Equally funny is the debates on twitter between people calling out 'lefties and feminists', their responses, and the stupid-ness to change it in the first place.
Women were banned from organised football for decades—and clearly steered away from playing the game through social pressure and social structures for decades more—under assumptions clearly tied to the loaded term "ladies". For the past decade the women's game has begun to thrive on a new energy that's hard to argue against and, finally, the club is in a position to recognise this and provide a platform for girls and women to participate under the Charlton banner. And that's largely down to Thomas Saandgard; which made this regressive move to align the women's team with the problematic attachments of the past all the more disappointing and insulting. It's also tone-deaf, which is troubling (particularly for an aspiring musician!), as it signals a capacity for poor judgement. It's not too late to nix this misstep before it gets worse.
A lot of men showing themselves up on this thread. You haven't got to understand why it's offensive, and it doesn't have to matter to you.
This is absolutely true but by the same token, when there are things such as:
"Ladies and gentlemen" "Ladies first" He's a bit of a 'ladies man' Here in Dubai we have 'ladies nights' where they get free drinks.
Never once have i heard a female offended by those so it's not beyond the realms of impossibility for some people to wonder what all the fuss is about.
*runs for cover*
Closed minded much?
I'll say it again. Setting and situation is important to the language used. A term can be deemed correct in a formal setting but offensive in a more professional one.
I was a regular spectator at Stonebridge Rd, loved every minute & followed the players journeys even when they moved on. I was devastated when the team disbanded.
I was the opposite, in a sense. I was interested in what the team were achieving and watched the cup final a couple of times of TV (and once live) but didn't go to games. When the disbanding happened and a team was put together in a hurry from whoever was willing to play, I thought they could do with some support and the first game happened to be at Bristol so I went along. Got chatting to the one Charlton supporter who'd travelled (Alan, of course) and got hooked partly because the team were clearly well out of their depth but were putting so much effort in. I was cured of a few misconceptions about women's football that day.
Others have already said most of what I could say about why the change is a bad idea. I'd just add that, because "women" is so much more common than "ladies" in the top 3 tiers but it's the other way around lower down, a perception has developed that a name like "Durham Women FC" or "Southampton FC Women" suggests a professional team, whereas "Hull City Ladies" implies amateurism. It's not fully accurate, but perception is important and if the team are unhappy about the change then I really don't blame them.
A lot of men showing themselves up on this thread. You haven't got to understand why it's offensive, and it doesn't have to matter to you.
This is absolutely true but by the same token, when there are things such as:
"Ladies and gentlemen" "Ladies first" He's a bit of a 'ladies man' Here in Dubai we have 'ladies nights' where they get free drinks.
Never once have a heard a female offended by those so it's not beyond the realms of impossibility for some people to wonder what all the fuss is about.
*runs for cover*
True. I think that asking if/why this particular instance is upsetting is fair... BUT by the same token, having had multiple confirmations that it IS should really be the end of it.
Not sure I agree. Just saying "because it is", is like saying "Sandgaard can change the name", just because he can.
Without knowing the reasoning both can seem a bit strange.
Its been explained about 20 times on this thread mate. If you haven't got it now i suspect its because you dont want to get it
I opened this thread due to curiosity, every few messages are interspersed with an advertisement for Boux Avenue women’s brassiers and keks.
That's possibly linked to your other browsing!
I always used to think that, but someone had a thread about chimney lining, and the ad I got embedded in that was for local (Massachusetts) chimney repairers. As I don’t have a chimney, it wasn’t from any past browsing.
A lot of men showing themselves up on this thread. You haven't got to understand why it's offensive, and it doesn't have to matter to you.
This is absolutely true but by the same token, when there are things such as:
"Ladies and gentlemen" "Ladies first" He's a bit of a 'ladies man' Here in Dubai we have 'ladies nights' where they get free drinks.
Never once have a heard a female offended by those so it's not beyond the realms of impossibility for some people to wonder what all the fuss is about.
*runs for cover*
True. I think that asking if/why this particular instance is upsetting is fair... BUT by the same token, having had multiple confirmations that it IS should really be the end of it.
Not sure I agree. Just saying "because it is", is like saying "Sandgaard can change the name", just because he can.
Without knowing the reasoning both can seem a bit strange.
Its been explained about 20 times on this thread mate. If you haven't got it now i suspect its because you dont want to get it
Dazzler understands it, hes just saying you cant just say "because we said so" and expect people to accept/understand it
So far, from where I sit, TS has done most things right both on and off the pitch.
I know there is the Bowyer/Atkins/Roddy stuff but hitherto, that to me is part of the cut and thrust of a football club.
This feels wholly different to me.
In my life as a parent, I have had a steep learning curve about how behaviour/decisions are driven by underlying emotion. There may be a back filling of logic but they are always emotionally based.
I look at things with that perspective. What is the emotional need that is driving this decision? Forget logic or illogicality.
I am struggling to come up with any other conclusion that it is a egocentric decision based around the emotional value system of our owner that does not fit with the modern world. It's the sort of decision my parents generation would see as entirely appropriate. 25 years ago I might have thought the same. Now with a daughter of my own, I can see why it is completely wrong.
This brings me back to where I came in. Anachronistic views on that make me worry about the footballing strategy our owner is pursuing that led him to appoint Atkins over Bowyer and holds him back in appointing JJ.
I opened this thread due to curiosity, every few messages are interspersed with an advertisement for Boux Avenue women’s brassiers and keks.
That's possibly linked to your other browsing!
I always used to think that, but someone had a thread about chimney lining, and the ad I got embedded in that was for local (Massachusetts) chimney repairers. As I don’t have a chimney, it wasn’t from any past browsing.
You don't need a chimney to Google 'Chimney Lining'
I really dont give a toss either way, but you have to question, what is the point? Just ask the team, if they say yes, go ahead, if they say they dont like it, move on. It hardly makes them more marketable and is obviously going to piss some people off, see no reason at all to change it
Broadly agree with the sentiment, but this did make me laugh:
"The term "ladylike" is used to describe behaviour that is considered
appropriate for women, with connotations of politeness, deference and
having lunch. It might be appropriate in some contexts but it is broadly
patronising. It isn't associated with rolling up sleeves and working or
being taken seriously in a professional environment. And it certainly
doesn't include kicking a muddy football about."
Thank you so much to those of you who managed to Grapevine's post without quoting the whole thing. The rest of you, I know editing quotes can be fiddly, but if you're just replying to one specific bit it'll be kinder on all our scrolling fingers if you just copy and paste the specific quote into your reply inside quote marks / italics / bold.
The issue imo is TS apparently seeking to steamroll unnecessary change in the face of opposition, but the whole everyday terminology thing is a bit of a minefield to me. I’m not surprised some people are confused.
I know language evolves, but it is not always easy to keep up with terminology shifts as a result of empowerment, and this definitely feels one of those (example, I’ve learnt today that some women don’t like their sex adjective form being referred to as ‘females’ as that would give the assumption they had been born female which isn’t always the case) .
Some blokes see referring to women (plural) as ladies is courteous and respectful. The right terminology when approaching multiple people (I’d say for example ‘excuse me ladies to a group of women as I would say excuse me gents / fellas to a group of men).
Some people have known all their lives the women version of sports clubs being referred as the ladies section. My golf club seem proud of their ladies section and all comms emanating from themselves to their members refers to themselves as ladies.
Some women like being referred to as ladies as it feels they are being treated with respect. Others seem to find it patronising, belittling and that chivalry is archaic and should get in the sea. Most I suspect don’t really give a shit one way or another.
I’m a dinosaur so probably completely out of step with this, but just thought I’d offer an honest view. I wouldn’t be surprised if TS just doesn’t get this, particularly if he has a partner that feels the language use of ladies is complementary and not belittling or condescending.
As said in previous post, not reading the mood in the room and actively looking to ignore it is more the issue to me
Broadly agree with the sentiment, but this did make me laugh:
"The term "ladylike" is used to describe behaviour that is considered
appropriate for women, with connotations of politeness, deference and
having lunch. It might be appropriate in some contexts but it is broadly
patronising. It isn't associated with rolling up sleeves and working or
being taken seriously in a professional environment. And it certainly
doesn't include kicking a muddy football about."
A lot of men showing themselves up on this thread. You haven't got to understand why it's offensive, and it doesn't have to matter to you.
This is absolutely true but by the same token, when there are things such as:
"Ladies and gentlemen" "Ladies first" He's a bit of a 'ladies man' Here in Dubai we have 'ladies nights' where they get free drinks.
Never once have a heard a female offended by those so it's not beyond the realms of impossibility for some people to wonder what all the fuss is about.
*runs for cover*
True. I think that asking if/why this particular instance is upsetting is fair... BUT by the same token, having had multiple confirmations that it IS should really be the end of it.
Not sure I agree. Just saying "because it is", is like saying "Sandgaard can change the name", just because he can.
Without knowing the reasoning both can seem a bit strange.
Its been explained about 20 times on this thread mate. If you haven't got it now i suspect its because you dont want to get it
It wasn't explained WHY it was explained several times at the time of that post that it was offensive but the WHY was not.
We have covered that off now and I get it a lot more than I did.
Comments
Equally funny is the debates on twitter between people calling out 'lefties and feminists', their responses, and the stupid-ness to change it in the first place.
I'll say it again. Setting and situation is important to the language used. A term can be deemed correct in a formal setting but offensive in a more professional one.
Others have already said most of what I could say about why the change is a bad idea. I'd just add that, because "women" is so much more common than "ladies" in the top 3 tiers but it's the other way around lower down, a perception has developed that a name like "Durham Women FC" or "Southampton FC Women" suggests a professional team, whereas "Hull City Ladies" implies amateurism. It's not fully accurate, but perception is important and if the team are unhappy about the change then I really don't blame them.
https://www.castrust.org/2021/12/charlton-women-why-we-oppose-the-name-change/
This 100% represents my feelings 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
So far, from where I sit, TS has done most things right both on and off the pitch.
I know there is the Bowyer/Atkins/Roddy stuff but hitherto, that to me is part of the cut and thrust of a football club.
This feels wholly different to me.
In my life as a parent, I have had a steep learning curve about how behaviour/decisions are driven by underlying emotion. There may be a back filling of logic but they are always emotionally based.
I look at things with that perspective. What is the emotional need that is driving this decision? Forget logic or illogicality.
I am struggling to come up with any other conclusion that it is a egocentric decision based around the emotional value system of our owner that does not fit with the modern world. It's the sort of decision my parents generation would see as entirely appropriate. 25 years ago I might have thought the same. Now with a daughter of my own, I can see why it is completely wrong.
This brings me back to where I came in. Anachronistic views on that make me worry about the footballing strategy our owner is pursuing that led him to appoint Atkins over Bowyer and holds him back in appointing JJ.
I hope I am wrong.
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, no what I mean
Broadly agree with the sentiment, but this did make me laugh:
I know language evolves, but it is not always easy to keep up with terminology shifts as a result of empowerment, and this definitely feels one of those (example, I’ve learnt today that some women don’t like their sex adjective form being referred to as ‘females’ as that would give the assumption they had been born female which isn’t always the case) .
Some blokes see referring to women (plural) as ladies is courteous and respectful. The right terminology when approaching multiple people (I’d say for example ‘excuse me ladies to a group of women as I would say excuse me gents / fellas to a group of men).
I’m a dinosaur so probably completely out of step with this, but just thought I’d offer an honest view. I wouldn’t be surprised if TS just doesn’t get this, particularly if he has a partner that feels the language use of ladies is complementary and not belittling or condescending.
We have covered that off now and I get it a lot more than I did.
Cafcdave123 has explained where my point was.