Red Card: Afterthoughts on Manchester United’s “Rape Party”
Before Christmas, the media here in England was whipping itself up into a froth over what has become known as Manchester United’s “Rape Party” - a private-ish holiday bash for which players paid a planner to “harvest” cute girls from the city’s shops, sidewalks, and bars.
WAGS were left at home as the guys (a few pictured here, ripped from The Sun’s website) went from a strip club (where they could never have behaved as they would later on), to a bar, to a hotel they’d rented out for the night (see standard tabloid story by The Mirror). Newspapers here recited tales of players groping and molesting their guests, and settled on their favorite story - of a woman who was “roasted” by six players, who left her with the compliment that she was “a great shag.”
The night took a predictable turn when a rape was reported to the police - and here, of course, the story gets murky: a 26 year-old model reported having been raped by a 19 year-old player (who was “quizzed” by police and released). The truthfulness of her complaint is now, again predictably, in dispute. Rumors abound that her boyfriend had been thrown out of the party, and was the person who phoned the police. The scandal has died down: Man U won its games following this event, seems in form as a team, and that’s that. Few seemed genuinely bothered by the fact that money which flows to the team from fans is being used to fund the worst impulses of a bunch of spoiled assholes who can’t imagine bonding with each other unless it is via and through the body of some woman they’ve “used” together.
Sir Alex Ferguson has said very little - word is he’s banned parties, but the party line is that it’s a “club matter”.
.
The American Parallel
Americans will recognize the harmony between this event and the party thrown by Duke University Lacrosse players last year and the ensuing fiasco as the local authorities and university used this event to exorcise themselves of past demons. The call to the cops was in that instance placed by a stripper who had been hired to perform. The charges from that case were eventually dismissed - but not before her complaint surfaced the obscene racism and sexism of the culture of that team and that campus. At the very least, those young men managed to transform bad judgement (in throwing a wild party and hiring strippers, etc.) into an intensely abusive and creepy display of entitlement.
This story looks only slightly less complex, but even more offensive. Duke, as far from perfect as it is, is not an unreflective embodiment of patriarchy in and of itself - Duke has as many women students as men, anti-discrimination policies in hiring, and was recently led by a woman president. Racism and sexism thrive within its walls, but the extreme versions of those attitudes manifested by players on that team do not represent the institution’s public face, or even its present mission. Manchester United, on the other hand, is a men’s organization - with some under 16 coaching as window dressing. The story of this party has been swallowed up by indifference to the ways that it reminds us of just what a patriarchal culture looks like.
As scandalous as it is to admit, I can understand why someone might make a false rape accusation. Most of the people attending that party have little opportunity to consider what feels exploitative, abusive, disempowering and why - and what avenues are available to them to protest and resist the behavior, and the attitudes that behavior manifests. What avenue is there really for anyone at a party like that to complain? To register their sense of outrage? Someone had a right to protest - and why not one of the women’s boyfriends? Frankly, that’s the kind of man I wouldn’t mind having as a friend. That party had all the hallmarks of the kind of thing at which people are victimized - at which, at the very least, a woman’s consent is used an excuse for the abuse of power.
I would like to imagine a football club whose culture produces both fiercely competitve athletes, and compassionate people. The two can and do go together. But to get from here to there would take a fair amount of self-examination - some real work.
.
From Ladies Teams to Xmas Parties: a Manchester Continuum
Now, here’s my cross: I think the disaster of that party is on a continuum with the events that led to Manchester United’s abandonment of its women’s team (2005’s squad is pictured left). Yes, you read me right: There is no Manchester United women’s team. Manchester City (pictured right) however, does have one (the Man City ladies), and seems most proud of the fact!
Man U ladies were disbanded by the organization in 2005. The disbanded team played most of its life outside the organization’s umbrella - they formed in 1979 as “Manchester United Supporters Club Ladies” - this group eventually became founding members of the North West Women’s Regional Football League in 1989, and enjoyed increasingly competitive seasons at varying levels until they were brought into Man U, which had been running schools for girls through its community development programs. Some of the players in the disbanded team had come up through this system. Man U is required by law to offer training for girls in order to run a school for boys - and one gets the sense this is the ONLY reason they train girls at all.
Incredibly, in the letter sent to players informing them that the team was disbanded - and that they couldn’t play even on their own under the name - the organization’s leaders explained that it had never been their ‘intention to become involved in women’s football at a high level’. In his 2005 article for the Salford Advertiser, Tony Howard cites a Man U spokesman: “We have always made it clear the ladies’ and girls’ section was about community partnership and education rather than establishing a centre of excellence. Ultimately the hope is the boys will progress to the first team. So naturally more resources are put into that area because it is our core business.”
Enough said - women’s soccer is only as good as a side show. According to the May 2005 Man U shareholder’s newsletter, Hayley Bates (pictured here on the right), saw the dismantling of the team as the final expression of “a pattern of a lack of respect for the women and sexual discrimination since the inception of the women’s department.” The team members were given plastic water bottles as a send-off.
As I know the Man U guys in the office and on the pitch wouldn’t listen to anything that felt at all feminist-y, I would recommend they watch a couple of films about women athletes - like Dare to Dream: The Story of US Women’s Soccer, an HBO documentary about the US team that won the world cup in penalty kicks before a statium audience of 90,000.
Or This Is a Game Ladies, about top ranked Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team and their inspiring coach C. Vivian Springer (these women were infamously the subject of racist/sexist remarks from radio host Imas, who very much picked on the wrong group of woman - check out a recent highlight of their season here).
Anyway, what if Man U players make a point of talking to the women who play football in Manchester - Why not begin to learn about women by learning about women who have a lot in common with male athletes, but who enjoy none of their privileges?
The women of Manchester have a right to expect the city’s men to take an interest in their side - not just to defend it, but to, in fact, fight for it. FC United, the fan-owned club formed in 2005 by disgruntled Man U fans (wary of the new American owner Glazer whose takeover coincides with the axing of the women’s team) should, according to their website, be forwarding a ladies’ side about now. I look forward to seeing them in action.
.
About the Author
Jennifer Doyle writes a blog from the unique point of view as a woman who plays (currently in a London league), who has a feminist perspective on the beautiful game, and expertise in amateur football in the Los Angeles.
There isn’t much sustained soccer commentary from a feminist perspective, there’s very little writing about amateur football, and most of the press in the football (UK)/soccer (US) is ill-informed. As Jennifer says herself: “My blog inhabits these odd corners in the field (excuse the pun).”
For more information visit From A Left Wing .
Related Items from Soccerlens
- Will The FA Ban Rooney And Scholes?
- Rape claim at Manchester United Christmas Party
- Analyzing Manchester United’s Red Cards vs Porto
- FA bungles it in charging Arsenal and Chelsea
- Arsenal/Wenger are misguided; there’s no conspiracy
She has a valid point. But as she points out in the article, is it relevant to the majority of the crazy fans?
More articles on this “party” ?ahhhhhhhh!
what I don’t get is this bit :
———————————————–
Most of the people attending that party have little opportunity to consider what feels exploitative, abusive, disempowering and why - and what avenues are available to them to protest and resist the behavior, and the attitudes that behavior manifests. What avenue is there really for anyone at a party like that to complain? To register their sense of outrage? Someone had a right to protest - and why not one of the women’s boyfriends? Frankly, that’s the kind of man I wouldn’t mind having as a friend. That party had all the hallmarks of the kind of thing at which people are victimized - at which, at the very least, a woman’s consent is used an excuse for the abuse of power.
————————————————-
A womans CONSENT - thats right, CONSENT. She agrees to it, no one forces her, what right does anyone else have to complain about it? If she has a problem with it, fine…but jealous boyfriends filing rape cases against people who are probably innocent just because his girlfriend is, so to speak, a slag.
You are responsible for your own actions, those women are too. If no one forced them to do anything, and they dont seem to have a problem, then its no ones business.
You say people at the party “have little opportunity to consider what feels exploitative, abusive, disempowering and why” - how would you know that? how do you know their definition of “exploitative, abusive or disempowering” is not different from yours? Thats the kind of man you would like as a friend, but you wouldnt be at one of these parties would you?
Your argument reeks of moralism and preachiness. If nobody was forced to do anything, no wrong was done, and its none of your business, or mine for that matter, what goes on where behind who’s closed doors.
I don’t say in my post what I think regarding whether or not a rape happened. My aim was to ask: Is that “yes” which makes it not rape really all that matters? I mean, should one’s main concern be that one’s lover not feel raped? I know guys say that in forums like this, but I don’t believe for a minute that they would say such a thing to their girlfriends, sisters, or mothers!
Most of us aim to conduct ourselves by higher standards than those offered by criminal law. And, for the record: I do not support the filing of false accusation - my point was rhetorical.
My real point - the one that is actually about football - is that the decision to cut the Man U women’s team is on a continuum with the decision to throw that party and behave in that way - I would shift the blame, then, from the players to the organization itself.
So - yes, I am moralizing: I think Man U was dead wrong to cut the women’s team!
BTW: Where is the money from that fine going? I know it’s to a charity - but wouldn’t it be great if it were to fund a Man U women’s team? They’d be the richest by far in the country, and be at the top of the tables in a heartbeat!
Although several good points are made, the author loses all credibility with…
“As scandalous as it is to admit, I can understand why someone might make a false rape accusation. Most of the people attending that party have little opportunity to consider what feels exploitative, abusive, disempowering and why - and what avenues are available to them to protest and resist the behavior, and the attitudes that behavior manifests. What avenue is there really for anyone at a party like that to complain? To register their sense of outrage? Someone had a right to protest - and why not one of the women’s boyfriends? Frankly, that’s the kind of man I wouldn’t mind having as a friend.”
To excuse a false claim as some sort of misguided protest is irresponsible and does an injustice to real rape victims. Not only does it make people less likely to believe a real victim, but a rape claim will stick with the accused forever, even if proven false.
Awww come on ! CR7 wasn’t even there! Take that picture down!:)
Also, I see the authors points and agree with them individually, but dislike the connection between potentially false rape claims and women’s soccer/football in Manchester. I don’t think the two really are connected that heavily - outside of the fact that its a “boys game” when looking at male dominated sports and that the feelings of not caring about women can be tied to a lack of sporting programs and a lack of respect for women, generally. While I don’t agree or like that fact, when players with celebrity and fame and money decide to throw a party and invite women (who choose to go be eye candy, essentially, but then things get out of hand), I fail to see how that relates to Man U canceling their women’s program, outside of what was stated earlier. I imagine economics and logistics played an important role in that decision - and yes the argument can go on, that people don’t watch women’s sports be/c they discriminate against women, but to draw that all back to this party is a little far fetched. I think this could happen with any of the clubs in the premier league lately.
That doesn’t mean that I agree with Man U’s choices, tho, in either arena. The party was gross, and I dislike the double standards, and some of the fans’ responses to the party have been disappointing, reminding us of how the majority feel about rape and how to define it.
On another note, perhaps part of Man U’s muted response has to do with the circus that was the Duke la crosse scandal, and they are taking a cue from that?
Good article tho, enjoyed reading it!
Ms. Doyle:
With regards to your comments about Duke University:
“At the very least, those young men managed to transform bad judgement (in throwing a wild party and hiring strippers, etc.) into an intensely abusive and creepy display of entitlement.”
“Duke, as far from perfect as it is, is not an unreflective embodiment of patriarchy in and of itself - Duke has as many women students as men, anti-discrimination policies in hiring, and was recently led by a woman president. Racism and sexism thrive within its walls, but the extreme versions of those attitudes manifested by players on that team do not represent the institution’s public face, or even its present mission.”
What you failed to note was the extreme attitudes and sense of entitlement manifested by over 88 Duke University professors who signed a petition condemning the three men before all the facts were ever presented. Duke, like most elite American institutions of “higher learning,” have become thought indoctrination camps. Students are taught what to think. Not how to think independently.
For another perspective on the Duke situation, here is a someone who followed it extensively from the beginning to the end: Professor William Anderson of Frostburg State University in Maryland.
“Afterward 88 members of the Duke faculty, representing 13 departments, ran an advertisement condemning players and calling for them to confess…
To put it another way, they wanted confessions without proof of guilt. I suspect that many, if not all, of the signers of the advertisement say they are against the war in Iraq and are abhorred by the allegations of torture committed by U.S. interrogators to gain information from captured “insurgents.” However, in seeing how they reacted to the charges against the lacrosse players, I also believe that they would have supported the use of torture or any means necessary to gain “confessions” from these young men.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson131.html
Comparing this to the Duke lacrosse scandal is wrong.
Can you explain again why you think it’s OK to make a false rape claim? Because the players weren’t nice to them? You said it’s a fake rape claim, so despite the player’s behaviour, the girls still agreed to go to bed with them.
What next? If a guy doesn’t call after a 1-night stand, is it OK to make a claim of rape then? What about if he’s not a good sh@g?
I think this girl’s boyfriend, the one who reported the fake rape (if that’s who did it) should be made to face the same sentance in jail that someone who genuinly raped would face. After all, when you make a bogus claim like this, you are putting some other person at risk of going to jail for all those years, so all people making claims of rape that turn out to be false, should spend this amount of time in jail.
To say that you would like such a guy as a friend is disgusting. My mother was raped and I was the result, your words fill me with revulsion.
Oh, and even without that line, the article was really really poor. It was obvious right from the off that the article was written by a woman - not because it was poor, but because it was adhering to the notion of the world being unfair to women, that all things should be equal when clearly there are differences in circumstances. I suppose you think Women tennis players should get equal pay in your eyes too? Even though they play for less time and sell less tickets?
Should Man United also provide football schools for disabled children? No disabled child will get into the team, therefore cannot be an asset to the business. This is purely on ability - of course, someone with a minor disability could make it, and I hope they do. Girls are forbidden by LAW to play in the same team as boys, so there is even less reason to train them.
If you want to rant about inequality, rant about the fact that my 5-a-side team was not allowed to join a league because there was a girl in our team - forbidden by law. We’re trying to start our own “Private League” in which case girls can play in the same team as boys. (we are all adults by the way).
Steering clear of most of your remarks, let me just ask: if it’s all about the money, why does Man U offer training for girls under 16? Why end training just when the best become eligible to play for club and country? Wouldn’t having Man U women play in the Olympics, or play on a winning FIFA world cup team, or bring in a UEFA trophy help sell even more shirts - and broaden the fan base for the men’s team?
And, again, regarding equality: girls have the right to dream of playing for the country, for a club, of making the sport their life if they are good enough to do so. This isn’t to say that Man U is the best organization to give them that chance. Just that women have that right - to aim high.
People used to think women’s tennis wouldn’t make anybody money, that nobody would care about it - now women’s tennis frequently draws higher television audiences, and sells more tickets than men’s tennis. That’s why the controversy over prize inequity came up. If it’s all about the money (and not about how hard you work, or how many games you play), then shouldn’t they be paid more?
For the story on tennis, pay, and inequity see Paul Newman’s June 2006 article for The Independent: http://sport.independent.co.uk/tennis/article1095772.ece
And, as I said above, my point re: the charge - I can *understand why* someone might do so, out of desperation, confusion, and anger. Of course I also feel strongly that it is wrong to knowingly make a false accusation.
Sort of like how one might *understand why* Zidane administered his “coup de boule”, and still know that it was very much a red card foul.