Sarri accuses Mancini of being gay.

Losing to Inter at the 90th, 4th referee puts out a 9 minute extra time board. Mancini complains, referee agrees it is a mistake at sets it to 5 minutes. Sarri rails at Mancini calling him a finocchio and frocio (gay). Mancini responds and is sent off. Inter wins 2-0 but Mancini in a later interview says it is unimportant as he has been attacked by a 60 year old racist. Is Mancini gay? If so, who cares. He is a good manager. Did Sarri go overboard? Yes.

breva wrote:Losing to Inter at the 90th, 4th referee puts out a 9 minute extra time board.  Mancini complains, referee agrees it is a mistake at sets it to 5 minutes.  Sarri rails at Mancini calling him a finocchio and frocio (gay).  Mancini responds and is sent off. Inter wins 2-0 but Mancini in a later interview says it is unimportant as he has been attacked by a 60 year old racist. Is Mancini gay?  If so, who cares.  He is a good manager.  Did Sarri go overboard?  Yes.

No I don't think so as He's been married for 26 years . Looks like it was intended as an insult ( which is stupid ).

I don't think so either, he has 3 children, too. But what in the heck went through Sarri's head to use "gay" as an insult? Very strange, Sarri must have issues as he also said after the game that Napoli collected more yellow cards because the game has gotten "gay" in Italy.

Disgusting. He should be banned for a long time. Homophobia is not cool.

Homophobic people are typically insecure and not very emotionally intelligent, so not only Sarri comes across as an unpleasant person, this also doesn't flatter his attributes as manager, as someone who works with people.

Btw, just want to point out that someone being married and having kids doesn't at all exclude the possibility of them being gay. There are loads of married men in the world who are actually more gay than straight.

Sarri is almost 60 years old. He grew up and lived most of his life in a time period and culture that it was okay to say these things.

I'm not defending him but I can see why he probably thought it wasn't a big deal to say it.

There's still a lot of backward people in this world.

Yeah, that's also true, and as far as I know Italy is a pretty macho culture, like a mafia lol, at least used to be. Being gay in a macho gender culture is tough. Actually reading this thread reminded me of that Sopranos thing where one of their, err, members turned out to be gay and most of the others weren't cool with it. You can't be gay in mafia, I suppose.

Yes we are taking about it yesterday in Coppa Italia thread  .
However  he didn't use gay but the offensive term for it. (Fa**** and que** )

Anyway Sarri is not new for this homofobe positions
In 2014  after the Serie B match Empoli - Varese he said :

" The football became a sport for  f aggots.  We got the double of tackles yet we got more yellow cards.
It is a sport contact but the Italian refs blow more than foreign refs with interpretation rules for homosexuals  ".

http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Serie-A/Napoli/19-01-2016/napoli-quando-sarri-disse-il-calcio-diventato-sport-froci-mancini-140328987107.shtml

So it was not a gaffe yesterday  he is really an ignorant and homophobe human being .

Art Morte wrote:Homophobic people are typically insecure and not very emotionally intelligent, so not only Sarri comes across as an unpleasant person, this also doesn't flatter his attributes as manager, as someone who works with people.

Btw, just want to point out that someone being married and having kids doesn't at all exclude the possibility of them being gay. There are loads of married men in the world who are actually more gay than straight.

There are several possible motivations that can drive sexual prejudice (including homophobia)

- It can serve as an experiential function: Simply put if you have pleasant experiences with homosexuals a person is likely to adopt a positive attitude to homosexuals generally. And on the other hand unpleasant experiences are likely to lead to a negative attitude generally, as a way of dealing with that experience.

-It can serve as a value-expressive function: Simply put it enables heterosexuals to affirm their belief in and adherence to important values. This probably correlates strongly with religiosity. It is also the case that sanctity is one of the main moral foundations of conservatives (As described in the "The righteous mind" by Jonathan Haidt) and as such they tend to be prone to disgust at non-normative sexual behaviour. (I use conservative not in a political sense but to describe a general mindset as described by haidt that incorporates sanctity as a moral foundation - I think that is as likely to be prevalent among working class socialists as any other group. The most recent data I've seen suggests in the US 70% of republicans identity as conservative and 20% of democrats)

It can serve a social expressive function: Simply put, that means expressing homophobia  strengthens one's sense of belonging to a particular group and helps an individual to gain acceptance or approval from other people whom she or he considers important (e.g., peers, family, neighbors). So a tribal thing basically. Just as with religion or politics, if a person grows up around homophobia they will probably become homophobic.

It can serve as a defensive function: Simply put, it helps the individual to reduce painful emotions and feelings (e.g., anxiety) that are triggered by gay people or homosexuality. The defensive process occurs largely outside of the individual's awareness. This is basically the stereotype of a homophobic closet homosexual that gay people love talking about. I think it's what you meant by "insecure".


Those are the un-controversial explanations. It is also quite possible homophobia is genetically adapted. This theory to my knowledge hasn't been studied much since the 90s, presumably because researchers don't want shit thrown at them by homosexual activist groups.
The main study of this that I know of was done by Gordon Gallop who suggests homophobia stems from a fear that your childrens' sexuality is malleable to the extent that experiences with  homosexuals can alter them, therefore ending the possibility of the parents' genes being passed on.
His study demonstrated that homophobia is particularly prevalent among parents and particularly in response to questions about how they feel about homosexuals working in practices where they have contact with children.

According to the scientificamerican -

"Gallup never claims that being seduced by a gay pedophile is the only path to homosexuality, nor that—obviously—"turning gay" is an inevitable outcome of being molested by an adult of the same sex. Instead, he argues, in the ancestral past, such developmental experiences would have led to statistically more homosexuality outcomes than would the absence of such encounters, and thus there was a selection bias for homophobia, apparently exacerbated by becoming a parent."

And then:

"Recent evidence offers some support for Gallup’s model: men—but not women—who were sexually abused as children by same-sex adults are more likely than non-abused males to have homosexual relationships as grownups. Most researchers believe that there is something like a "sexual imprinting" process that occurs in early development, which may help to explain this, as well as fetishism and paraphilias. Note also that some of the most virulent homophobia today can be found on the playgrounds, which is consistent with the sexual imprinting model. Children and teen’s stubborn reluctance towards tolerating gays and lesbians may itself be an adaptive proscription orienting them away from same-sex experimentation. Gallup points to data showing that boys whose first masturbation experiences are around other boys are more likely to be homosexual as adults than are those who are alone."

The evidence of that - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-008-9449-3


Gallop's theory was countered by John Archer who suggested his findings reflected a sort of xenophobia fuelled by media depictions of gay paedophiles.

Gallop's response:

"Although the incidence of heterosexual pedophiles exceeds that of homosexual pedophiles by a factor of about two to one, individuals in the population at large with a heterosexual orientation outnumber those with a homosexual orientation by about 20 to 1. Thus, although there are fewer homosexual than heterosexual pedophiles, the proportion of homosexual pedophiles is considerably higher than that of heterosexual pedophiles. Homosexual pedophiles also tend to be highly promiscuous. [In 1987], the mean number of victims of heterosexual pedophiles was 19.8, whereas among homosexual pedophiles the average number of victims was 150.2. Because they have more victims, homosexual pedophiles have a correspondingly greater likelihood of being apprehended, and this might account for their disproportionate representation among those arrested for sex crimes"

Gallop's study can be found here -http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309596000428

This theory can be considered controversial as its dangerous, the danger being to provide justification for the demonisation of homosexuals. It is a tricky subject to navigate.

Vibe wrote:Sarri didn't actually accuse Mancini of being gay FFS, people actually discussing whether Mancini is gay Completely missing the point...

We know, and we don't care.

That's an inacceptable thing to do really, except towards Mancini.

It can always be simply projection, too. That is, you accuse someone of something that you don't want to acknowledge in yourself. ^^ It's very often found in cheating partners who are doubly jealous as they expect their own partner to act that way as they do it themselves.

Sarri "im not homophobic, i have gay friends"

legit

Thread title doesn't do it justice, should be "Sarri calls Mancini a f*****t"

Sarri just keeps digging his grave deeper and deeper in the aftermath of this:


"The adrenaline in the field can do tricks on the mind. I apologized to Mancini. It's all ok for me."

"I can't remember what I said to Mancini"

"What happens on the pitch should just stay on the pitch."

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Thread title doesn't do it justice, should be "Sarri calls Mancini a f*****t"

Sarri just keeps digging his grave deeper and deeper in the aftermath of this:


"The adrenaline in the field can do tricks on the mind. I apologized to Mancini. It's all ok for me."

"I can't remember what I said to Mancini"

"What happens on the pitch should just stay on the pitch."

Well, not to defend him in the slightest but calling someone that, it's not always used in a discriminatory way- like against homosexuals, it is basically used for someone being an asshole or a dick.

Moving on from that, he's a grown man of 60 years old. So, there's no saving himself there.

The only thing I don't like is Mancini calling him a racist, homophobic doesn't mean racist. Racist refers to racial discrimination... Homosexual people are not their own race. Sarri was discriminating, just not on the basis of race.

Sarri and Mancini make up

http://www.football-italia.net/78766/sarri-and-mancini-make

dat title

S wrote:Sarri and Mancini make out

http://www.football-italia.net/78766/sarri-and-mancini-make

dat title

am I the only one that keeps seeing Sarri and thinking it was a iPhone that called mancini gay

http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Serie-A/Inter/21-01-2016/mancini-disse-un-giornalista-gazzetta-sport-frocio-m-140345382178.shtml

Mancini used the same slur back in 2001 against a Gazzetta journalist

yea but it was okay back then eh

Unique wrote:am I the only one that keeps seeing Sarri and thinking it was a iPhone that called mancini gay

It took me one day and an Iphone commercial spot later to get the joke

I was looking for a Sarri thread to post about how amazing he is and then I found this

Best coach in Europe after pep. Or is he better? He is not spending 500 mil

Nah

He's alright though, a bit too provinciale. He seems perfectly suited to Napoli and Napoli to him, it would be hard pressed to imagine him having a similar impact elsewhere if I'm being honest

If he manages to bring the Scudetto to Napoli this season, that would be a very special feat but he's not even the best manager in Serie A, let alone Europe

You will need to explain what it means to be provincial? He doesn't speak good Italian? He doesn't wear suits? He lives in a farm?