Forum menu
Sexist Hat
 

[Closed] Sexist Hat

Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 
[#9520932]

One for the grammar crew too!

[img] ?imwidth=450[/img]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/29/backlash-sexist-hats-found-gift-shop-national-trust-property/


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 7:22 am
Posts: 513
Free Member
 

The country is becoming more ridiculous by the day, I want someone to be offended on my behalf as I'm not offended and I'm beginning to feel offended by it


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 7:29 am
Posts: 8527
Free Member
 

Lol @ firestarter! Bang on.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 7:30 am
 Drac
Posts: 50598
 

I'm more outraged at the lack of apostrophe.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 7:35 am
Posts: 52609
Free Member
 

Can't believe one anyone would buy it for their kid, why anyone would wear it so why did somebody at the NT waste money on something that will end up in the bin?

It's just a sad joke for fat old blokes really.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 7:43 am
Posts: 2030
Full Member
 

Look on the bright side. Once upon a time you had to stick a safety pin through your nose or dye your hair bright blue to get noticed - nowadays you can get into the papers or go viral on-line for just about nothing!


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 7:43 am
Posts: 25940
Full Member
 

I'm more outraged at the lack of apostrophe.
well, you could tell your wife to embroider one on


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 7:44 am
Posts: 3274
Free Member
 

Why is it sexist? Isn't a Wife, by definition, a Woman? ๐Ÿ˜‰


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 7:44 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Why force my daughter to wear pink, forget the slogan


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 7:46 am
Posts: 513
Free Member
 

Howsyourdad you don't have to force her to wear it you know. If she likes it then she likes it if not the who cares, a boy could also wear it if they chose

My daughter likes pink my son likes football, I like pink I hate football, life is all about choices not being offended


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 7:56 am
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

I'm moar offended because it looks like it doesn't line up correctly ๐Ÿ˜


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 7:59 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

@firestarter. Hook line and sinker ๐Ÿ˜€


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 8:02 am
Posts: 28593
Free Member
 

What's the fuss for? It is in the Tatton Park giftshop, and this is a traditional and respectable career option for many Cheshire lasses.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 8:03 am
Posts: 34527
Full Member
 

Telegraph clickbait, designed to raise the blood pressure of angry little Englanders every where..


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 8:15 am
Posts: 17313
Free Member
 

As a 45 year old, balding, tubby, father of 3, I'd wear that.

Just for teh lolz.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 8:28 am
Posts: 27603
Free Member
 

Why is it sexist? Isn't a Wife, by definition, a Woman?

Very homophobic.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 8:28 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

It's low level sexism.

Whilst the current trend for huge overreactions to minor slights on social media is getting a bit tiresome, I think on balance it is a good thing that this sort of thing is called out - it's tackling the discriminatory attitudes entrenched in our society.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 8:34 am
Posts: 12323
Full Member
 

Why homophobic? GlennQuagmire mentioned nothing about being scared of his house.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 8:36 am
Posts: 513
Free Member
 

Well I am tired howsyourdad and tbh you really can't tell one here. Plus I still don't believe you ๐Ÿ˜‰


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 8:38 am
 DezB
Posts: 54367
Free Member
 

[i]Can't believe one anyone would buy it for their kid[/i]

Oh I can! Haven't you seen the kind of dimwits that live in this world?


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 8:43 am
Posts: 43955
Full Member
 

Kryton57 - Member
Why is it sexist? Isn't a Wife, by definition, a Woman?
Very homophobic
but there are lady footballers too - or are you so sexist you'd overlooked that?

๐Ÿ˜‰


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 8:50 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

It's a bloody awful ugly design


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 9:35 am
Posts: 27603
Free Member
 

but there are lady footballers too - or are you so sexist you'd overlooked that

I was busy identifying with transgender sports personalities.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 9:42 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'm more outraged at the lack of apostrophe.

Me too.

๐Ÿ˜ณ


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 9:43 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

but there are lady footballers too - or are you so sexist you'd overlooked that?

<sexist generalist hat>

Aren't most of them generally interested in other ladies though?

</sexist generalist hat>


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 9:44 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

it's tackling the discriminatory attitudes entrenched in our society.

The hat isn't discriminatory. It's just stereotyped and a bit stupid.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 9:53 am
Posts: 11385
Free Member
 

Horrible hat and quite rightly should be called out, but feel wrong as the Torygraph is hating the NT at the moment


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 9:54 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Torygraph is hating the NT at the moment

Intersting. Why is that?


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 9:57 am
Posts: 10746
Full Member
 

Footballer's or footballers' depending upon the level of ambition.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 9:57 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Torygraph is hating the NT at the moment

Intersting. Why is that?

It dwarfs the membership of the political parties and therefore could run for government and take over from the Torys, so they need to bash them to keep the status quo. Possibly.

Plus there is a campaign about their (NT's) campaign for acessibility. It's messy, like it always is with poshos.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 10:13 am
Posts: 28593
Free Member
 

but feel wrong as the Torygraph is hating the NT at the moment

Intersting. Why is that?

Cos the gay pride thing they hated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/03/national-trust-banishes-volunteers-back-room-chores-refuse-wear/

Helen Ghosh, the outgoing CEO, is also a bit lefty for their taste on things like windfarmage and climate change.

Basically - National Trust as aspic preserver and musty heirloom purveyor = good.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 10:45 am
 DezB
Posts: 54367
Free Member
 

Spotted, today

[img] [/img]


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 10:59 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

geetee1972 - Member
it's tackling the discriminatory attitudes entrenched in our society.
The hat isn't discriminatory. It's just stereotyped and a bit stupid.

Your two comments are contradictory. It's stereotyped because it's based on a discriminatory attitude that women are in some way inferior to men. By dismissing it as "a bit stupid" it marginalises the underlying issue.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 11:02 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

It's stereotyped because it's based on a discriminatory attitude that women are in some way inferior to men.

It doesn't remotely suggest women are inferior; it merely suggests that the person wearing it, being female, might end up being married to someone who was very keen on football.

You can't even argue that it assumes that women are less likely to appreciate football than men (which is a stereotype but not discrimination and in my view would make women superior anyway), because that would entirely depend on also assuming that the woman was married to a man. These days, that is far from certain.

The only meaning you can derive from the cap is that the woman in question is likely to marry a dedicated football fan. But feel free to feel aggrieved by it.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 11:22 am
Posts: 43955
Full Member
 

Yes DezB, I was thinking that too ๐Ÿ™‚


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 11:27 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

The only meaning you can derive from the cap is that the woman in question is likely to marry a dedicated football fan

it's not the only meaning and i'm fairly sure most people don't take it to be that meaning, if i'm honest.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 11:28 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

As a 45 year old, balding, tubby, father of 3, I'd wear that.

Photo please! ๐Ÿ˜€


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 11:28 am
 sbob
Posts: 5581
Free Member
 

kimbers - Member

little Englanders

Is this some bizarre form of Tourette's?

Enquiring minds want to know...


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 11:31 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

it's not the only meaning and i'm fairly sure most people don't take it to be that meaning, if i'm honest.

It's ironic that the negative meaning most people are likely to derive from it (and I accept that this happens even if I argue that it is incorrect) is itself based on assumptions, stereotypes and cultural bias.

The liberal minded among us, who are also likely the ones expressing their disapproval for the hat, can only be offended if we interpret the slogan based on the assumption that women can only marry men, that football is only something that men like and that not liking football is something that makes you inferior. i.e. your liberal outrage actually belies your own cultural biases. Which make you a hypocrite (technically).


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 11:42 am
 DezB
Posts: 54367
Free Member
 

[i]Yes DezB, I was thinking that too[/i]

Thanks! The ultimate hate criminal ๐Ÿ˜‰


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 11:43 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

I'm sorry? what outrage?

This is an outrage!


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 11:43 am
Posts: 17313
Free Member
 

the assumption that women can only marry men,

The assumption was that only women can be wives.

Men married to men would still be husbands.

Women married to women would still be wives.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 11:48 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Surely the "joke" is that the wearer of the hat is a bit of a gold digger (sorry if I've misunderstood the meaning of "footballer's wife").

Both males and females do marry other people for their wealth and fame.

The hat does not imply that all females are gold diggers (or even that gold digging is a bad thing).

The hat isn't sexist, the joke is just quite poor. (especially if you have just bought it for your 6 year old daughter).


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 11:55 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

The assumption was that only women can be wives.

Ah good point, I has misread the text for 'widow' rather than 'wife'. It doesn't change anything though. The 'wife' could still be married to a female footballer and only the assumption that women can't be footballers would then lead you to conclude that the suggestion was discriminatory.


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 12:02 pm
Posts: 31206
Full Member
 

Meh.

I suppose it does [i]sort of[/i] support the dated notion that a woman is after a successful husband to be the breadwinner and that she is somehow defined by who she is married to, rather than her own career and life.

But honestly, pretty low on my FaxGivn score.

(I'm assuming they also stock a blue [i]"Future Footballers Husband"[/i] hat of course?)


 
Posted : 30/08/2017 12:08 pm
Page 1 / 2