Print

Print


          While reluctant to get involved in e-mail disputes, I am
          so shocked and appalled by G. Parsons' comments on violence
          and the superbowl that I feel I must respond.  Parsons,
          since he is logged into Screen-L,  is presumably a media
          scholar of some sort and at least an academic, and yet is
          working from truly frightening classist and sexist
          assumptions.
 
          First, the history of European football, or soccer, as we
          call it here, is truly complex and has deep roots in the
          working class.  While I do not condone violence of any
          kind, it is also important to realize that the media
          portrayal of football hooliganism, in England at least, has
          been, in part, an effort to disparage the kind of class
          identity that has been forged through soccer fandom.  And as
          for the relative excitement of the two sports, has Parsons
          read Mike Real's piece on the Superbowl in which he states
          that there are approximately two minutes of action during
          the whole interminable telecast?
 
          Second, the very word 'nagged' reveals deep patriarchal
          assumptions about stereotypical female behavior with no
          sensitivity to the exploitation of women within the domestic
          sphere.  And I cannot believe that Parsons truly means
          that's it's okay to beat someone up because she "nags" you.
 
          Roberta Pearson
          Annenberg School for Communications
          University of Pennsylvania