I think we should make banners like "Welcome to our city guys! Thanks for playing on our pitch" and "Second half we will boo our team for you, cause you swell people are our guests in this country. HOpe you have fun here!"
I think we should make banners like "Welcome to our city guys! Thanks for playing on our pitch" and "Second half we will boo our team for you, cause you swell people are our guests in this country. HOpe you have fun here!"
Damn Reggie you beat me to it.Originally Posted by Raging Reggie
8 pages now? Part of me is wondering if this is a joke or something.
If the banner didn't bother you great, if it offended you, even better.
WHO CARES?! This thread is proof that people will get offended over anything these days.
Thanks for sex lesson
The banner was meant to be insulting, depiction of consentual sex between opposing fans isn't insulting.
I've already explained that.
Moderator
You're right. It's not. Which helps explains why the tifo is so ineffectual.Thanks for sex lesson
The banner was meant to be insulting, depiction of consentual sex between opposing fans isn't insulting.
Did the USA , of all countries, just fix soccer? - C. Ronaldo, May 27th commenting on the FBI-led investigations into fraud and corruption throughout FIFA.
That was kind of the point of my snide post... and also that just because something is offensive, doesn't mean it's automatically sexist/racist/ageist/homophobic/islamophobic/whaterverphobic.
Is it possible to get this poster size? That is fricken priceless!all i can say to this is
When people here took offense to the racist chants in Columbus was your response "Well then, no more chanting from us any more. From now on we'll just keep quiet and politely appauld" ?
Taking offense to a banner done by another group - the first time in 5 years that that's happened - doesn't call for any changes to be made to how we do things.
Cash, even the people who aren't offended by this aren't in denial about what is being depicted. No one here is looking at that and thinking "Thats strange, they wanted to insult the other team but instead of showing an image that invokes dominance over an inferior oppenent they chose to make a banner of a consentual sex scene".
We could always make another.....
Apparently the relationship between Charlie and his goddesses is totally consensual, although the accepted wisdom is that they do what he says because he gives them stuff. The 'Goddesses' want what he has, so they demean themselves submissively to get a share.
The 'goddesses' are not 'women' they are two real people, who are being parodied in the banner. They are not rape victims, they're groupie prostitutes.
keep to the facts and stop making this issue a platform for other issues such as 'the rape culture' that we live in, whichis the kind of statement that makes me want to puke. I think the continuous implication by feminists that men are basically rapists that are restraining themselves, and have chauvinism in their genetic makeup is nauseating.
all the talk of consent...has me thinking about Scumbag Steve.
^^
BANG! that's awesome.
Thanks Ian.
Never knew a poorly constructed banner that tried to be risque and funny and failed on all accounts - especially given that San Jose sucks - could elicit 8 pages of discussion. LOL
And the FO reacting to 1 complaint on Twitter and imposing sanctions on the group is also asinine.
I don't look forward to the day when TFC's FO decides to impose sanctions on supporters groups based on 1 complaint.
Ian, i wish you posted more.
I don't disagree, the problem is that this banner was so poorly executed that I doubt if anyone made the connection between it and Charlie Sheen so it ended up leaving most people with a far more different impression than what they intended.
Yea, I was speaking to a friend about this whole Charlie Sheen thing. I don't know Charlie Sheen or his partners personally.... so can't really comment on that relationship.
But I don't see the relevancy even if the starting point was a reference to CHarlie Sheen, seeing as the intentions appears to be to have two women associated with negative connotations like a rival team (often associated with discourses of dominance).
We don't live in a vacuum, it's impossible to talk about these things without recognizing the context. The notion of rape culture isn't that men are rapists that restrain themselves .. the notion refers to how we have a culture that normalizes sexual violence (as seen with some of the responses here today) and sexually objectifies women. I as a man, recognize my priviliges in the work world, and in other areas.. what makes me puke is when people are so unaware, whether consciously or not, of where they stand in this world and when called out on it, get so defensive and start throwing thigns like 'making this issue a platform' ..
I can surely find you worse, much worse, than the ads those two posters put up.
Surely you are aware of how easy that would be.
Lets also keep facts to facts, there's no force or any indication that they aren't willful. You're making things up to support your opinion.
Last edited by werewolf; 04-12-2011 at 10:28 PM.
Animals Eaten:
pig, cow, lamb, moose, chicken, quail, kudu, ostrich, kangaroo, octopus, alligator, rabbit, shark, springbok, goat, bison, boar, caterpillars, turkey, fish, lobster, crab, oyster, prawn, antelope, camel, eel, squid
Yeah it was shit, and they should be told not to bring it again because the visual reference to oral sex isnt appropriate, whether it was social commentary, parody, fun, misogyny or whatever.
Their FO handled it wrong, but they really are doing the SJ fans a favour by telling them to burn the fucking thing, cause its an embarrasment.
You have to accept though, Cretan, that however the message is interpreted, the intended message was not 'men are the masters of women' and pretending it does is merely creating an excuse to start demonising men again, and making references to 'rape culture' and 'patriarchal society' yadda yadda.....
So you look at that picture and think "Oh look, there's an LA fan being really nice to that San Jose fan"? If its meant to depict a willful act, what's the purpose of the banner? Clearly, they're trying to insult their oppenents and there's nothing insulting about consentual sex.
I looked at it and thought "when did this incarnation of San Jose ever win anything to proclaim liking the view from the top?"
The intended message almost certainly wasn't "men are the masters of women" but with such poor execution you can understand how someone might be left thinking that it was demeaning to women.
I am not sure it needs to be the intended message though. This sort of imagery and narrative is so much a part of common culture, that I doubt the SJ fans sat around and was like "let's demean women" .. doesn't make it any less problematic...
And c'mon, assuming you're a guy too, 'excuse to start demonising men?' like we're having such a horrible time compared to women?
The goddesses in the tifo don't even look like The Sheenious' goddesses.
A lot of us are, in many ways. But nobody gives a crap.
Our issues from prostate cancer, domestic abuse, child custody and support etc.... etc.... are derided and ignored, because the prevalent view out there is that men are automatically the aggressors, irresponsible, powermongering, lecherous, self serving assholes that dont quite get it and are benefitting from 2000 years of patriarchy.
I call bullshit.
What's on the banner is 2 girls on their knees beside a standing male.
Your interpretation is not fact. End of story.
And that's meant to convey what? A fun time of mutual respect shared between a San Jose and LA fan or a depiction of San Jose dominance over LA?
Yes, men face problems too. But I think you're individualizing the issue. An analysis of patriarchy doesn't say that men are automatically aggressive, irresponsible etc.... the analysis states that our societies are structured so that women are systemically subjugated and discriminated against. Why are women so often saddled with childcare functions? Why are community childcare options os limited? Why is violence against women perpetrated by men so much more prevalent than it is the other way around (not to say men are never victims of this)? Why do women earn on average .75 cents to every dollar a men makes? etc. etc. etc....
It's not about portraying men as inherently evil .. that'd be very weak analysis. We're talking about structural issues here.
Posting Permissions
