Billy Madison.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
MacIntyre And Staff To Present Football 101 For Women
- Thread starter RSSBot
- Start date
is there really outrage? its two broads on their periods chirping to some journalist who probably got the job through affirmative action.
The only outrage those women should have is over the masochism in this thread :lol:
I am pretty sure branding those who attend the camp is just going to make the problem worse....
Deleted member 807
Guest
Oooh! Heh heh heh. Let's have a smell, all right? Oh, everyone likes their own brand, don't they?!
I can't. No. Why is that insulting? It's a class designed to teach women some of the finer details of the game of football with the purpose of helping them be better, more informed fans. Why is it insulting to name a class "for women", when it's designed for women? The people who are insulted by it aren't people who would care about the game in the first place, so why are they wasting their time being insulted?
If there was a class labeled: "needlepoint for men". I wouldn't be offended. I simply wouldn't take the class. I also wouldn't feel the need to tell anybody how condecending it was to name the class "for men".
This is the real question. I'm not convinced there is any real outrage here. I'm more pissed at the author for trying to make an issue where none exists. Sloppy, irresponsible journalism, IMO.
Par for course in local papers, IMO.
It's the combination of "women" and "101" that's insulting.
I know that in your mind things aren't inherently insulting, instead that the responsibilty to be insulted or not lies soley with the receiver.
However, the goal of this class is, as I understand it, to engage an underrepresented demographic. The assumption revealed by the name is that women need to start with the very basics, thus the "101". That assumption isn't true, which is why I understand why some might find it insulting.
But the article begins:
See what I did there? Your critical analysis of journalism is oddly selective.
One of the things that was worst about the article was that it was another example of the BDC headline writer striking again. Some CU alums were not irked at the "clinic", they were irked at the "name of the clinic".
I would have been supportive of the article if the tone had been: CU holding a football camp for its women's fans that gives them an opportunity to learn in depth about football formations and schemes, run the drills the players do, interact with the coaching staff, and network with other women fans. Only $50 to attend with proceeds going to support the program.
But, come on CU, can we please change the name of this camp? It's antiquated language that comes off as demeaning, doesn't represent the actual content of this camp, and - contrary to the intent of having this event - rubs a number of CU fans the wrong way. You're badly missing the mark on this one.
I guess when I was in school I didn't know enough to be insulted when I had to take English 101.....
How about if CU renames it: "Football instruction for fans of various genders, orientations, creeds, colors, religions and abilities, with a focus on human dignity and inclusiveness for all sports fans, regardless of experiential knowledge of the game." They could open the program by singing Kum-By-Ya accompanied by a drum circle.
How about if CU renames it: "Football instruction for fans of various genders, orientations, creeds, colors, religions and abilities, with a focus on human dignity and inclusiveness for all sports fans, regardless of experiential knowledge of the game." They could open the program by singing Kum-By-Ya accompanied by a drum circle.
Last edited:
What if there had been a class called English 101 for Hispanics?
I would not have qualified.
I don't believe the name is descriptive is the problem. I think the camp/class is a fantastic idea, but my impression is that it is designed to create an enviroment that is uniquely supportive of women and perpetuate interest in the sport at all levels of understanding. I didn't say anybyody "should" get offended. I believe that I indicated that it's not a surpise that somebody did.
It's a poor name--I wish they had gone a different direction with it.
But your English 101 class actually was a 101 level course. It's what you required. There's no insult in that. However, if you were accomplished in English already, but somebody assumed you belonged in a 101 level course, you might reasonably be insulted.
But I'm pretty sure you already knew that--I think you're intentionally missing the point here.
To who? The women who chose to go at their own free will? What was it for them? Are they just slaves to the sexist idology of the men in their lifes and they can not make a free will decision?
There is not one word in there that is inherentaly sexist nor demeaning to women. Nor is the grouping of such words. The outrage comes as a matter of convience. The person who wrote the article never chose to add voices from the women who attended the program and what what positive thoughts they might have had. Then used those quotes to further question the people that were interviewed for the article.
I will submit that the women who chose to attend this event, no matter it's name, are quite capable of judging for themselves what is really sexist. Furthermore, they sure as hell don't need some businesswomen sitting in their offices a thousand or two miles away telling them in a back handed way that they are slaves to some some sexist idology. Nor some internet posters saying that an event they chose to go to was insulting to women by its very name. These women are smarter than that and I would bet... know damn well its intent and aim and took the name for nothing more than it is. A name. Nothing was intended nor implied by it. It's just a name for a program.
People are way too afraid of words. If I may quote another user.
I had a really good joke for this but forgot. I blame dinner.
I already suggested one. Brittany Anas could moderate the post program roundtable. They could serve shwarma afterwards and have a free yoga session.
Do you really believe that this is a camp that is exclusively designed for people who don't know the first thing about football, and also happen to be women? Because your post only makes sense in that context, and then, only barely.
If this is part of an integrated marketing outreach plan (aimed at all women), wouldn't it be prudent to not assume they are ****ing stupid on the topic of football? And if a female was actually literate in the sport, wouldn't it be a teeny bit insulting to her to assume she wasn't?
Football for Floosies
Mocking would be more relevant if your comparison was somehow apt, no? At least that's how I understand the concept.
I considered myself quite literate upon entry to University, but still it was suggested to me to take English 101, so yes, I think the comparison is apt. This whole thread is silly, just as the "controversy" around the name of the program. So, I reserve the right to hang around and get a good chuckle or two watching everyone get their panties in a wad about it.
I don't know how many panties are wadded--mine certainly aren't, either figuratively or literally. But I do feel some folks are working really, really hard to not see why some women might feel as though they've been stereoyped. And I also feel as though those same women who might be offended are the last ones the AD should be offending.
Poor marketing, is my opinion.
opcorn:
Exactly. The 101 descriptor is a stroke of brilliance. It does a great service. The football savvy woman can skip the 101 class, and wait for 102, or even 201, as the case may be. Surely there is some waiver one can get to not have to sit through 101 as a pre-req.