thing you have issue with. But that's not what's happened.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Chris_R

[SiLvOR]

49 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

 

"Hitler's early work was a little too Nu-Roman Empire for my tastes. However, when the September Campaign came out in 1939, the Nazis really came into their own, commercially and artistically."

Is that a raincoat?

[oldtype]

Keegan is 70. He's an old man with old man opinions. A product of his time. Of course he's going to have some views that seem antiquated to people who had the benefit of a modern education. 

 

As long as it doesn't come from a place of malice, I try to separate my estimation of a person from my estimation of their views. Everyone is entitled to a dumb opinion or two.

 

And truth to be told, the actual substance of what he said doesn't seem that bad. He's just got himself into trouble explaining it in his typical rambling, exaggerated Keegan-ish way.

[Coffee_Johnny]

15 minutes ago, oldtype said:

Keegan is 70. He's an old man with old man opinions. A product of his time. Of course he's going to have some views that seem antiquated to people who had the benefit of a modern education. 

 

As long as it doesn't come from a place of malice, I try to separate my estimation of a person from my estimation of their views. Everyone is entitled to a dumb opinion or two.

 

And truth to be told, the actual substance of what he said doesn't seem that bad. He's just got himself into trouble explaining it in his typical rambling, exaggerated Keegan-ish way.

The basic point he made, as far as I can tell, was that he personally doesn’t like listening to female ex-players talking about the English men’s team. Because they haven’t had the same experience as the players they are commenting on. Whilst ill-considered to express it in our current culture, I don’t see how you can call his preference ‘dumb’.

Beyond the dated language, I also don’t personally think it is sexist. It is more the relative experience, because of their gender, of the individuals he is talking about which he sees as less preferable.
 

It is possibly a throw back to the ex-pros originally being wheeled-out to add authenticity to the conversations about events in a match. Personally, it is more the insight shared in the analysis, or the personable or humorous way it is shared, which matters to me, not the level the person’s experience or gender. I don’t think less of someone for having different criteria/preferences. It is just, sadly, stupid to say anything that could be perceived as non-PC these days. 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Coffee_Johnny

[oldtype]

10 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

The basic point he made, as far as I can tell, was that he personally doesn’t like listening to female ex-players talking about the English men’s team. Because they haven’t had the same experience as the players they are commenting on. Whilst ill-considered to express it in our current culture, I don’t see how you can call his preference ‘dumb’.

Beyond the dated language, I also don’t personally think it is sexist. It is more the relative experience, because of their gender, of the individuals he is talking about which he sees as less preferable.
 

It is possibly a throw back to the ex-pros originally being wheeled-out to add authenticity to the conversations about events in a match. Personally, it is more the insight shared in the analysis, or the personable or humorous way it is shared, which matters to me, not the level the person’s experience or gender. I don’t think less of someone for having different criteria/preferences. It is just, sadly, stupid to say anything that could be perceived as non-PC these days. 

 

 

 

 

 

If his "preference" is to not listen to women just because they happen to be women - regardless of whatever other merits they may have commentators - then yes, that's just straight up sexism, which is incredibly dumb.

 

He is entitled to his opinion, of course, but it isn't "PC Culture" to point out that it's a dumb opinion. None of this is new. People who say dumb things have been taking stick for it since the beginning of time.

 

It's just that in the past, we didn't know that blatant sexism was dumb. Now we do. Well, at least most of us do.

 

[Coffee_Johnny]

49 minutes ago, oldtype said:

 

If his "preference" is to not listen to women just because they happen to be women - regardless of whatever other merits they may have commentators - then yes, that's just straight up sexism, which is incredibly dumb.

 

He is entitled to his opinion, of course, but it isn't "PC Culture" to point out that it's a dumb opinion. None of this is new. People who say dumb things have been taking stick for it since the beginning of time.

 

It's just that in the past, we didn't know that blatant sexism was dumb. Now we do. Well, at least most of us do.

 

Well your whole first paragraph makes sense as a general point, but isn’t relevant to what I said. Happy to consider that I see most things Keegan-related through rose tinted glasses, but I read his remarks as being more akin to not enjoying listening to Formula two/three drivers commenting on Formula one, as much as hearing from those who have, so to speak, driven the same tracks, rather than because of their gender per se.  If that’s his preference/opinion then it is neither dumb nor sexist. 

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

8 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

but I read his remarks as being more akin to not enjoying listening to Formula two/three drivers commenting on Formula one,

 

Billy Monger is a fantastic F1 commentator, fwiw. 

[Chris_R]

9 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

but I read his remarks as being more akin to not enjoying listening to Formula two/three drivers commenting on Formula one

 

Why not say "I don't like unqualified pundits" then? But he chose to say that he doesn't like women pundits.

 

In the first instance, he chose to make it about their gender, not their qualifications.

 

I love the man as much as any, but those comments are terrible.