The Game 2023 Jerseys, Sponsorship, Logos etc

[hrundi99]

How about you grow up.

They're wearing the NRLW kit. It's not a WIL thing.

Do you even Raiders?

 

[The Great Dane]

They're wearing the NRLW kit. It's not a WIL thing.

Do you even Raiders?

Just like the Cowboy's pink jersey, it's the same shit for the same reasons.

 

[The Great Dane]

I wouldn't say the existence of the NRLW means that the Women in League round is obsolete. Hell, just go through social media during the NRLW games and it's clear that there are still significant issues with misogyny. I definitely think the round needs a more focused approach - just like the indigenous round does.

That being said, I don't hate Canberra's approach with wearing the NRLW kit (because I think the whole 'pink for women' thing is stupid) - but considering the key contrasting difference is the shorts, it really isn't that big of a statement.

Maybe like stopping focusing on sex, or other immutable characteristics, and start focusing on individuals for their achievements and sacrifices?

It's almost like when you make a big deal out of immutable characteristics, such as sex, race, etc, people start treating them like a big deal. . . When really nobody except an extreme minority of f**kwits actually gives the faintest f**k.

BTW, the jerseys are actually different. The NRLW jersey has a barely visible green gradient.

 

[Frailty]

Maybe like stopping focusing on sex, or other immutable characteristics, and start focusing on individuals for their achievements and sacrifices?

It's almost like when you make a big deal out of immutable characteristics, such as sex, race, etc, people start treating them like a big deal. . . When really nobody except an extreme minority of f**kwits actually gives the faintest f**k.

BTW, the jerseys are actually different. The NRLW jersey has a barely visible green gradient.

I mean, the premise of Women in League round is or should be to celebrate the contributions that women provide to the game at all levels. Whilst you think this may be ridiculous, the reality is that it should be celebrated to counter attitudes that have the complete opposite.

My issue is that it should have some pretty key parameters that need to met for 'specialty rounds'. First and foremost, there should be a clear contribution made league wide to a particular charity.

I did notice the barely noticeable difference between the NRL and NRLW jerseys, but that's why I said the key contrasting difference between the NRL and NRLW kits were the shorts.

 

[KingTigerman]

"And the 2023 Sharks Members Jersey is on presale now for $160, a specially discounted members’ price."

how f**king much are jerseys now??

They've been North of $150 for over 20 years but yes compared to other codes they are expensive

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Great initiative by the raiders.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Artie Beetson Inspiration Ignites Roosters’ Partnership with Deadly Choices

The Sydney Roosters have teamed up with the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health’s (IUIH) national preventative health promotion initiative Deadly Choices.

www.roosters.com.au

 

[The Great Dane]

I mean, the premise of Women in League round is or should be to celebrate the contributions that women provide to the game at all levels. Whilst you think this may be ridiculous, the reality is that it should be celebrated to counter attitudes that have the complete opposite.

My issue is that it should have some pretty key parameters that need to met for 'specialty rounds'. First and foremost, there should be a clear contribution made league wide to a particular charity.

I did notice the barely noticeable difference between the NRL and NRLW jerseys, but that's why I said the key contrasting difference between the NRL and NRLW kits were the shorts.

The attitudes you're talking about are so culturally and politically irrelevant that they're effectively nonentities, and almost certainly haven't been welcome in polite society since before you were born.

Every single cultural and political institution in Australia, and the West more broadly, has openly and aggressively supported women's causes since at least the 60s, if not earlier depending on the issue in question. Every serious area of institutional discrimination against women has been so thoroughly addressed that activists and supporters have had to stretch definitions, manufacture discrimination, and change their stated goals, to justify their continued existence. In other words they're still fighting a war that was won long ago.

It's to the point now that males are underperforming females by most metrics in society in most Western countries, and you'll struggle to find a single program that's genuinely attempting to address any of those issues. In fact such proposals are generally met with open derision, of the sort that most would label misogyny if it was directed the other way, so often that I'm comfortable saying that most people don't actually care about the suicide rate in boys and men, males failing in education and academics, rates of isolation, loneliness, even totally checking out of society, etc, etc.

I mean just take a look at what you're saying in your post; whether you realise it or not, you're insinuating that women's contributions to the game are more worthy of celebration than men's, or, for example, if we had two volunteers at a local footy club, one of each sex, that only the female is worthy of recognition for their contribution. Then you want to turn around and say that negative attitudes towards women are a significant issue in our society!

Put simply, you can't address discrimination with more discrimination, and all you're achieving is changing who the aggrieved party is by attempting it. So why not just, you know, stop putting value into immutable characteristics where possible, and treat people as individuals based on their character and achievements. What'd that guy say that one time, something about having a dream. . .

 

[Frailty]

The attitudes you're talking about are so culturally and politically irrelevant that they're effectively nonentities, and almost certainly haven't been welcome in polite society since before you were born.

Every single cultural and political institution in Australia, and the West more broadly, has openly and aggressively supported women's causes since at least the 60s, if not earlier depending on the issue in question. Every serious area of institutional discrimination against women has been so thoroughly addressed that activists and supporters have had to stretch definitions, manufacture discrimination, and change their stated goals, to justify their continued existence. In other words they're still fighting a war that was won long ago.

It's to the point now that males are underperforming females by most metrics in society in most Western countries, and you'll struggle to find a single program that's genuinely attempting to address any of those issues. In fact such proposals are generally met with open derision, of the sort that most would label misogyny if it was directed the other way, so often that I'm comfortable saying that most people don't actually care about the suicide rate in boys and men, males failing in education and academics, rates of isolation, loneliness, even totally checking out of society, etc, etc.

I mean just take a look at what you're saying in your post; whether you realise it or not, you're insinuating that women's contributions to the game are more worthy of celebration than men's, or, for example, if we had two volunteers at a local footy club, one of each sex, that only the female is worthy of recognition for their contribution. Then you want to turn around and say that negative attitudes towards women are a significant issue in our society!

Put simply, you can't address discrimination with more discrimination, and all you're achieving is changing who the aggrieved party is by attempting it. So why not just, you know, stop putting value into immutable characteristics where possible, and treat people as individuals based on their character and achievements. What'd that guy say that one time, something about having a dream. . .

Wow, that is quite the rant. Considering what this thread is, I'm not going to respond in any level of depth.

This is a jersey discussion thread, if you want to throw out the "the only discrimination is that against men and white people" argument then head to the four corners section.

 

[MugaB]

The attitudes you're talking about are so culturally and politically irrelevant that they're effectively nonentities, and almost certainly haven't been welcome in polite society since before you were born.

Every single cultural and political institution in Australia, and the West more broadly, has openly and aggressively supported women's causes since at least the 60s, if not earlier depending on the issue in question. Every serious area of institutional discrimination against women has been so thoroughly addressed that activists and supporters have had to stretch definitions, manufacture discrimination, and change their stated goals, to justify their continued existence. In other words they're still fighting a war that was won long ago.

It's to the point now that males are underperforming females by most metrics in society in most Western countries, and you'll struggle to find a single program that's genuinely attempting to address any of those issues. In fact such proposals are generally met with open derision, of the sort that most would label misogyny if it was directed the other way, so often that I'm comfortable saying that most people don't actually care about the suicide rate in boys and men, males failing in education and academics, rates of isolation, loneliness, even totally checking out of society, etc, etc.

I mean just take a look at what you're saying in your post; whether you realise it or not, you're insinuating that women's contributions to the game are more worthy of celebration than men's, or, for example, if we had two volunteers at a local footy club, one of each sex, that only the female is worthy of recognition for their contribution. Then you want to turn around and say that negative attitudes towards women are a significant issue in our society!

Put simply, you can't address discrimination with more discrimination, and all you're achieving is changing who the aggrieved party is by attempting it. So why not just, you know, stop putting value into immutable characteristics where possible, and treat people as individuals based on their character and achievements. What'd that guy say that one time, something about having a dream. . .

I have a dream.... its called nicho hynes
And he just gave it to a touchie the other day
YaY.... we are all equal... 3 fingers up nicho

 

[Victoire]

The attitudes you're talking about are so culturally and politically irrelevant that they're effectively nonentities, and almost certainly haven't been welcome in polite society since before you were born.

Every single cultural and political institution in Australia, and the West more broadly, has openly and aggressively supported women's causes since at least the 60s, if not earlier depending on the issue in question. Every serious area of institutional discrimination against women has been so thoroughly addressed that activists and supporters have had to stretch definitions, manufacture discrimination, and change their stated goals, to justify their continued existence. In other words they're still fighting a war that was won long ago.

It's to the point now that males are underperforming females by most metrics in society in most Western countries, and you'll struggle to find a single program that's genuinely attempting to address any of those issues. In fact such proposals are generally met with open derision, of the sort that most would label misogyny if it was directed the other way, so often that I'm comfortable saying that most people don't actually care about the suicide rate in boys and men, males failing in education and academics, rates of isolation, loneliness, even totally checking out of society, etc, etc.

I mean just take a look at what you're saying in your post; whether you realise it or not, you're insinuating that women's contributions to the game are more worthy of celebration than men's, or, for example, if we had two volunteers at a local footy club, one of each sex, that only the female is worthy of recognition for their contribution. Then you want to turn around and say that negative attitudes towards women are a significant issue in our society!

Put simply, you can't address discrimination with more discrimination, and all you're achieving is changing who the aggrieved party is by attempting it. So why not just, you know, stop putting value into immutable characteristics where possible, and treat people as individuals based on their character and achievements. What'd that guy say that one time, something about having a dream. . .

You really should've just shut up

 

[It's Been Done]

The Broncos are in their City Jersey again

 

[AlwaysGreen]

The attitudes you're talking about are so culturally and politically irrelevant that they're effectively nonentities, and almost certainly haven't been welcome in polite society since before you were born.

Every single cultural and political institution in Australia, and the West more broadly, has openly and aggressively supported women's causes since at least the 60s, if not earlier depending on the issue in question. Every serious area of institutional discrimination against women has been so thoroughly addressed that activists and supporters have had to stretch definitions, manufacture discrimination, and change their stated goals, to justify their continued existence. In other words they're still fighting a war that was won long ago.

It's to the point now that males are underperforming females by most metrics in society in most Western countries, and you'll struggle to find a single program that's genuinely attempting to address any of those issues. In fact such proposals are generally met with open derision, of the sort that most would label misogyny if it was directed the other way, so often that I'm comfortable saying that most people don't actually care about the suicide rate in boys and men, males failing in education and academics, rates of isolation, loneliness, even totally checking out of society, etc, etc.

I mean just take a look at what you're saying in your post; whether you realise it or not, you're insinuating that women's contributions to the game are more worthy of celebration than men's, or, for example, if we had two volunteers at a local footy club, one of each sex, that only the female is worthy of recognition for their contribution. Then you want to turn around and say that negative attitudes towards women are a significant issue in our society!

Put simply, you can't address discrimination with more discrimination, and all you're achieving is changing who the aggrieved party is by attempting it. So why not just, you know, stop putting value into immutable characteristics where possible, and treat people as individuals based on their character and achievements. What'd that guy say that one time, something about having a dream. . .

Incel alert.

 

[greenBV4]

Anyone else notice Melbourne's heritage jersey last night didn't have standard NRL player numbers? Looked good

 

[t-ba]

Hey Fellas why isn't there a Men of League round amirite?

 

[The Great Dane]

Wow, that is quite the rant. Considering what this thread is, I'm not going to respond in any level of depth.

This is a jersey discussion thread, if you want to throw out the "the only discrimination is that against men and white people" argument then head to the four corners section.

Wow, that's quite a weak strawman... It's almost funny how predictable it was.

There's no helping people, and I really don't know why I bother trying.

 

[Reflector]

The attitudes you're talking about are so culturally and politically irrelevant that they're effectively nonentities, and almost certainly haven't been welcome in polite society since before you were born.

Every single cultural and political institution in Australia, and the West more broadly, has openly and aggressively supported women's causes since at least the 60s, if not earlier depending on the issue in question. Every serious area of institutional discrimination against women has been so thoroughly addressed that activists and supporters have had to stretch definitions, manufacture discrimination, and change their stated goals, to justify their continued existence. In other words they're still fighting a war that was won long ago.

It's to the point now that males are underperforming females by most metrics in society in most Western countries, and you'll struggle to find a single program that's genuinely attempting to address any of those issues. In fact such proposals are generally met with open derision, of the sort that most would label misogyny if it was directed the other way, so often that I'm comfortable saying that most people don't actually care about the suicide rate in boys and men, males failing in education and academics, rates of isolation, loneliness, even totally checking out of society, etc, etc.

I mean just take a look at what you're saying in your post; whether you realise it or not, you're insinuating that women's contributions to the game are more worthy of celebration than men's, or, for example, if we had two volunteers at a local footy club, one of each sex, that only the female is worthy of recognition for their contribution. Then you want to turn around and say that negative attitudes towards women are a significant issue in our society!

Put simply, you can't address discrimination with more discrimination, and all you're achieving is changing who the aggrieved party is by attempting it. So why not just, you know, stop putting value into immutable characteristics where possible, and treat people as individuals based on their character and achievements. What'd that guy say that one time, something about having a dream. . .

You make some reasonable points, but clearly you don't get laid, therefore your argument is irrelevant.

Checkmate incel.

 

[wazdog]

The Mitchell & Ness collection is now out from the Broncos and Storm.

NRL | Mitchell & Ness

From throwback NFL & NBA jerseys to hats, authentic team apparel & more, buy retro team-wear from Mitchell & Ness. Find NBA & NFL vintage team jerseys now.

www.mitchellandness.com.au

Looks way better than the stuff dished out by Cotton On.

 

[kdalymc]

The Mitchell & Ness collection is now out from the Broncos and Storm.

NRL | Mitchell & Ness

From throwback NFL & NBA jerseys to hats, authentic team apparel & more, buy retro team-wear from Mitchell & Ness. Find NBA & NFL vintage team jerseys now.

www.mitchellandness.com.au

Looks way better than the stuff dished out by Cotton On.

at $80 for a pair of shorts and $150 for a jumper they can get farked

 

[League Unlimited News]

Cowboys wearing away at home today, with Brisbane in their home jersey as away team.