Souness getting it now

for what its worth i think womans football is utter shite
Absolutely this! I didn’t watch one minute of the recent Euros. I’ve seen more than enough woman’s football and it’s shockingly bad as a whole but the standard of goalkeepers especially FFS!!

I’m also sick of the token woman thrown into these panels just to meet a quota. Don’t get me wrong there are a few very decent female pundits such as Shelley Kerr but most add little to nothing
 

Archaeology students given ‘dead bodies’ trigger warning​

‘Infantilisation of universities’ continues as lecture participants notified about images of ‘human remains’ amid fears they could be upset

rchaeology students have been warned they will be exposed to images of “human remains” and funeral rituals during their lectures, amid fears it could cause them upset.
The University of York has included several “content warnings” to prepare students on courses where they will be shown the remnants of our ancient ancestors.
Those embarking on the university’s “mummification” module, for example, have been told that lectures will contain images of dead bodies and human skeletal material.
It is unclear whether undergraduates opting to study the ancient Egyptian practice of preserving the body after death – by drying or embalming the flesh – had been surprised by the course content.
Although the university’s website said that in past years, “students have said they really enjoyed the in-depth discussions of Egyptian mummification”.

‘Infantilisation of British universities’​

Alan Sked, emeritus professor for the department of international history at LSE, said it was yet another example of the “infantilisation of British universities”, which he added “clearly continues apace”.
“Not so long ago Glasgow University warned its theology students that a course on Christ ended with a very violent episode called the crucifixion,” he said.
“Its archaeology students were warned in advance that digs might reveal human remains.”
The notion that mummification was exclusively the preserve of Ancient Egyptians is also eschewed in the course description at the University of York, which challenges misinformed undergraduates to “think again”.
“Artificial and natural ways of preserving human bodies have been used throughout the past and around the world,” it said, adding that the course teaches “different methodologies” in preserving the dead “employed in Ancient Egypt and South America”.
In the course of studying the “methodologies” of mummification, budding archaeologists were also alerted to the potential for “frequent discussion of funerary treatments for the dead”.

‘Frequent discussion of extreme violence’​

While students who enrolled to study another module on “themes of violence and conflict within world archaeology” were told their lectures would contain images of dead bodies and “frequent discussion of extreme and ritualised violence”.
Ancient cadavers and violence were not the only things signposted to potentially vulnerable students.
A first-year course in archaeological theory warned that lectures would include the discussion of “political discourse”, while third-year modules on death and DNA included discussion of treating deceased people and disease symptoms.
Curiously, a module on “human bones” did not include any warnings about the potential for upsetting content.
Prof Sked said: “At this rate, all history students should be warned that most history books are likely to include bloody episodes of war or revolution.
“Indeed, all students should be warned when arriving at university that books and lectures may – alas only may in today’s intellectual climate – contain dangerous things called ideas, although, for their own protection, controversial ones will be banned.
“We should pray to Cardinal Newman to intercede.”
The Telegraph has contacted the University of York for comment.

Harry Potter and Jane Austen​

Universities have come under fire in recent years for issuing trigger warnings on a series of topics, including Harry Potter and Jane Austen.
JK Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is among the texts studied in the “Approaches to Literature” module offered by the University of Chester’s English department, where undergraduates were asked to “get in touch” if they have “any issues with the content” of the course.
The warning said: “Although we are studying a selection of young adult texts on this module, the nature of the theories we apply to them can lead to some difficult conversations about gender, race, sexuality, class, and identity.”
Similarly, English literature undergraduates at the University of Salford, where Jane Austen is on the reading list, were furnished with the following disclaimer: “There are scenes and discussions of violence and sexual violence in several of the primary texts studied on this module.
“Some students may find the content of the following texts distressing.”
“Not so long ago Glasgow University warned its theology students that a course on Christ ended with a very violent episode called the crucifixion,” he said.


That’s brilliant :D:D It feels like we are living in a comedy sketch at times these days.
 
It was clearly not said with any malice, just a slip of the tongue.

I wouldn't be apologising either for what was a harmless comment.
 
Absolutely this! I didn’t watch one minute of the recent Euros. I’ve seen more than enough woman’s football and it’s shockingly bad as a whole but the standard of goalkeepers especially FFS!!

I’m also sick of the token woman thrown into these panels just to meet a quota. Don’t get me wrong there are a few very decent female pundits such as Shelley Kerr but most add little to nothing
Exactly, the only think I can compare it to is everyone telling me how great Gin is! it’s fucking stinking, tastes like perfume and costs a fortune and no amount of fruit will convince me otherwise!
 
It was clearly not said with any malice, just a slip of the tongue.

I wouldn't be apologising either for what was a harmless comment.

A slip of the tongue would imply he's said something wrong?

Absolutely nothing wrong with his comments. Anybody who knows football will know exactly what he was saying. Zero negativity towards women or any other pish they're saying.
 
It was clearly not said with any malice, just a slip of the tongue.

I wouldn't be apologising either for what was a harmless comment.
tenor.gif
 
A slip of the tongue would imply he's said something wrong?

Absolutely nothing wrong with his comments. Anybody who knows football will know exactly what he was saying. Zero negativity towards women or any other pish they're saying.
He enjoyed the more physical game with the changes as to how the games been reffed. More like back in my day he said.

For it t be a talking point for two days is ridiculous.

As Jordan said should then be offended by the W in WSL?
 
There’s some absolute clowns around these days. He was 100% correct with his comment, idiots looking to be offended as usual.
 
That’s not exactly a revelation.

He’s been an absolute helmet for years.
I’m well aware of that. When he first started on Talksport he told a story about getting taken to Ibrox by his dad but the language he heard that day was so bad he asked not to go back. A few days later he was compère at a night at Ibrox so he was happy enough to take the clubs money.

A complete and utter cock of a man.
 
If the game is now to been seen as equal and acknowledge that it’s played by all are we now going to drop any reference’s to men and woman or any phrases such as man marking? Because now it’s to be seen as one big all the same game?

So the term woman will be dropped from the name of the league or will woman be dropped from phrases and names of teams such as the England woman’s team?
Why did they celebrate the England woman’s team winning the euros and not just say that England won the euros?
Are we now going to drop the term woman when promoting the competitions and leagues and just mention whatever team it is without telling you it’s the woman’s team?

Are they going to stop referencing and calling the England national teams the lions or lionesses? Because by using them phrases you are differentiating between men and woman and categorising them?

Where does it all stop?
 
The ones you are having a go at, weren't causing the storm in a tea cup. They were rightly pointing out, how ridiculous all this nonsense has became.

Well done though, instead of having a go at the real problem, you turn it onto posters who's only crime was common sense.

they are part of the "real" problem though. Did you read the thread? "get back in the kitchen" etc.

Souness was accused wrongly of sexism and then everyone piled on with... blatant sexism.

Have a think about it mate.
 
they are part of the "real" problem though. Did you read the thread? "get back in the kitchen" etc.

Souness was accused wrongly of sexism and then everyone piled on with... blatant sexism.

Have a think about it mate.
One or two posters made those kind of comments. Not everybody and one of them was clearly pished as he was talking shite in pretty much every thread
 
He said "it's a mans a game" in reference to it being aggressive. Which is fine. It's like saying "it's a woman's game" in reference to a tiny goalkeeper not being able to reach a shot over head height.
Agree with this. I think he was implying it was a “man’s game” with “men going at it toe to toe” in the sense that it wasn’t a soft boys game yesterday. People are forgetting the whole context of the conversation of it being a London derby with the ref letting a lot of tackles going etc. He was referring to the players as men going at it full tilt, rather than boys falling over after every tackle etc. I don’t think any sexism was implied at all tbh. However, we now live in a society where comments can easily be taken out of context to suit certain agendas.

Good on Souness for dismissing what the criticism was - preposterous.
 
If the game is now to been seen as equal and acknowledge that it’s played by all are we now going to drop any reference’s to men and woman or any phrases such as man marking? Because now it’s to be seen as one big all the same game?

So the term woman will be dropped from the name of the league or will woman be dropped from phrases and names of teams such as the England woman’s team?
Why did they celebrate the England woman’s team winning the euros and not just say that England won the euros?
Are we now going to drop the term woman when promoting the competitions and leagues and just mention whatever team it is without telling you it’s the woman’s team?

Are they going to stop referencing and calling the England national teams the lions or lionesses? Because by using them phrases you are differentiating between men and woman and categorising them?

Where does it all stop?
does that mean when we watch Euro 2024 that BBC and ITV are going to say that England are the defending champions? :cool:
 
Eni Aluko is a complete sausage! She got her old England manager Mark Sampson the sack because she was shite and wasn't getting picked for the team so she slaughtered him as a bully, a racist and a pest because he was actually dating one of the female players and he ended up getting fired and she got 50K or there about in compensation!

She's nothing more than a shit stirrer/trouble maker!

Delighted the Magnificent one has treated her with the contempt she deserves!
 
they are part of the "real" problem though. Did you read the thread? "get back in the kitchen" etc.

Souness was accused wrongly of sexism and then everyone piled on with... blatant sexism.

Have a think about it mate.
Thing is, they are meant to be jokes and are clearly not to be taken seriously. Unlike the outrage over Souness calling a game of men's football a man's game.
 
I appreciate there are some aspects of freedom of speech that is greatly offensive, I have to say the comment's by Mr Souness are neither sexist nor offensive in content of what he was referring to.
However these apologists have to look at themselves, they bang on about freedom of speech and how you should be allowed to express your sexuality etc......................until it doesn't fit in with their agenda. Then it's wrong, which it itself means they are restricting freedom of speech does it not ?
 
Thing is, they are meant to be jokes and are clearly not to be taken seriously. Unlike the outrage over Souness calling a game of men's football a man's game.

To some probably, but I was a regular in the Women's Euro thread and it got tedious. I think we have a lot of insecure men on here (and on my social media)
 
The mad thing is Souness is actually quite progressive. In fact he’s so progressive he got kicked out the lounge.

Just recently he was talking about why there aren’t more openly gay footballers and mentioned how he attended pride in Brighton and enjoyed it and recommended everyone give it a go. So even if they just want to cancel an older punter they’d be cancelling one of the only ones who isn’t set in his ways and is actually willing to move with the times.
 
To some probably, but I was a regular in the Women's Euro thread and it got tedious. I think we have a lot of insecure men on here (and on my social media)
With respect, if you don't mind me asking what makes you come to that opinion that there are lots of insecure men on a football forum talking about women's football?
 
does that mean when we watch Euro 2024 that BBC and ITV are going to say that England are the defending champions? :cool:

Aye probably maybe I don’t know, it’s all very confusing :)
But if aluko and people like her that want it as much to be a big all the same equal game and want you not to mention that it’s a man’s or mens game then surely all references or terminology to male or female should be dropped incase it offends anyone and we should just be referring to the teams that are playing without telling you if it’s male or female?

Again all very confusing and where does it stop.
 
they are part of the "real" problem though. Did you read the thread? "get back in the kitchen" etc.

Souness was accused wrongly of sexism and then everyone piled on with... blatant sexism.

Have a think about it mate.
The fact it even was spoken about on talksport is too far.

A couple of posters who were at the wind up and mentioned kitchens and whatever, so what. It's called a bit of banter and kidding on. They were not being serious.

The reaction to souness was the only thing that was ott in this whole episode, which won't be the last.
 
With respect, if you don't mind me asking what makes you come to that opinion that there are lots of insecure men on a football forum talking about women's football?

Have you ever read a thread on women's football on here?

That's where I form my opinion.

By the way, are you aware the US womens team lost to an under 14s team in a friendly? lol
 
Have you ever read a thread on women's football on here?

That's where I form my opinion.

By the way, are you aware the US womens team lost to an under 14s team in a friendly? lol
Insecure about what though?? About women being better at football?

It was Australian women that got beat with the young lads.
 
If by their logic saying man up is offensive then why the %^*& is it alright for the female players to shout " man on " when in a live game.
 
Have you ever read a thread on women's football on here?

That's where I form my opinion.

By the way, are you aware the US womens team lost to an under 14s team in a friendly? lol
That’s a fact though. USA ranked no1 side in the world in the woman’s game lost convincingly to an U15s team. Australia ranked 5th at a time when they lost to an U13 Newcastle Jet team 7-0.

Have we to pretend that they are seriously on par with male professional sides?

People also claimed on that thread that Mead and White could easily play at League 1 level.
 
Back
Top