i fear for this world with all the PC nutjobs around
more of a worry than ISIS
It is worse than that. It is actually the very opposite of being pc. I myself am quite PC. I believe in female equality, racial equality and religious equality. I believe in egalitarianism and social advancement on merit regardless of "inherited class". This Gayle bashing is not done under any PC banner or flag that I recognize.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/chris-gayle-mel-mclaughlin-and-why-we-fight-20160105-glzllc.html
The claim is Gayle is belittling "policeman" because he reminds Mel and the audience that Mel is the beneficiary of a sexist prejudice hiring policy of attractive (necessary but not sufficient) females ahead of men and women who may have greater expertise by being former players, be they men or women, (such as BBL commentators for women's cricket, but lower ratings means lower pay as a general rule), over men and women who may be as or more talented and entertaining as sport reporters, or may even have former playing expertise, who are not meeting the attractive women criteria. (I can imagine there are some former cricketers, both male and female, who did not have long international careers who would earn and enjoy Mel's job more than their own current gig).
woke up to a text message from a friend. "What's more sexist?" he asked. "Chris Gayle hitting on an attractive TV reporter (like an idiot) or the TV network only hiring attractive women for sports reporting when the men can look like a foot and still be on TV?" "They're two sides of the same coin," I replied. I thought that was obvious, but maybe not...
Part of this policing is centring our sexual attractiveness as part of our value, or lack thereof. A woman's presence in a position of power in sport is more likely to be tolerated if she is conventionally attractive. Consequently, female sport journalists on TV are almost always young, slim, with long hair. This isn't to denigrate their incredible talent in any way, simply to highlight they must be both talented and attractive, a standard rarely applied to men in comparable positions.
When a man player makes a sexual comment to a reporter, he is not just harmlessly flirting. He is reminding her - and the audience - that her looks are part of her value. By centring the conversation on her physical attractiveness, it belittles the rest of what she does.
Well, here is the thing that makes these Gayle doubters worse than PC. They're suggesting Gayle was attempting to belittle Mel for being the beneficiary of a privilege of bias and sexism by her employer in hiring good looking females ahead of talent and expertise of the less fortunate looking women and men (regardless of their looks).
Gayle is belittling Mel (she does not say sexist explicitly) for reminding the audience of the "truth" (that the author admits) that Mel is hired and is the beneficiary of sexism on the other side of the coin?
So Gayle is belittling Mel for identifying this admitted by the author sexist truth of hiring good looking women and reminding the audeience and the beneficary of the sexism of the truth.
Are rich white men who inherit businesses and family fortunes going to claim that they are being belittled when they are publicly reminded that they are the beneficiaries of class privilege and that society distributes better living standards, work opportunities and promotions often with inequality to talent or merit?
Since when was pointing out the truth of inequality and identifying the privileged beneficiaries of social inequalities in society, be it race, gender, age, class, make the person identifying it as bad the act it itself? That is a nonsense argument. That is like saying arguing for or identifying female equality in the workplace is a sexist, and someone doing the same with regard ethnic minorities in seeking racial equality is a racist.
Its the most ridiculous, ill thought out, poorly conceived and illogical argument of all time. It could put back the feminist work by twenty years.
Feminist argument strove for equality and to break down the privileges that men benefitted from the inequality towards women in all areas of of life including the work place.
This argument is that it is admitted that attractive women have a privilege not enjoyed by less attractive women or men regardless of looks resulting in a benefit of being hired to better jobs, but you better not dare discuss it and ever remind us of this inequality not based on merit or talent or we get upset and blame you for belittling us as sexist 'policing of females in sport.' Well that in sum is that yes, some women will become rich and enjoy a higher standard of living from being hired in a highly desired job because of their good looks and not because of their talent or merit to perform the role than the men or less attractive women who wanted the job, and may well perform it better as entertaining reporters asking insightful questions while adding humour and enjoyment to the entertainment through wit, skill, knowledge and expertise.
Pretty women in those roles aforementioned want the benefit enjoyed by being priviliged through social inequality and that social inequality is beyond reproach? Do not question it or you are belittling them and sexist? But sexism is being okay with and accepting a benefit as a privilege of a sexual double standard and inequality resulting not from talent or merit but based on accepting and continuing a social inequality that others are excluded from and thus provide the benefit to others at their own cost of less opportunity and suffer the unequal treatment outside talent and merit. Be it promotions or lack thereof, lower pay or not being hired altogether, where the decision to reward is based or influenced by a person's sex.
It also places the "right" of the man to make a sexual advance over the woman's right to be comfortable in her workplace. It re-enforces the idea that we are only here on men's terms.
Well this is just contrary to the first argument. Gayle is either belittling Mel, or asking her out. How can it be both? Insult a girl into going out on a date with you? Is that the claim?
But there is more crap in this quote. It ignores that Gayle was in his own work place too. They are not coworkers at different strata levels on a hierarchy. The situation was as equal as any social setting where men and women have the "right" to make sexual advances on the other. Men and women have the right to be comfortable in the work place, in the home, and out in public. We all have the right to be free from uncomfortable and unwanted harassment. Asking someone out for the first time, especially someone who is not an inferior co-worker, should not make a reasonable person feel so uncomfortable that they have had their rights violated in any way. It does not meet the threshold.
And it really does not matter that it happened at her work place, his work place, or at a bar. We all have the right to be free of unwanted sexual advances that make us feel uncomfortable, at home, at work, or in public, but only when it meets the threshold of a legally defined harassment. Those are the rights that the law gives us.
Put simply, a guy or a girl has the right to ask someone out. And to argue to take that right away when one, or both of them, is just plain stupid. People spend most their waking hours out of the house and interacting with people during what is 'work commitment time'. Get real. Be practical. Or fear for the continuation of the species. Comfort at work free from sexual advances is to be free from the unwanted sexual harassment of co-workers, in particular those above someone in a hierarchy and having power over that person at work, so that it makes them feel uncomfortable that a sexual advance has been made by a superior. An employer may also have the responsibility to keep clients or suppliers in line with regard their staff, but a one-off advance to a person by a third party is not the employer's responsibility and is not harrasment at large neither.
If Mel took it as a sexist thing - she needs to say so. Because I am wondering whether she forgot sports reporting is not political journalism and not to be taken as seriously, and she is not interviewing the prime minister about foreign relations and Gayle's attempted on air courtship and fooling around reminded her of this and that her professional ideals were a little crushed, and that is why she performed in the situation poorly in my opinion, and demonstrated insecurity. "I'm not blushing." Now back to cricket discussion while I put an awkward elephant in the room that I will not talk about.
She still has a dream job that many of us would want. As they say on sportscenter "our job is better than yours". But sports reporting is not hard nosed journalism. Its more glitz and glamour and during live broadcasts, it adds to the entertainment package, sideline interviews are part of the entertainment. It is not the serious business of the press performing a service to democracy in the way informing voters of government activities and proposals is.
The likes of Brad Fittler on the sporting sidelines have long understood this and often act the clown. Panelists like Matty Johns and Paul Vautin understand this on their panel shows. Its not a difficult concept to grasp. People watch sport for entertainment, we want the sideline reporters and interviewers to add to the entertainment product. And do not expect sportspeople be they men or women, to be at their best during in match interviews or shortly after, cut them some slack. They are charged on adrenaline and other hormones, and could well be experiencing either highs or lows from the match. That is not an excuse for unlawful behavior like assualt or threatening to assault. But certainly allows for some inappropriateness falling well short of breaking any law, such as say swearing.
In New Zealand we have Urzila Carlson who is a comedian who makes self deprecating humour about her unattractiveness, her excessive weight and her lesbian lifestyle, but she is highly intelligent and incredibly funny and because of her talent and wit, she has a dream job where she jokes around as a host on a sports panel show that is at best the NZ equivalent of the Back Page called "7 Days of Sport".
Gayle is an entertainer and a showman. He has a brand and a public image, and uses media to deliver it. It is worth a lot of money to him. The media use him for its own ratings.
I highly doubt that he was attempting to engage and bring to the spotlight issues of sexual inequality of good looking women being hired over men or less attractive women.
And even if he was - why is identifying those benefiting from sexism or any other discrimination be it classism, religion, race or sex, bad? Why are the beneficiaries of this social inequality above being reminded and the audience also being reminded of this? If as the author says, it is true and the flip side of the coin. Attractive women should be allowed the right to enjoy the benefits of sexism as their privileged right for being attractive - and unattractive women, and men for being men, should just suck it up and never pass comment because that is belittling and policing woman in sport in a manner akin to sexism?
Well that is bollocks. Its nonsense. Its not sexual equality.
By saying someone can accept the benefit of the inequality and become privileged without being identified and reminded as that is sexist belittling is like advocating some perverse reverse sexism that attractive women should morally feel entitled to those benefits in the workplace to and all those outside that privilege (men or unattractive women) and not enjoying that benefit which provided at their own cost of resultant inequality of opportunity have no right to identify and discuss without themselves being identified as sexist (which is advocating or endorsing sexual inequality)? Worst feminist argument ever. That is not female equality. That is attractive women superiority over unattractive women and men. And the reasoning is circular and nonsensical.
Is the rich white Protestant man who accepted and enjoys his superior and privileged place in society and the benefits that arose as a result of social inequality now permitted to call all women sexists, all minorities racists, and all non-protestant religions prejudist and religiously intolerant because he no longer wants to give up his benefits of being on the privileged side in the resultant social inequality of society? That he has the moral right to enjoy the white male protestant inequality at women, ethnic minorities and Catholic's, Orthodox and Jew's expense? And to identify it, question it, or advocate against it, is belittling and demonstrative of prejudicial behavior to the White Anglo Saxon Protestant male? Ridiculous.