|
Post by robeiae on Dec 7, 2017 12:42:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Dec 7, 2017 15:09:41 GMT -5
His point is correct. Football is a physical sport and comes with the risk of injury, sometimes severe. If you aren't will to risk injury, don't play the game.
I don't see where he made the point you put in your title, however.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 8, 2017 9:20:26 GMT -5
I think what he said leads to exactly what's in my title. Here's more of his rant (if you didn't click through):
To be clear, I find his rant both amusing and sad, and I think it's interesting in context with all of the stuff going on with famous people getting in trouble for their treatment of women (and in some cases, men).
I mean, what he's saying enforces a particular stereotype on what constitutes being a "real man," no? And given that it's coming from a guy in the NFL, which has more than its fair share of knuckle-draggers (i.e. guys who treat women like shit)...
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 8, 2017 11:38:13 GMT -5
Hmmm. I'm a woman who happens to love the differences between the sexes, and I am definitely attracted to many of the traits we attribute to "real men". And physical toughness and athleticism are both included in that list. And yeah, there's something very tough about a football player that is not the same, say, for a baseball player (except maybe a catcher), or a dancer. So to that extent, I agree with Mitchell. However, that doesn't mean other less physical or even gentle traits are not also on that list of being a real man. And it doesn't mean that other less desirable or even objectionable traits must go hand in hand with that "manly" physical toughness. (like treating women poorly). As a matter of fact, I think a very nice trait of being a "real man" is treating women with respect and even protectiveness, as long as it doesn't venture into being controlling. I think a venn diagram would be helpful here. Too bad I can't draw one on the forum.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 8, 2017 15:13:44 GMT -5
It's kind of taboo nowadays to talk about "real men" in the context of masculine behavior and interests, because gender is a social construct and women can do anything men can do, doncha know. The reality is that I think the majority of women feel as celaw do - they may not want a knuckle-dragger who abuses them, but given a choice between a manly abuser and a Sensitive New Age Guy, well, feminist theory tells us which one should be preferable, but observable behavior tells us who actually gets laid. Note: I am being deliberately, exaggeratedly cynical here. I really don't think most women want to be mistreated or disrespected. But I think there is a lot of truth to the "bad boy" narrative. Which is something a lot of feminists overlook in their aghast horror at Trump's election. They just can't understand how anyone, but especially women, would vote for a rich, aggressive, domineering male who talks candidly about what he thinks of women. (Oh, can't they? Can they really not?) (Btw, celaw, I remember you promising at some point to answer nighttimmer's very pointed questions about how you justify continuing to defend a man who, frankly, sees you as either a grabbable pussy or an unfuckable hag of no interest to him. Care to weigh in now? Yes, I'm being unfair. But also, serious.)
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Dec 8, 2017 16:28:19 GMT -5
I mean, what he's saying enforces a particular stereotype on what constitutes being a "real man," no? I can get behind that his statement is enforcing a certain stereotype, but I still think it is a stretch to evolve that into "If you don't get hurt or hurt other people you aren't a real man".
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 8, 2017 16:49:55 GMT -5
I think a venn diagram would be helpful here. Too bad I can't draw one on the forum. I consider this to be by far the forum's greatest shortcoming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2017 17:09:03 GMT -5
I think a venn diagram would be helpful here. Too bad I can't draw one on the forum. I consider this to be by far the forum's greatest shortcoming. Pfft. Nonsense. That's robeiae.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 8, 2017 17:47:15 GMT -5
He didn't use the word "real";. He used the word "grown." I take what he's saying as stop whining/being afraid to get hit/injured/etc. (like a little kid), and I think it's obvious he's talking about men in the NFL. His rant was in regard to those who have the physical ability, genetics, and skill to play professional football, not all men. There are plenty of other grown (not to mention real) men who couldn't play professional football for ten seconds without ending up in the hospital. I doubt he would claim they're not grown, let alone real, men.
He wants football to stay (or go back to being) as physical as possible. That's his opinion. Agree or disagree, since football injuries can be serious af, but I'm not seeing what the OP title is claiming either. Also not seeing what it has to do with men's treatment of women.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 8, 2017 18:25:58 GMT -5
He didn't use the word "real";. He used the word "grown." No, he very much did use the word "real":
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 8, 2017 18:36:23 GMT -5
Okay, I missed that bit. Nevertheless, my point stands: what he is saying is clearly within the context of players in the NFL, same as with the word "grown." Why should we ascribe meaning to this outside of football? Is there really a concern that other men in the world feel less like men because they can't take a hit from a 300-pound linebacker?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 8, 2017 18:48:52 GMT -5
As I said, I find it both sad and amusing. Because at the end of the day, we're talking about playing a game, and the idea that only "real men" can play a game, any game, is kinda dumb, no?
Imagine this: "Stop whining about me taking your queen. This is a game for real men who don't whine when they lose their queen."
And frankly, I think the "real" moniker is all played out.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 8, 2017 19:09:14 GMT -5
Well, whining is generally annoying, whether it's in regard to chess or football or work or life. I can relate to the frustration.
I can also see how "real" could be annoying. That said, I think "real" and "grown" are digs at the perceived whining and not some sort of gender-normative worldview.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 0:31:52 GMT -5
This guy here is the one I'm going to marry.
I'm not into new-age-y sensitive guy talk. But that guy's obviously genuine concern for a small and harmless living thing really got to me.
That, I submit, is a real man.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 11, 2017 9:07:53 GMT -5
As I said, I think the "real" moniker is all played out. I love what that guy did; I think it's awesome. But suppose it turns out that the same guy beats his wife on a weekly basis. Would he still be a "real man"?
Perhaps it's a consequence of our need to define things or people, as opposed to simply describing situations or actions?
|
|