09/27/2006
Man. United's Paul Scholes Under Fire for Poofter Comment
Manchester United player Paul Scholes is being pressured to apologize after allegedly calling referee Frank De Bleeckere a "poofter" after De Bleeckere issued him a yellow card during a match on Tuesday.
Gay activist Peter Tatchell issued a press release urging disciplinary action: "If he had made a racist remark, UEFA and the Football Association would have initiated immediate disciplinary proceedings. Why the double standards? We urge Paul to apologize and to express his opposition to homophobia...There should be big fines and match suspensions for players, managers and supporters who wilfully use anti-gay insults."
But should any homophobic remark, no matter the weight it carries, be dealt with equally? That's the question Pink News is asking: "In the context of being carded and angry, is the insult 'poofter' really wilfully anti gay, or just a throw away swear word? Is there a difference, and should this difference be important to us?"
Although "poofter" is not a common insult in America, what do you think?
Posted 1:44 PM EST by Andy Towle in Football, Great Britain, Paul Scholes, Peter Tatchell, Sports | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Like he meant it as a compliment? I'm hispanic, and I have the same reaction when someone calls me a wet back as I do when someone calls me a faggot.
Both piss me off. He should apologize.
Posted by: Anon1 | Sep 27, 2006 1:59:45 PM
Although "poofter" is not used in America, the fact is he called the ref a fag. It's pretty much a fine line when using a word in a certain context. Had the word been of a racist nature then surely there would have been outrage. But isn't calling someone a fag the same thing? I guess it depends. If he was calling the ref a poofter while beating his face in, then yes I would have to say it was cause for action. Calling him a fag just to insult him is still wrong but enough to make a big deal? I don't know. Certainly he should at least have to publicly apologize and maybe make him wear a shirt or something that says "bigot" on it for a week or at a game. But beyond that just seems like a waste of time. Or maybe Paul's just a homo and feels comfortable using the term? Just my opinion.
Posted by: ric | Sep 27, 2006 2:07:55 PM
Fine him
But what about the BBC sitcoms that use the word "Pufter" all the time?? It is meant as a joke and sadly gets a lot of laughs (unless they are using a laugh track)
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 27, 2006 2:28:00 PM
Isn't this the exact same thing that the White Sox coach had to face earlier this year?
http://www.towleroad.com/towleroad/2006/06/white_sox_manag.html
Posted by: gryphon773 | Sep 27, 2006 2:28:05 PM
First, if it's a term you wouldn't say in front of someone you wanted to impress,then it's not a term you should be using in the first place and he owes an apology per se for using base language in an inappropriate context.
Second, a slur is a slur. If we allow people to mindless use slurs without thinking about their meaning, then it should be OK to use the N word on the field, too. If someone is ignorant and doesn't know what the N word means or what it's history entails, that is no excuse: the person needs to learn why it's bad and evolve as a human being.
The intent can be innocent, but that's no excuse--it's merely a crying-out for a moment of learning.
Posted by: hienga | Sep 27, 2006 2:47:04 PM
Hmmm. I'm not sure myself. Calling someone a poofter isn't exactly the same as calling someone a faggot.... but at the same time I wouldn't tolerate any racist insult so why should I accept any homophobic remark? Poofter is more jokey to me.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 27, 2006 2:49:21 PM
Poofta please! I don't think that translates well into American vernacular, but Anon1 has a point. No matter where it comes from, the generalization and acceptance of slurs only perpetuates the marginalization of minorities, which in many cases, leads to violence. And yet, an apology would appear worthless, as the motivation behind the slur is hardly a sign of remorse. Carelessness is not an acceptable excuse in any form. Poofter equates to Fag, and is no different than thirteen year-old boys saying foolish things like "that's so 'gay'". Misuse of the English language and the lazy nature of the using public only serve to our detriment when we allow such carelessness to continue. Use of any word long enough becomes part of common culture and therefore an acceptable practice. This equates to (in a long, drawn-out form) public mores and in effect, morals, which are what we, as a GLBT community are affected by, whether it's equal rights of taxation, medical benefits, or just the right to walk down the street without having your head bashed in.
Poofter is not a "throw away swear word". Stupid Fucker, Shithead, Goddamn Asshole, to name a few, ARE. They are specifically meant to be derogatory but don't have the same impact, although, at times, and in time, I'm sure any of them could also be equated specifically with a community. What throwaway swear word would you use to specifically (carelessly) spew at a straight, white, male athlete? I don't think there is one. Or is there?
Additionally, yet sadly out of a need to survive emotionally, mentally, and even physically, have we, just as African Americans, chosen to OWN our epithets and slurs (even if there's not really any way to modify the word Fag, like the 'N' word). Using the same analogy, no straight person is given the right to call me "Fag" until *I* say it's okay. Even then, you'd better use it with a modicum of sense.
So, in retrospect, unless de Bleeckere is actually gay, Paul Scholes is just a fuckwit and lacks the skill to come up with anything more creatively pertinent. If the word came out of his mouth, it was willful. Or does he have Tourette's Syndrome? Fine the shithead!
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Sep 27, 2006 2:56:35 PM
Fining people for making comments like that would be changing the way things are, but the only way you stop people from making comments like that is by changing things. I think the throw-away fag jokes need to stop and the only way to make them stop is to make them as punishable as racist comments.
Posted by: stevo | Sep 27, 2006 2:56:39 PM
Calling someone a "poofter" is indeed just like calling them a "faggot".
Yes, it is used in British sitcoms and elsewhere, but it is still offensive. Clearly it was intended as an insult since it was hurled at a referee.
Indeed, had the player used a racial epithet (the "n-word" for example) there would be a major outcry. Scholes should apologize.
Posted by: Jonathon | Sep 27, 2006 2:57:48 PM
you fags should get over yourselves , who cares sao what....poofter breeder,,, dont carr about it it goes away....faggots"""""
Posted by: yur nightmare | Sep 27, 2006 3:09:26 PM
He could call me 'Mary' and STILL have me on a first date... IF he played his cards right.
Posted by: Ed | Sep 27, 2006 3:12:05 PM
Methinks Yur Nightmare protests too much. I wonder if he deep down feels the urge.
Posted by: Gary | Sep 27, 2006 3:18:41 PM
I have mixed feelings about this - hasn't "poofter" has reached a point in common usage that it doesn't carry much weight as a derogatory "gay" term anymore? Not like words such as "fag" do at least. I agree with the other comments, though, that context is important.
Posted by: JP | Sep 27, 2006 3:19:15 PM
I don't know. I remember Spike played by James Marsters on Buffy the Vampire Slayer saying it a lot to make fun of another character on the show (who wasn't gay). Beacuase of that I guess I don't we it on the same level of stupidity as saying "thats so gay" of calling someone a fag. However, I didn't grow up knowing British slang so I can't make a good judgement.
Posted by: me | Sep 27, 2006 3:49:27 PM
Sticks and stones...
Who do I get to punish when I stub my toe or get a flat tire? The list goes on and on.
All that was needed was for the ref to say the remark was unappropriate and be done with it, I'm sure he's heard worse.
When minorities get some measure of political power there is the great temptation to overdo it based on past injustices, but the result is not justice but self-satisfied revenge, so please walk the fine line. I mean, really, how would you react if some stranger followed you around all day and pointed out your inadequacies and faults--and then got to punish you for them!
Posted by: Anon | Sep 27, 2006 4:00:23 PM
Although this isn't a non-issue, we should be more concerned with changing attitudes than words. Personally, I don't think getting bitchy about a word used in haste and in anger does anything to change homophobic attitudes.
Posted by: Matt | Sep 27, 2006 4:14:33 PM
ANON - I agree that we are an over-litigious society, but this is a work environment. If someone didn't like what you did at your job and called you a fag do you think they should be allowed?
Posted by: stevo | Sep 27, 2006 4:28:41 PM
Simple as this: would ANY comment denouncing the ref based on his or her race, ethnicity (not the same thing as race), gender, or religion be acceptable? No, they wouldn't. And until the LGBT community stops this internal debate about how much crap we should continue to endure we will always have to endure more crap. If you want to get something different, you have to do something different. If you want respect, you need to demand it, it isn't going to be handed to you so long as people think they can just keep you around for a punchline.
Posted by: Mike | Sep 27, 2006 4:53:43 PM
"it's merely a crying-out for a moment of learning."
Oh dear Lord on high please, please stay the fook on your on side the pond matey and leave this footie incident to those in the UK who may actually care. The fire storm created in the US about the red painted St. George's cross on a naked Wayne Rooney for a Nike advert during this past summer's World Cup is case in point. There was nary a mention made about it here and so far today I've seen two minor articles regarding Man U's ginger nut. Nuf said.
Posted by: Lead | Sep 27, 2006 5:01:35 PM
I think Scholes scores goals.
A little background -- Paul is one of the most quiet and non-spotlight type players in a sport that increasingly demands that players be larger than life, as opposed to brilliant on the field and quiet off of it. This is the first time in my memory at least that he's caused a stir like this, or anything of any kind, aside from retiring from International footie a few years ago.
So I'm trying to say he's not a braying ass.
And he IS very much a product of lad culture, in the footie dressing room sense. And in that environment, poofter (and much, much worse) is common parlance.
All of which is, I suppose, a defense of something I feel not all that comfortable defending. I can understand how and why it happened, and I could even live with it for god's sake, but I wish Scholesy would just swallow hard (har har) and do the media thing and say "I did not mean to offend, it was heat of the moment, some of my best friends are gay -- look at Becks." LOL Seriously, it would be nice of him to just be a gentleman and put this behind him.
@ LEAD: I hear you, but footie, and Man U (bless the red little hearts) have become international. I am a Yank and I don't live in Manchester, but I've been to OT for games, paid for a memorial brick on Sir Matt Busby Way and know more than a few of the major moments in the team's storied history so cut me some slack -- I have every right to comment on this matter.
And speaking of poofters...Watch out, Chelsea!!!
Posted by: Becks07 | Sep 27, 2006 6:39:49 PM
"And until the LGBT community stops this internal debate about how much crap we should continue to endure we will always have to endure more crap." How PERFECTLY said, Mike. THANK YOU!!!! And how goddamn awful depressing that there are still so many of us who have so internalized that we don't really deserve respect that they are always making excuses for the offender. How can so many have the equivalent of "beaten wife" syndrome?
Posted by: Leland | Sep 27, 2006 7:58:32 PM
Okay, if you are insisting on purging this world of every verbal evil then please use honey and not vinegar. If someone utters the word "Fag" in your presence, please remember that they are human too. The torches and pitchforks can be reserved for those who really deserve it.
Posted by: Anon | Sep 27, 2006 10:05:08 PM
Friends of Dorothy, Pah-leez! Chill-out why don't you?! An entire community need not get their skirts all in a ruffle over a word directed at another person in anger.
Is there anyone here that can truly say that their language is perfectly non offensive when they are in the heat of an argument? I doubt it.
I hate it when groups of people dictate to others what they can do or say. People have a way of sorting things out among themselves. So many rules and regulations are not needed.
Live and let live. Do unto others. Etc...
Posted by: Charles | Sep 27, 2006 10:37:29 PM
Anon and Charles: you are cretins. A part of the problem not the solution. Please track down Rebecca and take turns shoving her Sunnybrook Farm up your princess pink asses.
Posted by: Leland | Sep 27, 2006 11:01:11 PM
Good going Leland. But I beg to differ. They have not risen to the level of cretins. "Unappropriate"? "Non offensive"? Tells you all you need to know.
Posted by: rudy | Sep 28, 2006 7:19:30 AM