Harvard cancels men's soccer season because players rated women on their looks
11-04-2016, 05:43 PM
Harvard University cancelled its men's soccer team's season "after an office of general counsel review found that the team continued to produce vulgar and explicit documents rating women on their perceived sexual appeal and physical appearances." The team had apparently been doing this since at least 2012, when a 9-page "scouting report" was published to a Google Group:
A lot of the headlines are calling the scouting report "sexist" and comparing it to Trump's "locker room talk".
They're not revealing anything these girls didn't already know from looking at a mirror. But maybe people's objection is that these girls are getting a more honest appraisal from a disinterested, anonymous source than what they'd get from their thirsty orbiters on social media. Men like Donald Trump are criticized for having thin skin, but it's apparently women who feel the most insecure and can't stand to hear a negative opinion, to the point that they have to demand that their critics be shut down.
They don't want to hear the truth, that men still tend to value and care about women's youthful beauty more than their dubious achievements in competitive sports, their master's degrees, etc. They don't want to be reminded that men's interest in women's sports is often for the eye candy. Meanwhile, of course, it's okay for people to trash talk men's physical appearance, as when people say that Trump is orange, or has weird hair, etc.
It's another manifestation of how women want to claim to be strong when it suits their purposes (as when they say that their athletics are just as important as men's) but weak and vulnerable when it's convenient to them (as when they complain that critical remarks are degrading). Guess what, men are going to continue rating women on their looks. Didn't Facebook, that site that women love so much, originally start as Facemash, whose purpose was to rank women based on their beauty? Now you can get arrested for that.
Women reserve the right to judge and reject men (regardless of the "niceness" some men pride themselves on), based on whatever criteria they wish, such as their not being alpha enough. Those men who don't meet their standards, they call out as losers, creepy, or otherwise unattractive. Well, men also can judge, reject, and call out women too (regardless of the "accomplishments" those women are proud of), based on their chosen criteria such as hotness. Women can complain that men are shallow, but evolution surely had a reason for molding men to put such a high value on aesthetics, to the point that they want to write 9-page reports analyzing and highlighting it.
Quote:Quote:
The author of the “report” often included sexually explicit descriptions of the women. He wrote of one woman that “she looks like the kind of girl who both likes to dominate, and likes to be dominated.”
Each woman was assigned a hypothetical sexual “position” in addition to her position on the soccer field.
“She seems relatively simple and probably inexperienced sexually, so I decided missionary would be her preferred position,” the author wrote about one woman. “Doggy style,” “The Triple Lindy,” and “cowgirl” were listed as possible positions for other women.
The author also assigned each woman a nickname, calling one woman “Gumbi” because “her gum to tooth ratio is about 1 to 1.”
“For that reason I am forced to rate her a 6,” the author added.
“She seems to be very strong, tall and manly so, I gave her a 3 because I felt bad. Not much needs to be said on this one folks,” the author wrote about another woman.
Concluding his assessment of one woman, the author wrote, “Yeah… She wants cock.”
A lot of the headlines are calling the scouting report "sexist" and comparing it to Trump's "locker room talk".
They're not revealing anything these girls didn't already know from looking at a mirror. But maybe people's objection is that these girls are getting a more honest appraisal from a disinterested, anonymous source than what they'd get from their thirsty orbiters on social media. Men like Donald Trump are criticized for having thin skin, but it's apparently women who feel the most insecure and can't stand to hear a negative opinion, to the point that they have to demand that their critics be shut down.
They don't want to hear the truth, that men still tend to value and care about women's youthful beauty more than their dubious achievements in competitive sports, their master's degrees, etc. They don't want to be reminded that men's interest in women's sports is often for the eye candy. Meanwhile, of course, it's okay for people to trash talk men's physical appearance, as when people say that Trump is orange, or has weird hair, etc.
It's another manifestation of how women want to claim to be strong when it suits their purposes (as when they say that their athletics are just as important as men's) but weak and vulnerable when it's convenient to them (as when they complain that critical remarks are degrading). Guess what, men are going to continue rating women on their looks. Didn't Facebook, that site that women love so much, originally start as Facemash, whose purpose was to rank women based on their beauty? Now you can get arrested for that.
Women reserve the right to judge and reject men (regardless of the "niceness" some men pride themselves on), based on whatever criteria they wish, such as their not being alpha enough. Those men who don't meet their standards, they call out as losers, creepy, or otherwise unattractive. Well, men also can judge, reject, and call out women too (regardless of the "accomplishments" those women are proud of), based on their chosen criteria such as hotness. Women can complain that men are shallow, but evolution surely had a reason for molding men to put such a high value on aesthetics, to the point that they want to write 9-page reports analyzing and highlighting it.