Gay footballers...

[horsefly 4,287]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

Probably a bit more useful than "Marcus Rashford was raised by a single parent so the idea that children are better served by two parent families is bunkum".

And where did I say that? At least be honest in your response, it is totally disrespectful to make up a quote like this. I made the very obvious point that to claim two good parents will always logically be better than one good parent in terms of "results" is clearly a false claim. The reference to Marcus Rashford provides a very clear example of why that is false. Your analogy is not useful in the slightest as it presents not the slightest evidence in support of your claims. It is an analogy, nothing more, and not a remotely illuminating analogy when applied to this context.

Nothing I have said denies that being a single parent presents difficulties that make child upbringing harder in certain circumstances, especially, as is often the case, if it is complicated by issues of poverty etc. One parent families are often caused by the behaviour of feckless and violent fathers, and the child concerned is far better served by the removal of that individual. The idea that we can create a society in which all children can be guaranteed to be brought up in loving and dedicated two parent families is an absurd utopian fantasy that defies even the most superficial consideration of the history of the nuclear family. Thus it would be far more useful to think of ways in which single parent families can be helped to succeed rather than stigmatised as not conforming to some loving two-parent utopian fantasy. A child brought up in a loving, stable two parent environment is indeed provided with many advantages, but given the glaringly obvious social reality that confronts us (I suggest you take a look at the figures for domestic violence) that will not account for the circumstances of many children. So why not act to improve the support of such children rather than condemn them.

[Argos 18]

It's sad that no pro footballer in England has come out yet, there are obviously plenty and I'm sure within clubs players are open about their personal lives. It's clearly a fan issue and I understand why nobody has opened themselves up for the abuse they would inevitably receive. 

Hopefully things are changing and it won't be too long before some players decide to come out, because representation is very important and (men's) football is one of the few high profile areas with zero LGBTQ+ representation. I would like to think if a city player came out they would receive overwhelming support from our community. It would be something to be proud of as a club in my opinion. 

I don't know much about it but the club do seem to be really supportive of the Proud Canaries and I remember the Justin Fashanu banner that was unfurled a couple of seasons ago, that was brilliant.

[canarydan23 4,060]

51 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So why not act to improve the support of such children rather than condemn them

See, this is the problem with modern day discourse. I offered nothing condemnatory toward single parents, yet it was interpreted thus.

Edited July 22, 2021 by canarydan23

[Badger 2,405]

3 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Meanwhile gays are over represented in acting, the arts and ballet.

Any statistics or evidence for this ... or just blind prejudice?

[chicken 2,604]

4 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Chicken nobody is judging single parents, many of whom do heroic jobs in raising kids. The argument is that children nevertheless do better with both parents - as statistics prove (there will always be exceptions to the rule) ergo marriage is a positive thing for society and ought to be encouraged. We can’t shy away from facts just in case they hurt feelings in any quest for truth 

Statistics don't prove - especially not the ones you are using. And it's all a big distraction from your, quite frankly, startling views that directly contrast from those of our human rights of freedom of expression.

You haven't shared facts. You have shared a US centric religious based 'soup' of statistics, many of which are not referenced, ALL of which are not even drawn from the same source. The result is literal propaganda which you accuse Pride of being.

You don't know what facts are - at least not judging on this post and the many others you have posted recently.

As I said, go find some actual research and some actual findings. At the moment you have a very poorly thought out argument. You need to go away and seriously consider what it is you want to say and then find some reliable sources to evidence it rather than accuse other people of only looking at "lefty sources".

I work in these realms. I look at all of the sources - especially those the government tell me to look at. That's both national and local. And neither, if you have noticed, are "lefty".

No consideration or acceptance that attachment has anything to do with it.
No consideration that socio economic situation has anything to do with it.
No acceptance that the stats you are using are utterly woeful and the blog, at best, is an unreliable opinion piece and nothing more.

[canarydan23 4,060]

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

Any statistics or evidence for this ... or just blind prejudice?

I hate to align myself with the likes of Dean Coneys boots, but do you really think there is anything controversial or incorrect in saying that the proportion of gay men in ballet, acting and the arts is higher than society in general?

[chicken 2,604]

10 minutes ago, Badger said:

Any statistics or evidence for this ... or just blind prejudice?

Just blind prejudice like every other post of his in this thread. Anyone that doesn't agree with him gets told to stop reading "lefty sources" whilst he refers to a US conservative Christian blog as "facts".

[chicken 2,604]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

I hate to align myself with the likes of Dean Coneys boots, but do you really think there is anything controversial or incorrect in saying that the proportion of gay men in ballet, acting and the arts is higher than society in general?

Yes, without anything to back it up, it is stereotyping. I mean, why would you even say that? How is that even an argument about anything?

[1902 1,167]

4 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Chicken nobody is judging single parents, many of whom do heroic jobs in raising kids. The argument is that children nevertheless do better with both parents - as statistics prove (there will always be exceptions to the rule) ergo marriage is a positive thing for society and ought to be encouraged. We can’t shy away from facts just in case they hurt feelings in any quest for truth 

"Ergo marriage is a positive thing for society and ought to be encouraged."

If this proves anything at all,  it simply proves that kids brought up in stable 2 patent households do better than those who live in other situations, as you stated.

The reasons for this could be thousandfold,  from the ability of the parents to compromise, therefore being more empathetic,  to the financial advantages that come from having two incomes, to children from one parent families facing stigma, to kids with single parents being more likely to to have a blue painted room than a green one,  and this effects educational outcomes.  None of the reasons I have listed before are anymore based on fact than your assertion that marriage is the reason for better outcomes.

 

[chicken 2,604]

9 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Very few researchers have studied single people at all, so there are very few sources. Your other main one would be Elyakim Kislev. To a lesser extent Joan DelFattore (who mainly looks at singles discrimination from a medical perspective) and Wendy Morris would also be in there re. stigmas. Paul Dolan also looks at it somewhat too, and he has the benefit of being in the UK.

Problem is, there's not the same interest in the singles yet. So what you get is biased stuff against them.

On the other hand, you'll find plenty of institutions, generously funded, pushing marriage over everything. And they use the flawed methodologies I have consistently pointed out, showing why there are issues with taking them at face value.

If you look into attachment, then you find that there are related studies but still not great ones.

For example the early studies were by Bowlby and were exploring the theory that it was a poor attachment between baby and mother that led to juvenile delinquency. As time has moved on, it was rightly criticised as it only considered that attachment - which was not unusual. After all, even when I was growing up, I would hear people saying that mothers are more important to children than fathers.

I have worked with children and young people of all backgrounds. I can tell you the most common factor in terms of where things can go wrong is identity and self esteem. That isn't anything to do with how many parents are or are not in their household - its about their belief in or ability to visualise a positive future.

Just to give you a very, very, very basic concept. The first three years of a child's life are the most important. Babies and toddlers absorb so many things in that time that are not taught, but mimicked. Emotional regulation, social interaction, reassurance. That's not to say it cannot be done at a later point, but it becomes harder. I have seen it done, not just through my own work but through others too.

The problem many of them face is the recovery from the trauma. If neglected/abused or not invested in within those first three years, they are often playing catch up, and if no one helps them they fall behind until they are left behind altogether. Their education is impacted meaning they don't obtain grades.

It isn't anything to do with an absent parent, some have two parents, some have no parents. It's to do with time. Someone, anyone, showing them how to express themselves, to regulate effectively and to integrate effectively with society. If that isn't addressed in time, then you end up with young people incarcerated.

In many cases it's a cycle, parents who are repeating the poor parenting skills that their parents have passed to them and so on.

Again, the common denominator is not how many parents are or are not in the home.

And why is it arguably happening more than perhaps historically? I can only offer opinion and it isn't one I can ever find any research to back it up, but I believe it has more to do with family network.

So many of the families I have worked with are isolated. Like I said before, in a cycle, and powerless to stop it. In the past, family networks were closer and tighter. Grandparents often helped to look after their grandkids, they often lived under the same roof or at least in very close proximity. Having several generations within a street or two of each other was commonplace. People didn't travel far.

I have worked with families where both parents struggle due to lack of support from anyone else. Their stresses and strains from the pressure of work, running a household don't have the space or time to be expressed creating further stress and frustration. Something as simple as an evening a week with a babysitter to give them a break, or a bit of help around the house to take the slack, can be huge.

I went to a place once and did the washing up and cleaned the kitchen just so the mum could have a bit more one to one time with her kid. Important, vital one to one time with an under three.

It's not about single parents. It's about looking out for each other, looking after each other. And rather than spending energy trying to find a scapegoat, focusing that energy on something all together more positive. It's the result of our society - "it's a problem, by not my problem. Someone else will sort it out."

As hard as it may be for some people to hear it, the truth is the further right you go on the political spectrum, the more you find politicians and the people that follow them, will blame people being penniless on them. It's "their fault they have to use a food bank, they should budget their money better!", "Crime is down to fatherless children, if they had dads, they'd have done fine!" - the latter is usually also used in connection with race, usually young black men - in the UK at least.

One thing I really don't understand is that ever since I was in single digits in age, Norwich has been a "family club" prided on looking out for our own fans like they were family. That is then extended to the players too. It continues to baffle me that people can support xenophobic attitudes whilst applauding our team which over the last four years has been mainly made up of nationalities that people have been criticising. Then this booing of taking the knee and now people suggesting that there is no space for the expression of Pride.

It simply doesn't fit with the ethos and spirit of our club... how can you even consider yourself to be a fan of the club if you don't identify with it's spiritual and cultural identity? How can you believe, after at least 30+ years that LGBTQ+ people should just shut up and put up? 

[Yobocop 1,096]

4 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Thank you for informing me about the date - there was me thinking it was next year. 
 

And I disagree - I was merely pointing out that even some gay people are fed up with the whole media rainbow agenda- which highlights the earlier point I made that one can support gay rights without delighting in woke politics of self identity  

Disagree all you want. That’s how it read 

If nothing else the OPs original point has highlighted the need for the football season to start immediately so we can stop talking about gay footballers, single mums and ‘woke politics’ (whatever that is) 

[horsefly 4,287]

5 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

See, this is the problem with modern day discourse. I offered nothing condemnatory toward single parents, yet it was interpreted thus.

How interesting that you should read this sentence in the way you have. There are several meanings of the word "condemn" as this dictionary definition records:

"condemn

[kənˈdɛm]

VERB

1. express complete disapproval of; censure.

   "most leaders roundly condemned the attack" · 

   [More]

   synonyms:

   censure · criticize · castigate · attack · denounce · deplore · decry · revile · 

   [More]
2. sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death.

   "the rebels had been condemned to death"

   synonyms:

   sentence · pass sentence on · convict · find guilty

   • (of circumstances) force (someone) to endure or accept something unpleasant.
     "the physical ailments that condemned him to a lonely childhood"
     synonyms:

     doom · destine · damn · foredoom · foreordain · mark someone out for · consign · assign · predoom
   • prove or show to be guilty or unsatisfactory.
     "she could see in his eyes that her stumble had condemned her"
     synonyms:

     incriminate · prove to be guilty · prove one's guilt · implicate · inculpate"

      

     Given the context of what I said it ought to have been fairly clear that I was using it in the sense highlighted above "(of circumstances) force (someone) to endure or accept something unpleasant." I.e. I agreed that a child reared in a loving two-parent family experienced certain advantages over a child reared in a single-parent context, where that was often complicated by issues such as poverty etc. Thus, I suggested that, given the social reality that the "loving, supportive, two-parent family" represented an utopian fantasy that would never be realised for all children, we might instead focus on supporting children from single-parent families much better so that they too could be helped to succeed. In other words, support them rather than condemn them to endure the disadvantages they face. Yet again Marcus Rashford's life history provides an excellent example. His extraordinary campaign to ensure all children recieved at least one decent meal a day was motivated by his memories as a child of experiencing hunger despite his mother's heroic efforts to provide for the family.

      

     So it really ought to have been obvious that I was not suggesting you were condemning such families in the pejorative (moral) sense. I take you for your word when you said clearly that you didn't want to do that in your post. Perhaps you might want to return to me the courtesy of acknowledging the quote you used ("Marcus Rashford was raised by a single parent so the idea that children are better served by two parent families is bunkum") was NOT said by me but made up by you. That's the problem with a lot of modern day discourse, people are so desperate to misinterpret what another person said that they even go to the lengths of making up quotes that bear no resemblance to what the other person said.

[horsefly 4,287]

5 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I hate to align myself with the likes of Dean Coneys boots, but do you really think there is anything controversial or incorrect in saying that the proportion of gay men in ballet, acting and the arts is higher than society in general?

Except that you have used the phrase "...the proportion of gay men in ballet, acting and the arts is higher than society in general". DCB used the phrase, "Meanwhile gays are over represented in acting, the arts and ballet". I have no problem at all with your conjecture that there are "higher" numbers of gay men working in these areas compared with some other areas of work because the word "higher" here carries no pejorative connotation. However, the phrase DCB used is "over represented" which clearly does have a pejorative connotation as it suggests that there are more gay men working in these areas than there should be. It also makes the false implication that "gays" (note he doesn't say gay people or gay men and women) "represent" their sexuality in their workplace, whereas presumably the rest of us don't. Even if you don't consider this overt homophobia it is at the very least an example of unthinking homophobia. I think your acceptable reformulation of DCB's words rather disguises this (even if from a noble intention).

[dylanisabaddog 4,874]

20 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

LGBT or any other persuasion as long as they play well, I would not care  

A couple of years ago a Rugby League player revealed he was gay. The BBC went to the home game that day and picked a supporter who they thought would give them the reaction they wanted. The supporter said that he hadn't heard anything about the player and the BBC told him the news. Thank God for that, said the fan, I thought you were going to say he was injured. 

That really sums up the current situation. A huge majority really doesn't care. The minority that still remains is so stupid and twisted that no one will change their mind. 

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

7 hours ago, chicken said:

Yes, without anything to back it up, it is stereotyping. I mean, why would you even say that? How is that even an argument about anything?

Plenty of evidence. Professional dance is reckoned to be 60% gay men. Here is an article to read 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dancemagazine.com/amp/gay_men__dance-2306861099

[chicken 2,604]

16 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Plenty of evidence. Professional dance is reckoned to be 60% gay men. Here is an article to read 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dancemagazine.com/amp/gay_men__dance-2306861099

136 people is an incredibly small sample. And it's not 60% is it? Nor is it even claimed to be accurate - hence that last sentence which suggests they are working with tolerances of 10% accuracy... it's also old... 1997!! 24years ago. And it would appear to be US based - again. We're not talking about a situation in the US. The OP is talking about the UK.

In either case, just another throw away and deflective comment.

You'd rather not respond to my actual points which is your views are pretty poor, rarely backed up with "facts" as the article here demonstrates. You have an opinion and you desperately try to find something with some sort of statistic you can call a fact. The only fact here is that the article itself doesn't even claim that the survey is accurate or reliable. Again, it isn't in any way reviewed - which is why the writers of the article have gone so far as saying that there are chances that the margin of error is huge.

Edited July 23, 2021 by chicken

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

7 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I hate to align myself with the likes of Dean Coneys boots, but do you really think there is anything controversial or incorrect in saying that the proportion of gay men in ballet, acting and the arts is higher than society in general?

What are “the likes” of me then? I wasn’t aware we have ever met or that you know a single thing about me. 

[horsefly 4,287]

28 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Plenty of evidence. Professional dance is reckoned to be 60% gay men. Here is an article to read 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dancemagazine.com/amp/gay_men__dance-2306861099

The real issue is why you even raised the issue of professional dance in the first place when the discussion is about gay football players. The number or proportion of gay men in danicng professions is entirely irrelevant to the issue of why gay football players do not feel comfortable in coming out. Also, do feel free to explain why you chose the pejorative phrase "Meanwhile gays are over represented in acting, the arts and ballet". 

[horsefly 4,287]

24 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

What are “the likes” of me then? I wasn’t aware we have ever met or that you know a single thing about me. 

Are you suggesting he shouldn't make some assumptions about you based on what you write in your posts? It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do when the evidence justifies it. If people read my posts I'm sure (among other less polite things) they would label me as a centre-left liberal progressive, and they would be right to do so given the evidence. You certainly don't seem too reticent to label others in regard to their posts. CD23 was actually trying to support you here so I wouldn't get quite so uppity about him in the circumstances.

[Midlands Yellow 3,942]

19 minutes ago, horsefly said:

The real issue is why you even raised the issue of professional dance in the first place when the discussion is about gay football players. The number or proportion of gay men in danicng professions is entirely irrelevant to the issue of why gay football players do not feel comfortable in coming out. Also, do feel free to explain why you chose the pejorative phrase "Meanwhile gays are over represented in acting, the arts and ballet". 

Hairdressing and Air cabin crew too. 

[Captain Holt 520]

Christ alive, some people on this forum need to get over themselves. I come on here to read about football and the topics surrounding it, not your absolutely pointless s h itty echo chamber opinions.

 

[Midlands Yellow 3,942]

2 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

Christ alive, some people on this forum need to get over themselves. I come on here to read about football and the topics surrounding it, not your absolutely pointless s h itty echo chamber opinions.

 

Quite right, some people like the sight of their own writings too much. 

[horsefly 4,287]

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Quite right, some people like the sight of their own writings too much. 

Says the man with 5,391 posts to his name. FFS show a little bit of self awareness.

[horsefly 4,287]

7 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

Christ alive, some people on this forum need to get over themselves. I come on here to read about football and the topics surrounding it, not your absolutely pointless s h itty echo chamber opinions.

 

So why in God's name have you clicked on a thread clearly titled "Gay Footballers" to post a complaint that you don't want to read about such things. Idiot!

[horsefly 4,287]

17 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Hairdressing and Air cabin crew too. 

I've also heard it suggested that bigots are way over-represented by frustrated and sour old white men who can't get it up any more.

[Midlands Yellow 3,942]

8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Says the man with 5,391 posts to his name. FFS show a little bit of self awareness.

Over how long? Your not doing too bad yourself I see on the post count in a short time. The suns out again so let’s not spend all day staring at the message board. 

[horsefly 4,287]

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Over how long? Your not doing too bad yourself I see on the post count in a short time. The suns out again so let’s not spend all day staring at the message board. 

Indeed! Agree on all accounts (although the suns not out where I am and not predicted to be till early evening). The difference, however, is I'm not the one complaining that people have the audacity to post messages on a message board.

[Midlands Yellow 3,942]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Indeed! Agree on all accounts (although the suns not out where I am and not predicted to be till early evening). The difference, however, is I'm not the one complaining that people have the audacity to post messages on a message board.

Wise words, I’ll stop interfering and let you carry on. On a more serious note have a great weekend. 

[horsefly 4,287]

Just now, Midlands Yellow said:

Wise words, I’ll stop interfering and let you carry on. On a more serious note have a great weekend. 

You too!

[Captain Holt 520]

23 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So why in God's name have you clicked on a thread clearly titled "Gay Footballers" to post a complaint that you don't want to read about such things. Idiot!

Because I was looking for a thoughtful discussion on something that is long overdue addressing in football. Every bloody thread on here turns into the same nonsense by the same people. It's the reason I came off twitter and its now ruining this place too. Have a great day shouting between yourselves.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Captain Holt