Joseph Barton

[verreauxi]

An intellectual could argue Bartons points much more eloquently and receive a lot less flack as a consequence of that.

Bartons main argument is that men and women's football is played to different standards therefore punditry on the mens side of the game should be predominantly ex male footballers. That in itself has some validity and shouldn't be seen as out right misogynistic, however the way he delivers that message in an often unsavoury manner makes it easier for the woke extremists to refute everything he argues.

As a commerical photographer I find the whole modern corporation/virtue signalling phenomenon fascinating. If I order a Domino's its because the pizza is nice not because they post witty tweets on social media. People who love FB92 on GOT do so because of his footballing/philosophical wisdom not because of his ravishing good looks.

These young marketing graduates who are gaining employment into these companies are often failing to acknowledge the reality of core business objectives / target audience and fall down the rabbit hole of thinking virtue signalling = £££. Sky Sports for example wont see a surge in new subscriptions from female viewers because they replace a male pundit with a female one on MNF or soccer saturday - if anything they're more likely to rile up a small section of their already subscribed target audience (men).

 

[roydo]

Bartons main argument is that men and women's football is played to different standards therefore punditry on the mens side of the game should be predominantly ex male footballers.

Christ, where to go with this. Laughable.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Christ, where to go with this. Laughable.

Thats his argument and the basis of it is true.

If what he's saying is false, women's football would be bringing in the same level of revenue as the male counterpart. The intensity level of the sport is also much different as are the physical requirements at the highest level.

Now for me where I think Barton is wrong is applying his argument on meritocracy in punditry to solely gender. He should be also highlighting the sheer level of ex Liverpool pundits and jobs for the boys like Jamie Redknapp.

 

[DanB90]

An intellectual could argue Bartons points much more eloquently and receive a lot less flack as a consequence of that.

Bartons main argument is that men and women's football is played to different standards therefore punditry on the mens side of the game should be predominantly ex male footballers. That in itself has some validity and shouldn't be seen as out right misogynistic, however the way he delivers that message in an often unsavoury manner makes it easier for the woke extremists to refute everything he argues.

As a commerical photographer I find the whole modern corporation/virtue signalling phenomenon fascinating. If I order a Domino's its because the pizza is nice not because they post witty tweets on social media. People who love FB92 on GOT do so because of his footballing/philosophical wisdom not because of his ravishing good looks.

These young marketing graduates who are gaining employment into these companies are often failing to acknowledge the reality of core business objectives / target audience and fall down the rabbit hole of thinking virtue signalling = £££. Sky Sports for example wont see a surge in new subscriptions from female viewers because they replace a male pundit with a female one on MNF or soccer saturday - if anything they're more likely to rile up a small section of their already subscribed target audience (men).

Nah the argument sounds just as stupid when you say it tbf.

 

[Efcjake]

Bartons main argument is that men and women's football is played to different standards therefore punditry on the mens side of the game should be predominantly ex male footballers. That in itself has some validity and shouldn't be seen as out right misogynistic

What does the standards of the game have to do with their ability to discuss it?

Is there something inherent about being female that prevents you from being able to commentate on footy at the same standard as a man?

Curious why you think there's some validity to that statement and yet want to claim it's not misogyny.

 

[Yarrgh]

Here we gooooo

It's like a multi car pile up on the motorway to the annual grifters convention.

I cannot do anything but rubber neck.

 

[Kurt.]

I hear it is the new ECT..

Eradicate
C words
Therapeutically

 

[Wizard]

Thats his argument and the basis of it is true.

If what he's saying is false, women's football would be bringing in the same level of revenue as the male counterpart. The intensity level of the sport is also much different as are the physical requirements at the highest level.

Now for me where I think Barton is wrong is applying his argument on meritocracy in punditry to solely gender. He should be also highlighting the sheer level of ex Liverpool pundits and jobs for the boys like Jamie Redknapp.

Good point. I think we should ban all the female posters on here from commenting on any of the threads in the EO apart from the Everton Women’s Team thread. I mean how can they possibly understand the men’s game having never played it? Actually we should just close the EO as none of us have ever played the men’s game professionally and so all of our opinions are invalid.

 

[Wizard]

He’s now on one about the young Spurs fan who was killed on NYE and claiming it was a race crime. I mean he knows all about that sort of thing but this one doesn’t appear to be a race crime at all. Unlike his scumbag brother.

 

[kenada_blue]

An intellectual could argue Bartons points much more eloquently and receive a lot less flack as a consequence of that.

Bartons main argument is that men and women's football is played to different standards therefore punditry on the mens side of the game should be predominantly ex male footballers. That in itself has some validity and shouldn't be seen as out right misogynistic, however the way he delivers that message in an often unsavoury manner makes it easier for the woke extremists to refute everything he argues.

As a commerical photographer I find the whole modern corporation/virtue signalling phenomenon fascinating. If I order a Domino's its because the pizza is nice not because they post witty tweets on social media. People who love FB92 on GOT do so because of his footballing/philosophical wisdom not because of his ravishing good looks.

These young marketing graduates who are gaining employment into these companies are often failing to acknowledge the reality of core business objectives / target audience and fall down the rabbit hole of thinking virtue signalling = £££. Sky Sports for example wont see a surge in new subscriptions from female viewers because they replace a male pundit with a female one on MNF or soccer saturday - if anything they're more likely to rile up a small section of their already subscribed target audience (men).

But both played professionally, with the same rules, in the same sport. Which is more than the armchair viewer.

Surely the only issue is the standard between the men's and women's game?

But that's like Joey Barton saying he was the 'best English midfielder' at one point in his career. Surely he shouldn't make that comment as his standard is nowhere near to Gerrard, Lampard etc

Or not letting a woman have an opinion on mens football in general

 

[Daytripper]

I would be interested to see how he would react if most people showed apathy towards him.

I suspect the timing of his comments offer a glimpse of his motive.

 

[Bristol Blue]

It's like a multi car pile up on the motorway to the annual grifters convention.

I cannot do anything but rubber neck.

Waiting on Ricky lambert and Dave cotterill to pipe up now…. The absolute nut jobs!

 

[Jacob]

An intellectual could argue Bartons points much more eloquently and receive a lot less flack as a consequence of that.

Bartons main argument is that men and women's football is played to different standards therefore punditry on the mens side of the game should be predominantly ex male footballers. That in itself has some validity and shouldn't be seen as out right misogynistic, however the way he delivers that message in an often unsavoury manner makes it easier for the woke extremists to refute everything he argues.

As a commerical photographer I find the whole modern corporation/virtue signalling phenomenon fascinating. If I order a Domino's its because the pizza is nice not because they post witty tweets on social media. People who love FB92 on GOT do so because of his footballing/philosophical wisdom not because of his ravishing good looks.

These young marketing graduates who are gaining employment into these companies are often failing to acknowledge the reality of core business objectives / target audience and fall down the rabbit hole of thinking virtue signalling = £££. Sky Sports for example wont see a surge in new subscriptions from female viewers because they replace a male pundit with a female one on MNF or soccer saturday - if anything they're more likely to rile up a small section of their already subscribed target audience (men).

With the greatest respect, your first para merely repeats the tenor of your last post. People dont have to be intellectual or particularly eloquent to avoid using Barton's aggressive attacking manner. Likewise, I think we all know his main argument without the need for further elaboration. I dont see any relevance to you being a commercial photographer/your fascination with virtue signalling/Dominos Pizza though it would perhaps make a good new series suggestion by Alan Partridge at that BBC lunch. The whole paragraph nay post makes me think you perhaps had a 'good lunch'....I wish I had.

Im sure massive multi million media outlets like Sky -itself in an even bigger media empire- would never employ naive marketing graduates who would commit professional suicide by failing to grasp their raison d'etre and objective for the sake of virtue signalling. Its a bizarre concept....but...well, its a bizarre concept.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

An intellectual could argue Bartons points much more eloquently and receive a lot less flack as a consequence of that.

Bartons main argument is that men and women's football is played to different standards therefore punditry on the mens side of the game should be predominantly ex male footballers. That in itself has some validity and shouldn't be seen as out right misogynistic, however the way he delivers that message in an often unsavoury manner makes it easier for the woke extremists to refute everything he argues.

As a commerical photographer I find the whole modern corporation/virtue signalling phenomenon fascinating. If I order a Domino's its because the pizza is nice not because they post witty tweets on social media. People who love FB92 on GOT do so because of his footballing/philosophical wisdom not because of his ravishing good looks.

These young marketing graduates who are gaining employment into these companies are often failing to acknowledge the reality of core business objectives / target audience and fall down the rabbit hole of thinking virtue signalling = £££. Sky Sports for example wont see a surge in new subscriptions from female viewers because they replace a male pundit with a female one on MNF or soccer saturday - if anything they're more likely to rile up a small section of their already subscribed target audience (men).

You lose this in the first sentence. I strongly doubt an actual intellectual would bother with such nonsense, rashly put or otherwise.

No, this is the preserve of angry idiots and grifting shabbites.

Bad company to keep good sir.

 

[Goat]

To be honest hes got a point, Nigel Farge is a well-educated man and he totally doesnt come off as a Right Wing Bellend.