History in the making - Female Manager in a man's game

It would appear, yet again that Football Manager has predicted the future.

The 2009 edition of the long running Sports Interactive series includes the ability to play from the start as a female manager, albeit female managers do not "get jobs" in the game, if I remember correctly.

Still, nevertheless, Donna Powell (pictured) has become the first female manager in the English Conference - taking charge of Fisher Athletic for their game tomorrow. (see article)

It is a great advert for football. Notably some of the games best managers arguably have next to none in terms of real football, top level playing experience. Consider Sven-Goran Eriksson, Sir Alex Ferguson, Jose Mourinho, Arsene Wenger to name a few.

While foreign imports have seemed to 'take' over the English game - it is quite an achievement, ground-breaking for a woman to be given the man's job. Still there is an aura that you have to have played in order to manage - look at Roy Keane and Gareth Southgate as two notable examples of ex-international players given the jobs on reputation, that as if playing makes them somehow more qualified.

I would like to point out to the games most successful managers that I have already mentioned - playing the game at a high level is not a pre-requisite. It was only recent this season as well that the first "black English" manager was appointed to the Premier League (Paul Ince of Blackburn). Perhaps most journalists out there have forgotten Jean Tigana of Fulham a few years back?

Race and sex should not be used as discrimination factors when it comes to the Beautiful Game that we so love. Gradually the boundaries are being broken down, but there is still an racism and homophobia prevalent in today's game aimed at players by fans. It is just 11 years ago that Justin Fashanu, the game's first openly gay player, committed suicide because his sexual orientation plagued his career, and a sexual allegation in the US led him to beleive he was presumed guilty, not innocent. I believe it was an ex-manager of his (Brian Clough) who said "I'm not having any poofters in my team" - shocking, considering.

Though it is a great advert for football, let's not be fooled. The game of association football has many fallacies and is far from the "gentlemen's game" which is used to be known as. The RESPECT Campaign, the 'Kick Racism out of Football' Campaign are indicative of this.

Let's hope the press covering Donna's adventure as Fisher Athletic manager treat her for her merits, not any differently because of her gender. Something tells me though, it might not be all that straightforward if results do not go her way.

Self-Consciousness

Yesterday I had a Philosophy of Mind tutorial, on Cartesian Dualism. This blog has a slight personal touch to it, as you will soon see. Most of us hadn't done the reading but the conversation nevertheless kicked off philosophically on whether we can have self-consciousness.

First we argued on the basis of animals, and I brought up a story of my own showing that animals do not have self-consciousness because their natural instincts are supreme - those of you who might know think of my first dog mickie and the car accident, where he went to die but when he was rescued to be treated, he bit the person that picked him up. This as I see it, as proof.

One person in the class, whether he disagrees personally or not is up to debate, but he used the analogy of disabled people to question, ponder the possibility whether disabled people (he didn't specify so naturally I take this in most general terms) like animals, whether they are capable of self-consciousness. In his defence, I understood what he really meant but there is an element of ignorance on his part where he failed to specify what he means. People will, mainly take things as given and this is an implication that is ludicrous and evidence to show that clarity of expression is paramount. Never mind the fact that philosophically speaking he was arguing for the sake of arguing. There is a fine line between thought and intent. Had I not known any better I'd have cried fowl. But this is not a minority crying wolf, even though I think it such a thing said in print SCOPE would have a field day. Look no further than Jeremy Clarkson's recent comments to see what I mean here.

For arguments sake it should always be said that when making a point there is no intent to offend. Otherwise people simply will, whether offence was intended or not.

On the topic, I would suggest that even the very definition of what a self-consciousness is. It would appear from the philosophical quagmire of yesterday this is unclear among students.

I know full well what I am and I know, also believe that the very notion of CP on a piece of paper or mind can illicit the most stereotypical of responses. I am not your average, conventional, stereotypical Cereal Palsean. But the very notion that any persons being any different is an affront to any idea of equality of persons in the basic sense, any idea of fairness among persons. It smacks of pure ignorance.

For anyone who doubts my position, I would invite you to read the US Declaration of Independence, the Social Contract ethic that is the foundation of social morality today :

"All men [peoples] are created equal"* (Thomas Jefferson)

*NB: The use of language is understandably gendered, cultured to the time. It is now universally understood that 'men' in this context is to extend to all humankind. Think of the iconic Star Trek opening credit declaration as an example - From 'no man' (TOS) to 'no one' (TNG).


This is unequivocally a truism. Black, White, Gay, Straight, Transexual, Hermaphrodites, Disabled and non-disabled, everyone, we are all equal. And not just in the eyes of God, but in the depths of our soul and understanding of humanity. Any advocate of inequality of this scale is contradicting themselves - it would always be possible then for them to be the supressed, the weak, and not the opressors and the strong.

A final note to finish on with the general bracketing of disabilities. The response I've given, I argue to quote Brian Barry, is the only intellectually honest one. Second, PVS or not (which I believe is what he really meant to refer to), using disability in a general context equates not just Cerebral Palay to Persistant Vegetative State, but obesity and even left-handedness which can be considered amongst those as disabilities. It is also debated whether those with PVS are without a self-conscious if this is the argument to make and it is known I am assured that people can come out of PVS.

There are degrees to disabilities, stereotypes and brackets are undeserved and ignorant.

And to say that people with disabilities, or anyone with anything beyond average, as not having a self-conscious - which is centre to self-realisation and being? Heaven forbid.

-- Post From My iPhone

Christmas Speeches

Every Year, Channel 4 broadcast an "alternative" christmas speech.

This year, it was by the Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

The Christmas speech, as normal was given by our lovely Queen.

Check the links above to watch the clips (if you're interested).

Basically, the UK Government has expressed their outrage at C4's broadcast because Ahmadinejad is "racist", "anti-semetic", "homophobic". That all may be, but that isn't the point.

The annual Queen speech, by contrast, is a patronizing debacle that only reminds us Britons that we are subjects, not citizens. It's hardly perfect either.

In the first case, the Iranian Christmas message is insulting because of its racial and extreme beleifs that give the impression if we don't consort to these beleifs we are not good people. That is, of course the idea with following religious scripture ideals, isn't it?

The second, the Queen's speech, is like I said, a reminder of the class-prejudice, pro-Aristocratic that just seems as downright patronizing.

We are all people created equal, before God, before the law. So let's ditch these religious and class - namely biased - speeches for Christmas. Let's have something secular, and meaningful. Something that is actually relevant and we can all relate to and subscribe in the 21st Century.

Something that is actually worth watching, anyway. Why anyone would want to be patronized by the Queen or lectured to by the President of a rogue, religious state I don't know. Where, in Iran, violation of its religious teachings are not crimes against our family but crimes against the state is a direct example why it is not worth listening to. The Monarchy, and all it symbolizes, is reason enough not to listen to it.

We are all equal. Maybe next year I could mock my own Christmas speech. Now that would be something.