Women can play american football..in lingerie?

A derogatory and downgrading disgrace to women in sport (and a slap in the face to equality)

This time my blog is not a task I have been set by a teacher, or anything to do with my investigation, yet it is sort of English related, it's not an English topic related issue. Although it is an issue in my opinion. My boyfriend is extremely into American football, he used to play it and when it's the football season, he watches every match. So, being interested in what it's about, I went investigating and tried to learn about the men's league and how the game works so I could impress him. Although i can across what I'm now going to talk about. The Legends Football League (LFL) is a women's 7-on-7 tackle American football league, with games played in the spring and summer at NBA, NFL, NHL and MLS arenas and stadiums. The league was founded in 2009 as the Lingerie Football League and was re-branded as the Legends Football League in 2013. It may be encouraging young girls to get into sport, but not really showing any respect towards the actual skill of game play, rather just how it looks. My boyfriend made the assumption the male viewers watch it for the, and I quote, "booty". Is that an okay thing? To have a sport based around the feminine characteristics of a team, when it should be about how accurate their passes are, how fast they can run, how good they can tackle and all their tactics and behaviour - not how tight their hot pants are. Click here for a clip of a match

The LFL is not the only American football league which involves women, it is the one most popular, most broadcast, and most come across. Here is a list of Football Leagues in America

• Independent Women's Football League (IWFL)

• Women's Football Alliance (WFA)

• United States Women's Football League (USWFL)

• Legends Football League (LFL)

• Icon Women's Football Association-Texas (IWFA-Texas)

• New Mexico Adult Football League Women's Division (NMAFL-W)

• Ladies American Football League 8's (LAFL)

• Women's Premier Football League (WPFL)

• Women's Xtreme Football League-Oklahoma (WXFL)

• Ladies Indoor Football League (LIFL

The games are broadcast on television and the internet around the world - Fuse TV is a channel in which supports and shows matches of the Legends of Football League. There has been much uproar about how this demeaning act of sexism still appears on the televesion in 2016. If there was an equal game in which men played in small, tight shorts and just some shoulder protectors, then okay, atleast it would be equal. However it doesn't account for the issue that the women cover themselves in makeup and have to have their hair perfect before the match in order to gain even more attention their appearance instead of their ball skills. 

A quote from an article by Emily Kaplan
 "It’s an incongruous crew of 20 that would likely never mingle if not for football, which some say feels like a full-time job but is treated as a glorified hobby. LFL players aren’t paid (in fact, they pay an annual $45 registration fee to play), nor are they provided any medical coverage by the league—two issues that have led to ongoing lawsuits."

Talking about medical - the outfits are so tiny and highly less protective than the male clothes. Some sources have quoted that the LFL players used to be paid before 2012 however now many articles say they are not. A quote from another article - "In the Grantland article, Mortaza made the following claim. “If we paid a dime to a player, we wouldn’t sustain a season of play.”" Yet, unlike the other football leagues for women, the game is broadcast on Fuse TV edited down after the week's games have finished. And the crowd pays admission to watch. Why is it that the players don't get any of this?

Moreover the founder/chairman seems a bit of a ****. From quotes "Players say that Mortaza has a presence in the locker room... where multiple women say the commissioner has told them to trash-talk opponents and devise elaborate touchdown celebrations." "He’s also been known to deny a player from joining the league if they don’t meet his aesthetic standards, or for getting involved enough to bench a player if he feels they have gained weight."


A player quotes “... The crowd [size] is just sad,” she says. “You have a friend show up, and maybe your mom, and that’s it. It’s nothing like this.”

Another quote from a player - “It’s the only professional women’s league that gets attention. You can play real football in front of real fans.” However are they fans of you for the play and skill or just the body and looks?

However things could be getting better in the background of these issues. With more recognition of the problems with sexism in the area of sports there are improvements. Beyond the LFL, there’s been more progress for women in football. In summer 2015 Sarah Thomas became an NFL official and Jen Welter, the first woman to play in a men’s pro football league, was a coaching intern with the Arizona Cardinals. Women have a strong appetite for football, and not just as viewers (though 2014 data has women accounting for 45% of the NFL’s 150 million fans). And in the UK 7.01 million females aged 16 years or over (31.2%) played sport once a week, an increase of 703,800 since 2005/06 according to a survey in 2015. There's more interest in the other leagues of football mentioned above and hopefully in the future we can create an equal environment in which men and women can play in similar clothes, which similar pay, similar coaching and similar interest and crowd numbers.

Personally, I hope that the apparent 'legends' of this league actually do something legendary to change the opinions on women in sport. If they all throw away those skimpy hot pants and sports bras and get some proper uniforms and join one of the other football leagues, hopefully, maybe there will be enough women and men that will be able to support their choice to be able to be fully padded and play the game, broadcast on TV, earning a proper wage. Then maybe the world will be a better place.

Investigator Yasmin..

Hi guys,
I'm back this year with a new project! Not only homework is going to be on my blog, but ideas for my investigation for A2 of my English course. In my first year I achieved an A overall for my AS exams. I was so pleased, but this year I don't want to lose it. So, continuing with my blog and creating a tip-top investigation is my plan for the year!

The first idea I had was to investigate whether males or females swear more. I believe that there is always such a big difference in the way women and men talk now, compared to 100 years ago. Females no longer are abiding by the requirement that they should speak with standard English and be reserved. They should use competitive language whenever they like and if they want to, they can speak however they like. Well, I mean within reason, if there's a small child nearby and male or female should not just come along blurting out as many swear words they can think of as children are very susceptible to new words and their parents may not want them to hear! But anyway, rambling away I am, back to topic! I guess the hypothesis would have been to find out if men use more expletives and competitive language with other men and that women always used co-operative language which is a theory by Jennifer Coates.

However, after having a meeting with my subject tutor it seems that may be a bit of a difficult project. I'm not one to just let advise go in one ear and out the other, thus, another option is just to look at pure female language to discover whether they use more competitive/non-co-operative or co-operative language. This, at first, was not what I was thinking of. I wanted to compare males and females to prove a point. Yet, the most important point for me, is being able to create a successful project and getting a good grade. Even if I have doubts at the start, I have full confidence in myself that I can create something great!

So, continuing with the idea I have started to answer questions in note form that could be a starting step to an introduction, including how I plan to collect my data, what data I will collect, from where? From who? When? How? So many questions!! I have written down my aims, predictions, and why I have chosen this investigation. I mean, the reasons are simple:

1. I want to find out if class/background/job/age have anything to do with co-operative language
2. I want to see if the only method that females use to have a conversation is to be supportive to every woman
3. It seems like an interesting, and achievable project.

The programme I have thought of doing is The Island. The Island with Bear Grills has a range of females from young to old and with all different occupies and personalities therefore I am removing variables and making sure my investigation is more fair and true to life.

At the moment I'm finding it difficult to choose whether to just choose 4/5 people to focus on and listen of for what types of language they use. I think I am going to watch at least 3 episodes of the show, which are 45 minutes long, before I decide on who to focus on.

Okay, well I'm now off to watch some clips and continue more research on the people on the show. See you later
Yas x

Adjectives and Nouns

click here for article

I found this article re-tweeted on the East Norfolk The article is based on the subject of the word "fun" the word is known to be in the dictionary as a noun however many people adapt the word into an "adjective" in sentences. Some people, Jerry Jones for instance, states that the word fun is only not grammatically correct when in a sentence such as "That was fun" because fun is being used as an adjective instead of a noun. He declares in his article that the word fun should only be added into a sentence when structured with the words "that was so much fun" with "much" as a preposition to modify the sentence.

I found this article interesting because we were examining in lesson the changing of vocabulary throughout the years, for example in the last year of 2015 hundreds of words were added to the Oxford Dictionary which shows us how language is expanding continuously. Some examples of words are "Hangry" which is a joining of two words-  Hunger and Angry put the together. The meaning? to convey a sense of being frustrated by not having enough to eat.

I believe that with the increase of new words comes word shiftings, for example the word "Gay" shifted with meaning throughout recent years. Originally the word "gay" portrayed a sense of happiness for example "today was a gay day" however then it turned into a term of sexuality when you are in a relationship or attracted to the same sex. However it took a turn for the worst when the word was then added to young people's vocabulary as being a degrading term and another word for "bad" for example "your shoes are so gay" would mean that the person's shoes are extremely tacky or unimpressive to whomever exclaimed the insult. Yet, people have realised that the word "Gay" should NOT be used as a term of negativity or an insult towards someone and some people have started to stop using it, for example myself and my friends. I now say the word "lame" which is much more appropriate and funny too.

Therefore, the word "fun" should be able to have a semantic change. The word fun may have been used as a noun as in "to have fun" however now people are said to be fun and lively. I think this word is appropriate due to the fact the word "Funful" does not exist and an appropriate adjective for the situation would be "amusing" or "entertaining" which neither are quite the same as the word fun itself. Click here for the thesaurus page on the word fun. The word fun on thesaurus.com is said to be a noun and an adjective giving other synonyms and antonyms for the word.

However the word fun has been demonstrated as an adjective for many years for example "Doing something fun like redecorating your room…is really interesting biz for a teen who loves being busy." was from 1951 OED v. teen n.2. Here we have an informal piece of writing with the word "biz" and the adjective "fun". This post was written over 50 years ago and clearly shows the word class shift from noun to adjective.

Personally, I believe that if someone wants to say the word "fun" and say it as an adjective then i'm all for it. Me and my friends even make up our own words sometimes use words from my favourite books which are also made up, it's not always an important issue to worry about whether you are being grammatically correct if you are still having FUN. Go forth and have the funnest most fun time ever and i'm sure it will be really fun if you don't listen to Jerry Jones all the time, but perhaps next time at least give the word fun a little notice if you are conveying it as a noun or adjective.

Au revoir,

Yazzy J

This tweet is about the word "we" and it is found as a re-tweet on the East Norfolk Twitter feed. It was originally on the SFCF English Language blog with a link to The Guardian, the post itself is written by Gavin Davis. The gist of the piece is conveying ideas on the way we say the word "we" I had never really thought about how other languages would say it differently to us for plural and excluding the people involved in the situation. For example, the word "we" in English may mean "me and my friends all went out the other night it was so funny" not including the person I'm telling the sorry o because they weren't there or the word "we" may refer in the situation of "we had such a laugh didn't we??" if I was asking a question to the friends that I had gone out with therefore including them. However in other languages for example Chinese they have separate words for "we" as we see here in this table.

This topic interested me because there are lots of different ways to say things that people have learnt and this relates to not just language. I always think it's really interesting how in this world we have came up with over 6000 languages to communicate and interact with each other. It also interests me that I wonder how different life would have been if we all spoke one language, I mean would we be creating new languages? I doubt it! Apart from if we created a specific language for social groups of friendships groups more so than we do already with our shibboleths. The way that each language is structured also has similarities and yet differences, the fact that one simple word of "we" has the ability to have so many different ways of saying it could be analysed and shows just how interesting the study of language may be.

This piece of text I chose did not make me laugh nor cry, but it did make me wonder about life on earth because I wonder where all these languages came from? I mean how many people were there on early earth and where did they evolve from? In that case how could so many languages come from just a few species of homosapien which  have evolved into the humans we are today.

In the English A level course I have learnt so many new things, it's been annoying sometimes as I no longer listen to conversations the same after doing a lesson on dialect for example, when speaking to my friends who also do English language we would notice how many times we repeated a word for example "like" in a few sentences. I tend to add the word "like" into my conversations a lot! Therefore learning new things like that really make a difference when I'm reading text or listening to everyday conversations. I think the course so far has made me much more aware of everything from written words and how the language is structured and the reasons behind it! Also learning about non-standard grammar against the queen's English has made me feel like I have an understanding of the type and variations of one language that is English.

Are emojis ruining or enriching the English Language? :)

Hi guys,

I'm here again with another blog post!! This weeks' topic is all about emojis, do you love a cheeky emoji from time to time? I know i do! However, some people are looking further into how emojis are coming into conversations these days and becoming more of a necessity for language. I'll be exploring various articles questioning the matter of emojis.

Firstly, emojis haven't just been what we know and love today, on android and Apple there are a range of smiley faces to incorporate into texts and messages, captions and comments, though years before this we would write or type a ":)" to suggest that we were happy/smiley about something and a ":(" to give the impression that we're sad or disappointed. Then these were so highly appreciated it evolved into a range or 'smilies' with angry, happy, sad, shocked, laughing, confused, winking, partying. Here are some emoticons from MSN Messenger from around the year 2000.

Back then, the MSN emoticons were great. They helped you say things without needing to type it all out. Just like will emojis, how can they be ruining language when the point of any language is to understand each other? With emoticons and emojis they really describe your emotions and how you are feeling. For example a winky face ";)" may hint that the sender is joking about something or it can be seen as flirting! It's a great way to either get the person to realise you're just messing around like in person you would say the 'joke' while laughing or with some sort of jokey, sneaky face or emotion that they would understand whereas texting is a bit different.

For example the sentence "What are you doing this weekend?;)" would suggest to the recipient that they may be implying they would like to do something with them at the weekend for example go on a date. However without the wink, someone may just see it as normal conversational chit-chat.

Also when talking to friends lets imagine someone said "Do you like my new bag?" Then the friend replies with "It's disgusting" the friend would feel extremely upset most likely. However if the friend sent "It's disgusting;)" the friend would obviously know it's a joke and they do like the bag really!

Anyway, enough of the history of emojis. It's all about the present now. Currently there are topics arising with the dependency on emojis in text. Some people are finding it lazy and stupid to put a face instead of finding the effort to type or write words!! For example an article on Huffington Post displays this quote:

"I am deeply offended by them." Maria McErlane, a British journalist, actress and radio personality told The New York Times in 2011. "If anybody on Facebook sends me a message with a little smiley-frowny face ... I will de-friend them ... I find it lazy. Are your words not enough?"

I think this shows how emojis aren't for everyone. Some people may always prefer words to faces to describe how they feel, these people may also suggest that it is ruining English language. This is because as we write less and less words as they are replaced by faces it results in us being more and more illiterate. Although, do i agree? Not really. I think it shows what type of person you are if you fancy sending a cheeky smiley from time to time!! But I do understand sometimes emojis can feel like they are being put way too much, way too often.

Next, from the same article, another quote opposes this showing emojis in a very postive light:

"It's like you're a speaker of some primitive Japanese picture language with only three hundred some odd words and your vocabulary just DOUBLED."

This is suggesting that emojis are extremely helpful for expressing yourself and your views especially when testing a friend. To compare it to doubling vocabulary is a strong view however it is true, they can display how you feel with a few little pictures than many words also they really put emphasis into the conversation.

Another quote from the same article suggests that emojis again, are great, one person says "WAIT A SECOND! There are NEW EMOJIS for iOS6 and I can't even begin to explain my excitement ...There's a family and a bride, which I'll never use except wishfully, and gay and lesbian couples ... And there is a tongue...."

This person was obviously very excited about the new update. Even more on topic there was a recent emoji update just a couple of dfays ago! It contains more hand gestures (even a rude one that shouldn't really be on there) and plenty of others for Apple product owners to get!!

In conclusion, I don't think emojis are ruining the English Language at all. I mean it's not like students go into exams and expect to be able to draw some smiley faces and get their ideas across! Teenagers know the time and place to use them and when it is appropriate. It helps to separate formal from informal and can enrich the conversation, definitely not ruin it. For example people that are shy might find it easier to send faces which would represent their expressions than to have to struggle and find words to suit their emotions. Although on the other hand it might discourage people from trying to spell words which then may lead to spelling mistakes when at school as they don't practice at home. Many people although tend to use '"text speak" for example "C U soon 2morrow" which isn't enriching there english language any more so than an emoji. I think emojis are great from time to time and i think it's somebody's own person preference and opinion to whether they want to put them into their messages and texts. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Language Scrapbook 2

Hi guys,

I'm back again with part 2 of the language scrapbook *fanfare and applause*. Today i will be examining another piece of writing.




The genre of this piece of text is a type of poem from a children's book. It's not known if the whole book is by an African Pygmy or if the book is full of different poems. The text is about a fish which we can clearly tell on the line "I am the fish". The genre is simple and short and uses mostly monosyllabic words to convey that the poem is for a younger audience.
The audience of the piece will be to young people in nursery or primary school due to the simple words in the text. The text could also been read out to the audience of young people by a more experienced reader that would emphasize the words.
The purpose of the text is the reason that it's been created is that the subject of the fish is described about it's actions and what it does. The reason is to give children entertainment while learning words and about animals, the reader may feel relaxed and happy as the writer states "everything lives, everything dances, everything sings" which are really positive words and phrases to make the reader feel joyful. Also in this the author has conveyed repetition in the text by the word "everything" which is a persuasive technique and gets the readers' attention.
The context of production, in my opinion, is that the language is basic, the influence on the text could be that the it is for a younger audience therefore even when the poem was written, the author still had access to the basic, simple, monosyllabic words he wrote in the text. Whereas, he wasn't really able to put polysyllabic, educated and elongated words in the poem as this wouldn't be professional for the intended audience.
The context of reception is that the most likely option that the text will be received in is a book being read by a young reader or being read to by a more advanced reader that can emphasize and exaggerate the words, pauses and sentence structures for the audience listening.
In my opinion the range of persuasive techniques is great and the verbs and nouns and general positivity of the poem is super.

Should we always use English correctly?

                

Hi guys, it's Yasmin here again to give my opinion on "You should always use English correctly" I wrote a 500 word post on the matter with the conclusion being no, we should not always have to use English correctly. I hope you can read the pictures if not I can update it! I think speaking English correctly is important for certain times and would have many benefits, however I think we should not have to conform to the typical English language all of the time.