@Canes2Arizona@futt_buckerson@finznationftw@Canes4Dayz We beat you in 5 games to win our back to back cup. And since you’re so horned up about regular season, we beat you in our one game this year lmao. Have some self awareness
@savioursundin Are you insinuating he’s political because he was partying with his team in the locker room after a gold medal win??? Lmfaooo you wanted him to walk out because Patel was in there? What is wrong with you?
This is a lot of grievance built on a false premise: that men’s hockey opinions are automatically respected. They aren’t. Male journalists, bloggers, and fans get fact-checked, mocked, gatekept, and dismissed every day—especially with the “you never played, so you don’t know hockey” line.
The in-person surprise when a woman knows hockey inside and out is often cultural familiarity, not contempt. For generations, the visibly obsessive side of hockey fandom—memorizing depth charts, prospect pools, cap mechanics, systems, and obscure roster history—has been disproportionately male, while many women have engaged more casually or socially. That pattern is changing, and hardcore women fans deserve respect, but treating every surprised reaction as proof of misogyny assigns the worst possible motive to normal human expectation.
The irony is that the article condemns stereotyping women while stereotyping men as a unified group of condescending gatekeepers. Hockey has casual fans, hardcore fans, stat nerds, ex-players, bandwagon fans, and people there for the atmosphere—of both sexes. Treat people as individuals and stop turning every awkward fan interaction into an indictment of men.
Please Stop Asking Men What Women Think About Hockey
“Why ask me about the penalty kill when you already know who I am? I'm the girl in the pink jersey. I'm here for the cute boys.”
https://t.co/lWIVep9SvN
This is a lot of grievance built on a false premise: that men’s hockey opinions are automatically respected. They aren’t. Male journalists, bloggers, and fans get fact-checked, mocked, gatekept, and dismissed every day—especially with the “you never played, so you don’t know hockey” line.
The in-person surprise when a woman knows hockey inside and out is often cultural familiarity, not contempt. For generations, the visibly obsessive side of hockey fandom—memorizing depth charts, prospect pools, cap mechanics, systems, and obscure roster history—has been disproportionately male, while many women have engaged more casually or socially. That pattern is changing, and hardcore women fans deserve respect, but treating every surprised reaction as proof of misogyny assigns the worst possible motive to normal human expectation.
The irony is that the article condemns stereotyping women while stereotyping men as a unified group of condescending gatekeepers. Hockey has casual fans, hardcore fans, stat nerds, ex-players, bandwagon fans, and people there for the atmosphere—of both sexes. Treat people as individuals and stop turning every awkward fan interaction into an indictment of men.
@Canes2Arizona Yea it’s been very difficult cheering for a team who’s gone to 3 straight finals in 4 years and won 2 cups, while dominating the canes 8-1 in post season that stretch. Little bro 😎
@b_acker70 You’re exactly right - the contract will not go the 6 years , but by the time he unplayable, his cap hit will be absolutely minuscule. As for why the acquired him? The locker room absolutely loves him, he’s familiar with our system and plays the way we want to play.
@BYUWhitePride@seanhannity I’m assuming you’re not a fan of them. You probably think they are a major threat to America. So honest question - why wouldn’t you want to amend the constitution to protect against this?