TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

NFL fines Cam Heyward for honoring father who died from cancer by wearing "IRONHEAD" on his eye black, but not Devon Still who honored his daughter by wearing "LEAH STRONG" in her battle with cancer

atheist4thecause

October 21, 2015
348 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13935683/cam-heyward-pittsburgh-steelers-nfl-reach-deal-eye-black
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title NFL fines Cam Heyward for honoring father who died from cancer by wearing "IRONHEAD" on his eye black, but not Devon Still who honored his daughter by wearing "LEAH STRONG" in her battle with cancer
Author

atheist4thecause

Upvotes 348
Comments 83
Date October 21, 2015 6:20 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3pnyhb/nfl_fines_cam_heyward_for_honoring_father_who/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/nfl-fines-cam-heyward-for-honoring-father-who-died.968932
https://theredarchive.com/post/968932
Top posts by atheist4thecause

Washington state rep. drafts bill to do away with ‘safe spaces’

525 upvotes
December 17, 2015
/r/MensRights

Boyfriend gets beat up after his girlfriend attacks and antagonizes another man -- Dangers of being a man in society

417 upvotes
February 12, 2016
/r/MensRights

Men's Homeless Shelter Opened In Wisconsin, USA. I'm So Proud of My State!

406 upvotes
January 1, 2015
/r/MensRights

Male student molested by female teacher awarded $2.1M -- male victims can get help

342 upvotes
August 17, 2018
/r/MensRights

House drops plans to make women register for draft

320 upvotes
May 17, 2016
/r/MensRights

University of Wisconsin Regents says no to demand for safe spaces

314 upvotes
December 17, 2015
/r/MensRights

Woman loses children in divorce due to mental health issues, gets hired as a therapist, and molests two children (breaking now in Polk County)

272 upvotes
May 30, 2017
/r/MensRights

Stop the censorship of "The Red Pill" film

238 upvotes
October 24, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Snowfox2ne1 36 points37 points38 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Both should have been fined, it's a no brainer. Like it or dislike it, you can't allow messages of any kind on eye black, shirts, or what have you. Slippery slope, and it is in place to disallow political messages or other negative messages from creating controversy.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I agree that the correct action would have been to fine both sides given the rules. I don't necessarily think the rules have to be that way, but that's the way they are. Unfortunately, the NFL decided to make an exception for a girl, but not a man. Disposable male narrative fits perfectly.

[–]Snowfox2ne1 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Without question it is bias. But pretty much all leagues have these kinds of rules. Could you imagine a player having some kind of "vote for Trump/Sanders" shirt underneath his uniform that he exposed during the game? It may be met with criticism in the US, but in other parts of the world it could create a lot of civil unrest. The zero tolerance policy is so organizations don't have to draw lines in the sand on anything, and it remains objective.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The reason I'm bringing it up is because the rule has not been applied evenly. The NFL made an exception in once case and not the other.

EDIT: And to make it absolutely clear since you seem to be confused, I have no problem with the rule banning these messages.

[–]Snowfox2ne1 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am agreeing with you. I was just clarifying why I think a zero tolerance policy is the best policy in this case.

[–]paragonofcynicism 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think this comparison is a bit unfair.

Similar to how there are variables in the wage gap that if you ignore them change the interpretation. (i.e. if you ignore that men work more hours you can make it out to be gender bias rather than men just working more)

The difference is, his father is dead, the girl is alive. Whether it's good reasoning or not, the argument could be made that the reason it was allowed was because of the benefits of a person fighting cancer seeing emotional support for them on a national stage. We don't understand why, but it is true that having a more positive outlook on your affliction does help typically. It's not always enough, obviously, but it CAN help. Where as it can't help a dead man.

So in that sense, it's not exactly comparing apples to apples.

That being said, they are almost the same thing, and frankly, it's hypocritical to fine one act over the other regardless of what other outcomes may or may not come of it.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You may not be familiar with NFL rules, but it literally does not matter if one person is alive and another person isn't. The rules are the rules. The rules were broken. The NFL is very adamant that no player can write on their uniform. You are bringing up irrelevant variables.

[–]paragonofcynicism 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I didn't disagree with you. I said they did not enforce the rules fairly.

But they aren't irrelevant variables. They are possible explanations for why human beings made a decision to enforce a rule in one case and not enforce it in another.

Only if you are a robot is that an irrelevant variable.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The explanation is irrelevant.

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

how do you know the exception wasn't for someone who is alive over someone who is dead? Or for someone who is a child over someone who is an adult. I'm not saying either of these alternatives are better than sexism, but i am saying that one shouldn't jump to conclusions about who's being discriminated against. It's important to know what's actually going on.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, I tried to explain it multiple times. It's the conclusion of what happened no matter the reasoning or intent that matters. You are basing discrimination more off of the reasoning or intent. We have a fundamental disagreement here, so I think we have to agree to disagree.

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

yes but that is no the only conclusion you can come up with. You can also come to the conclusion that the NFL discriminates against age. OR discriminates against, well, um, aliveness? The point is there is no clear conclusion, or at least not only one conclusion. And you have no argument to say that the sexism conclusion is a stronger conclusion than any of the others.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Again, you are looking at intent. I'm looking at the conclusion/result. Agree to disagree, okay?

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Or that the girl was currently battling cancer and the father had died? Or maybe that he was selling them? It's fucked up to fine one but not the other, but I don't envy their position.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The questions you brought up don't matter. The rules are very clear and very strict. A player cannot write on their uniform (including their eye black).

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but it may explain why they didn't jump to fine the first guy. Still, you can't selectively enforce policies.

[–]Devilsgun 61 points62 points63 points 10 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

Same NFL that had the players wear pink for breast cancer awareness. Fuck football

[–]McFeely_Smackup 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

the NFL is the one who gets to set the "uniform policy", so yeah.

bigger complaint is how much money is raised by the NFL for breast cancer awareness, versus how much of it went to charity (about $1 million per year)

[–]Argosy37 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

Even bigger concern is how much money is raised for breast cancer, vs for cancers of equivalent incident rates that don't primarily affect women. Women already live several years longer than men on average, but apparently their health issues are more important.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]raptorrage 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So plan something next September! It's hard to get stuff off the ground, but if you need help writing a proposal, please pm me!

[–]Devilsgun 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe you could plan a pudding potluck to benefit colon cancer awareness or something

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And so? Your company, like most company, knows that if they spend money on breast cancer awareness, they get brownie points on their public volunteer resume. Why is this a bad thing that your company wants to support a large movement? If you want them to support something else, It's not on that company's onus, it's on yours to create a movement just as lucrative to support.

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (37 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't think f it that way. A specific group of Women got together and decided that they would make breast cancer a big issue. With the help of many benefactors they succeeded and pinked out the country. It's not necessarily that women's health issues are more important, but they made it easy to support breast cancer. You can't get mad at them for making a movement popular, that is counter productive, all you can do is start your own movement for the issue of your choice.

Edit in italics.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

So the NFL is raising money for women's health because women made it easy to do so? O.o I'm pretty sure the NFL can pull off supporting any cause it wants, with or without the help of women.

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say women as in general women. I'm talking about Nancy Goodman Brinker and whomever she enlisted, to found the Susan G Komen Foundation, which made pink synonymous with breast cancer and a made a movement for a disease popular. The NFL can do what it wants, its not stupid and it knows it gets brownie points for doing something like supporting breast cancer awareness, a very easy thing for a large corporation to do. A man could take the same steps to form a foundation for prostate cancer, or some other illness that affects men disproportionately to women. It would be on that person's or whomever's onus to create such a market for itself and get people excitedabout awareness and raising money.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

It wouldnt matter because men are disposable to society. As long as everything gets done, men can just die. Who cares. Women are human beings, men are human doings.

[–]ofuabuaato -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

DO these views really get you anywhere? DO you really get good responses to help ending misandry when you make overarching claims like that? To say society doesn't care about men? Can you try including more specifics about how society, in this instance, would exclude men or disregard their feelings?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its not about getting me anywhere. Im already there. Its about educating men about how society values you. Most murder victims and suicides are men. Do you hear much public outcry about that? Nope. So why do you think society cares about men dying of diseases when violent deaths are no concern.

[–]egalitarianguy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

homelessness,suicide,workplace deaths are overwhelmingly a male problem.but no one cares.the draft. news reports of mass shootings they point out how many were women and kids.we are disposable in every sense of the word in society

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

That's a really good excuse to sit your ass on the couch and not do anything.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Discussing issues online isnt doing nothing. Its educating others. What do you think happens in meetings? People discuss, strategize, reach consensus. How about you explain to all of us what we should be doing, mommy.

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

What are three tangible outcomes from your Reddit posting?

Go to a health coalition meeting. Write a guide to men's health and how to stay healthy. The organization I volunteer with has a fatherhood group, and they always need mentors. You can tutor men that need help getting their geds.

[–]eletheros 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

which made pink synonymous with breast cancer and a made a movement for a disease popular.

Pink is more appropriate for prostate cancer. Not all breasts are pink, but all prostates are.

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

are you arguing about the color choice? why is that important?

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. You realize that there are charities for prostate cancer and other cancer in general, right? It's up to the NFL to decide to advertise for the cause like it does for breast cancer. And by the way, I'm pretty sure the NFL doesn't use the Susan G Komen Foundation anymore. It now uses the Breast Cancer Foundation. At least that is my understanding, and a move I greatly support. The Susan G Komen Foundation is a horrible anti-male charity that gives one of the smallest %'s of donated money to the actual cause, so we seem to agree on the Susan G Komen Foundation.

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but when you have a massively popular charity like komen, and then one that piggybacks off it like the Breast Cancer Foundation, it's a no brainer. We need to have a big push towards cancers of all kinds, and promote awareness.

Maybe write the MLB and ask them to wear light blue ribbons in September?

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes, that's what I advocate for. I want the NFL to turn everything blue in September. Only they can make that decision. Players, coaches, fans, etc. can't make that decision on the field. It has to come from the NFL heads at the top.

[–]raptorrage -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Stupid question, but is the nfl really active in September? Mlb might be more visible because it's close to the world series. Want to start a petition to them?

[–]electricalnoise 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Those women made it fashionable to support and unfashionable to not support. Nobody wants to be the guy that said no to women.

[–]ofuabuaato -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Those women made it fashionable to support and unfashionable to not support.

Correct me if i'm wrong but are you saying that it is a bad thing that women made it fashionable to support breast cancer awareness?

[–]electricalnoise 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No. You're inferring that. I never implied that it was bad. It's quite smart, actually. Were you looking to be offended?

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

no i wasn't but the statement you made was just plain fact so I was wondering what your motive was for pointing that out or if it was just to say something.

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And men can totally push for it to be trendy for prostate cancers!

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

i agree! (i think this is the 155th time I've responded to you :)

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How can you tell?

[–]Afrobean 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you're passionate about diseases which aren't getting enough attention, you should champion that cause.

But yelling at people for championing their own personal cause is stupid. How would you feel if I told you that you can't be passionate about prostate cancer as a cause? Should we cancel that thing in November where some people make a big deal about it? There are FAR worse killers out there, money would be better spent battling heart disease and would help more people. But people have prostate cancer, people die from it, and some people are passionate about curing it. Those people who are passionate about fighting it should be enabled in their righteousness, not denigrated for fighting the "wrong" disease.

And just because a person is passionate about working to help people suffering from one disease doesn't mean they're dispassionate about other problems. Come on. Money donated to fight disease is a GOOD thing, even if it's not the disease you are most passionate about. I mean, you do realize that you're OPPOSING people who want to CURE CANCER. That's something a supervillain would do in a badly written cartoon for children.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women already live several years longer than men on average, but apparently their health issues are more important.

This man gets it. It's fucking bullshit. Even at my workplace they have a "women's heart health awareness" in addition to breast cancer awareness a different month ... absolutely NOTHING for men's health.

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So talk to hr and ask for some men's health programming!

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So start a grassroots prostate cancer charity! That's what the Koman foundation started off as. I'm looking at putting on a run for GIST, my pet issue, in my community.

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's what i'm saying! And it doesn't have to be prostate cancer, that's a harder sell because people, in general, don't like to think about prostates (boobs are more fun or something).

[–]raptorrage -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah. GIST isn't sexy and isn't all that common. But it's important to me!

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

and that's good! I personally applaud that and i really hope you see it through. Because I think preventable and/or treatable diseases should be obsolete, and education is the first step towards that.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Serously, who the fuck isn't aware of breast cancer?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Completely agreed. It's like during 2001 when everyone had bumper stickers that said "support our troops" ... it seems to be a pointless.

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

its not just about being aware, but getting women at risk (those over 35, especially if they've had children) to get checked and catch any signs of cancer early on. That's the real struggle.

Edit: Spelling

[–]raptorrage 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Try fucking colonoscopies and pap smears. ugh.

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

what do you mean? both of those things suck.

[–]raptorrage 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. You have to nag and beg people to get them. Mammograms suck, but it's not having a camera shoved up for rumpus or having a piece of your cervix snipped off

[–]TheDude41 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Fuck all NFL, dads matter. What sort of chivalrous baboons do they have running that show these days?

[–]Daemonicus 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The same baboons who allow their children to play the sport. The same baboons who glorify the athletes for no reason. The same baboons who sweep under the rug the serious health problems (concussions) associated with the game.

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Nothing wrong with playing football! Pretty decent way to make a living if you can be a professional.

I just question shooting each other in the foot for the sake of - well, nothing.

[–]Daemonicus -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nothing wrong with playing football!

That's debatable.

Pretty decent way to make a living if you can be a professional.

Pretty big "if".

[–]raptorrage 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What do you think is wrong with football? The risk of injury, or is it a moral thing?

[–]Daemonicus 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Both...

Mostly the culture that surrounds it. I used to play in high school btw, so this isn't coming from someone that hates jocks or anything. But in addition to the risk of lifelong injury, I don't think athletes should be getting paid millions of dollars. I don't think that there should be be a separate set of rules for athletes and the rest of society. The backroom dealings that occur to get athletes out of trouble is bullshit.

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not if you're already dong it!

[–]theDarkAngle 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And he is a former NFL player to boot. Pretty darn good one too.

[–]raptorrage 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Idk, they're pretty disgraceful about how they treat concussions. I don't think they really care about their players. A child is a way more sympathetic character than an old guy.

[–]Vandredd 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

The NFL pulled a similar situation with D'Angelo Williams wanting to honor his mother who fought breast cancer.

The Nfl isn't sexist, they are arrogant and know they can get away with this shit with no reprocussions. This isn't a men's rights issue, the Nfl can do Whatever the hell it wants and it won't matter

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

If the NFL is gives fines to players honoring males who had cancer but not players honoring females, that is sexist, and that is a men's rights issue, even if the NFL can do it.

[–]Vandredd 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/10/14/deangelo-williams-breast-cancer-month-cameron-heyward

Did you even read what I wrote?

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not the same at all.

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

i think its more that NFL is not giving fines to players who honor children, and giving fines to those who honor adults. IF you can find another instance where a woman is honored and the player goes unfined and the man is honored and the player is fined, i think you'll have a case, but in this instance you don't really know what's driving the discrimination, age or sex.

In addition, like /u/Vandredd said, the NFL stopped player D'Angelo Williams from wearing pink to honor his mother, a female. So i think your theory that the nfl hold females higher than males is even more incorrect.

[–]egalitarianguy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they stopped him.so we dont know if he would have been fined or not.they probably would have told both these gentlemen no aswell.thats not the issue,both broke the rules and one was fined.your example isnt a just one because the rule wasnt broken yet

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Please stop misrepresenting my views. I'm not saying that the NFL always gives a pass to players honoring females and never males. I'm saying that in this one instance, Devon Still got a pass and Cameron Heyward got fined. That's enough to be discrimination even if the NFL doesn't do it repeatedly.

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And I'm saying its not. It could easily be discrimination because one is a child and one is not. OR because one is dead and one is not. You cannot accuse them of discrimination based on sex if there isn't any other precedent.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Or it could be because one was blonde and one was a brunette. Intent doesn't matter. It can be unintentional discrimination. It can also be both discrimination of sex and age.

[–]ofuabuaato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

exactly, so why jump to the conclusion that it was sexism against a man?

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How many circles do you want to make before you agree to disagree?

[–]gmcalabr 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What was the DeAngelo Williams situation?

The NFL can obviously do what they want, but inequal application of law (rules) is absolutely a gender rights/gender inequality issue.

[–]Bier_Man 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Anything to bring in the pink uniform sales. Women eat that shit up. Iron Head isn't marketable.

[–]atheist4thecause[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, Ironhead should be compared to Leah Strong, not the pink stuff.

[–]roharareddit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the inevitable result of the feminist co-option of the NFL which was completed last year with the whole Ray Rice fiasco. It was an event in which two people, by their own admition, were acting like children and a tragic outcome resulted.

Forgiviness was issued privatly between them but that wasn't good enough for the feminist establishment. They had to make an example of this "hyper masculine" sport and extort millions of dollars from the NFL. Moneys which never reached victims of domestic violence but instead were used to "raise awareness" of the all pervasive problem of "men's violence against women." "Raising awiarness" being code for "raising more money."

Now the feminist establishment is using it's new found influence over the NFL to promote their core agenda: the war against fathers and the degradation of the idea of fatherhood. Any public show of appreciation for fathers or an affectionate memorial to a lost father will be targeted. If his mother had died and he had done the same he would have been lionized as a saint. But no, he had the audacity to memorialize his fathers memory in a way that ony a son following in his fathers footsteps could.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter