Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Charlton Women to rebrand as "Charlton Ladies" - turned down by FA (p28)

1679111231

Comments

  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram Posts: 57,820
    seth plum said:
    I opened this thread due to curiosity, every few messages are interspersed with an advertisement for Boux Avenue women’s brassiers and keks.
    Go for the red set Seth!
  • This is so funny.

    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. 


  • LoOkOuT
    LoOkOuT Posts: 10,853
    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.
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 16,907
    edited December 2021
    [A long post that really didn't need quoting in full]
    First time you've completely missed the mark imo. The grapevine legend is shattered.
  • Croydon said:
    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.
  • Dazzler21 said:
    thenewbie said:
    Croydon said:
    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

  • bobmunro said:
    seth plum said:
    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. 
  • cafcdave123
    cafcdave123 Posts: 11,491
    Dazzler21 said:
    thenewbie said:
    Croydon said:
    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
  • Sponsored links:



  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,214
    castrust said:
    Not a fine time to make a change 
  • castrust said:
    Thank you CAST.
    This 100% represents my feelings 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
  • bingaddick
    bingaddick Posts: 8,181
    edited December 2021
    This decision worries me. 

    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.


  • bobmunro said:
    seth plum said:
    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'

    Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, no what I mean  ;)
  • CAFCTrev
    CAFCTrev Posts: 5,975
    Such a weird hill for TS to die on, heres hoping he see's sense and changes his mind as a result of the backlash. 
  • CAFCsayer
    CAFCsayer Posts: 10,222
    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
  • I may be wrong but I have a sneaky felling in my water that Mrs TS may be having some input on this.
  • castrust said:

    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."

    Do feminist women only eat breakfast and dinner?
  • I may be wrong but I have a sneaky felling in my water that Mrs TS may be having some input on this.
    You can get an idea of Raelynn’s view by looking at the Tweets she likes - ones that use the term ‘ladies’.
  • aliwibble
    aliwibble Posts: 26,272
    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.
    My arthritis thanks you for your consideration.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Off_it
    Off_it Posts: 28,833
    Sounds like a storm in a B-cup
  • PragueAddick
    PragueAddick Posts: 22,143
    castrust said:

    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."

    Do feminist women only eat breakfast and dinner?
    “Ladies who lunch” …
  • Dazzler21
    Dazzler21 Posts: 51,343
    edited December 2021
    Dazzler21 said:
    thenewbie said:
    Croydon said:
    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.

    Cafcdave123 has explained where my point was.
  • Dazzler21
    Dazzler21 Posts: 51,343
    edited December 2021
    Has anyone considered if Thomas bought the women's team as a gift for Raelynn?
  • SuedeAdidas
    SuedeAdidas Posts: 7,733
    Gribbo said:
    I reckon TS has written a song for the women's team and can't find a word to rhyme with "women" so is changing it on that basis
    He better not mention clean sheets as that would be a clear misogynistic comment based upon expectation of  laundry chores. 
  • KiwiValley
    KiwiValley Posts: 3,378
    Gribbo said:
    I reckon TS has written a song for the women's team and can't find a word to rhyme with "women" so is changing it on that basis
    'Ladies' rhymes with 'Hades' and half rhymes with 'Scabies'. Looking forward to the lyrics.
  • Gribbo said:
    I reckon TS has written a song for the women's team and can't find a word to rhyme with "women" so is changing it on that basis
    'Ladies' rhymes with 'Hades' and half rhymes with 'Scabies'. Looking forward to the lyrics.
    Gimme, gimme, gimme the honky tonk blues any day.