Man Utd jersey sexist?

pickarooney

ShaShaBear wrote: »

I'd never fit my tats into a shirt like that. And I certainly would not feel even a scratch comfortable with breasts of mine on show in one like that at a game. I'd look like a bloody overweight porn star with EE cup spilling out of it.
I can't even comfortably wear the male ones as I'm too heavy chested and it just causes the whole front of the jersey to pull up which means I spend all day tugging it back down.

There's a neckline and then there's that :eek:

Well you managed to squeeze four references to your large chest into those few lines so you could probably manage the same with the shirt.

One eyed Jack

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

One of the original articles featured a woman who said that she wouldnt feel confortable attending a match in the new jersey.

Simple solution to that - wear whatever she used wear before. She isn't being forced to wear anything she doesn't want to.

Consider some of the comments here and on other sites where blokes are basically admitting they'd be attracted/turned on by a woman in the jersey. Is it that much of a stretch to consider that a woman might not want this attention and just support her team like the rest of us, surely in that case the previous option or a different option would suit.

I'd be attracted to / turned on by a woman wearing that jersey. So what? I'd be turned on by a woman in a boiler suit ffs. It's completely irrelevant what a woman is wearing. Some men would find her attractive, some men wouldn't, some women would think she looks sluttish, trashy, like an overweight porn star, and some women wouldn't.

Of course it's not a stretch to imagine a woman might not want that attention and just want to support her team, like the rest of the men that are there to support their team and couldn't give a shyte if this woman rocked up naked body painted in her team colours.

There is a different option, it involves a burka in her team colours... :pac:

Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that a woman might want the attention she thinks she might get wearing the jersey, and chooses to wear the jersey specifically for that purpose? Some women actually do like the attention they get, and they do like to draw attention to themselves, and they do want other people to find them attractive.

Im no raging feminist or SJW by any stretch, i just think that women should be given a fair shake and there's more to them than a pair of tits.

The opportunities for double entendres in this thread, honestly lads! :pac:

Seriously though, any woman that looks at that jersey knows that they may or may not show cleavage, and they may care, and they may not, and they may make assumptions about whether other people may care, and they may not, and then they have a choice - either buy the damn jersey, or leave it behind on the rack and buy something else and don't make a fuss or a song and dance about it and think other people will perceive it the way they do.

skittles8710

It's an OPTION lads. ..If women don't agree with it or want to wear it then they shouldn't buy it. Simple economics will mean it will be discontinued if there is no demand for it. Money speaks a lot louder to clubs than ranting on t'internet.

Much like those stupid pink gaa womens jerseys. Stupid in the fact that having them all pink makes one county jersey almost indistinguishable from any other. I wish that women would stop buying them so they'd disappear. However, they seem to be selling quite well.

osarusan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that a woman might want the attention she thinks she might get wearing the jersey, and chooses to wear the jersey specifically for that purpose? Some women actually do like the attention they get, and they do like to draw attention to themselves, and they do want other people to find them attractive.

Has anybody on here denied that some women will want to buy them?

Has anybody on here said they shouldn't be sold at all?

As far as I can see, nobody has a problem with them being sold - they do have a problem with the other shirt for women being taken off the market.

So the people saying 'just buy something else' miss the point - the women who would have bought the usual shirt designed for women rather than this one no longer have that option to do so.

Is it really so difficult a point to understand (even if people don't agree with it)?

ShaShaBear

pickarooney wrote: »

Well you managed to squeeze four references to your large chest into those few lines so you could probably manage the same with the shirt.

It's not sexy. I'm emphasising that for the general male public that seem to think it would be. But well done for re-reading and counting.

One eyed Jack

osarusan wrote: »

Has anybody on here denied that some women will want to buy them?

Has anybody on here said they shouldn't be sold at all?

As far as I can see, nobody has a problem with them being sold - they do have a problem with the other shirt for women being taken off the market.

As far as I could see, the issue seems to be an objection to the fact that the jersey shows cleavage? One poster commented that no parents would buy this jersey for their teenage daughters.

It's no surprise that people only see what they want to see

So the people saying 'just buy something else' miss the point - the women who would have bought the usual shirt designed for women rather than this one no longer have that option to do so.

Is it really so difficult a point to understand (even if people don't agree with it)?

Yeah, that's a point for some people, but the issue that kicked off this whole furore on social media was the fact that the new design is a plunging neckline that shows cleavage.

Because this jersey is marketed as a lifestyle item, Adidas are under no obligation to maintain a previous design, when their marketing team comes back with feedback that suggests a plunging neckline would be more popular. Some people aren't happy that a product has been discontinued - tough titty tbh, it happens all the time. The people complaining about a design being discontinued, and being replaced by a new design, are the people that are actually missing the point.

Adidas aren't in the business of social justice and gender equality, they're in the business of making profits for their shareholders.

efb

Did Sepp Blatter design them?

namloc1980

Once again if you don't like the shirt just don't buy it. It really really is that simple. As previously mentioned Adidas are not in the business of making a shirt to suit every demand, they are in the business of making money. Those outraged by this should organise a campaign for a boycott. If Adidas aren't making money then they might redesign it.

cournioni

Choice is sexist.

Menas

Storm in a D-cup.

Gatling

Samaris wrote: »

What is patronising is differing opinions to yours being 'over-reaction', 'victimisation' and whatever the other one was. Snort. (By the way, you be sporting one of them for the next game?) :P

Yeah calling over all reactions to a non existent problem .

And yes I'll be wearing a United Jersey come august 9th so will my wife and my 2 daughters



On a side note wifey sports above average sized breasts in a selection of tops from shirts to vests and similar tops to the United top but only now do we get over sexualiation and unquilfied victimisation

Barely There

Gatling wrote: »

On a side note wifey sports above average sized breasts in a selection of tops from shirts to vests and similar tops to the United top but only now do we get over sexualiation and unquilfied victimisation

Thinly veiled 'My wife has big tits' post.

Gatling

Barely There wrote: »

Thinly veiled 'My wife has big tits' post.

No I'll leave the thinly veiled to others .

Decinho

Firstly as many people have said, if you don't like it then don't buy it. It's a nice extra option for women to have, if you prefer the mens kit then buy one. Oh no poor women ye get two choices of jerseys to pick from. What the hell is wrong with people.

Secondly kits for playing in should be designed for optimum performance hence the tight GAA and rugby jerseys. How is it optimal for women to wear the huge shorts that they are nearly tripping over when playing soccer. Men have them for different reasons and also in general have far chunkier legs to fill them out. GAA type shorts would make way more sense but of course no one can even suggest this or they are a sexist or a perve.

J Mysterio

Hammer89 wrote: »

The sexism theory hinges on whether or not United's womens team - if they even have one - will be expected to wear that shirt.

That would be fantastic.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Decinho wrote: »

Firstly as many people have said, if you don't like it then don't buy it. It's a nice extra option for women to have, if you prefer the mens kit then buy one. Oh no poor women ye get two choices of jerseys to pick from. What the hell is wrong with people.

Secondly kits for playing in should be designed for optimum performance hence the tight GAA and rugby jerseys. How is it optimal for women to wear the huge shorts that they are nearly tripping over when playing soccer. Men have them for different reasons and also in general have far chunkier legs to fill them out. GAA type shorts would make way more sense but of course no one can even suggest this or they are a sexist or a perve.

I remember camoige players wearing the skirt type shorts like they have in hockey, this seems to have falling out of fashion in the last couple of years though. For ladies football they've always worn the regular togs.

J Mysterio

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I remember camoige players wearing the skirt type shorts like they have in hockey.

Still do dont they? Sad if not.

Sir Gallagher

osarusan wrote: »

Has anybody on here denied that some women will want to buy them?

Has anybody on here said they shouldn't be sold at all?

As far as I can see, nobody has a problem with them being sold - they do have a problem with the other shirt for women being taken off the market.

So the people saying 'just buy something else' miss the point - the women who would have bought the usual shirt designed for women rather than this one no longer have that option to do so.

Is it really so difficult a point to understand (even if people don't agree with it)?

This is more or less the point. How many times has someone said "If you dont like it dont buy it" on this thread? Missing the point completely.

kylith

Gotta love the fact that when women complain about men staring at our breasts we're told to expect it if we're wearing revealing clothing, but when we say we'd like the option of less revealing clothing in this instance we're hypersensitive bitches and we should wear men's clothes.

Barely There

kylith wrote: »

Gotta love the fact that when women complain about men staring at our breasts we're told to expect it if we're wearing revealing clothing, but when we say we'd like the option of less revealing clothing in this instance we're hypersensitive bitches and we should wear men's clothes.

And who's telling you all this?

Let me guess.

Men.




The Bastards!

ISIS are sound

kylith wrote: »

Gotta love the fact that when women complain about men staring at our breasts we're told to expect it if we're wearing revealing clothing, but when we say we'd like the option of less revealing clothing in this instance we're hypersensitive bitches and we should wear men's clothes.

You should all put your burkas on. Problem solved.

Flatzie_poo

ISIS are sound wrote: »

You should all put your burkas on. Problem solved.

Wow, you're not dropping character on this new account, are you?

ISIS are sound

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

Wow, you're not dropping character on this new account, are you?

Just spreading the peace and love of Allah...by the sword if necessary...

efb

Man United don't have a Senior Women's team. I couldn't imagine that shirt would be great to wear playing anyway

One eyed Jack

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

This is more or less the point. How many times has someone said "If you dont like it dont buy it" on this thread? Missing the point completely.

No, anyone who thinks Adidas are under any obligation to produce any kind of clothing designs that suits them, are missing the point, spectacularly.

kylith wrote: »

Gotta love the fact that when women complain about men staring at our breasts we're told to expect it if we're wearing revealing clothing, but when we say we'd like the option of less revealing clothing in this instance we're hypersensitive bitches and we should wear men's clothes.

I'd love for you to point out to me, please, in this thread, where anyone, male or female, said or even so much as insinuated such a thing.

I was able to point out to you where women had made the point that this jersey is apparently sluttish, trashy, something a parent wouldn't buy their daughters, and finally, something that would make one woman look like an overweight porn star (I actually like my overweight porn stars, but I held my tongue).

So yeah, even when it was women saying these things, it's the men...

No, not on this occasion it isn't, and I'd be among the first to hop off any man that made derogatory comments about a woman based upon her appearance, but on this occasion, sadly it's quite telling that it's women are making the derogatory comments.

If you'd like to wear less revealing clothing, then by all means, as there's nobody stopping you, and if you choose to wear revealing clothing, well quelle surprise, chances are people are going to look. They'd also stare just as hard if you were to walk downtown in a hazmat suit, because you'd stand out then too!

Cold War Kid

Menas wrote: »

Storm in a D-cup.

Deserves way more thanks.

NachoBusiness

kylith wrote: »

Gotta love the fact that when women complain about men staring at our breasts we're told to expect it if we're wearing revealing clothing, but when we say we'd like the option of less revealing clothing in this instance we're hypersensitive bitches and we should wear men's clothes.

Woman with very low cut tops should expect men to look at their cleavage, just as guys wearing muscle tops shouldn't whinge if they catch a women looking at their biceps and yes, if women have an issue with this top being low cut, they should buy the men's version.

There is no contradiction there. Not sure why you're implying there is.

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So yeah, even when it was women saying these things, it's the men...

No, not on this occasion it isn't, and I'd be among the first to hop off any man that made derogatory comments about a woman based upon her appearance, but on this occasion, sadly it's quite telling that it's women are making the derogatory comments.

To be honest, One Eyed Jack, I did retract the sluttish one (which referred to the JERSEY, not the model), and explained I meant it was kinda inappropriately accentuating sexuality given the purpose of the thing. Meantime, there have been the comments telling anyone who dislikes it that they're looking for attention, playing the victim and generally being hysterical (what, can't people have an opinion on a top being marketed to them?);

Gatling wrote: »

Wild imagination

Total over reaction and victimisation.

Ethel wrote: »

Faux outrage / attention seeking. Horseshït.

lertsnim wrote: »

Oh **** off. Buy the mens version if you are offended by it.

- comments that imply there's something wrong with not wanting to portray a sexual image all the time, or that it's the ugly ones complaining;

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The non-sexy will feel inadequate.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is not a playing jersey. its a supporters jersey. perhaps there are some female supporters that dont want to look like a sack of spuds wearing a jersey designed for a man?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I've been to hundreds of matches across several sports & looking hot on gameday is a concept that exists.

(thanks for the explanation! I didn't understand it at all at all :P)

- the sliding slope to insanity argument *eyeroll*;

Greenmachine wrote: »

They'll want to ban the bra next.

Actually, I quite like my bra, thanks!

- one that I think needs more clarifying as it's a wee bit misrepresenting the situation;

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but I have to admit I was surprised by the responses from some women that this jersey is slutty, trashy, women should wear something more modest, etc.

That the -jersey- is, not the person wearing it. I don't recall at least seeing anyone saying that women -should- wear something more modest, just that quite a few of us would like the option, like last years top.

and quite honestly, a comment I was surprised at;

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not surprised by those responses, but then I wonder will these women be the same women who when a woman is assaulted, will they be the first to point out that what a woman was wearing is irrelevant?

That was just not very kind at all. Yep, I will say that the next time a woman is assaulted and someone says it was her own fault. I am -certainly!- not saying that anyone who wears that top will be 'asking for it', was I?

The problem is not the top in itself. It's that some of us are a bit annoyed that this season, this is the only female option rather than one that actually looks like a sports jersey.

osarusan wrote: »

Not so simple.

Last year Nike gave two choices for women:

Buy the top designed for women (suitable for playing football too) or buy the top designed for men.

This year Adidas gives two choices for women:

But the top designed for women (might not be that suitable for playing in) or buy the top designed for men.

It isn't any more choice than they had, as far as I can see, just different choices.

Sums it up pretty well!

Honestly, at this stage, I don't care that much anymore; it's a jersey. It's an eyeroll really, nothing more than that. But I am rather surprised at the aggressiveness of people who don't like that some people don't like something being marketed towards them. It doesn't -really- affect a lot of the people saying we should shut up about it. Does affect some, mind you. There's quite a few women who are fine with it and that's absolutely grand with me :P I'm not saying that men can't have an opinion on it, but don't really see why a negative opinion on the silly thing can't be expressed without being landed on.

efb

They should do a men's one with the plunging v neck for realiity TV stars

Nodin

efb wrote: »

They should do a men's one with the plunging v neck for realiity TV stars

O no, they'll have to fake tan more than the bits that show.....

NachoBusiness

Personally I think if the market is there Adidas should just make a few styles.

I know the last time I bought a Villa jersey (don't laugh) I had to order it online as I wanted one with long sleeves as I am very self conscious so I am about my freckly arms and pointy elbows.

ToddyDoody

I believe the female jersey also has some gay interest, just like the male one attracts lesbian interest

efb

Nodin wrote: »

O no, they'll have to fake tan more than the bits that show.....

I think they bisto themselves all over. They seem to be fond of the plunging v necks too

efb

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I believe the female jersey also has some gay interest, just like the male one attracts lesbian interest

If it was flatter with the plunging v I could see the twinks going for it, but that design was built for boobs

Paramite Pie

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Giving women the choice of appearing more feminine & sexy, while supporting their team isn't misogynistic in the slightest.

Faux-outrage of the day.

But they no longer sell the version with the standard neckline, unless you all ready own last years. Or buy the men's which might not fit. So it's not really a choice, is it?

If they had both the standard ladies neckline (like last year) and the new neckline there'd be a choice.

I don't consider it 'sexist' but if it's the only version I can understand it would annoy many fans. I'm sure there's a market for it as companies don't release something without some test groups first. However offering a choice would be nice.

lertsnim

Samaris wrote: »

Meantime, there have been the comments telling anyone who dislikes it that they're looking for attention, playing the victim and generally being hysterical (what, can't people have an opinion on a top being marketed to them?);

If that is what you got from my post then you have quite the imagination.

namloc1980

Paramite Pie wrote: »

But they no longer sell the version with the standard neckline, unless you all ready own last years. Or buy the men's which might not fit. So it's not really a choice, is it?

If they had both the standard ladies neckline (like last year) and the new neckline there'd be a choice.

I don't consider it 'sexist' but if it's the only version I can understand it would annoy many fans. I'm sure there's a market for it as companies don't release something without some test groups first. However offering a choice would be nice.

Last year's jersey was made by Nike, this year it's Adidas. They are under no obligation to make a choice of jersey to suit every whim or demand.

Samaris

lertsnim wrote: »

If that is what you got from my post then you have quite the imagination.

It fit into the general example of rudely dismissing a negative opinion.

Nodin

efb wrote: »

I think they bisto themselves all over. They seem to be fond of the plunging v necks too

Yep, they wear them in a way which makes them look even more god awful....it threatens to awake my inner sKinhead.

Ethel

Samaris wrote: »

But I am rather surprised at the aggressiveness of people who don't like that some people don't like something being marketed towards them.

I'm only quoting you and the above, because somewhere in your long post I was quoted for some reason. I hope you don't think my post was meant in an agrgressive tone, because when I said it was faux outrage / attention seeking I mean it in the sense that I don't understand what the fuss is all about. I can't understand of all of the things wrong in this world, a football jersey is a hot topic.

I just think there are some people that like the sound of their own voices a little too much, and protest for 'likes', or whatever internet support the can muster up because it makes them feel good about themselves. Its wearisome reading how offended people are with just about everything. This is a non-issue to me. Do you honestly think the people behind the design of the jersey set out to piss anyone off?

A rational person would say no, others will ignore that simple fact and go fetch their pitch forks regardless.

kowloon

I dream of a utopian future where we all wear identically shaped jumpsuits.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

To be honest, One Eyed Jack, I did retract the sluttish one (which referred to the JERSEY, not the model), and explained I meant it was kinda inappropriately accentuating sexuality given the purpose of the thing. Meantime, there have been the comments telling anyone who dislikes it that they're looking for attention, playing the victim and generally being hysterical (what, can't people have an opinion on a top being marketed to them?);

The purpose of the jersey is that it is marketed as a lifestyle garment, not a sports garment, so those who want to wear it for sports are missing the point of the garment entirely. Now whether it's inappropriately accentuating sexuality is entirely down to individual perception. I personally don't think it is. By that standard, any item of clothing could be said to be inappropriately accentuating sexuality which is why I mentioned the whole idea of women commenting on the jersey as sluttish, trashy, something parents wouldn't buy for their teenage daughters, is the same mentality as "she was wearing a short skirt".

Of course people can have an opinion on whatever is being marketed to them, but their opinion isn't going to go unchallenged when they put it out there on social media, and naturally there are going to be some people who will be rude, crude, and just downright uncivil in their challenging that person's opinion. That's social media for you. I'm sure you're already more than aware of that fact though. We all are. What surprises me though is the way that some women would judge a woman wearing that particular garment as though it's somehow a reflection or a characterisation of the wearer.

Comments along the lines that this garment is inappropriately accentuating sexuality are hysterical, they are hypersensitive, but I personally wouldn't call any woman a bitch for expressing such opinions. That's why I took exception to claims that anyone called any posters here "hypersensitive bitches", because they didn't. They dismissed those posters opinions in some fairly strong terms alright, but any posters claiming that they were called a "hypersensitive bitch", is playing the victim.

- comments that imply there's something wrong with not wanting to portray a sexual image all the time, or that it's the ugly ones complaining;

(thanks for the explanation! I didn't understand it at all at all :P)

- the sliding slope to insanity argument *eyeroll*;

Actually, I quite like my bra, thanks!

- one that I think needs more clarifying as it's a wee bit misrepresenting the situation;

That the -jersey- is, not the person wearing it. I don't recall at least seeing anyone saying that women -should- wear something more modest, just that quite a few of us would like the option, like last years top.

The former surely depends on the latter? As in the person wearing the jersey may look sexual wearing the jersey, or they may not. Any garment where you're going to hoik your breasts up under your chin is going to emphasise your breasts. It's not rocket science. You have literally thousands of options if you don't want to appear sexual. The jersey doesn't make a woman look sexual, it's the other way around, depending upon how a woman chooses to wear the jersey, and if she chooses to wear a jersey that's a couple of sizes too small for her, while wearing a bra underneath that hikes up her breasts, well, the end result is visible cleavage at best, and spilling out of the top at worst. Me personally I find that a little left to the imagination is far sexier than a full out frontal assault on the eyeballs.

and quite honestly, a comment I was surprised at;

That was just not very kind at all. Yep, I will say that the next time a woman is assaulted and someone says it was her own fault. I am -certainly!- not saying that anyone who wears that top will be 'asking for it', was I?

Well the intention of that question wasn't to be unkind. It was meant to be a rhetorical question, to point out the hypocrisy of characterising a person based upon what they're wearing - the jersey is sexual apparently, but a short skirt isn't? Either neither are, or they both are, and I know well the women making those comments would haul anyone over the coals for suggestions that "the skirt was too short". I'm not looking to throw anyone under the bus here which is why I didn't quote posters directly or point fingers.

The problem is not the top in itself. It's that some of us are a bit annoyed that this season, this is the only female option rather than one that actually looks like a sports jersey.

The problem is not the top itself? Apparently for some people it is! Certainly for the woman that highlighted the issue of the jersey leaving her cleavage on show, the new design is an issue. Some other people have since raised an issue with the fact that the design is not intended to be worn for sports, but that wasn't the original issue at all. Complain then to Adidas, because attempts to highlight their "oversight" on social media at this stage are going to prove utterly futile. Your intentions are going to be misinterpreted given that you also have an issue with the jersey inappropriately accentuating sexuality.

They're two separate issues as I see them -

"I want the same jersey design as last year because I liked to show my support for Man U while playing sports" is a legitimate complaint, I can get behind that.

"I want the same jersey design as last year because the new design shows my cleavage" is hardly a legitimate complaint IMO when there are many other options they can use to minimise the effect.

Sums it up pretty well!

I think I addressed that one to death already.

Honestly, at this stage, I don't care that much anymore; it's a jersey. It's an eyeroll really, nothing more than that. But I am rather surprised at the aggressiveness of people who don't like that some people don't like something being marketed towards them. It doesn't -really- affect a lot of the people saying we should shut up about it. Does affect some, mind you. There's quite a few women who are fine with it and that's absolutely grand with me :P I'm not saying that men can't have an opinion on it, but don't really see why a negative opinion on the silly thing can't be expressed without being landed on.

I think the reason some people are landing on the whole sexualisation of the garment is because the implication is that men wouldn't be able to help themselves but stare at the wearer's cleavage. Do some women think that men are really that desperate and that juvenile that the slightest hint of cleavage and they can't help but get an erection? I would respectfully suggest that those women need to get over themselves and indeed stop being so hypersensitive and quit making assumptions about other people based on their own self-consciousness. Just because those women are self-conscious about their breasts, doesn't mean anyone else is all that interested as they are in themselves.