The Chant

15 Apr 2016 10:52 PM | 107ist Admin (Administrator)
—by Nicky Weisenfeld

It's 2016 and the Timbers Army still sings a chant that includes the line, "Shag your women and drink your beer." In late 2014, Orlando City FC sent out an ill-conceived tweet advising that the best way for their supporters to get their wives/girlfriends to watch soccer was to buy them clothes. Last week, NASL club Miami FC attempted to sell tickets by posting a video of two young, blond women, encouraging their fans to "join these babes" instead of, you know, come watch a soccer match.

In both instances, most TA members I know and follow were rightly horrified and embarrassed for those tone-deaf clubs. And that makes sense; the TA prides itself on championing women in the sport and showing respect for all supporters. Yet we still sing a verse that encourages our fans to "shag your women," every match. We continue to gleefully chant a line that is mildly threatening, heteronormative, and divisive at best. How can we expect other clubs to respect female fans if the TA - the most influential supporters group in North America - continues condoning and reciting a chant that reduces women to objects to be shagged, possessions to be conquered, "babes" to be ogled?

The systemic objectification of women is so ingrained that many people who read this will wonder what the big deal is. It's just a few words, it's just a good time, it's just a football chant. People argue that it doesn't imply lack of consent, and the "your" could mean "one's own woman," as if that makes it any better. But we're not living in the dark ages, or even the 1950's. The perpetuation of the idea of women as objects without agency — as possessions who exist only for male pleasure — is a big fucking deal, and it's flat out wrong. It's not just words, it's not just a chant, and it's not a good time; it's using specific oppressive words that do damage. What all these words lead to is very real and very dangerous.

People contend the chant is a hallowed tradition and shouldn't be messed with. But tradition is a construct, a living thing that can and should change with progress and context. Tradition is only worth something if it's something to be proud of, if it represents the people who strive to uphold it. So ask yourself: does this tradition reflect your own values? Is this the best the TA can do? Ask yourself – better yet, ask the organization that can move mountains when it wants to – is it really that difficult to change one line or stop singing it entirely? Is it really that hard to stop chanting something that doesn’t represent who we truly are?

My friends and I have come up with many alternatives to this line (sometimes classy, sometimes raunchy, sometimes we say nothing at all), but it's not about one person or group finding the perfect replacement - I'd love to hear what this chant means to other TA members, and if we even need to keep it at all. Post your thoughts below and get the conversation started. Sometimes a little progress does take an army.


  • 28 Sep 2016 1:26 PM | 107ist Admin (Administrator)
    Ben says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 6:33 pm 
    Enough with the chant drama. Watch the match and say what you want.

    Eric Gardner says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:46 am 
    It’s not drama, it’s offensive to many. Individuals can say what they want, but TA should rise above.

    Ian says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 6:37 pm 
    I tend to murmur through the “shag your women” line and belt out the rest. That one’s getting less and less comfortable for me to sing, and I can imagine it’s much worse for those the song is actually talking about. I’ve been in the north end since just before the MLS era, so that one’s much older than me, and longer-term Army folks might stand up for it, but from my perspective, I think we’d gain more than we lose from changing that line.

    Dave says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:11 pm 
    Totally agree with you. The lyric to me implies rape. Hope it that changes. I want to bring my daughter to games and not have to explain how great the TA is except for those tradition songs that never evolved.

    David Anderson says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 6:38 pm 
    That line’s cringeworthy…always has been.

    Amy says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 6:39 pm 
    “Shag your women, unless your queer” is my preferred take on that one. I also sing “Shag your men…” any way you cut it that line makes that whole chant awkward.

    Kellen says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:05 pm 
    How about “Portland Boys, we are here, to cheer for you and drink some beer” instead?

    Single4Lyfe says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:07 pm 
    Seeing as how there no danger of me shagging anyone anytime soon, I’ll continue to sing what I want.

    Eric Gardner says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:47 am 
    By that logic, seeing as there’s no danger of me raping anyone ever, should I start saying “rape” instead of shag?

    Jerry Price says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:13 pm 
    Its interesting that some are bothered by that line, when the very next line is “burn, destroy, wreck, and kill”? I can only speak for myself, but I enjoy both having sex and drinking beer. Hell, sometimes I’m lucky enough to have both at the same time. You know what I don’t like? Literally burning, destroying, wrecking, or killing things/people. Or having 10 dead bodies at my feet. Take it for what it is…words in a fucking awesome chant. I think, you’re thinking about it to much. So have a beer, get laid, and don’t kill anyone. You will all feel much better about yourselves.

    FatAnarchy says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:53 am 
    How convenient for you that all the things you chant about, whether you do them in real life or not, don’t verbalize a threat to your bodily integrity.

    Jerry says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 9:59 am 
    What? How is getting “shagged” a threat to ones bodily integrity?

    David says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:05 am 
    It’s not for you to question if it’s a threat. It’s up to those who feel threatened. Respect Nicky’s feelings, and just maybe, respect will be shown to you also.
    The line in the chant is dumb, juvenile, and not in keeping with TA standards.
    Also, it’s not “10 dead bodies at my feet”. Look it up, please.

    FatAnarchy says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:45 pm 
    FFS it’s not the “shag” part.
    It’s the “your” part.
    Your (by definition) means a possession. Women are not possessions.
    A culture that condones the possession of women is a culture that condones their objectification and a culture of views women as objects to be possessed is how rape happens.
    Rape is a threat to one’s bodily integrity.
    This is a very simple equation to every woman.

    gaspar says:
    Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:21 am 
    While I agree blind objectification is not a good thing, twisting a random statement into that one specific meaning when it could mean many other things is a bit small minded. (And if you follow the etymology of the chant, which is one that we very much borrowed, you should know that this meaning is absolutely not the definition put forward in this article.)
    While I respect that some people are bothered by the wording, and I do not intend to belittle their feelings on the subject, I do not think it comes anywhere near to a majority. My sister, who spent years working for Helping Hands, a non-profit that helps mothers and their children who are victims of domestic violence, was not bothered by this when she was at the game, nor was she offended when I asked her about this article. My mother who spent years working as a CASA, or Court Appointed Special Advocate for abused or neglected children, was not offended by this. Neither was my girlfriend, a fellow Army member, who I just informed about this and who’s response was to scoff, ask, “really? That is the line they are offended by?”. Obviously this far from a scientific poll, but acting like this is a universal stance against woman is taking this a bit far.
    Lastly, this, is like many things people say are: 1) Spoken from a place of love of our group and with positive intentions. 2) With many possible meanings, and of which, each person will find differing meanings as they hear it. Possibly even hearing differing meanings as they hear it at different times. 3) We will always have chants and words and actions at matches that can be offensive to someone. If for no other reason than it is simply not possible to not accidentally say or do something offensive to someone in a large and diverse group.
    These three points in mind, is it not reasonable to ask each other to assume the positive meanings in the statements and actions of each other? Especially when we disagree over the meanings of the statements/actions?

    James Belcher says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:21 pm 
    Yeah, this is a relic. There are MANY alternatives. And if you don’t see what harm that line does, IMO you’re part of the problem.
    Cut our logs and drink your beer (…)
    Score on you…
    Outcheer you…
    Raise our cup…
    Rock the stands…
    Beat your team
    Let’s fix this this year, yeah?

    americayle says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:14 pm 
    Cheers your women, and drink your beer!

    David says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:06 am 
    Hear our women and drink your beer

    Larry Shaw says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:54 am 
    “Beat your team”? Now there’s a concept i can get my hands around!
    And for those offended, get your mind out of the gutter so mine can float by.

    jennifer reid says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:29 pm 
    Agreed on the many alternatives. Others have mentioned this, so I wanted to chime in: When calling out ‘Portland boys, we are here’, I had always assumed we were directing it to our team, since this is always the first-ish chant once the match gets going – were here again to have your back & now lets get to introducing ourselves to the opposing team… – but ‘steal/shag your women & drink your beer’ never made sense to me right after that intro line. Poor syntax may not be as bad as sexist comments, but its obvious that something needs to change because a) everyone is chanting something different and b) its the quietest verse of it all as a result. And that’s probably the opposite of how it should be at the start of the match..? My version:
    Portland boys, we are here! Whoa-oh, whoa-oh!
    Portland boys, we are here! Whoa-oh, whoa-oh!
    Portland boys, we are here!
    Banging drums and drinking beer!
    Plus, those that still want a ‘sexytime’ reference, you still have ‘bang.’
    Its either that, or ‘Timber Joey has sharp gear!’ =/

    Lexi Stern says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:36 pm 
    A few words from your resident Publishing Person:
    First off, I’ve published editorials about chants this week that I agree with and others I don’t, and plenty of stuff in between. If you give me a well-written piece with something relevant to say, I will push back on you as any good editor does to be as thorough and non-ignorant as possible, and I’ll put it up on the site if the timing is good. Doesn’t matter if I agree. Doesn’t matter if I like you personally. Doesn’t matter if (as I knew this one would) it sparks debate, or eye-rolls, or people complaining that we’ve already been through this, or whatever.
    So this is still a thing, and as a community we’ve dug in our heels about it. And, you know, maybe we shouldn’t anymore.
    As for me personally: Historically this line hasn’t bothered me. I didn’t see the big deal either, since we chant lots of offensive shit we don’t literally mean and I’m not about us sanitizing ourselves. Plus I personally tend to identify much more with my guy friends, so I didn’t feel it was about me. But you know what? There have been other language-changing initiatives in this community that *are* about me. I’m super thankful for the straight allies in the TA who stand up time and again against discrimination against me and other queers, and I’m happy to be part of a majority-straight community that feels strongly that we need to stamp out “puto”. So how is this any different? Women I love and/or respect think this shit needs to stop and that it’s no fucking laughing matter. Why wouldn’t I listen and think about it?
    As part of the editorial process, I advised the author that this would likely be met with most or all of the following opposing arguments — and, whether here, on FB, or on Twitter, it has:
    1) It doesn’t automatically imply lack of consent on the part of the women — rather, it means we are in an opposing town wherein the womenfolk are enamored of us because we are better, and they are having a good time with us.
    2) “Your” could be interpreted to mean “one’s own women/beer” and as such is simply a directive to have a good time (presuming one is a straight dude or a queer chick)
    The thing with both of these is that the grammar of the verse is weird. Are we saying “We are here for the lads on the Portland Timbers and we are celebrating with our female partners and our beer”, or are we saying “We are the Portland boys (see also: “So who are we? We are the boys…”) and we are shagging the opposing fan base’s women and drinking their beer”?
    The latter is more offensive for sure. The author makes the case that even the former sounds stupid within the context of the TA’s principles of equality. So there’s that.
    3) It’s a slippery slope – we also talk about killing and obviously we don’t mean that literally either, and in that sense the whole exercise is more like LARPing, so next thing we’ll have to sanitize the whole canon if we address all potential offenses.
    Nah…although, as we’ve seen in some of the comments so far, there are those who feel this would be a *good* thing. I don’t. But as we evolve, there are things we find we don’t relish saying anymore because we have learned from some TA brethren and sistren among us that doing so makes us assholes.
    And another one that keeps coming up:
    4) If you don’t like it, don’t say it.
    Fine, but if we apply that same standard to, say, something homophobic, collectively we’re still assholes.
    I don’t think it would hurt us one iota to think up a rhythmically compatible alternative to “shag your women” that would work in the “fuck your shit up” sense (i.e., not “honor/respect your women”) that could be subbed into that line and sound perfectly badass.

    Troy Maxcy says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:53 pm 
    Any good editor would know that “As for me personally” is redundant and poor English. “Personally” or “As for me” would have been just fine. (Eye roll)

    Natalie Bleibtrey says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:32 am 
    People that have nothing productive to say alway make jokes on people’s grammar. We all know Lexi isn’t an editor, she’s a rock star! Please move along troll.

    FatAnarchy says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:59 am 
    This isn’t directed especially at you Lexi, but to anyone who makes the argument “well I don’t kill/want to kill either and I chant about that…l
    Murder is not rape.
    Murder does not equal rape.
    If you equate murder to rape, you have likely never been raped.
    They are not the same, they are not similar. And unfortunately for some people who have been raped, they would take being murdered every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
    So stop using that as an excuse to say that you should just be able to chant whatever the fuck you want.
    Chanting whatever you want because you just want to and give no fucks what other people think is a more ethical argument for chanting it than because “murder and rape are the same thing and I don’t condone either so…”

    Grant Garner says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 6:19 pm 
    Love your women?

    Someone says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 9:30 pm 
    I always stay silent during that part. I think it it portrays men as the default TA member, which is both incorrect and uninclusive.

    Shawn Levy says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 9:52 pm 
    Bravo, Nicky, for standing up and writing this.
    Personally, I’m happy with a change and I’m particularly happy with Lexi’s (inadvertant?) suggestion:
    I realize that this new verse might trigger those with residual potty-training trauma, but it sscans perfectly as a replacement and enhances the sentiment deliciously. I vote for it.

    David says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:10 am 
    I like it

    Siri Harding says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 10:49 pm 
    Regarding this line. I’m somewhat bothered by words, but I’m more bothered by our hypocrisy in continuing to use them.

    Steve says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:19 pm 
    How about getting rid of the entire song?! Objectification, violence and vulgarity all in one chant. Fantastic! The meaning of the f word alone connotes negative treatment, usually directed towards women. It inherently objectifies women as something to do something to. It’s horrific and has no place anywhere. I’ve written this before but it fell on deaf ears. Honestly, this is about the only thing I don’t like about the Timbers experience. Get rid of the stupid chant.

    Ripcity Savage says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:52 am 
    Humanity is problematic, get over it.

    chris says:
    Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:55 pm 
    We always chant “fuck your boss and drink his beer”.

    Larry Shaw says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:25 am 
    So who decides to make a change or not make a change? I’ve seen written “a lot of people” and “plenty of my friends” and “everyone i hang out with” but I’ve seen no numbers nor names to suggest that there’s more than one aggrieved person and a handful of commenters in agreement…with just about as many opposed.
    Is “shag” the offensive word or is it because “women” are the “target”? I’m more offeneed by “fuck you up” and “burn, destroy, wreck and kill”. And for the record, I’m not offended by any of those as I’m able to put on my adult thinking cap and discern that it is not a literal suggestion nor threat. Perhaps we should chant “let’s consensually shag people and buy each other a beer”?
    Perhaps a resolution should be submitted to the…? Or maybe a quick poll sent to members. But before that happens, the threshold needs to be established that triggers those actions. Otherwise, like a bad taco this will keep coming back up.

    Natalie Bleibtrey says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:34 am 
    It’s the TA, CHANT or GTFO! I personally love shagging and chanting.

    Andrew Pinelli says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 7:17 am 
    We stole many, if not most, of our early chants from the UK – including this one. A few minutes with the Google turned up references to Derby County, Tottenham and Chelsea doing a version. Clearly this chant violates our inclusion policy; however, the objection to the ‘shagging women’ is a bit narrow. Let’s broaden the discussion a bit.
    ‘Portland boys, we are here’
    I’m not sure what people from Vancouver think of the first word, but I know I’d be upset if I were them. They can defend themselves; I’ll start with “boys”. What is that about? Is it a reference to the players or to my crew? If we stole the meaning when we stole the chant it’s the later. Either way, it excludes girls, women, men and back when we had bring your dog to the park day, it excluded dogs. I propose we change that line to ‘People here, we are here’. They don’t do the dogs in the park thing any longer, so we should be okay.
    ‘Shag your women, and drink your beer’
    The first part is being covered in this post, but ‘drink your beer’? Really? What if you weren’t drinking beer when I was thirsty and I was here? Say you were drinking cider or even a cocktail. I’ll tell you right now – I’m not going to be choosy. I’m going to drink whatever you’re drinking. Not kombucha however, it’s too tart and not enough alcohol for me. But, I understand that other people like it, so I’m okay with including kombucha in the chant. I’ll just not going to drink it. That brings me to another point. Why is eating excluded? Sometimes I get a bit peckish after shagging. And if I drink on an empty stomach after shagging I’m just a mess. If you were eating something while you were drinking and I was here and I just got done shagging, well then I’m not only going to drink your drink, I’m going to eat your food. Especially if you are eating one of those Olympia Provisions Charcuterie plates. I would take a chunk of salami right out of your mouth. I propose we change that line to ‘Shag your partner, and consume’.
    ‘People here, we are here’
    ‘Shag your partner, and consume’
    It doesn’t rhyme exactly, but I’m no Shakespeare.
    ‘People here, we are here’
    ‘Shag your partner, and Bill Shakespeare’
    That one is settled then.
    ‘We are green, and we are white’
    This one totally confuses me. Sometimes we are green and gold! And what about red? Sometimes we are red and…

    Eric Gardner says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 7:58 am 
    It’s 2016 and Portland, let’s fix… my daughter loves my modified version of this song:
    Portland boys we are here, whoa whoa
    Portland girls we are here, whoa whoa
    Portland Timbers we are here
    The actual chant can stick with SHAG, much like the chant sheet uses “bloody” instead of “fucking”… you’re welcome 

    Scott Jeffries says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:33 am 
    I’m writing a whole ‘nother blog post just about rhyming “feet” with “feet”.

    Ben Stern says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:38 am 
    Larry’s comment speaks well to a need for dialogue surrounding the topic, which of course there’s no perfect way to accomplish in the setting of the TA. If people want to change the line, then you’re going to need to out-chant it (a la “F S**ttle” in Heyyyy Portland Timbers).
    “Portland Boys We Are Here,
    Fuck shit up”
    …or the totally PG and historically relevant version…
    “Hoist the cup”
    …because, you know, maybe we should sing something about winning the fucking league…
    Those two suggestions rhyme, so either could be sung for the same effect.
    if you don’t like something, don’t sing it. If you want change, make change. You are all your own capo and you can sing louder than the person next to you if something means enough.
    For the record, my wife and I have always sung the line with the intention that we are celebrating a match by shagging with each other, because why would we drink the other team’s shitty beer?

    Jordan says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 9:47 am 
    Honestly it sounds kinda rapey, and that’s worse than possessive. Dictating that we will shag your women seems implied that consent might not be 100%. That bugs me more than the possessive (“your” women could just mean women in the supporters group, such as “our” female TA supporters).
    At this point the chant is distracting from the goal/reason we exist. It needs to change but it needs to be something as good or better. If it changes to something dumb (and I’ve seen dumb ones) it will kill the chant. I believe we can do better. (Since my name is ambiguous, full disclosure I’m male.)

    ZodPDX says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 10:19 am 
    This chant has been traditional for years. To we have to bow to manufactured social justice outrage? Suddenly everyone is offended? Grow up, grow some skin, respect tradition and support the club.

    Holly says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 10:25 am 
    Tradition? YSA has been around since the 90s. It was around when the Cascade Rangers were still a twinkle in Nevets’ eye. Do we need to keep that one too?
    Why is it so important to you to keep singing this chant the same way?

    Adam Herstein says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 10:20 am 
    How about “steal your cider, drink your beer”?
    Link  •  Reply
  • 28 Sep 2016 1:27 PM | 107ist Admin (Administrator)
    bfal says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 10:36 am 
    I can’t discard someone being offended by a chant lyric. However, there are many others people can find offensive in the daily list.
    “Does your mom go….?” is pretty offensive yet that is chanted often at flopping players
    The aforementioned ‘burn destroy wreck and kill’ line could make some upset as it could be viewed as tied to horrible terrorist acts and other sad events.
    In general the number of f-bombs in the chants could make some people uncomfortable or upset.
    I do not want to be viewed as taking a side against anyone, but in my view, once the first change is made, others who are offended by different lines/chants will want their views heard as well. Many chants and lines of ours are a bit vulgar, if you wanna be honest.
    I just fear one day descending into the boring, lifeless stuff like that city up north with “seaaaaattttle…….souuuundeerrrrs” as a lame chant. That type of chant puts me to sleep….not to mention that “clap” nonsense.
    I kind of view it like people do the words ‘under God’ in the pledge of allegiance…people who do not wish to say that part just refuse to say it and continue on, that to me is the best way to deal with such things in that may offend, but at the end of the day, are very unimportant in the grand scheme of life.
    gameDay. lets get 3 points!!!!

    Ripcity Savage says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:50 am 
    Most people are heteronormative, the chants are only offensive to the SJW contingent within the TA. Love the Timbers, not too keen on the TA. Regressive leftists ruin everything, not just the left.

    Lexi Stern says:
    Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:13 pm 
    My favorite alternative I’ve heard so far over the past day is “Smoke your bowls and drink your beer”. Works either way you interpret the syntax.

    Mel says:
    Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 4:01 am 
    I’d definitely vote for this one. Either the Army is enjoying its own weed and drink [one of which is mostly likely still of dubious legality for the opponent; an extra bit of salt in the wound] or the Army is taking the weed and drink of the opponent and smoking/quaffing it as a defiant and jubilantly triumphant gesture. It also loses the heteronormative bit (though, unless we’re specifically singing to the team, “Portland boys” is pretty eye-rolly too).
    All the win.

    Miguel Martinez says:
    Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 12:39 am 
    How about “HTFU and drink your beer?“

    Gary Smith says:
    Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 11:49 am 
    From what I can tell from a brief search on the net, shag doesn’t mean “rape”. It means “to have sex with”. It the word was associated with rape, then I’d be all for changing the chant. As it is, given the concern that the “your women” part is also a problem, I’d suggest “shag you lover and drink your beer…” or perhaps “shag your lover and drink your non-alcoholic beverage” for those who are offended by the reference to drinking beer.

    FatAnarchy says:
    Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 1:35 pm 
    your: /yôr,yoor/ (determiner)
    belonging to
    By definition, “your” means possession,
    possession of a noun: person, place or thing.
    “Your women” means to possess women.
    Women are not people to be owned.
    Women are not objects to be owned.
    “Your women” implies objectification.
    “Your women” implies lack of self-will.
    Speaking of women (also encouraging hundreds of people to chant repeatedly as a “community”) as possessions, objects
    to be owned; who have no self-will
    encourages rape.
    And if you tell women to “calm down” or “get over” or “harden the fuck up” about rape, you’re an asshole. Period.
    Everyone is entitled to be an asshole. Just own it and stop making up excuses for why you should be able to speak like one but not be labeled as one.

    gaspar says:
    Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 7:29 pm 
    “My Wife”, “My Husband”, “Your Wife”, “Your Husband”, “Your Daughter”, “Your Son”. Are these demeaning terms implying some sort of inappropriate, dominating sexist situation?
    While the term “your” *can* imply possession, it can also be purely descriptive with no ownership implied in the context. As in, “my uncle twice removed, on my mother’s side whom I have never met”. A statement that is purely descriptive and has no ownership contextually applied. More so, I think most people can agree that there can be positive possessiveness as well. Such as how “my husband” which could imply that the person is in a mutually agreed and entirely positive relationship.
    Taking this line and stating its sole possible meaning is 1) objectification of women and 2) anything negative at all is stretching things a bit. It can and does have other meanings.
    Grammatically it can mean, “have consensual and positive sex with your partner (of whom, you are also their partner) and drink some beer.” Until this article it did not even occur to me that a negative context to this line would have ever been thought up. Especially since it is right next to a line of “Burn, Destroy, Wreck and Kill” which are clearly violent and threatening in nature.
    In short, while I respect that you view this line negatively. It is also fair to ask that the positive interpretation of this line be acknowledged as well.

    Justin Cardinal says:
    Monday, April 18, 2016 at 4:19 am 
    I bring my children to matches and always hope that they won’t ask me what that line means… especially my daughter.

    Eric says:
    Monday, April 18, 2016 at 11:10 am 
    I think your argument over the possessive ‘YOUR’ is incorrect.
    If I’m in a consensual relationship with someone, I call them ‘my gf’ or ‘my bf’ and they do the same about me. “It was great to finally meet your boyfriend, he seems like a solid guy.” or “My girlfriend and I had sex after the match.”
    I think all pronouns imply relation, and there is inevitably relationships of power, but that doesn’t automatically mean there is coercion going on. Sometimes it’s easier to borrow outside of our own language, so take for example the Spanish, “El es mi primo” (He is my cousin) “mi” doesn’t imply ownership, simply relation. “Ella es mi esposa” (She is my wife) again, doesn’t mean I own her, and, “mi esposo,” doesn’t mean she owns me.
    Personally, I believe there is some level of possession and ownership between two people in any monogamous relationship, and that is because we have agreed to commit ourselves to each other exclusively and we choose to not sleep with and/or fall in love with other people.
    We all use possessive pronouns in every day language. If I’m up in Seattle and I see a guy exchanging words with a crowd, “Oh shit, look at that guy over there, he’s about to go at it 1 v. 4 against those freaks in xbox shirts. Is he one of OURS? We better go help him out.”
    To me, in this case “ours” is quite endearing. It implies he belongs to our community, our circle, our army and we’re going to have his back. The same way I stand by my wife, my family, and my friends. The same as, “I shag my wife/husband.” I cannot wrap my head around how this is rape language.
    I think your battle is not just against this chant, but against some basic cornerstones of grammar.

    Nicky Wiesenfeld says:
    Monday, April 18, 2016 at 5:25 pm 
    I agree with you, Eric, but I think there’s a huge difference between referring to a singular person as “my partner” and reducing to a large amount of women to a nameless, faceless group in the possession of someone/some other group.

    Jonathan says:
    Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 8:41 am 
    “respecting all women while drinking your beer”

    Nate Parker says:
    Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 3:38 am 
    While I can understand the poster’s objection to the “shag your women” lyric, I have always seen the chant from a different angle. As I understood things, this chant is sung in the third person where the Timbers Army assumes the role of the Timbers players. In fact, the name of the chant and the opening line is “Portland Boys We Are Here,” and each stanza describes an activity of the players. The “Burn, destroy, wreck, and kill” line is about claiming victory over the opposition, while the “use your hands, use your feet” line seems pretty self-explanatory. As for the “shag your women” line, the idea here (as I have always understood it) is that the Timbers’ players are so obviously better than those of the opposing team that wives\girlfriends\significant others of the opposition get a look at our players they immediately throw the old guys over for our vastly superior players. There is also a shot at the masculinity of the other team’s players and the implication that they are all bad in bed thrown in for good measure (because why else would their women be so quick to shag the Timbers?). That’s just my two cents, and I think we should keep the chant as is – although if you would prefer to think of our boys as other than hetero you could easily change the lyric to “shag your men” etc. Season the line to your tastes. As long as it in insulting and demeaning to our opponents, of course.

    Ian says:
    Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 8:44 am 
    I’ve never liked this line, but for the record, the slang ‘shag’ is not a synonym for the word ‘rape’. It refers to the act of sex, not non-consensual sex. If you’re not familiar with English slang, then perhaps at the least watch Austin Powers a few more times.
    Honestly, I’m a little surprised that this thing in particular is what we’re getting hung up on. I think the multitude of f-bombs in the chants are far worse. Don’t get me wrong, I swear like a sailor in my day-to-day life, but it really makes me cringe when there’s a family of 4 in the section and 5000 people are shouting ‘fuck’ around them every 2 minutes.

    Gav says:
    Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 12:28 pm 
    Been singing this for the past 30 years! It’s a song, it’s sung at the match!
    Personally this is tame compared to some of the songs I’ve heard/sung!!!
    Link  •  Reply

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software