I thought I could at least come on the County message board and not see the ridiculous word Woke being used. Anybody using it should be banned. Give over.

I agree. I woke up this morning like every one else. No need to keep mentioning it.

I agree. I woke up this morning like every one else. No need to keep mentioning it.

Ugo. wrote: July 18th, 2022, 8:59 pm I thought I could at least come on the County message board and not see the ridiculous word Woke being used. Anybody using it should be banned. Give over.

Well I’m sorry my use of the word ‘woke’ upsets you. Are you okay hun? The BBC trying to make a story out of an all-white team after one the best results in their history is what should upset you. There are players of colour in the squad, yet for whatever reason the manager chose not to play them. It happens. The England women’s team historically has had a lot of players of colour, maybe, just maybe the current crop are not as good as Yankey, Scott & Aluko. Ps. I’m well annoyed at the BBC for not making a story out of the Ghana men’s football team. Not one Caucasian player ever.

It just means "tolerant".

Ugo. wrote: July 18th, 2022, 8:59 pm I thought I could at least come on the County message board and not see the ridiculous word Woke being used. Anybody using it should be banned. Give over.

In fairness 'woke' while a clunky term is universally understood, well by 90% of people anyway, as being 'excessively concerned with identity politics to the detriment of all else' mainly from the 'left' but sometimes from the 'right' as well [note I'm no right wing mouth frother either I'm relatively young, married to an immigrant and vote Labour but I hate 'woke' as as concept and as a movement - take the abuse scandal in Oxford/Rotheram/Telford, etc perfectly illustrates how damaging 'woke' is and how the concept and movement ignores the 'wrong kind' of 'victim']

George Street-Bridge wrote: July 19th, 2022, 6:06 am It just means "tolerant".

Pah! many/most 'woke' people are the most authoritarian and intolerant people out there! if you believe that's what 'woke' [now] means I'm afraid you are very naive on this one - woke is about 'welcoming' & tolerating the right kind of people

It all boils down to those who want to nit pick ,find fault,look for the slightest nuance they feel is .politically incorrect . I suspect most "woke" people are the bloody fools who walk around with their mobile phones in an open hand in front of them, hoping someone might phone them.
Another word that has annoyed me over they years is "fazed"

A nice excerpt from a longer piece in today's Guardian about covering the women's Euros:

Men’s football did not become the global beast it is today without good press coverage telling fans across the world the scores, results and team news. The media were integral to its rise, and the relationship between football and the media is mutually beneficial.

Why should we help to grow women’s football? Whenever the coverage of women’s football ramps up, so do the comments from trolls online. We are repeatedly told to “stop ramming it down people’s throats”. For some reason this minority are happy to switch over or turn the page if they are not interested in rugby, or cricket, or any other sport that benefits from national coverage, but coverage of women’s football appears to be a step too far.

These attitudes speak to a deeper ingrained misogyny towards women and their involvement in sport. The close to 50-year ban on women’s football in 1921 and the campaigning by the Football Association at that time to discredit a game that was attracting tens of thousands of fans, helped to sow the seeds (as did wider attitudes towards women in society) of the views we see and hear of today.

Sport, and football, is a very powerful thing. Just as the FA had the power to crush the women’s game, it also has the authority and tools to lift it up again. The investment into the women’s national team and the women’s domestic leagues has been part of the campaign to reverse the effects of that ban. Newspapers played their part, too. In 1921 when the ban was introduced and in 1970 when it was lifted, editorials and columnists parroted the FA line and opined on the unsuitability of women’s football. Few, if any, challenged the narrative.

Full article: "Taking on the trolls: how to support the Guardian’s women’s football coverage"

Personally, I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) to see so many on this thread criticising the quality of the women's game and the coverage it receives, without any trace of irony. Most of us have watched dreadful County games over the years and still found elements to enjoy. Most of us have also said at some time or another that the lower- and non-leagues deserve better coverage. Just because a product isn't perfect, it doesn't mean people can't enjoy it or that it shouldn't have the chance to reach a wider audience.

Some of the women's Euros games have been entertaining, some have been duffers. That's true of any tournament. But those of us who are happy to watch it have been well-served, and those who don't are free to switch over and watch something else. And anything that helps normalise the participation of girls and young women in sport can only be a good thing when rates of involvement are so much lower than they are for men and boys.

Kairdiff Exile wrote: July 20th, 2022, 12:28 pm A nice excerpt from a longer piece in today's Guardian about covering the women's Euros:

Men’s football did not become the global beast it is today without good press coverage telling fans across the world the scores, results and team news. The media were integral to its rise, and the relationship between football and the media is mutually beneficial.

Why should we help to grow women’s football? Whenever the coverage of women’s football ramps up, so do the comments from trolls online. We are repeatedly told to “stop ramming it down people’s throats”. For some reason this minority are happy to switch over or turn the page if they are not interested in rugby, or cricket, or any other sport that benefits from national coverage, but coverage of women’s football appears to be a step too far.

These attitudes speak to a deeper ingrained misogyny towards women and their involvement in sport. The close to 50-year ban on women’s football in 1921 and the campaigning by the Football Association at that time to discredit a game that was attracting tens of thousands of fans, helped to sow the seeds (as did wider attitudes towards women in society) of the views we see and hear of today.

Sport, and football, is a very powerful thing. Just as the FA had the power to crush the women’s game, it also has the authority and tools to lift it up again. The investment into the women’s national team and the women’s domestic leagues has been part of the campaign to reverse the effects of that ban. Newspapers played their part, too. In 1921 when the ban was introduced and in 1970 when it was lifted, editorials and columnists parroted the FA line and opined on the unsuitability of women’s football. Few, if any, challenged the narrative.

Full article: "Taking on the trolls: how to support the Guardian’s women’s football coverage"

Personally, I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) to see so many on this thread criticising the quality of the women's game and the coverage it receives, without any trace of irony. Most of us have watched dreadful County games over the years and still found elements to enjoy. Most of us have also said at some time or another that the lower- and non-leagues deserve better coverage. Just because a product isn't perfect, it doesn't mean people can't enjoy it or that it shouldn't have the chance to reach a wider audience.

Some of the women's Euros games have been entertaining, some have been duffers. That's true of any tournament. But those of us who are happy to watch it have been well-served, and those who don't are free to switch over and watch something else. And anything that helps normalise the participation of girls and young women in sport can only be a good thing when rates of involvement are so much lower than they are for men and boys.

But surely the 'Guardian' are missing the point?! [‘whoosh’] and feeding the so called 'trolls' (*some* are trolls but the vast majority are honest, decent, measured and realistic football fans like me) - picture an edgy comedian 'the reason I don't like women's football isn’t because its poorer quality than the men’s game, isn’t that great a spectacle, doesn’t ignite the same passion and women’s international teams being whipped 10:0 by an under 15 boys team, no no [theatrically hangs head in mock shame]...its because I'm a rank misogynist' people would laugh because its true! And the people the guardian are criticizing, presumably [mainly] male football fans of men’s teams are already massively cross subsiding the loss-making women’s game spending money on football as fans of men’s clubs!

Added to that males are de facto banned from [at elite level] women only sports like Netball and synchronized swimming and there is no call for them to be included in fact they are BARRED [https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/oly ... 70436.html]… fact is its rank double standards and there isn’t any money nor much cachet in those sports but *some* campaigners/feminists want ‘in’ on the riches of football now its fashionable and making billions and expect men’s football and its fans to pay for all that and brand them 'misogynists' if they object – muck off and start your own league! And don’t tell me I HAVE to like women’s football and that I’m a ‘misogynist’ thanks because I don’t and I’m not [a ‘misogynist’].

Put simply and perhaps more calmly people who don’t like women’s football or at least those like me who are indifferent to it are not ‘misogynists’ [a complete misuse and re definition of a now meaningless word] they just don’t like women’s football and are [yes] fed up with having it ‘rammed down our throats’ – its not rubbish per se it’s just not that good bit like say Gwent league football [poor old Albion Rovers don't get 10,000 watching them nor the backing of the Guardian] – the so called ‘ban’ (not a ‘ban’ just a ban on women’s teams using FA sanctioned venues – a pain yes but they could have used non FA venues like rugby grounds and in any case that ended 50 years ago – it’s a bit of a poor and frankly hackneyed excuse now).

To address ‘rates of involvement are so much lower than they are for men and boys’ well do we have campaigns trying to get men into [female dominated pursuits] like crafting or the WI? Nope…why?! See above – because football is seen as a pathway to riches and feminists want women to have a slice of the cash even if it’s earned off the backs of the men’s game…that is why. It’s not [mainly] women attending games, buying merchandise, sponsoring shirts/clubs, coaching, volunteering, playing week in week out at indoor leagues, uni leagues, Sunday leagues, subscribing to TV channels, etc no its 70-80% + men who have built this game and even allowing for the so called ‘ban’ which was 50 years ago anyway, its still men who drive the game of football and no shame in that as nothing wrong with a) being male b) a safe space for men c) men driving and ’owning’ the game if it is they who put in the graft [ditto women with say netball although imagine the uproar among feminists if netball was being compelled to be 50/50 gender wise and to cross subsidise a much poorer male version and if it didn’t or people spoke up they were accused of being anti-male – no somehow it’d still be men’s fault for ‘muscling in on a safe space for women’!].

Women's football just like [say] men's Glasgow and district football league division D is just a bit crap when compared to the men's elite game (down to at least men's regional) and its not sexist to say it is it’s just FACT - OK so we could just ignore it but its a lose/lose because if we do that we're still 'misogynists' so tbh my view is 'muck em' to the Guardian, et al I'll [respectfully and never abusively] say what I like about women's football as to do otherwise would be both patronizing and sexist towards women if nothing else - they don't want or need pats on the head.

15 mins gone...... Referee is DIRE

mad norm wrote: July 20th, 2022, 8:17 pm 15 mins gone...... Referee is DIRE

Now now less of the “misogyny”

Stop talking boll..... Oh hang on

To clarify women's football or other sports don’t get hate just for existing it's an afterthought. They get hate when they try to act like it's “misogyny” that less people watch it, or that they're equal to men, or that they're held back because of poor support, or that they deserve the same money as men receive and it's sexism they don't get that. That's when people hate it.

It's not that "They're not quiet there yet", they're never going to be there. It's simple biology. They won't ever be able to stand on the same footing as men's football. So unless science is sexist, they need to acknowledge things will be different and demanding more/equal money, interest & coverage is just demanding for special treatment and induces the criticism and mockery.

A simple analogy - Dom Telford is a good footballer in his own right and no doubt [will] pull in a few grand a week and some column inches and online coverage, he probably has a modest boot deal and some minor endorsements BUT he’d be laughed all the way back to Bury if he demanded the same pay/coverage/sponsorship as Harry Kane and wouldn’t boo hoo or stamp his feet about it he’s simply not as objectively good as Kane and would be grown up enough to acknowledge that. For women’s football to progress it needs to move on from bleating about the “ban” which ended over 5 decades ago (!) and how much alleged “misogyny” it faces.

mad norm wrote: July 20th, 2022, 8:17 pm 15 mins gone...... Referee is DIRE

Absorbing game though, Norm. Two very different sides in terms of ethos and setup, chances at both ends. Spain edging it, but I wouldn’t want to call it.