Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Filled with rage and hatred of men right now

I defer you to Blondie's blog, where you will read a letter from a man who makes me so angry I do not have words.

I then refer you to an email he wrote Emily in response to her anger at his words. I just don't know how to deal with a person who thinks this way.

Dear Emily,

Thank you for your reply. Sorry for any offense my letter may have caused you, but it does represent my true feelings in this matter.

Do I think women should play rugby? No.

Do I think women have a right to play rugby? Yes.

Having said this, perhaps now you may be willing to understand where I'm coming from.

Rugby Magazine's adoption of women's rugby is a relatively recent occurrence. It was only in the mid or late 80's that the periodical took on women's coverage, and there was an immediate percentage of readers like myself who did not care for this. I don't know if you are aware of this, but there are certain things that men like to do in the company of men alone. Sports have always been a venue for this primal need to 'rough-house' it away from the women folk. For me, in my life, being a rugby player has always been a sacred testament to things masculine...and so...women's rugby is a affront to what I hold most dear about the game. Does this mean women have no right to play it? Of course not. But does your right to play it mean I don't have a right ignore it? Again, of course not.

I would be very pleased if I could completely ignore the entire phenomenon of women's rugby. This however is hard to do when your once favorite periodical is devoting ever increasing coverage. My appeal to Mr. Haggarty was not for the abolition of women's rugby, but rather to create, if possible a separate periodical devoted entirely to the women's game, and keep such coverage out of the current product. Then perhaps everybody is happy. You've got your own magazine, and no longer have to put up with the ranting of traditionalists like me. Me and my ilk will be happy for the obvious reasons. The more liberal minded can get a subscription to both.

Do you think separate rugby magazines would be a bad thing?

Sincerely,

Eric L. Seiler

6 comments:

Jordan Lev said...

I thought that there are different leagues for men and women -- so if his problem is that he wants to "rough around with the guys", how does the coverage of women's rugby in a magazine affect his playing?

Anyway, don't be a player-hater -- be a bigot-hater.

Em said...

"I don't mind gays, so long as they don't shove it in my face."

"I don't mind women playing rugby, so long as I never have to hear, see, or think about it."

Can you say, "Insecure masculinity?"

Anonymous said...

why is this so awful? this is a traditionally male sport and that is his expressed opinion to a magazine that he *pays* for. he is a consumer.

i happen to disagree with him. but since when are we equating an individual expressing his opinion to the oppression of women as a whole? you are giving his opinion too much clout, reaction and a broader voice.

Anonymous said...

why should someone who is open-minded and wants to see both coverage of women and men (y'know, to support the whole community of rugby!) have to pay for 2 magazine subscriptions, while someone else is only charged once for being an ass?

Anonymous said...

I like that he mentioned Rugby Magazine as only starting to cover women in the mid to late 80s - makes sense based on the amount of women playing they were right with the times. Since they have been publishing since 1980 they only missed a few years :)

Anonymous said...

freya, that is exactly my point. he thinks his magazine which he pays for should be covering men only. it is his right as a consumer to complain.

it is their right as a magazine to ignore him and to cater to the women subscribers they like to cover and probably who bring in more readership than the men who desire "men only".

capitalism, it works nicely doesnt it?