What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Chris Gayle labelled a 'creep' with a track record of disrespected female journalists

bluey

Bench
Messages
2,858
I think we have all become a little bit precious about such things, but where is the line drawn?
 

ANTiLAG

First Grade
Messages
8,014
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.
 
Last edited:

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
a part time weather presenter probably felt that she had to obey one of the networks highest paid talents.

She said she was pushed. Having to be pushed suggests she was uncomfortable with it.

Gayle wasn't pushed.

Your example is silly.

it's not silly at all and you're just making excuses for her

you sound like a dopey feminist
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
150,744
No. It's not okay. No one is arguing that. The simple minded fools trying to justify Gayle are trying to use that as some sort of counter argument.

Sexism is not okay. It doesn't matter who the victim is.

No one is saying it doesn't happen in reverse, but the volume of times where a male professional athlete treats a female reporter with disrespect, or in a sexist manner, is more frequent than in reverse.

Either way, it needs to stop. It should not be tolerated and people should be trying to justify such behaviour by using such pathetic arguments as "If the roles were reversed"

yeh I agree, its not OK, I was asking the question rather than making a statement but left of the question mark off

Twizzle said:
Sharapova did the same thing to an Aussie journalist, but thats OK.
 

MrAnonymous

Bench
Messages
4,070
Whats with all these males siding with the fenism geniuss with the hope they will get their dink sucked. Half of you merkins sound like a fat tumblr bitch.
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
61,832
Whats with all these males siding with the fenism geniuss with the hope they will get their dink sucked. Half of you merkins sound like a fat tumblr bitch.

You sound incredibly outraged mate. Hope you aren't going to puke over it like El dubs though :(
 

no name

Coach
Messages
19,081
Whats with all these males siding with the fenism geniuss with the hope they will get their dink sucked. Half of you merkins sound like a fat tumblr bitch.

Chris, wow, welcome to the LU site.

It's the way people are reacting as if Gayle said something along the lines of Mr A's rant that has turned this minor incident into a massive media storm.

They were badly timed, cringeworthy comments from a wanker. Nothing more, nothing less.

Commentators should have not have given it any air time and channel 10, CA and the Renegades should have quietly told Gayle to pull his head in.
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
61,832
Yep but the twitter outrage machine on both sides fired up and here we are. Outrage culture runs both ways and if El diablo and mra aren't just as outraged as those on the opposite side I'm not here. El diablo said it upset him so much it made him want to vomit.
 

madunit

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
62,358
Well if she wanted to be treated like a professional she could join a profession.
stupid statement number 1.

But you're dreaming if you think that male doctors are not hit on by female patients, and that female doctors are never hit on by male patients.
stupid statement number 2. Do they hit on each other while performing open heart surgery? I'm confident they'd do it while not doing their jobs.

Why is the "bimbo" (you have not defined this term and what you mean by it) at the pub allowed to be hit on by undesirables as she works behind the bar for stuff all wages but not the sidleline reporter doing "light interviews" from the sidelines of a broadcast criket product. They're bother in the entertainment business and are both entertainers. Difference is, Gayle understands this fact.

Sure the bar maid may take some men home, date others, enjoy the attention and compliments from others with no interest in them, or just find some guys creepy and wrong altogether and hope that she can get them kicked out for some reason before they grope and molest her. But why is the bar maid not entitled to be treated with the same dignity that you say Mel deserves and not be told that she is pretty and be hit on?
I didn't say the bimbo was working. You added that in to justify making your stupid statement number 3.

Imagine how many more dates you could have been on if you thought differently.
stupid statement number 4. Because women are just trophies for us blokes aren't they?

I'm not sure being interviewed 30 seconds after being dismissed is a proper ideal time and place,
stupid statement number 5. You see reporters asking professional athletes asking serious questions of athletes about their performance just as they come off the field/etc in many other sports. Why is it not ideal in cricket? (NRL, AFL, NBA, NFL, Swimming, Athletics, Boxing, UFC et al)
but asking someone out during the cricket, hell yeah - no problem with that at all.
stupid statement number 6.
As they perform open heart surgery - maybe not.
Your earlier statement suggested they would though

But you're dreaming if you think that male doctors are not hit on by female patients, and that female doctors are never hit on by male patients

You got so close to understanding the whole argument against Gayle there. Sadly, you didn't realise it.

This is your argujment in syllogism form:

P1 - Mel appreciates all such a compliments
P2 - Mel did not appreciate the comment.
C1 - Therefore Gayle did not deliver a compliment.

Your problem is in P1. You have begged the question whether Mel does appreciate all such compliments from all persons.
stupid statement number 7.

I have said above, I have an issue with her for behaving that way to the compliment.
Stupid statement number 8. She did not see it as a gompliment. Not all nice sounding comments are compliments.

I believe it was a compliment to Mel that she is pretty, and not inappropriate in a troglodytic bogan manner of "oi sweet tits, I wanna f*ck ya. Even then, I bet some female reporters can just own that situation in a light hearted manner.
No one should have to "own that situation in a light hearted manner" Thats my point. His comments were condescending, however complimentary you deem them. She was trying to do her job, he was disregarding that and treating her presence as an opportunity to try and pick up. You see it as a compliment but far too many people are not bothering to see this from her perspective.

If he had've told her to "f**k off" instead, it would have been nearly no dissimilar to what he actually said. He was dismissive of her and treated her with no respect and complete contempt.

I agree that Mel did not appreciate the compliment. I further think that she did not handle the situation well at all.
Stupid statement number 9

Therefore, I conclude that Mel is not a confident woman.
stupid statement number 10

We can debate the appropriate or inappropriateness of the compliment for eternity. But wherever we disagree on the spectrum of appropriateness, I believe it was not so bad for her to have behaved in the manner she did.

She did not perform her role well. I expected better than a "I DIDN'T BLUSH" and awkwardly go straight back to cricket talk.
stupid statement number 11.

There's no point in carrying on with this argument, we're just going to end up repeating ourselves.

Furthermore, I'm not a feminist. That's just a dickheaded retort thrown forward by simple minded f**kwits who are too ignorant to even consider seeing this situation from Mel's perspective.

I've said everything I ever will about this matter. I don't give a shit if you disagree with my view. I also don't care much for constantly repeating myself.
 

madunit

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
62,358
Whats with all these males siding with the fenism geniuss with the hope they will get their dink sucked. Half of you merkins sound like a fat tumblr bitch.

The irony in calling people geniuss, while being unable to spell.
 

madunit

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
62,358
How do you know this? How do you know there was not a bet, or a dare, made to Gayle. Maybe by his IPL franchise owner? Maybe by his team mates?
Have they come forward and stated that Gayle "was pushed". if the answer is no, then again, the Hafner example is not comparable is it.

And why does it matter? Natalie Barr is a female no?
As I said, sexism should not be tolerated, it doesn't matter which sex is promoting it or the victim of it. The point is that they are not comparable incidents. Hafner was pushed. Gayle was not.

Peer pressure is huge motivation for many acts by people. What is the relevance? Where are you going with this?
El D brought it up to try and prove they are comparable. I'm stating that they clearly aren't.

One was an act of peer pressure. One wasn't.

Apparently that makes them identical.

I disagree.

Until an article comes out stating that Gayle was pushed into making those comments, I cannot see how these two incidents can be comparable.
 

no name

Coach
Messages
19,081
Yep but the twitter outrage machine on both sides fired up and here we are. Outrage culture runs both ways and if El diablo and mra aren't just as outraged as those on the opposite side I'm not here. El diablo said it upset him so much it made him want to vomit.

Yeah, I do agree that people are going over the top defending him and saying it's perfectly acceptable to for him continue his 'courtship' when she was clearly uncomfortable.

However, the El D, AntiLag and Mr A's of the world have nothing to defend if the initial outrage isn't there.

It does give them an opportunity to show everyone their true colours.
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
61,832
I think these nutters are so paranoid they start defending it before the outrage kicks up. People start talking about how people will respond before it kicks off

As I said on the night it's inappropriate but not the crime of the century. If I'm some beta feminist blue pill maniac so be it.
 

franklin2323

Immortal
Messages
33,546
Yep but the twitter outrage machine on both sides fired up and here we are. Outrage culture runs both ways and if El diablo and mra aren't just as outraged as those on the opposite side I'm not here. El diablo said it upset him so much it made him want to vomit.

This. People are going over the top making it a bigger story then it is.

It was dumb and stupid and shouldn't happen & has been handled. People rightly can ask where was the outrage was with the Sharpova one at the least. The other is more grey as they are always loose with those sort of things anyway.
 

Latest posts

Top