Disagree quite a bit with the critisism of Souness. A total exaggeration of what he said. He basically implied that he like the game of football to be a hard/tough game. He`s allowed to do that. You may not agree with him, but he is allowed to have that opinion. That he said "it`s a man`s game". Big deal. No one bat an eyelid when people talked about the "women`s game" during the summer. And even if it was "wrong", must everything create offense? It would never happen the other way around. I just think it`s very tabloid to make a big deal out of it.
Also hate the phrase "Toxic masculinity" like that`s something specific for men. Why is masculinity negative? It can be good. Why is the narrative now that "sensitivity" among men is the ideal? Not that it`s bad, but why does it have to apply to all men? Isn`t it a good thing that people can be different? Maybe it for a long time was so much of a stereotype that boys needed to be tough, that sensitivity was portayed as a weakness. But at the same time now, why can`t some people accept the "old-school" boy? Why is toughness suddenly almost portrayed as a negative(something that can`t be accepted) and sensitivity talked up all the time? Also, when do we ever hear "toxic femininity"? There`s so much talk now of white, middle age men being the ones in "power", that boys/men as a group are talked down all the time. How many are actually in power? The 5% elite?There are a lot of white, middle age men who aren`t privileged at all. Boys lose out in the education system. More men are in prison than women, more people are homeless, more men commit suicide. The list is long. When it comes to mental health- no, you don`t always have to be "tough", and live up to the cliche of what`s masculine, but if you are, why is that presented as something negative? For instance, sometimes it`s a good thing to do what the phrase "to man up" implies. Not always, but sometimes. Personally, there have been times when I`ve been down, where that hasn`t been what I`d want or need to hear. Other times, I`ve absolutely "needed" to hear it. Sometimes it’s useful to grow some balls.Usually in life, balance is key. Extremes, in my opinion, aren`t usually great, if it`s extreme macho behaviour or extreme sensitivity.
It seems to me that it`s ok to present Souness as a dinosaur, a middleage, white man whose opions are outdated. God forbid, "toxic masculinity". You`re very quick to throw shit in that direction. Why isn`t that offensive? Because Souness has money? Is in a position of power?It can`t be hurtful to hear that your opion doesn`t count because you`re privileged anyway? You`re old. Opinions outdated. You must be a sensitive, "progressive" male/female/nonbinary in your twenties/thirties to have opinons that are worthy and correct? Preferably on the left?
Also, Josh Sexton-referring to that type of talk as something that «sets back so many things»From which perspective? It implies that your perspective is the right one. Maybe it’s a setback in society that everyone is offended by absolutely everything. Maybe that’s the real setback. Maybe it’s a setback that sometimes people go too soft in certain situastions.We have a generation where a lot(not everybody) of footballers are the most self-centered, narcissistic, probably spoilt people I can think of(Pogba as an example). To say that the likes of Souness and Keane represents a type of character that isn’t moving with the times-well, maybe there’s a need for those people as well. On a side note, more than ever it seems to me that we live in a time where the environment is supposed to adapt to the individual and not the other way around. By that, I don’t mean that you shouldn’t care about what you do around individuals, but individuality has probably never been stronger than it is now.
And no, Adam Smith- I don`t think it`s as simple as "being willing to learn" if you disagree with something. In many arguments that’s such a condescending expression when I hear it in debates.«Are you willing to learn?» Just because a person is offended doesn`t mean he or she is in the right in every situation. "Being willing to learn" implies that it`s the one part who is definitely in the right(those who are going to "teach" others) and the other is in the wrong. Where`s the tolerance in that? "I`m right, listen to me. «Learn from me». If not, you`re a bellend". Wow, tolerance. Tolerance is not to agree with someone who already has the same opinion as you. Tolerance is to accept that people have another opinion than you. Doesn`t mean that you have to agree with them. That works both ways. While I think it`s obvious that some people are intolerant, I also think that some of those who seem to look at themselves as speakers for tolerance are sone of the less tolerant people there are(well, they are tolerant when people agree with them. If you have the RIGHt opinion.If not, if someone has another perspective they call them names and label them).
I`m not saying that can`t be the case, but when is that the case every time someone is offended? Maybe some times those who are offended are in the wrong and need to get a grip of the "importance" of what they`re offended about. Sometimes it`s just narcissism. I don`t think it is as simple as- someone is offended- bow down to them and change. Forcing opinions on people is never a good idea. If the argument is good enough however, people may change their opinion.
I understand where you are coming from with this and think there are some very well made points. I think also there are some things where we may have to agree to disagree.
In your first paragraph you speak of the contrast between "it's a man's game" vs "the women's game" and how you feel that there is an imbalance/double standard. I believe that it differs in that over summer there was a specific tournament being discussed and there are differences between men's game and women's game, as there is with tennis for example - a sport that is also discussed in those terms.
The language used was not being used in an exclusionary manner but simply to refer to the "version of the game".
On the other hand, "it's a man's game" is exclusionary language and speaks to the era where women were banned from playing football, and more recently an era where the head of FIFA said that the best way to push the women's game was with shorter shorts and tighter tops. It is an old fashioned and negative use of the language which leaves people out rather than bring them in to it.
He is a highly experienced commentator and should be held to account in terms of being clear with what he says - Souness, I doubt, is a raging misogynist or anything like that but he should also be keeping himself up to date on current social and cultural movements (or at least the team at Sky should) just to be careful.
If he had made the point that it is a contact sport, or that to play the game requires a certain toughness then I think he would have been fine. I say this knowing that some may find it offensive, but what he has done there with his language is not too dissimilar to Martin Tyler's comments which linked Hillsborough and hooligans. Both have been in the game long enough to know better and, whilst Tyler's comments are hugely damaging to our city and our club - especially with the public perception and the way the media has turned many people against the struggle for justice - and should be treated with the same seriousness, I can see how Souness' comments could also cause hurt to people who have been marginalised and kept out of the game (not just playing it, but think about how terrace culture has historically put women off attending the game).
A change in how society uses language - and it feels like the recent raft of changes has hit very suddenly - can be quite intimidating, especially because (as you say) it is implied, or on SM not even implied but expressly written, that if you don't immediately jump to attention and get up to date then you are a bad person, someone to be castigated.
There needs to be understanding on both sides but I do think that the feeling of "everyone is offended by absolutely everything" is a sign of society trying to be less self focused and more considerate of how what we say and how we say it impacts people. There are definitely some who take it too far but overall I think more awareness isn't a bad thing.
In terms of "being willing to learn" I agree that this is quite a condescending phrase and doesn't consider the efforts made by the person it is directed at. Also, as you say, it does imply that the person saying it is 100% right and must be followed. I would argue for encouraging people to try and see both sides - rather than the polarised approach that often occurs, how about we stop, think, challenge our own beliefs, and understand where others are coming from so that even if you can't agree you can appreciate each other's views better.
Finally, regarding toughness and toxic masculinity - what kind of toughness are we talking about? Tough as in resilient? Or tough as in "hard"? Because as far as I can see no one is challenging or fighting against the idea of resilience - and arguably a bit more sensitivity and balance can help improve peoples inner strength.
Being "hard" and "toxic masculinity" go together as that kind of toughness was about asserting dominance (over men and women) and is something our culture can do without. It isn't about improving or empowering yourself but about disempowering others and walking all over others.
Where there world can do better is in recognising the intent behind what people have to say and not tarring and feathering anyone who doesn't conform 100%. I think then it would also like result in people who, like yourself, feel push aside and devalued, not being left in the cold or excluded from society but rather included and treated equally.
