Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by noksucow, Sep 18, 2019.
And if I heard them say it to you I'd die laughing
We can't all be as enlightened as a renaissance gentleman like yourself.
The only contentious thing about this course is that it's a Level 2. Applicants must have done level 1 and put it into practice by then. So you'd expect women to have sufficient confidence by then (without it they probably won't make it through a level 2).
However, I suspect that the FA is responding to the need to get more women up the coaching ladder, quickly.
I also suspect that if there was a clamour for all male courses, they would provide, as it is their job to get as many people trained as possible.
We ran a course last year to enable adults with a learning disability to do their level 1. I suppose they have no place in football either??
I'm a woman who has been brought up around football all my life. I did my level 1 (Prelim as it was then) 30 years ago. Last year I was on an FA safeguarding course. 80% male, 20% female. I'd say I'm pretty confident in the fraternity, but it was fairly intimidating, and there was an undercurrent of chauvinism. Not from all, but there were one or two on the course who obviously felt that women didn't belong.
I absolutely take my hat off to any woman who has the courage to referee the game. That would be way beyond my comfort zone.
Not once have i said woman shouldnt be invovled. Im all for it but dont bend the system, if woman really want to be involved they will for the love of the game / job.
Is there an English version of this so that we would know what you mean?
These days, if you say a woman looks nice, they throw you in jail. It’s political correctness gone mad.
It adds context to the whataboutery.
If you’re a young man made to feel uncomfortable by an older lady, and you pluck up the courage to challenge their behaviour, you are likely to get a different response than if the genders are reversed.
Ergo the 2 situations aren’t comparable.
Can i ask why you are against the governing body making it easier to encourage women into coaching as soon as possible? Does it disadvantage you?
I play football with women who have loved the game for 30 years but only just found the courage to find a session.
You have no idea of the barriers that women face in just taking part in what (some) men take for granted. You say that you’re all for equality but you’re obviously not.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but why would he have 'no idea' of the barriers faced by women?
I never said i was against it..... Equal means equal. Not advantage someone or something else..
If the poster had said....... coaching course open to male and female.... But we would love to see more females getting invovled in football or words to that effect, nothing would have been said...
Again, you're missing the point. (Some) women are put off mixed gender courses because they fear chauvinism (which definitely still exists). The FA is trying to address the inequalities that exist in terms of number of female coaches. Without female only courses some of these women would never have the courage to take those first steps into the game.
The FA also runs male only coaching courses (around mental health), and our own club runs male only Fit Reds sessions for men who need to lose weight. https://barnsleyfccommunity.co.uk/health/fit-reds-programme/ This session was introduced as exclusively male, and ran for 2 or 3 years before a female version was introduced.All of these sessions are trying to tempt a single gender group, who perhaps have confidence issues, into football so that they can reap the benefits of exercise, friendship etc.
I think noksucow has, through various comments in this thread shown a lack of understanding that historically women have faced barriers in accessing football. Specifically comments like this:
"They was, its just woman chose never to be involved."
"So will all these lady coaches only coach all lady teams, i think not..
If i wanted to be involved in netball would they have a male only course because i didnt feel comfy..... No...
I personaly would totally accept the FACT that it is mainly played by woman and learn from other woman who would be far more experienced than i would be "
Equality is all i mentioned...... Some people may see my point others wont.
The fact that you don't understand this point highlights the difference I think.
Men and women are different. We think,act,learn and react differently we’re also different in respect of our physical capabilities in most cases. I don’t see anything wrong in women only courses, it must be pretty intimidating for a woman to be on a course of predominantly men, predominantly alpha males, predominantly stronger physically, I see little wrong with training geared to one gender or the other. We’re different, why shouldn't our learning take account of that.
Your definition of equality is way off though. Plenty of people are trying to explain why. Equal is not allowing both men and women on a refereeing course. It’s not equal because centuries of societal prejudice and inequality means that a) the huge majority of applicants would be men and b) any women who did find the courage to join, would immediately be at a massive disadvantage.
In reality, to address this balance and reach equality between men and women in refereeing, you would probably need to stop all men being trained up, for about 50 years. Then freeze time and allow all those women to build up the years of experience in refereeing and reach equal pay.
Then, perhaps you might be closer to equality. Except they would still probably be expected to sort the majority of housework when they got in.
So to summarise, white Middle Ages (sic) males are fearful their decades of preferential treatment are at an end and feel threatened.
Still one women a week dies of domestic abuse, and it's usually women who get raped, so men need to pipe down and accept the leg up women get in society, because a society truly run by women would be a damn sight better place then what we've got now.
THE BARNSLEY FC
BBS FANS FORUM
Separate names with a comma.