[Days of Broken Arrows]

Yesterday, Oct. 7, 2014, Men's Health ran a short article on how women don't like sports the same way men do. It basically said that men enjoy statistics while women prefer sports with storylines instead.

The article, titled “The Secret to Talking Sports with Any Woman,” was barely 100 words, but caused a lot of backlash. So they deleted it from their Web site and behaved more like scared children than journalists.

Fishbowl New York reported on it, and it seems like another case of media buckling under to feminist pressure.

Because I don't believe in erasing history, I copied out the article from the Google cache file and posted it below. But first, I'd like for you all to see an image one of the feminists who did the complaining. Below is the Tweet sent out by Megan Greenwell, a senior editor for ESPN magazine. The next time you turn on ESPN, think about this obnoxious open-mouthed pic (what is it with women and these open-mouth photos?). And think about what would have happened to a man had he Tweeted the male equivalent of this:

   

Below is the article. The fact that it's so short and seemingly inoffensive should make us think about the degree to which feminists are controlling the discourse in our mainstream media.

But only to a degree, because people searching for it can now see it here. When publications want to erase history, I like to think that at the RVF, we make sure that can't be done.

   

[alexdagr81]

I thought according to SJWs having a vagina doesn't mean you are a woman.

[Renzy]

(10-08-2014 08:17 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

When publications want to erase history, I like to think that at the RVF, we make sure that can't be done.

These days you could probably create an entire sub-forum containing nothing but articles that got pulled because feminists found it offensive.

Back in 2006, Forbes had to pull an article titled Don't Marry Career Women.

Ironically most of the article itself was merely reporting what had been found in various scientific research journals studying the effects of women's careers on marriages. Never the less, it got pulled and a rebuttal was put in its place wherein the author (a woman) argued that not only was the original article offensive, it couldn't possibly be true because it conflicted with *her experience* as a married career woman (behold female solipsism).

[Basil Ransom]

Senior editor for ESPN? She must be one of those high functioning down syndrome cases you hear about.

[lskdfjldsf]

It looks like her parents locked her in a car in the summer with the windows rolled up.

[samsamsam]

Yes, we see it in the pic.

[tomtud]

F the feminists. Boo bad if they dint like it. They don't buy the magazine......in fact men should boycott that magazine and make them lose $$$$ for being stupid.

[samsamsam]

(10-08-2014 08:49 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 08:17 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

When publications want to erase history, I like to think that at the RVF, we make sure that can't be done.

These days you could probably create an entire sub-forum containing nothing but articles that got pulled because feminists found it offensive.

Back in 2006, Forbes had to pull an article titled Don't Marry Career Women.

Ironically most of the article itself was merely reporting what had been found in various scientific research journals studying the effects of women's careers on marriages. Never the less, it got pulled and a rebuttal was put in its place wherein the author (a woman) argued that not only was the original article offensive, it couldn't possibly be true because it conflicted with *her experience* as a married career woman (behold female solipsism).

Women don't like facts/research, surely Forbes had a research report on that right? They should have known better

Would be hilarious if the Onion wrote an article saying research says women don't like facts. But then again it may not get a reaction because everyone knows it.

[CRR]

Notice how she has to declare that she "runs" the annual analytics issue. She then declares "I have a vagina!"

So editor at top sports entertainment magazine with massive ego is also very unprofessional. I'm going to go with her hire was the result of an exec at ESPN saying "how do we appeal to the fat, annoying semi-lesbian crowd?"

As was noted, what if a man did that? Where are journalistic standards? I guess the same place where health and beauty standards are nowadays, which is that they are all sexist and misogynistic.

Anyway, any difference between men and women is officially offensive, unless the difference is due to a negative characteristic of men, i.e. that we're all potential rapists.

A quick google search shows she's clearly a feminist who hates patriarchy and white men.

And this is going to surprise everyone, she wrote an article for Slate earlier this year titled "Single, Female and 30? Don't Panic!". The article is not worth reading so I won't link to it. Here's a quote:

Quote:

A professional acquaintance told me not to worry about still being single because someone “smart and pretty and funny” would inevitably find a husband.

This world is full of dumpy career women who have been told they are "pretty" (by everyone except men in her dateable age range), who also think that their career makes them such a catch that you should bow down before them.

I see this at every job I've had, including my current one. It's like watching a train wreck. And all I can do is just roll my eyes and laugh.

[PrimeTime32]

From what I've seen women have a really hard time with the words "most" and "some" or "in general terms". When you throw out these words or phrases they get defensive and think it means all. That's great that she writes the analytics issue for ESPN but she's just one woman, I agree with the Men's Health article that most women's eyes do glaze over when you try to talk numbers and stats. Generally to connect with women on sports you have to talk about story lines and such or the dreaded which athlete is dating who.

[aSimpNamedBrokeback]

(10-08-2014 09:18 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

It's obvious she didn't fuck her way to the top.

[kaotic]

Colin Cowherd was just talking about this on ESPN radio.

At least he said cut the BS about gender neutrality. How this is BS and the twitterverse does NOT make up the majority of the opinions out there.

He pretty much stopped short of saying SJW.

Fucking goddamn shame.

[CRR]

This just occurred to me:

So woman who "runs" analytics emotionally dismisses an article that states that women react emotionally to sports rather than to statistics fails to check and see if statistics back up the article?

Didn't she kinda prove his point?

The guy who wrote the article is apparently an accomplished professor AND non controversial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Markovits

Howabout listening to what he has to say? I know that's rhetorical, because feminists 1) don't listen to what anyone has to say 2) especially if it's an Evil White Man 3) acknowledging that there men and women are different is blasphemy. Except of course, as stated earlier, if it can be negatively attributed to men.

[Basil Ransom]

Primetime, correct.

If you make a generalization to an American woman about a group to which she belongs, she will immediately assume you are talking about her, and you *cannot* persuade her otherwise.

Ironically, if you switched roles, and you were the subject of a group being generalized, and it's obvious you don't fit the trend, and protested "that's not me!" her powers of logic would return and she'd say something like, "no, I didn't mean you."

So we see that when the conversation can be construed as talking about her, she loses her marbles and cannot think rationally.

[NilNisiOptimum]

Funny enough, all that the analytics issue she edits does is continue the storyline of Moneyball. At best, it's a lot of "player x is better than player y because this number says so". There's not any discussing how these new stats are created and utilized.

[Foolsgo1d]

This woman should know that if men did not watch sports she wouldn't have a job.

[Deuce Anna Half]

Quote:

The glossy published a piece titled “The Secret to Talking Sports with Any Woman” which basically said women can’t possibly like sports like men do. Why? Because they’re silly women! Do you really need more of an explanation than that?

The "analysis" in that Fishbowl article was so off-base it's somewhere in the parking lot.

[Jack198]

(10-08-2014 08:49 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 08:17 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

When publications want to erase history, I like to think that at the RVF, we make sure that can't be done.

These days you could probably create an entire sub-forum containing nothing but articles that got pulled because feminists found it offensive.

Back in 2006, Forbes had to pull an article titled Don't Marry Career Women.

Ironically most of the article itself was merely reporting what had been found in various scientific research journals studying the effects of women's careers on marriages. Never the less, it got pulled and a rebuttal was put in its place wherein the author (a woman) argued that not only was the original article offensive, it couldn't possibly be true because it conflicted with *her experience* as a married career woman (behold female solipsism).

That rebuttal to the Forbes article was about as lame as could be - not even an attempt to cite empirical evidence to the contrary. But that guy had it right - !

[HeyPete]

This lunatic thinks because she works for ESPN dudes should be falling all over her.

No. You're kind of nasty. Not gonna talk to you or acknowledge you.

I wonder how many times she's used her ESPN trump card on some dude and the percentage there is no reaction.

[MattW]

This is like saying men are taller than women. Of course some women are taller than some men, but men are taller at every percentile of height. Same goes with these types of interests and majors and career choices and all that. Sure some women choose the same things men choose, but the median woman and the median man have very different interests and abilities.

[CRR]

^^^problem is you're using logic.

Every feminist has a friend who fits one of the following:
1) had a kid when they were over 40, therefore women can have kids at any age.
2) is a gigantic fat land whale who's doctor says she's healthy, therefore fat is attractive and healthy at any size.
3) is a gigantic fat land whale who has a boyfriend that looks like Brad Pitt, therefore beauty comes in all shapes and sizes.

Problem of course is that
1) Sure it's possible, but science says it's better when younger.
2) Sure it's possible, but science says being fit and watching what you eat is healthier.
3) Is a fucking lie.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(10-09-2014 01:46 AM)CRR Wrote:  

^^^problem is you're using logic.

Every feminist has a friend who fits one of the following:
1) had a kid when they were over 40, therefore women can have kids at any age.
2) is a gigantic fat land whale who's doctor says she's healthy, therefore fat is attractive and healthy at any size.
3) is a gigantic fat land whale who has a boyfriend that looks like Brad Pitt, therefore beauty comes in all shapes and sizes.

Problem of course is that
1) Sure it's possible, but science says it's better when younger.
2) Sure it's possible, but science says being fit and watching what you eat is healthier.
3) Is a fucking lie.

Actually #3 is sometimes true. The landwhale's boyfriend sometimes looks like Brad Pitt. The part they leave out is that deep down he's Sean from "Will and Grace."

Closeted gay guy-fat girl pairings are a reality I don't quite understand, but definitely are a reality. This isn't any sort of anti-gay statement either -- gay friends pointed out this trend to me, and no one seems to get exactly why this goes on.

[JohnKreese]

So the woman who runs the "analytics issue" discounts facts/statistics?

Prior to ESPN, was she tallying Kim Jong-il's golf and bowling scores in preparation?

[CRR]

(10-09-2014 06:58 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:46 AM)CRR Wrote:  

^^^problem is you're using logic.

Every feminist has a friend who fits one of the following:
1) had a kid when they were over 40, therefore women can have kids at any age.
2) is a gigantic fat land whale who's doctor says she's healthy, therefore fat is attractive and healthy at any size.
3) is a gigantic fat land whale who has a boyfriend that looks like Brad Pitt, therefore beauty comes in all shapes and sizes.

Problem of course is that
1) Sure it's possible, but science says it's better when younger.
2) Sure it's possible, but science says being fit and watching what you eat is healthier.
3) Is a fucking lie.

Actually #3 is sometimes true. The landwhale's boyfriend sometimes looks like Brad Pitt. The part they leave out is that deep down he's Sean from "Will and Grace."

Closeted gay guy-fat girl pairings are a reality I don't quite understand, but definitely are a reality. This isn't any sort of anti-gay statement either -- gay friends pointed out this trend to me, and no one seems to get exactly why this goes on.

My first thought would be that it's because gay guys have a lot of girly interests therefore they're fine with having women as friends.

Many fat girls are obsessed with having attractive guys around them, and since 99% of attractive men don't want fat girls around them, they're happy to be friends with gay guys. The fat girls are like beta orbiters around gay guys. Any attention from an attractive men is better than none at all.

[HeyPete]

(10-09-2014 11:30 AM)CRR Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 06:58 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:46 AM)CRR Wrote:  

^^^problem is you're using logic.

Every feminist has a friend who fits one of the following:
1) had a kid when they were over 40, therefore women can have kids at any age.
2) is a gigantic fat land whale who's doctor says she's healthy, therefore fat is attractive and healthy at any size.
3) is a gigantic fat land whale who has a boyfriend that looks like Brad Pitt, therefore beauty comes in all shapes and sizes.

Problem of course is that
1) Sure it's possible, but science says it's better when younger.
2) Sure it's possible, but science says being fit and watching what you eat is healthier.
3) Is a fucking lie.

Actually #3 is sometimes true. The landwhale's boyfriend sometimes looks like Brad Pitt. The part they leave out is that deep down he's Sean from "Will and Grace."

Closeted gay guy-fat girl pairings are a reality I don't quite understand, but definitely are a reality. This isn't any sort of anti-gay statement either -- gay friends pointed out this trend to me, and no one seems to get exactly why this goes on.

My first thought would be that it's because gay guys have a lot of girly interests therefore they're fine with having women as friends.

Many fat girls are obsessed with having attractive guys around them, and since 99% of attractive men don't want fat girls around them, they're happy to be friends with gay guys. The fat girls are like beta orbiters around gay guys. Any attention from an attractive men is better than none at all.

Yeah, they think they are going to "change" the gay guy. Haha.