<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Dewsburian
(Login Dewsburian)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 15 2017, 10:37 AM 

"Thought bullying and winding up weren't allowed. No need to belittle Pyrahtechnics like that Dewsburian."

Perhaps I'm being insensitive, but I can't see any point to the original remark, other than to belittle (slightly more than) half of the human species. Are we supposed to let that pass?

 
 
Kevin Owens
(Login kevinowens)

Re: Is this site sexist

July 15 2017, 10:53 AM 

How can i hate women? My mums one

 
 
Pyrahtechnics
(Login Pyrahtechnics)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 15 2017, 1:25 PM 

"Also you can't spell woman without "man" or female without "male"."

"I suspect the world's university departments of gender studies will be thrown into turmoil when they discover the astonishing potency of that particular argument. Perhaps some of them will spontaneously decide to close down."

Given the level of intelligence for those who work in the Academic field, they should be aware that the English language is not gender conscious in nature, hence my above example.

 
 
Idle Man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 15 2017, 2:20 PM 

If I understand those remarks about the English language correctly, they seem obviously in error. Words like batsman, chairman, linesman, even manhole, don't include 'man' as a result of some sort of coincidence (unlike perhaps 'manage'). Fairly obviously they reflect an assumption about the gender of the person involved. Changing the vocabulary can seem trivial - or politically correct, a tiresome and useless expression - but reflects the fact that that assumption is out of date. Furthermore, altering the terms is an expression of support for this progress, respect for the people concerned, etc. It doesn't cost us anything, why do some blokes (mostly) have a problem with it.

And I'm profoundly suspicious of a series of reactions to this exclusively from men. If I had a job previously largely female, I wouldn't want to be referred to as a '.....woman'. I'm afraid the only example I can come up with is charwoman/lady, and that says something too.

Actually while I'm all for batter, changing third man is a bit contrived, but anyone getting cross about it is saying more about themselves than anything else.

 
 

WRF
(Premier Login AlexRoberts)
Owner

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 15 2017, 4:21 PM 

"Ladies playing cricket? Absurd. Just like a man trying to knit" - Len Hutton

We've come a long away from those neolithic times. And we are all the better for it.

 
 
Pyrahtechnics
(Login Pyrahtechnics)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 16 2017, 12:24 AM 

"If I understand those remarks about the English language correctly, they seem obviously in error. Words like batsman, chairman, linesman, even manhole, don't include 'man' as a result of some sort of coincidence (unlike perhaps 'manage'). Fairly obviously they reflect an assumption about the gender of the person involved. Changing the vocabulary can seem trivial - or politically correct, a tiresome and useless expression - but reflects the fact that that assumption is out of date. Furthermore, altering the terms is an expression of support for this progress, respect for the people concerned, etc. It doesn't cost us anything, why do some blokes (mostly) have a problem with it.

And I'm profoundly suspicious of a series of reactions to this exclusively from men. If I had a job previously largely female, I wouldn't want to be referred to as a '.....woman'. I'm afraid the only example I can come up with is charwoman/lady, and that says something too.

Actually while I'm all for batter, changing third man is a bit contrived, but anyone getting cross about it is saying more about themselves than anything else."


---------------------------------


The definition of "man" according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

"Traditionally, the word man has been used to refer not only to adult males but also to human beings in general, regardless of sex. There is a historical explanation for this: in Old English, the principal sense of man was ‘a human being’, and the words wer and wif were used to refer specifically to ‘a male person’ and ‘a female person’, respectively."


To change the terminology of a fielding position just because a minority think it is biased towards one gender is pedantic. Cricket is a gentleman's game in nature, though it would not surprise me if someone took offence to that phrase because it excludes women (or those of a transgender or non binary persuasion)

Energies should be spent in growing and supporting Women's Cricket. The ICC have provided context to Women's Cricket outside of World Cup events and test nations are professionalising the game.

As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

 
 
Idle man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 16 2017, 8:51 AM 

er.....so what? You think we should call them batswer and batswif? And actions and words often go hand in hand, cliches notwithstanding. Gavin's original point was that our actions - or lack of them - were open to question. I'm going to try to get to a Diamonds match this year if I can. And if I do, I shall try and refer to batters. I don't really understand why anyone should have a problem with that. Others can use what terminology they like.

 
 
Kevin Owens
(Login kevinowens)

Re: Is this site sexist

July 16 2017, 9:03 AM 

Idle Man can you take 'Man' out of your name? I'm offended 👀

 
 
Idle man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 16 2017, 9:32 AM 

You're not assuming I'm a man just because of the name I hope. Don't you know 'man' is gender neutral?

 
 
Gavin Gray
(Login yorkie1863)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 16 2017, 10:19 AM 

Idleman is quite right. My point was that this site puts up match threads for EVERY Yorkshire and England match, but do not even acknowledge the women's game. This site is not sexist, but through lack of thought and omission can appear to be. The world cup is being played is this country and until I raised this matter not one person on here was posting anything about it. England have a very good chance of winning the cup. Yes the women don't have the raw power that the men have and the bowlers can't bowl at 85+ mph, but for me they show the spirit of the game more.

I hope that by highlighting this some of you might at least watch a women's match and appreciate it.
Yorkshire players in the England team, Lauren Winfield, Katherine Brunt and Jenny Gunn.

 
 
Anthony Rowe
(Login tonyinsiam)

Is This Site Sexist

July 16 2017, 10:51 AM 

Hi Gavin-I suspect that many members watch Women's cricket, especially this World Cup, but don't post. I touched on this topic in a previous post. I , certainly, watch lot of women's cricket (on TV , of course, as I live abroad).Watched every England game , so far, and they have been very entertaining and enjoyable. Same goes for Women's football. Again, my point is that there may be lots who watch but don't post. Every member, on here, comes across as extremely passionate about Yorkshire men's team -me included. It could be that we are so elated or deflated and tend to let our feelings flow- thus we may be too drained to talk (post) about anything else.

 
 
Dewsburian
(Login Dewsburian)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 16 2017, 11:10 AM 

I don't want to go too far down this rabbit-hole, particularly as one participant in this discussion seems intent on mischief-making. And I've no great emotional commitment to the use of Third Man, Third Woman or Third Person (as I've said before, Third Man’s a term that has become detached from its origins: just ask the average cricket watcher who the first two men are).
But it's interesting to read how the full first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary formulates the man-in-the-general-sense definition. It begins with the etymology, so there's a list of forms in Old Frisian, Old High German, Middle High German, Old Norse etc. So far, so good. Then, the actual text diverges in one important detail from Pyrahtechnics's account. It doesn't say that these old forms primarily designated human beings in general. It says that "In all the Teutonic languages, the word had the twofold sense of 'human being' and 'adult male human being'...” So “man” (or “mon”) wasn't a word meaning "human being" somehow clearly separate from “wer” which meant "man" and “wif” woman. "Man" always meant both “humanity in general” and “adult human male”, while "wer" just meant adult male.
Section 1a of the definitions states: "In many Old English instances, and in a few of later date, used explicitly as a designation equally applicable to either sex". This is marked “Obsolete”, which is unsurprising as Old English (aka Anglo-Saxon) didn't last much beyond the middle of the twelfth century.
Now for definition 1b, the one that isn't obsolete: "In the surviving use, the sense 'person' occurs only in general or indefinite applications (e.g. with adjectives like every, any, no, and often in the plural, esp. with all, any, some, many, few etc.); in modern apprehension 'man' as thus used primarily denotes the male sex, though by implication referring also to women." That's quite a fascinating formulation and I'm grateful to Pyrahtechnics for leading me to it. As in many other areas of life, in the very fabric of our language women were often there only "by implication" and I can see why they wouldn't be terribly happy about that. I don’t see how anything they choose to do about it can be dismissed as mere pedantry.


    
This message has been edited by Dewsburian on Jul 16, 2017 11:15 AM


 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 16 2017, 12:29 PM 

Gavin --- Between us we should now have all bases covered. Myself and Alex start the domestic and England threads, and you can continue starting the ladies threads.

We are not sexist on this site, in fact I deleted a very sexist post a couple of days ago, and in the past several similar posts have been deleted. It was just an ommission on our part, not to cover the womens game.

Anyone can start a thread on any subject they want.

 
 
Anthony Rowe
(Login tonyinsiam)

Is This Site Sexist

July 16 2017, 5:33 PM 

Hi Dewsburian-thanks for your above post. Absolutely fascinating about how our language evolved, from Greek ,Roman and Anglo Saxon etc. Probably, more so by Anglo Saxon.I am certain you will have read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales which seems to use a few of our present day terms, albeit with a different spelling. "The Wyf Of Byth's tale, comes to mind.
Thanks for your input- but , maybe some will say, "Yes,but let's get back to the cricket."However, in my opinion (humble) it is everything to do with the rapid development of Women's cricket.We need a new and consistent terminology when talking about Women's cricket. It is embryonic, at the moment and will, most likely, develop a widely understood and accepted terminology , in time.
Maybe, we can start an "Off Topic" thread which deals with things loosely connected with cricket but, still, eminating from our great game.
Again, thanks for your informative input.

 
 
Dewsburian
(Login Dewsburian)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 16 2017, 8:39 PM 

"I watched the women's Test Match in Sydney between Australia and England. I was completely astonished. The stroke-play seemed authentic; in fact, there was a grace and freedom in Molly Hide's batting that rather improved on the congested utilitarianism of many a county professional."
That's from Neville Cardus's Preface to Nancy Joy's book "Maiden Over", which was first published in 1950 (the match was in 1949), so perhaps some sections of the cricket-watching public have been rather slow to catch on.
Even in those days, Yorkshire was supplying a fast bowler - Barbara Wood from Hunmanby Hall, who also played lacrosse for the county. And one of the medium-pacers was Mary Duggan, then Senior Games mistress at Queen Ethelburga's School, Harrogate. One of the other members of the party was Aline Brown, Freddie Brown's sister, while the wicket-keeper Betty Snowball had been coached in her youth by none other than Learie Constantine.

 
 
Gavin Gray
(Login yorkie1863)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 16 2017, 9:29 PM 

That sounds like a very interesting book.

 
 
Dewsburian
(Login Dewsburian)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 17 2017, 9:53 AM 

The book's in two parts: a short history of women's cricket up to 1948 or so and a second, longer section that's largely a blow-by-blow account of the 1948-9 tour by one of the participants. I bought it when a member of one of my former cricket clubs was selling off his book collection to raise funds for the club and I have to confess I've only skimmed through it from time to time. Cardus's Foreword had stuck in my mind and this seemed an appropriate moment to take it off the shelf. Looking at the book again, I found it interesting, though not especially surprising, that so many of the England players were PE teachers (or probably PT back then). There does seem to have been quite a lot of cricket in girls' schools - particularly the private ones.
If I could just reply briefly to Anthony Rowe's comments from yesterday, I have to say that my longish exposition about the word "man" wasn't etymology for its own sake but an attempt to respond directly to an argument that had been made by Pyrahtechnics. But, that being said, thank you, Anthony, for your kind words.

 
 
Idle Man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 17 2017, 11:56 AM 

Many years ago I knew a woman from Hull who got into the Oxford Uni Women's team. She had been brought up to play the game in Yorkshire, but at Oxford the rather fragile team members asked her not to throw the ball in so hard. Things have changed an awful lot.

She was by the way a rather good medium pace bowler, who seldom bowled a bad ball, and could hit the seam with regularity. I think she packed in because she had other sporting interests which were easier to pursue, and living in the south in the 70s other female cricketers had a more delicate view of how the game should be conducted than she had acquired in the East Riding. I think her time also got taken up quite a lot with the campaign to prevent the creation of 'Humberside'. A big fan of Sir Geoffrey.


    
This message has been edited by Idle_man on Jul 17, 2017 12:51 PM


 
 
Dwight_Schrute
(Login Dwight_Schrute)

Re: Is this site sexist?

July 18 2017, 3:13 PM 

Anyone else offended by bet365 offering 'next man out' markets in the Women's semi final?

Shocking scenes!

 
 

WRF
(Premier Login AlexRoberts)
Owner

"So, it's goodnight from me, and it's goodnight from her."

July 18 2017, 3:36 PM 

This thread has run its course, so we are closing the comments.

Thanks, Gavin. We are a better and more inclusive forum for your comments and for your help with discussing Yorkshire and England women's cricket

Alex, moderator

 
 
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 Next >
    
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
All IP addresses are recorded. We reserve the right to remove personal attacks, sexist, racist, homophobic, defamatory or abusive comments, comments likely to incite religious hatred, those disposed to wind others up, and unapproved advertising.

Email us: Whiterosecricket@hotmail.co.uk