bren2k wrote:
There is no logic to your argument; you're either being deliberately obtuse, or you've disappeared up your own anus. For all the faux pc outrage you imply, I know that you're intelligent enough to understand that there is a difference between being morbidly obese, and characteristics such as gender, sexuality or cultural background.
of course i accept that obesity is different to being black, But then being black is different to being gay, which is different to being a woman.
And i used those examples because they are all examples of what people said, to justify their prejudice against a person for the way they looked, or their lifestyle. They werent always an upfront racist, they werent always an out and proud homophobe or misogynist, and many thought that what they were saying was not only correct but came from a good place.
People wanted a pretty young girl at reception because they thought it portrayed a good image, not because they hated women. They hid black guys in the back not because they themselves were racist, but because they didnt want to project 'that kind of image' or attract 'that type of crowd' because it might scare the regulars.
Now we have people saying that Nigel Wood shouldnt be doing what he does because of the image his lifestyle portrays, because of the way he looks of the life he chooses to lead.
There is no faux-pc outrage here. Im simply pointing out the obvious parallel that exists when people make snap judgments on peoples ability to do their job based on something other than their ability to do their job.
Thats without even addressing the logic that argues that to promote a fit and healthy life-style sports should exclude over-weight people. Every other sport is looking to promote themselves as the answer for anyone, from walking football to touch rugby, the message is that big, small, strong, weak, our sport is for you. Except RL, which apparently wants strict codes on body type for its employees.
