229 thoughts on “Aussie Sexism for Female Aussie Cricket Star”
Hopefully someone will nuke us soon … there’s no hope left for anything vaguely approaching civilization in this country.
Totally agree with you Anne.
I love that some of the blokes who made these comments are called out for it. Names available for everybody to see. Now if only some of those mean trolls would harass them so they knew what it felt like.
I think it’s a damn shame we allow men to learn to read and write. Plainly they aren’t fit for participation in public life. Definitely should not be let out without a grown up.
Well… That’s productive.
So your idea of battling sexism is to be sexist then? Is that it?
^ This.
The idea here is to imagine what it is like to be subject to those kind of rules – to put yourself in the same position. Your comment indicates you find even the mere suggestion unacceptable, even though there is no real threat of that happening. But that is the real situation for many millions of women right now and for the foreseeable future. The same for Ellyse Perry. Many men just don’t understand what it must be like to be on the receiving end, and every woman will cope with it differently. Obviously Ellyse Perry can’t focus on it, in order to remain focussed on her game. A little role play, from men, even in the mind, for a few moments won’t hurt will it? It appears it will.
Saying that men shouldn’t be allowed to read, write or go outdoors without supervision makes you just as sexist as any of the above comments. Comments like that do not belong here.
#wearenotallthesame
Learn what humour is, please.
You’re missing the point, or rather confirming it. We all know what Catherine suggests is not the case and there is no real threat that it will be. Yet it is the case for many millions of women around the world (and a lot worse than that). The attitudes displayed above toward women cricketers are basically the same problem – sexism and misogyny. I agree that the men with those attitudes should not be in any public decision making capacity or be in any position of power. But the fact is they still are and there is no prospect of any radical change. The frustration from women is understandable and even commendable. More people need to be outraged by this.
^this. Stupid feminists with illogical one-way ideals.
Are you fucking stupid? Nice generalisation there you moron. You do realise that in writing that paragraph you’ve proved yourself to be no better than the people you’re criticising? You are one dense sexist idiot.
That’s why you can’t get dates with women 😀
hmmm can you fight sexism with sexism?
Read Ted’s comment. I think he got it right.
Big flapping mouths and tiny wizened junk – the Australian drongo male
“Man, I’m sure glad this vagina completely invalidates every success I achieve, ever,” said all the women across the world in unison, “It makes a nice change from being responsible for not getting myself raped”.
Aussie respect for women, ladies and gentlemen! Be sure to mention this the next time someone tells you “those rotten ethnics, they don’t respect women like we do here in Australia!”
Catherine, your generalisation about men does nothing to help either. I coach a girls team with my school and we play in the boys’ competitions and it is magnificent and I am proud to say that other teams treat then as equals and with full respect. Catherine once more please know that not all men are like that and I do not appreciate being lumped in with the ‘men’ above. Our house, I cook two nights, my partner two nights and the kids one night each. We share house duties and have respect when the other has had a difficult week and might need a break. We are equals, although I enjoy my metal music, cricket, footy, my mates – I also have an English literature degree and a performing arts degree (drama) so I enjoy my reading and my plays and theatre. My partner enjoys her shopping, dresses (she is beautiful when she dresses up and I enjoy that), romantic movies, but she is also formidable as an intellect, has a uni degree, and built the sheds in the yard. So Catherine, we can be traditional but it does not have to be all the time. Anyway I am sure you and I are on the same side and well done to the cricket star above, very proud of this Australian Cricket team and I follow their progress as much as possible, wish the tele did.
Well then Leigh, if you’re such a good man, then you should know that you weren’t the type of man she was referring to, so why does it bother you so much? She wasn’t speaking about you, move on.
Although it is pretty telling (and disgusting) that your biggest concern here is someone criticising men, rather than the whole swath of hatred and derision spewed against women in the screen-shot. A woman reacting to that with frustration (because we experience this nonsense from men every day of our lives), saying in a clearly facetious way, that we shouldn’t waste time teaching men to read and write when so many of them use it to hurt women, is not a threat to men. Does Catherine have the power to take your right to an education away, the way men actually prevented women from learning for centuries? No. She doesn’t have the social power to actually hurt you in any way. All she’s doing is wounding your man-pride. You have made your feelings the focus of the discussion here, instead of sympathising with women. You have told us that if we’re not friendly enough to you, you won’t care about sexism and will instead make everything about yourself.
So I guess what I’m saying is get over it. She was not oppressing you in any way, and if you’re putting your own feelings before a systematic culture of devaluation of women, your priorities show that you’re not really with us, regardless of how progressive you think you are.
wait, what? “get over it”? that’s your solution? this wouldn’t even be a thing if “get over it” was a valid response to any woman being upset by the ridiculous comments of the guys above. and we both know it’s not a valid response.
this isn’t about man-pride. this is about forming an intelligent response, lest you only damage the voice of other women who have something more constructive to offer. you know, since it’s convenient to assume everyone within the same gender is exactly the same…
I am saying learn to differentiate between actual oppression (i.e. the comments made in response to the photo), and women reacting to that oppression with anger. You know, women not actually oppressing men. Women don’t actually have the systematic power to do that.
Focusing on how offended you are, and telling women they aren’t allowed to be angry because if they’re angry you won’t listen to them, makes excuses for men to continue sexism. The only reason angry women ‘damage’ the voices of other women, is because men demand we never get angry at how they treat us. They tell us that our anger is as bad as their treatment of us. It isn’t.
So maybe you should read a few books on systematic oppression. It was about his hurt man feelings, and your comment is about tone policing women, telling them that if they step out of line, they are bringing oppression upon themselves.
No, it’s cool, I’ll stick with my take on things. I prefer logical reasoning over angst. There should be no “this only works this way, not that way”. The guys making the facebook comments are jerks, nothing to do with oppression. They’re just plain jerks. Hitting back with jerky comments and saying it’s cool because men aren’t oppressed by them is lazy arguing and void of any reasoning. You’re welcome to have your take of things, so we’ll just have to accept that we differ!
What a bizarre response. Keep in mind, Catherine said “I think it’s a damn shame we allow men to learn to read and write. Plainly they aren’t fit for participation in public life.” Men. Not those men or men who behave like that. Men.
So, you think the facebook comments above are entirely inappropriate. However, it is appropriate to have a sexist comment back, stereotyping all men, as women are allowed to get angry when responding to systematic oppression?? The original comments were directed at Elyse Perry, not all women, by a selection of men. Many comments on the post were complimentary, as quite obviously, Elyse Perry is awesome. As anyone who listen to JJJ knows. However, you think an appropriate response is all women get to direct sexist comments at all men??
Herp derp.
Women can get angry at it and attack those making the comments, but to throw sexist comments back at all men based on that is just as crap as the original comments.
Oh, for fuck’s sake! Catherine’s comment was clearly humour, and clearly a play on the sorts of things women hear all the time. Take a step back from being a sookypants and really think about why a woman might a flippantly sarcastic comment like this in response to the constant abuse women receive. And when you realise the original point Catherine was making, then maybe you can join the conversation.
Oh for fuck’s sake, p’bee, those guys’ comments on facebook were clearly humour. Take a step back from being a sookypants!
Or maybe those guys made stupid remarks, and it’s hardly clever to fire back at stupid remarks with equally stupid remarks. Nobody wins there, particularly those trying to stand above the facebook trolls.
@KR Reading through some of your comments here, it is amusing and sad how you don’t get the irony of some of your responses to comments. You’re obviously clearly affronted by some of them. Actually the only thing that gives me comfort after reading your posts, is the thought that you will have to live with the same sort of prejudice and oppression that women do – even for a short while – in order to understand it. But judging from your posts, even if you did so, I doubt you would use that experience to be outraged by what is happening to women. You would more likely use it to complain about the plight of men and the sexism they cop from women.
Classic reply. While an eye for an eye isn’t the ideal solution…I just love how we cop sexist crap our whole lives, as did our mothers, grandmothers and likely our daughters and grand daughters will…but the minute one of us says something slightly sexist, then men kick up a huge stink calling us out on the double standard! I mean seriously.
When you this lot stop being sexist, then we’ll show you the respect you finally deserve. Until then, cop it sweet…princess.
I understand both your points!
Oh can it, Sarah. He was addressing the fact that she spoke like all men were the same, when obviously they’re not. Just like not all women are the same. Pull your head in.
Another idiot feminist. You’re totally missing the point, aren’t you? If we could all “get over it” this post wouldn’t exist. This is one of the most hypocritical comment feeds i’ve ever read; Catherine’s generalising and making overtly sexist comments on a post about how sexism is wrong and inappropriate. If you honestly don’t see an issue here then you’re beyond help.
As a male, I’m almost scared to reply after some of these comments. Actually, I AM scared. ….
Welcome to our world. Again, why are there so many comments about a single (facetious) comment?? I just read pages of sexist drivel that is actually the focus of this site.
Leigh, I’m sure Catherines post was sarcasm and certainly more wholesome than the above posts. As for being “lumped in” with the bad behavior of others of your gender, welcome to our world.
Joe Hildebrand’s next docco could be about the Aussie male being dumb, drunk and sexist.
I came across this via Facebook. Could have missed it but isn’t it also a damn shame that not once in the comments or this article for that matter is the woman’s NAME mentioned? Antibogan -would it not assist to put names to the objectified?
Fixed. The material was pictorial and came from elsewhere. 🙂
Men are all pigs. Who would even go near one? Give all the power to us girls and remove men from society!
Yeah Jane S, way to combat sexism with sexism
I like how feminism has the goals of wanting women to have equal rights and many other things equal to men, and now here you are, claiming that all men are pigs. Good to see your strong, independent, feminist logic is working well for you.
Funny, I’m a man and I can’t see where all men are being called pigs here….
I can see that the behaviour of the individuals who made those posts are being called out for what it is – moronic bogan, sexist stupidity.
Something strikes me as really offensive though about some men perceiving other men who are publicly being dickheads as being the ones who need defending.
I guess it’s okay if the talk about your wives, sisters, daughters or girlfriends like that, just blokes being blokes after all… apparently….
You must have missed the parent comment to your reply where Jane S says “Men are all pigs”.
Spot on, Volvo!
Nice trolling, Volvo. Jane s, as it has been pointed out, clearly said that.
One woman reacts to outrageous sexism with a angry comment, the bogan male replies: “Proof feminism is wrong!”
Multiple. Ales make degrading and insulting sexist messages online, the bogan male replies with with a stern silence or “Get a sense of humour!”
So, in other words, women can be judged on the extreme action of o e. While men’s extreme actions are allied. Equality!
Come now, Jm, don’t use quotations when you’re not quoting. There’s just no need to make things up to make your point, that doesn’t serve to help. There is nothing in Lyle’s comment that is distinctively “bogan male”. He’s obviously not a keen feminist, yet why should he be when it seems to be a prerequisite to be so accusing? He’s pretty much pointing out that if you’re going to say that men making cheap, sexist remarks is poor form, then the way to combat it is not to make cheap, sexist remarks, lest you be ridiculed for being no different. and the feminism debate will be the worse for it, too.
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Remember that quote KR?
Lyle sees one poster, posting an extreme response to outrageous sexist comments as evidence than feminism itself in its entirety is wrong. However he has no complaint whatsoever about male sexism. Why would he? It doesn’t effect him.
It’s the privilege white males have in this country that no other group have. If a white guy says or does something terrible, I know I won’t be blamed for his actions, or my image harmed by it. Any other group in society though, if one of their members does something even slightly extreme, then all will be blamed for it.
hahaha that’s a pretty funny comment.
But if you want the power you’ll have to earn it.
It doesn’t matter if you are male or female, it is the internet, people are douche bags on the internet. sure they wouldn’t be as sexist if it was a guy, but they would prob be racist, homophobic or pretty crude. 9/10 of these people think it is okay to say stuff they wouldn’t say in real life online, and it becomes a competition to see who has most shock value or is most outrageous. Not saying it is right. Just saying.
Jane, I agree. That’s a rational and reasonable response to male sexism.
I do agree with a lot of stuff that gets posted here, but I do wonder, if I was to trawl the web for the most objectionable possible behaviour from females, if you’d all be upset if I posted a page somewhere and announced that ‘all women are whores’ or similar. I realise it’s those commenting who are making those sort of replies, that’s who my comment is aimed at. The women posted ‘all men are pigs’ are hiding behind their keyboards and their bias as much as the idiots whose posts are the main topic of this particular post.
aah I love it. How many tired cliches can a comment section get!? lol
This isn’t a generalisation about men – it’s a window into the “mindset” (They’d need a mind first..) of the brainless Aussie bogan morons who unfortunately drive so much of what the rest of us have to put up with in society, the media and so on.
Real men go “Wow, thanks for letting me know about this, that’s awesome, how do we find out more”. Bogan morons aren’t men, they’re just brainless redneck tools.
+1
Unfortunately, I disagree. Men who are sexist, are still men. A lot of masculinity teaches men to treat women badly, and ignoring the fact that MEN perpetrate sexism, in order to denigrate the men who do perpetrate it, is profoundly unhelpful.
Yes, sexist men are tools, but let’s not pretend that it isn’t men who are doing this, and men who let other men get away with it, by instead complaining that some woman called them a pig indirectly and that therefore sexism is justified because of how mean we women are to them.
Your comment should have come with a ‘generalisation alert’.
A couple of lame jokes on a meme is not really indicative of any sort of attitude.
Quite frankly, I just thought “who cares? Finch has done better only a few games ago”.
So using sexism to fight sexism, two wrongs don’t make a right
and the opposite of dysfunctional is dysfunctional…
C’mon – this is the type of humour that Aussie’s have!! I highly doubt that the majority of the guys who commented are actually sexist pigs. I know my brothers would make jokes like that, and they would be JOKING. Whether or not their humour is in poor taste or not … obviously that is up to individual taste, but I laughed at the comments… because they are JOKING.
We are hard pressed to identify any “humour”.
Yeah I get that. It isn’t there for you.
But it is there. There is great irony in these comments that you are completely missing due to cultural differences. I have been in tears of laughter. Yet I would claim to certainly not be a misogynist, not a feminist as I have a problem with the bias inherent in the term, but I believe in a kind of differentiated equality which respects the fact that we are biologically and chemically different. Worth the same but not the same. Most of these guys would think the same, believe me. They are parodying and satirising themselves, or more accurately the way they are portrayed as young Aussie men. You know. Bogans right?
It is a shame that you don’t get it because through your lens I totally get that it is offensive and I am totally getting your self-righteous fury. Good luck with it.
So, to be clear, if a woman is offended by comments like those above, it’s her own fault for not having a sense of humour to be able to distinguish between satire and actual sexism. Is that right?
By the way, how can you tell the difference between sexism and satire? Because your separation seems to be “it’s not sexist if they are nice in real life” which isn’t very reliable.
Truth is though, it’s not satire, it’s abuse with a wink. Satirising themselves would involve self put downs (like the great Louis ck has done about being a white man, or even with Jonathan swift in a modest proposal), whereas the only put downs here are directed to her. If it’s humour, it’s the type of humour that comes from reminding segments of the population that they are not equal, and are only worth what their use is to that of the dominant community of white men. In this case the “humour” is in the message “you are only worthy as a sexual object, all else is meaningless. But it’s funny that you try. Look at me, being edgy”
Hilarious, isn’t it?
“C’mon ladies, don’t be such a bitch, lighten up, they’re just joking, blokes will be blokes”. Really? Other people should take responsibility for the poor choices these dicks publicly made?
No, they’re being pricks and should accept responsibility for being pricks and choose not to be.
A racist joke is not just a joke – it’s racism.
A sexist joke is not just a joke, it’s sexism.
When only the dickheads are laughing, it’s not a joke – it’s something to be ashamed of.
“A racist joke is not just a joke – it’s racism.
A sexist joke is not just a joke, it’s sexism.”
*Like*
Thankyou for telling us all how to think and what to like.
That you’re too stupid to need to be told speaks volumes.
If you find humour in comments like that, next time I challenge you to say to the commentator “You only find it funny because you have a small dick” and then see where the conversation goes.
What if it’s a woman? Do I say she’s got a loose vagina?
Humour is great. It’s a great way to show a mirror to society, challenge the way we live, and send a message about the world.
Whereas these jokes seem to send the message of “Women can’t do anything except make dinner and babies, and fuck me too! Look at m, bing all edgy!”
Tell you what, if it’s all in good fun, and your brother has no problem to humour that humiliates him, go to your brother right now that he’s impotent, never been able to have sex successfully. And is kinda worried he’s gay, or wants to be wit one of his mates.
What? It’s a joke! Surely h’d be okay with you saying a joke like that!
Interestingly, Jm, I’d laugh it off if that was said to me. Because I know it’s not true. But yeah, I know some guys would get upset.
If you know what the truth is, and you can handle people saying nonsense as being nothing more than hot air, your ability to take a joke is stronger.
This is all said NOT excusing any of what was posted on facebook as being an acceptable “joke”. But just putting some context into play. Because, contrary to what may be spouted here, SOME women will simply shrug their shoulders. Not to defy their fellow women, but just because they know it’s all a bunch of hot air from muppets trying to get a cheap rise out of others.
So you’d dismiss the joke, by the sounds of it, but wouldn’t find it funny. So kind of eliminates the “it’s just a joke” defence.
Toleratin abuse does not mean we should accept it. Take a look at the everyday sexism project to see what terrible things women just shrug their shoulders at every day and accept, while hating that it occurs. More importantly , social change does not occur by shrugging your shoulders and accepting things, it occurs by outright challenging and debating social norms which allow the prejudice to occur.
@Jm
Just because you don’t find a joke funny doesn’t mean it’s not a joke. There is no general consensus on humour.
Not all jokes are funny. Fact.
And you keep talking like ALL women interpret things as you do. Not all men think like me. It’ll cause me grief sometimes, but it’s not a requirement that they do as I say.
No, you’re interpreting what I say as being about all women. But to be clear, do you need unanimous condemnation from all women everywhere before you condemn a terrible attempt at a joke? Because it seems like you’re trying to say “some women wouldn’t complain about the joke, so why would we complain?”bother wise why would it matter if all women or only some women would object to the continued sexualisation of women.
Again, social change does not come from acceptance. It comes from challenging society to change. Do you disagree with these statements, KR?
Wow. I recognise they are jokes. But I think you’d have to be a sexist pig to say them, like them, laugh at them. And they wouldn’t be considered ‘jokes’ if the wider society wasn’t actually sexist.
There is no such thing as “wider society”. There is also no arbiter of good taste or good humour.
WOW, some of you women are just as bad as the men commenting on that.
Just more proof that it’s not what you have in your pant’s but what you have in your head..
I hope you don’t have daughters who will no doubt get the message that it is OK for men to carry on like knobs but when a woman comes over as assertive then it’s not on.
Don’t you think women are sick of seeing the very worst of male behaviour legitimised by comments such as those from the epic failures on that post?
Calm down. If they get that message, they’re obviously not getting it from House Dad. He calls them out as being bad. Why is there “no doubt” that “it is OK for men to carry on like knobs”? It’s not ok to many of us, both males and females, House Dad included. Your comment is a little out of place really.
Just gobsmacked at the sexist responses, both towards Ellyse Perry and also the the responses to those here above (all men are (insert creature here)) – I should note it’s the former I find most offensive.
Both sides are a sad indictment on the Australian psyche, one that’s become more prevalent to my eyes now that I live in a truly multicultural and accepting environment on the other side of the world (note, that doesn’t mean sexism doesn’t exist here – it just shows me how much worse Australia is!)
She had a great game – top performance, and I hope that efforts like hers go a long way to promoting the sport back in Australia and everywhere around the world.
+1
gobsmacked? If you were a woman you’d be used to it by now.
gobsmacked? If you were a woman you would not be surprised.
Elyse Perry has no need to take any of these comments personally. She knows she is a legend, just as anyone worth knowing agrees. The good thing about social media is these young lads, silly enough to make these posts, have identified themselves publicly for public shaming. Nice one boys
I’ve known pigs. Comparing them to some of the worst representatives of humanity does them a terrible disservice.
+1
Ladies you’re ‘real man’ ideals are emasculating and perpetuate the problem…let me explain:
For fear of sounding pompous, I’m an Aussie male and after living many years in Europe I can say – hand-across -heart – I can’t stand the vast majority of Australian popular male culture here. I do miss the more sophisticated and open mindedness of European in general: Education, multiple languages, access to multiple cultures tends to make them arguably more well rounded IMHO. I do miss Europe and have given up looking to find that in a partner here many years ago.
The bullshit macho, ego fuelled “I’m a strong male” display is pathetic. It’s destructive both socially and environmentally. It centres around this young, narrow conservative view that the world is here to serve you. Look at the prime minister these people elect, it’s an absolute disgrace!
Australia really is a back-water country: Bogan’s rule this country along with their limited brain power and ‘real tough man’ ethics (be tough, work hard, protect and kill for your family (a destructive misguided characteristic) etc. But they did not get here alone. Many women, dare I say it, encourage this behaviour – subtly but they do. I’ll explain, I have seen it within my network/community time and time again and it makes me cringe everytime. The old ‘I want a REAL man’ is still the crux of many (young(?) women’s desires. No man wants to be on the end of that emasculating statement and, I imagine, it propels young men towards seeking out and taking on ‘real man’ characteristics. So what do they do, they look around at other Australian ‘tough’ men and shazam! there you have it! This is such a subtle process yet one that both women and men play a role in.
So ladies the ‘REAL MAN’ position is rubbish. It really show’s you have some growing up to do yourself. It’s a moving goal post that is flippant and destructive.
So tell me..what’s a ‘REAL WOMEN’ is it the ones gracing the pages of COSMO? or the ones sculling the beer on Nek nominate? Because there are far and few between. I have my ideals in a partner aswell but I don’t encourage you to go lose 10kg do I…by imposing and disempowering you with my ‘real women’ ideals..
People tend to make decisions from a young age towards meeting other young men and women so what do they do; They look around at the men (and women) that ‘seem to be popular with ladies’ and adopt similar characteristics, this doesn’t seem to stop as men get older either. Right now if I hop down to the pub or club and I see this shallowness coming from both sexes. So if you’re one person on this forum and another in the bar, club whatever out with your friends, you have double standards, and need to put yourself in check. Men and women judge each other on their looks to a large extent whether you like it or not. That doesn’t mean to say it’s the deciding factor and the ‘alpha male’ (doesn’t matter how smart he is) only that he displays the characteristics of an ‘alpha’ (strong, confident, leader etc) then women gravitate to him. I see it time and time and time again. I keep seeing this shit and feeling ashamed and sorry for the human race when this shallowness rues the day.
Time to take responsibility and like a game of chess think a few moves ahead..
Brilliant! – I am more of a ‘Velveteen Rabbit/Skin Horse’ kinda ‘real woman’ – bit shabby & loose in the joints these days, but it’s taken time and I am loved for my ‘realness’. I think the collective age of these cruel commentators (joking or otherwise) must be quite low as evidenced by the brash, hard edged bravado (trolling) that often accompanies this age group. Poor loves perhaps they’re a little jealous and worried their backyard cricket skills wouldn’t quite match up against Miss Elyse….
Antonio, that’s a good response you’ve written, however there are a few problems with it.
If a woman says she wants a ‘real man’, she is not saying she wants a sexist, alpha male who thinks that her only place in is in the kitchen. It is much more complicated than that and usually just means she wants someone with emotional maturity, humbleness and a steady job. It’s not an alienating concept.
I’m not quite sure how the idea of ‘real man’ is emasculating, personally I see the concept of emasculating someone to be akin to making them more feminine. Because the WORST thing a man could ever be is a woman. It’s bullshit and the definition of masculine and feminine need to be expanded upon greatly. So much so that they should essentially mean the same thing except one you use when talking about a man and the other a woman.
Secondly. ‘real men’ and ‘real women’ concepts are stupid, I agree. People are people and they are real based on the fact that they exist. Different people want different things and not everyone is going to like everyone else; we should stop pretending like we have to.
Thirdly, it’s not women’s fault that men feel pressure to be a particular way. The idealised version of ‘male’ is actually created by the patriarchy men put in place many hundreds of years ago. If men are feeling pressure to be everything all at once and to squash their emotions and perhaps more traditionally ‘feminine’ qualities, then that is the fault of the patriarchy, not of women. Turning around and telling women to change their game is a redundant comment, we can do only so much as long as this patriarchal society is in play. Both men and women gladly participate in the current structure of society and each individual should do much more to diversify their own views and to un-learn lessons they have been taught. But I want to stress; pressure on men is not women’s fault. Change the structure of society, place more women in positions of power, change the way media depict both men and women, stop perpetrating harmful stereotypes and teach all kids that they can be all things and that is when you will start to see a change in the pressures on men.
You’ll probably find that the most unmale thing a man can be is a woman, and the most unwomanly thing a woman can be is a man. (You’re the one who said “worst”, lol).
Hooray for binary opposites. Our universe is full of ’em.
Well yes, you’re right. The most unwomanly thing I could be is a man. But that’s not what the phrasing is suggesting. The phrasing suggests that for a man to display ‘womanly qualities’ takes away from his manness, while a woman displaying ‘manly qualities’ takes away from the fact that she a woman. The problem is in the gendered qualities, not in actually being the opposite sex.
Well said Emma.
Why the steady job, Emma? To provide? I’m just curious, as this would seem to be a bit old-timey to be a prerequisite. Not only in that “traditional” interpretation of the term, but also against a changing working environment where “steady jobs” aren’t the only option to a successful working life. I for one am not deterred by a potential partner who is living a curious and exciting lifestyle vs one of expectations and predictability.
Hi KR,
I didn’t mean a steady job in the traditional sense, and certainly not to provide! I have a stead y job myself and don’t need anyone else to help me along.
I guess I meant steady job to mean a steady source of income. You’re right, this doesn’t have to be a boring old office job; careers like photography, or freelancing or any number of things are totally legitimate ways to make money and build the life you want.
I guess the most important part for me is work ethic and long term goals that are being worked towards. I hate laziness in that regard and people who are happy to sit stagnant aren’t usually well matched with me 🙂
That’s cool, I didn’t want to seem all nit-picky, was just curious given the term used 😉
Hi Emma,
Thanks for the thoughtful response 🙂
“Pressure on men is not women’s fault” – I would say you are right and no so right 😉 Sometimes women do put pressure (even subtly) on men to be a certain way – i.e the notion of a ‘real man’. Same for men with women – no doubt about it!
I don’t think it’s a question of ‘fault’ as it is as much about ‘responsibility’. I think you missed the point of my statement.
People need to be accountable for their roles and the extent of their compassion. There is little point in blaming – past or present – it simply removes the power from choices that lay ahead.
I don’t believe a ‘real man’ exists. I believe all men are ‘real men’ expressing themselves in many different existential forms.
I believe women (and men equally) impose their desires onto one another. Some of those desires are actually quite detached from reality and are at their core emotionally destructive. I do come across a great deal of disenchanted discussions and opinions within the gender debate. I, naturally, try to remain neutral, but it’s good to discuss issues at a fundamental level.
I will say this, it’s an idea I’ve been kicking around, though it may be somewhat controversial.. I do believe that we are all disappointed when our desires aren’t met in life be it work, relationships, dreams, goals etc as we come of age we accept these short-comings more and more yet with time we get better at blaming ‘the world’ around us either discreetly, subtly, display it through soft rebellion or individualism and, of course, our opinions correspond with our experience.
Relationships tend to be subject to the lofty heights of our aspirations and fantasy’s and when they work they are ecstatic, when they don’t they are horrible and all that emotional energy creates a catalyst for some pre-tty heav-y gender debates when everyone finally get’s to let off the steam..
Just sayin…
I think it’s about personal responsibility … we’re all at fault..
Antonio, well put. I agree with you for sure 🙂
Was just saying to my mum the other day that we would like to watch some of the female national team play. Shame I missed out on this innings.
This is why I hate sport. Not only is it deeply pointless, but the entire culture surrounding it makes me ill. Sexism exists in varying degrees almost everywhere, but it’s amplified to sickening degree by these sledge browed, back slapping, mouth breathers. Fuck mainstream sport, and fuck these men. Women shouldn’t have to put up with this shit.
Easy there, Tim, sport exists because of how we interact. It will continue to exist, and deserves to. Yes, it is an amplification of emotion. But don’t let the actions of some douchebags hide the fact that women also bag out women, in sport, in the workplace, in social circles etc. As men do to men. And women to men. And obviously, men to women. Do they deserve it? No. Will it stop? No.
And what exactly is “mainstream sport”? Should we all be playing underground sports to get our fill of competition?
Deeply pointless.
Deeply.
Deeply pointless.
What Antonio said. … You can’t have it both ways. You certainly cannot expect to keep the support of men who agree with you, if you look at the behavior of the worst, and say things like ‘men are all pigs’ and ‘why do we teach them to read’.
Why are you blaming women, for the masculine ideals men put in place for themselves? It wasn’t women who taught men that they aren’t allowed to cry. It wasn’t women who taught men that they have to be dominant over women. It wasn’t women who taught men that they have to physically fight each other. Women didn’t create these systems, they are centuries old.
Stop blaming women for things that the patriarchy instituted. Women didn’t create these problems for men, other men did. I understand that it’s easier to blame women for the sexism they face than it is to acknowledge that masculinity as upheld and reinforced primarily by men is harmful, both to men and women, but it’s clearly wrong.
Stop blaming the patriarchy institution. Stop blaming other men..quite hypocritical don’t you think?
It’s not wrong that men are men.
What’s ‘wrong’ is people not being accountable for their lack of compassion. The universe doesn’t not bend to your will.
There are countless positions you can take on this debate, which one serves women, men and brings solidarity..take that position..
I actually missed the “All men are pigs” line so apologies.
It’s as stupid, vapid and worthless as the men making disgusting comments about Elyse Perry
Way to go girls! Fight sexism with sexism. So is it wrong to point out that she is good looking? Any man or woman can look at Ellyse and go “yes she is good looking”. Good looking and our best young sportswoman currently. Not only does she play cricket for Australia but also plays Soccer for Australia and jumped onto the JJJ morning show in years gone by.
Does that make me a pig because i know what she has done? No it makes me a sports fan. Not a pig, a moron, a drongo or a bogan, a sports fan who listens to JJJ. Yes there is some pigish comments on here. But 99% of men would not say that to a woman’s face so to generalise the whole male population is disgraceful. I hope my daughter, when she grows up, can realise that it shouldn’t matter what people say about you, it’s about how you feel within yourself.
I haven’t heard Ellyse’s reply to this. Has anyone? That is right she probably doesn’t care. She would have heard worse on a cricket pitch. Some of the comments on here from certain women makes me realise that feminists are just as bad as the “male population” they are trying to offend. Get off your high horse and find something better to do than whinge about a picture of a female sporting superstar with some derogatory comments below.
I would put $1000 down to say that the good comments about her sporting prowess from the male population have been totally removed. And no woman commented on this post? Not 1 comment good or bad? I think not.
If this was the 1930′ or 40’s this would be propaganda at its finest!
So your defence is it’s okay to say completelyiggish and horrible things, if yo would never say the. To a person’s face?
So if someone wrote you frequent letters saying “you deserve to die, everyone hates you!” You’d be fine with it? I mean,they’re not saying it to your face!
Loy’s of women have given up careers, hobbies, everything because of frequent comments, none of which were said to their face. Rape threats, death threats, constant messages of “you are only worth your body to me, and nothing else”
You say women should just get over it, because it’s nothing y have to deal with. Let’s be honest, if men likely and I had to, only a daily basis,be judged as a sexual object first and a person second, talk like this would have been banned centuries ago.
Brad’s on the money about a few things –
Ellyse’s take on things is relevant, as she is the one who’s offense counts the most. Of course you’re allowed to be defensive on behalf of others, but sometimes you’re defending something that the victim doesn’t require defending from. I think if she stood up and said “these guys are all obvious trolls and jerks, I feel no pain from such uneducated words” we could move on because we could all nod our heads and hope that their ensuing embarrassment would do more to deter future efforts than to call them out oh so obviously with cries of sexism. That’s just the response they’re craving!
Definite propaganda as he has pointed out, the comments are obviously selective. And some of the commentors are obviously not real names. But that said, there are many genuine comments so there is validity in their collaboration, but there should be a caveat that some men would have stood to Ellyse’s defense.
But-
Just because someone wouldn’t say something to your face shouldn’t excuse it. Jm goes a little overboard with their argument here, but I’ll say that some guys do think what they have to say is fair, and it does kind of kick around the collective drongo minds that it’s cool to spout tired sexist junk and it may then settle as common drongo thought. People should at least try to be a bit more creative, because it only impresses the lowest of the low brows when this stuff gets trumpeted.
Brad: I am a dude. I cannot look at that photo and not notice that she is a very pretty girl. I could not imagine of commenting on that, in the manner these guys were, or acting as if her social worth is tied up in an accident of genetics. How she looks has no bearing on her achievements in the world of sport. My kids watch Star Trek, and I was recently astounded to realise that, in the world where that show was made, the nicest thing you could say to a girl is how attractive she was. I have encountered this in the workplace, too ( being asked what I thought of how female employees looked, when my response was to note that I could care less what they look like, I care about how good they are at their job ).
There’s nothing wrong in my view with being a guy. There’s nothing wrong with noticing that a female is attractive to you. There’s everything wrong with letting discussion of a girl’s looks be in any way allowed to overshadow her achievements. Even if it’s said amongst blokes, in a blokey way, when it plumbs the depths evident in the discussions above, it frames the way we think of women, and what we think is important about who they are.
Of course, that’s more spirited defence than the women posting sexist comments on this thread deserve, but that’s also half the point, on both sides, we’re talking about extremes of behaviour, not the median or the norm. I do continue to believe that much of what gets posted here, represents a depressing extreme, and then gets discussed as if it’s more common than it is.
I am 100% for women being equal in society. I want my wife to have the same opportunities I have had or have in life. But that does not mean men and women are the same physically or mentally. Saying men have to become more effeminant because you don’t like there “macho bullshit” is just as bad as a man telling you to get in to kitchen. Each person is different some women like being in the kitchen, some women like to be objectified. Some men like to be in the kitchen and some men like to be objectified… That is their right as an individual, people need to chill the fuck out and let people be who they are. If they are different from you… Get over it. If you don’t like the way someone talks… Don’t assosciate with them. Changing social injustice, yes… Changing people to be the way you want is as bad as everyone else.
some women like to be objectified.
Evidence?
All the girls on Facebook who post risque pictures of themselves and then “like” all the comments that say “aw ye dayumm beb u hotttt” and reply with “omg thanks bby xoxoxox <3".
Or all the "Rate me, /b/" threads on 4chan.
Won choosing to ask for attention to their features is not the same as a woman being degraded as a sexual object without her consent. Firstly,a woman has choice to put those pictures online, Elisha did not have choice to be seen as only good for sex, and cooking.
Objectification means no consent. Just as a lamp does not consent to being switched on, women when objectified do not have their consent considered at all.
SELFIEs, P.Hilton, Any of the Kardashains for a start. Been to the mall lately or seen the odd picture of some pop starlet arse on instagram per chance.
Sorry I try and block out ephemera and the whole celebriy rubbish. Next week it will be something else.
But sexism is unfortunately going to be around for quite a while.
So society rewards women based on their looks and sexuality first and foremost. Some women realise that to succeed they must use their sexuality and looks. Therefore, Anthony says “women like to be objectified, therefore objectification is okay”
Firstly, a woman using her own sexuality through her own choice is not objectifying. Objects don’t have choices.
Secondly, that rationale would justify all scores of terrible actions through history. Not all African Americans supported desegregation. They lived in a world where they realised they would be rewarded based on how demure, supportive and generally inoffensive , passive and accepting they were to the white establishment. And once they knew how to be rewarded in society, they became passive to live well.
Now under your reasoning, you’d be shouting to the civil rights movement “not all black people want equal rights. So you should stop complaining about improving the rights, because it’s not wanted”
What’s scary is that exact argument was used in support of segregation, even today. Slavery too. And I do hope you’d not be supporting either of those crimes.
So how do ou suggest e challenge social injustice of sexism, such as is displayed in the above comments without trying to change people?
And eve if some women like to be objectified, shouldn’t we try to treat them as people first, before finding out how they like to be treated, rather than as an object first, and refusing to liste. To them afterwards? After all, once a person is an object, they are always an object.
Look, I think when you try to guilt-trip people about not watching a certain sport, don’t be surprised when people to take the piss.
I’m sure Elyse Perry is happy enough about her own achievements without needing some internet feminist crusader hijacking her image to make other people feel bad about not worshipping womens’ cricket.
Why should I be made to feel as if I have something to apologize for by not watching or paying attention to womens’ cricket? Heck, I barely watch mens’ bloody cricket.
That’s not what this blog post is about.
Please pay attention.
Actually it is.
I very much doubt the comments would have been as vulgar if the top two lines had been omitted. You know, the lines that criticized everyone who didn’t watch womens’ cricket?
Your comment translated:
“Comeon girls, it’s not the guys fault he said you were only good for being in the kitchen, and fucking, it’s your fault for mentioning how successful you’ve been, yet how little attention has been paid to you. If you had just said nothing, the guy wouldn’t have done those terrible things. REAlly yo should be apologising to the guy for making him say those terrible things…he’s a really good guy, usually”
Read about rape culture. It’s what you’re doing right now.
So, it’s wrong for people on the internet to use elyse’s success as evidence of how female sports overlooked, but totally okay for you to useelyse’s imagined opinions to show how women on the internet are or to complain about poor coverage of women in sport. Is that right?
Hypocrisy much?
I think sexism, from men or women, is plain bigotry. If some offer derogatory comments about all men or all women, chances are that he or she is a sexist. Shame on them.
The real feminists of the world are out there forging careers or starting businesses, while you all comment on blogs. That’s why you aren’t taken seriously.
The real men of the world are out there forging careers or starting businesses while the knuckle-dragging yobs are ensuring their place on the dole by making dumb and gratuitous phwoar comments on blogs. That’s why they aren’t taken seriously.
He had a point, though. WP is like tumblr for 30-pluses.
Yeah as much as I have loved your other comments on this, this is actually really classist. it’s suggesting that people on welfare are yobs, only there because they’re too lazy to work hard and ‘forge careers.’ It’s a really unfair generalisation, given how much social power middle class men have. Why do we need to criticise poor people, in order to hit out at sexism? Poor people are already not taken seriously, no need to add to that.
The point was that these losers would never be able to get a job in the real world.
Oh, mindmadeup, I do believe you just lost much credibility there!
And yeah, most of us know not to pay any credit to the knuckle-dragging yobs out there, whatever their source of income.
On a side-note, that Shane Warne guy doesn’t make to much, does he? Or Robin Thicke? Or Tony Abbott?…
Tell me what a ‘real man’ is and I’ll tell you what a ‘real women’ is. Then in our world we will find only loneliness..
So, to be clear, if a woman complains ago anything, she’s wasting her time. But if a man complains about something, as you are doing here, not a waste of time.
Hypocrisy much?
Women are just as much pigs are as males these days. People wonder why relationships don’t last anymore. Equal rights yep good, but why would a woman want a relationship when it’s now ok for both sexes to be sluts? Wasn’t it bad enough with just guys being assholes? Now we have women who think they are dudes, and dudes who think they are women.
Single, I’m guessing for a long time.
Just to be clear, relationships end earlier now because women are allowed to end them earlier. THE days whe they had to stick with abusive, violent, unloving partners is over. And do you really want them back?
How exactly are men becoming men, by the way?
What the hell kind of response is that, Jm? Your posts are harder and harder to understand through your terrible misspellings and such. But this time you’re way off the mark.
“Single, I’m guessing for a long time.” Where the heck did that come from?
Mike seems to have an issue that is a little off topic and confusing, but your answer is just rubbish.
The day is not over, sadly, where women can always leave abusive relationships. It’s just not kept out of the public conscience, but its foolish to no end to say this no longer happens!
My response came from the reality that guys who are single online for a long time tend to blame women for everything. Take a look at some MRA blogs. He’s using th term sluts to describe all women, and you don’t even consider criticising him! Come on!
True, women can’t always leave abusive relationships, but it is true that part of the reason we have more separation of relationships now than we did 50 years ago is that through the no fault divorce both parties are more able to leave relationships that we hurtful to one party. When people, such as mike, complain about “People leave relationships too early now, because all women are sluts” they ignore the other factors influencing that separation rate, and just blame women for sleeping around.
Stop making stuff up!
I did criticise his comment as being confusing, but since he was EQUALLY scathing to men and women, there’s no need for me to call it out as sexist.
He did NOT use the “term sluts to describe all women”! He actually said, verbatim, “when it’s now ok for both sexes to be sluts”.
Just keep your comments factual and you’ll make case for a better argument. Right now you just come off as a seething, penis-hating, sex-loathing XX’er.
Stop making stuff up!
I did criticise his comment as being confusing, but since he was EQUALLY scathing to men and women, there’s no need for me to call it out as sexist.
He did NOT use the “term sluts to describe all women”! He actually said, verbatim, “when it’s now ok for both sexes to be sluts”.
Just keep your comments factual and you’ll make case for a better argument. Right now you just come off as a seething, penis-hating, sex-loating XX’er.
Well, first off I’m a man, who quite likes sex and has a penis. I know-shocking! A man who can consider the woman’s side of thing, sees the danger of using the word “slut” around women.
And you’re coming off as the sort of guy who tacitly accepts sexism on a regular basis all through his life, only to suddenly flare up when one person makes a comment about “Men are quite bad y’know”
The word slut is never equal across genders, because it’s never been a negative around men. True, he didn’t say all women were sluts, but he did blame the women (and only the women) and their sexuality for the reduction of long term relationships.
i actually agree that most men are pigs
Look, much of what is said there is terribly sexist, but I fail to see why the comments that compliment her looks, such as “she is stunning”, are included. It’s hardly offensive, and all I would have to do is find a picture of an attractive male on a similar memes page to see almost identical comments from women.
I’m not condoning the rest of what is written, but claiming sexism for calling someone attractive is ridiculous.
Calling a woman attractive is one thing (though it should be noticed that male athletes are recognised by their achievements first, looks second at best, whereas a female athelete’s looks are the first thing ever mentioned about them), but there is a big difference between “you look great” and “I’d fuck you”
The latter is not a compliment, not to anyone.
Wow, that’s the most generalised nonsense you’ve spouted so far, Jm!
Male achievements are always recognised over their looks, and a female’s looks are always first.
No, no, no. Just rubbish.
And Tyler’s point is ONLY the part you agree on – he says nothing about taking a compliment to an unsavory level, he only plays at the fact that finding an attractive person attractive shouldn’t be seen as a sin.
Okay then, if what I’ve said is rubbish, naturally you can find tennis player, a male tennis player in the Australian open, whose looks are being discussed in any forum, superseding and separate from his achievements. I can wait. I think you’ll be taking a while.
And for the record, making a generalised comment about society, is wrong! But making a generalised and sexualised comment about women online….that’s just a joke that people should get over.
How did so many Texas Tea Party asses end up in Australia?
Penis envy was once a buzz word; it would appear that envy has moved 180 degrees in the Southern Hemisphere.
None of the women here are suffering for want of a penis. They’d be useful if you needed to take a leak next to the freeway though.
Reblogged this on spacegirlerin and commented:
Anger level is high. As is frustration level. Ellyse Perry is a star.
People, enough of the crap. How dare any of you take down a female Aussie athlete? Are we not one country with a massive value toward supporting our sorting stars! I don’t care if they are male or female and not should you! This is embarrassing that this is even an issue, be proud we have a team fronting up. And let me say I’d like to see half you boys take her on in field, surely funny times ahead 🙂 seriously, calm the f down, we are one and should support accordingly, come on peeps, would we say the same of Cathy Freeman winning gold? Or our boys bringing home the Ashes? Get aligned and support, we are one pure and simple.
I am all fucked
*sob*
and that cricket chick is hot
i wish my dick was her bat so she could give me an arm pit choo choo
What’s the matter, local brothel knock back your maxed credit card?
hahahaha nice!
You’re just feeding the troll, mindmadeup. No points to be won in doing that…
You really see both layers of sexism here, the men who prey on women directly and then the ones that take women down when they point it out.
The extremely talented female cricketer is Meg Lanning,the sister of a friend of mine.Get your mind out of the gutters gentleman,can’t believe the sexist disgusting and lewd comments posted above.Just goes to show the low life scum alot of you half wits are.
How not to have a healthy discussion about this:
1. Ignorant sexist men act like themselves (intentionally sexist, vulgar and generally appalling).
2. Someone then generalizes about men (perhaps inferring that they are all similar).
3. Men get offended by the double standard.
4. Someone suggests it’s not a double standard because of present power roles in society.
5. Division forms between both the men and women who hate the men from step 1
6. Actual point is lost.
The whole point is that A, these facebookers are total fuckwits for their sexism, and B that sexism is a form of generalization against a specific sex. Surely if you want to progress away from sexism EVERYONE needs to be careful with generalizations. Justifying it for some and not others is logically incompatible with the equality most of us here hope to see.
Although, I don’t really see how a comment thread on this could really achieve much more than a spam of ‘yeah fuck those morons’. At least it lets them know that there are others who dislike them for it i suppose.
+1
While there is definitely an element of sad, sexist truth to what these guys are saying, I think half these comments are for shock value only. I personally love saying shocking stuff (that I don’t believe or agree with) just to put the cat amongst the politically correct pigeons, and cos it’s so stupid it’s funny
You need a hobby
Sound alike fun. So you’d be okay with me saying you rape and murder puppies-for shock value, mind you, and tell everyone you know about it-just for shits and giggles.
Your FACE rapes and murders puppies, Jm.
… Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
Welcome to the internet gentlemen and ladies (G comes before L in the alphabet. L coming before G makes no sense. Keep your sexism at the door =P), where scumbag comments roam free and people fish for easy negative reactions (that includes you, Jm.)
Here, we all get to be ‘the asshole that no one likes’. Until such time as every little thing you say on the internet has negative repercussions on real life (no thank you) due to everything being tied to your real person (aka, your real name, etc), it will always be that way.
Some of the things people say here on the internet, they actually don’t agree with in reality. They say it, as Simon has pointed out, to get a rise out of the fools who always seem to have a carrot shoved firmly up their arses. Humans in general seem to delight on drama.
Is it okay? Probably not. Does it often get boring to see? Eeeyup. Will it ever change? Probably not.
Obviously responding to fire with fire doesn’t ever help in any given discussion. The people here who decided to comment on sexism with more sexism, for example. Whether they are being ‘sarcastic’ or not makes little difference. In fact, a lot of what I read in this comment section seems to be said for shock value, from both sexes. It is a very special person who can’t realise that both men and women can be equally sexist in their comments, just as they can be equally nasty toward anything outside of their sex.
This was a comment that is aimed at this entire comment section, and only the first part really pertains to a particular commenter. So don’t get too butt-hurt over it =D
Complacency, while depressingly easy, never changes anything. Saying “it will never change” doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, as throughout history every social change has occurred in an environment where the community said “it will never happen”
+0.95
Yeah go ahead
Cool. Well put your facebook details down and I’ll be sure to spread the word…for shock value only, of course.
All the blokes complaining of sexism in the comments. Who are these clowns? Check your privilege white boys.
So bad behaviour is only poor when men conduct it…..I see …….good work…..makes sense. Why do you treat women like children Andrew? Thats sexist in itself………….everybody is capable of sexism…………..equality right???
We live in an unequal society. It is the privilege of us white men that we don’t have to know about inequality because it doesn’t have to effect us.
Sexism is wrong for either gender. But whenever a father is portrayed as a doofus on tv, or a woman complains about men generally, I stop to think about how:
No matter what happens yo me, I can be confident the police will support me
In any job application, my chances will be based on my skills and experience
I can be confident as a worker, a customer and a service user, I will be treated with respect.
No matter where I am, I canbefIrly confident I’ll be treated at the same standard or better than the people around me.
Everyone is too busy arguing over sexism to point out the real error….
“watching men cricket”?
Surely it isn’t too hard to say “men’s cricket” or “men playing cricket”
just sayin’
We didn’t create the meme. If we had, there’d be no typo.
Incredible. I look at the photo and Elyse Perry’s achievement and the appalling, imbecilic, sexist, bogan responses and all I can think is that this is a window of the crap women in general have to put up with throughout their lives and that it’s something all men should be better than by now.
To me, a majority of men would be as appalled at this boorish stupidity as I am and feel good that they too are better than acting like neanderthals.
Instead, I see a stream of highly offended men carrying on as though THEY are the victims here – as though the issue isn’t outdated sexism and misogyny in our society but rather of women being ‘so offensive’ as to point it out.
The issue appears to be (to them at least) that women can’t take a “joke” and that “women should get over it” Amazing. Women “should get over it” coming from some men who can’t stand the thought of looking in the mirror and seeing just how ugly they and there actions really are.
How brutally hard it must be for such small minds to struggle to simply acknowledge the gross inequity of women’s endeavours and achievements being rated as secondary – whether it’s in business, politics, sport or elsewhere?
What does it take from any of you to do that? Absolutely nothing, that’s what – but the problem, YOUR problem, is that you are so deeply insecure, despite having all the advantages society throws your way, that you can’t imagine there’s room for them too.
Yes, there have been idiotic remarks about all men – which simply are not true – made by some women here, but I can imagine the lifetime of bullish women put up with that can lead to such remarks that have me going “fxck it, I’ll let that one slide”.
I think the inequality and utterly offensive treatment women receive in our society – dished out so casually by neanderthal bogan halfwits is a far bigger issue than one or two women saying that they hate men or making a sweeping generalisation.
This country is full of real, amazing men who see honour in standing up for anyone who isn’t copping a fair deal and women in this country get a pretty raw deal wen you compare their daily reality with those of a man doing the same.
So seriously boys, grow up. If you feel threatened by women standing up for themselves and pointing out the inequality in our society, it’s you who have the giant chips on your shoulders and you who need to “get over it”
Oh ffs, mansplaining ftw – pull up your big boy panties, take the sexist assholes to task for posting such shit on the OP and stop whining about women who are vocal about how fed up they are with this kind of behaviour.
You can actively spend hours patiently explaining to all of us how one woman cracking the shits is terrible and out of line and “just as sexist” – how about you go and use that fabulous logic and tell bogan males to fuck off?
I am SO TIRED of being explained to by men that I should take the higher ground, be nicer, be kinder than dickheads who make comments about women like those in the OP. As if my having a vagina means I can’t take a swipe at some loser without voiding my feminist credentials.
And kudos to the blokes I see above who have stepped away from dudebro land and are just as fed up as most women are with this kind of pointless energy sapping moronic behaviour.
I unfortunately found myself half giggling to some of those comments, knowing how wrong, degrading and disrespectful they are. This comes from a lifetime of conditioning of sexist jokes and unconscious realization that if you can’t beat them, join them! I have in my younger years tried the whole ‘It doesn’t effect me, they are just jokes, I can be just as funny by making sexist remarks and getting a reaction’ but really as a woman you really never feel ok with that. Yes for some women it helps them feel less victimized by joining in, ‘being one of the boys’, ignoring, not getting angry or not ever thinking about the inequality behind all the banter, basically ignorance is bliss. It’s easy to think it’s acceptable because there are so few people out there who will put there true emotions on the line to say, ‘Don’t say that, it actually hurts!’, ‘I am just as worthy and valuable as you and every other person’. I truly admire the women and men who stand up to this crap, who have consciously decided to go against the grain of what’s socially standard, to become the targets for ill-minded people who themselves aren’t strong enough to do the same. For me feminism is bravery, and sexism is cowardly. I believe most men will never understand many of the gender related issues that women have to deal with as it will never impact you, not until you have children and daughters or something awful happens to a female family member/ friend that leaves you confused, angry and guilty. So to all the feminists out there please don’t stop writing informative and challenging opinions on blogs like this, I want to learn more and keep learning so I don’t keep oppressing myself and others around me. And to the others, I hope you find the strength one day to not protect yourself so much and start standing up for those who actually need your support. If you can do this I promise you will feel like the strongest person you have ever been.
firstly, i am a male, and personally i find the ‘men are all pigs’ comment to be slightly more offensive than ‘that’s a weird looking saucepan’. if i heard a male say ‘women are all pigs’ i would be very upset, because that’s a horrible thing to say about any group. at least the saucepan comment was an attempt at humour and not a personal attack. it’s still bad, don’t get me wrong.
secondly, i think sexism in sports is sort of understandable (hear me out). if i want to watch the very best team vs the second best team in the world, they are going to be all male teams. why? we are naturally faster and stronger. the fastest recorded female bowl is 120 km/hr MAX. this is very slow for the fast bowlers in male cricket who clock between 120-160 km/hr. so if there was some guy from some mediocre team who played well some day, you wouldn’t post it on facebook. this is sorta the equivalent of one of the best female players. in high impact sports, all male teams trump all female teams every time. if you are really into a sport, you want to watch the metagame, you want to take data, you want to see what strategies work against the best of the best. cricket happens to be a sport where males are naturally superior (don’t hate me, research this yourself). when a female, or female team, ranks among the best in the world legitimately (none of this woman vs woman only stuff) then I will follow her/them just like any other athlete. you think i’m sexist? no. i’m a gamer. Women are very very good at long distance walking/running. Women are often more agile than men in martial arts and rank among the best. women are generally good at bowling and darts. cycling. equestrian games. yachting. and don’t forget chess. in these games, i will watch women, women will make the headlines and women dominate the sport usually. if men were much worse at these sports, i wouldn’t want to hear about them because as good as they try to be they just aren’t as good. african-americans have smaller lung capacities and can’t swim as far, should we have an ‘african-american only’ league? NO. i’m not being racist, i’m being logical. koreans are far superior at Starcraft and they have korean and non-korean ladders. no one watches or cares about the non-korean ladder because they suck. end. of. story. thats not racist. this isn’t sexist. the pic says ‘everyone so busy watching men cricket they didn’t notice this lady bla bla’.. no, no one noticed the kid down the road doing well either. i’m sure some man did really well out there in some game and it wasn’t noticed because another game was being played with way better teams. read this carefully, i am not being sexist.
Let me sum up what you’ve written for you: “I am a male and am more offended by comments related to me, than I am comments related to people who are different than me. Moreover, while comments made about me are abusive, evil and must be stopped, comments made about people who aren’t me are just jokes, not abuse, and an is completely understandable, so no one has the right to be offended”
Sit down, because I have a shock for you. People who aren’t you exist, and have opinions completely separate from you. I know-shocking. It’s like they’re people or something.
Jm: Let me sum up what you’ve written for you: “I am a male and am more offended by comments related to me, than I am comments related to people who are different than me.
~~no, i’m not personally offended by much at all. However, I think a broad statement such as ‘all men are pigs’ is the extremity of bigotry. I find ‘thats a funny looking saucepan’ to be offensive as well. It’s not quite as broad nor such a personal attack at the character of the group of people it is offending. If you were to switch around the male and female here, saying ‘all women are pigs’, I would still say that is way more offensive than ‘thats a funny looking hammer, get back to work’~~
Jm: Moreover, while comments made about me are abusive, evil and must be stopped,
~~ I never alluded to this and I think freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.~~
Jm: comments made about people who aren’t me are just jokes, not abuse, and an is completely understandable,so no one has the right to be offended”
~~I didn’t say it was a joke. I said it was an attempt at humour. I don’t find it funny, I find it very offensive. But ‘all men are pigs’ isn’t even trying to be witty in any way. Women certainly have a right to be offended. And men certainly have a right to be offended at the rebuttal of ‘all men are pigs’. Furthermore, I am not changing what I have previously written in my above post. I never alluded to such allegations. So Jm, let me sum up what you’ve written for you: “I didn’t properly read nor understand your post at all.”~~
Also, on the sexism in sport – I just want to add one more thing. If men (generally) are naturally physically stronger because of our testosterone levels and feminism takes that away from us, then what do we have left? practically nothing. women (generally) are much better at pretty much everything else. if men aren’t allowed to be better at sports, then you may as well just throw us away. Other than in sports, mining and construction, muscles aren’t all that useful in this day and age. In fact, many scientists are claiming that humans will slowly get weaker because the creation and maintenance of muscle mass isn’t going to be worth the advantages of having that muscle in such a technologically advanced society.
You know what’s amazing, you looked at this entire article, eveyr section about it, and never stopped to consider “Maybe I don’t find sexism directed to women as offensive as sexism directed towards men because I am not a woman” Never even considered it.
Amazing.
“If you were to switch around the male and female here, saying ‘all women are pigs’, I would still say that is way more offensive than ‘thats a funny looking hammer, get back to work’~~”
That is in no way a fair comparison! Let’s take a look at what you’re stating here:
A woman staying in the kitchen, making sandwiches for her husband and having no empowerment is the same as a man with a regular job for which he is paid.
“I didn’t say it was a joke. I said it was an attempt at humour.”
A thus the tiniest hair is split.
” If men (generally) are naturally physically stronger because of our testosterone levels and feminism takes that away from us, then what do we have left? ”
Women are not trying to take your testosterone away from you, logic. Calm down. No feminist is going to come at night and steal your precious testosterone, they don’t particularly want it.
“if men aren’t allowed to be better at sports, then you may as well just throw us away”
Ah, the mighty cry of “What about the menzzzzzz!”
No one is saying men are not allowed to be good at sports. That’s being silly. What this post and many women are asking is a better recognition of women in sport.
Now, the actually logical person says “Well, we recognise great achievements among men based on the training, endurance and skills, why not also recognise great achievements among women”
A person with the user tag of “logic” instead says:
“But if we recognise successful women, we won’t be paying enough attention to men. And then it’ll be misandry! The women will come and steal all of our precious testosterone!”
Seriously, calm down. Women aren’t going to through you away once women’s cricket gets the attention it deserves. Now, if you think focusing on muscles isn’t enough and you should focus on other skills as well (Which, incidentally is what most atheletes already do. You need more than simple muscle strength in most sports-balance, strategy and technique are also kind of important), that might be a good idea, as being a simple muscle head isn’;t good for anyone.
As interesting/entertaining as this has been, I must remind myself that THIS IS THE INTERNETS & if people really want to unload/vent in a meaningful way perhaps a different forum might be useful, e.g. one that involves TALKING to ACTUAL PEOPLE’S FACE
Well, for an online forum, these comments have now been going into mainstream news sites, leading to questions being asked of the widespread sexist element of sport in Australia.
So not so meaningless, but if you want to start a public forum on sexism in sport I’m happy to support you.
Jm: You know what’s amazing, you looked at this entire article, eveyr section about it, and never stopped to consider “Maybe I don’t find sexism directed to women as offensive as sexism directed towards men because I am not a woman” Never even considered it.
Amazing.
~~ I find sexist remarks directed at woman just as offensive. I have a wife (who agrees with what I’ve written here by the way) and I truly get personally offended by such comments just thinking about how they would affect her. I also think calling an entire group of people ‘pigs’ is the most ignorant thing that has been said on this page.
Jm: “If you were to switch around the male and female here, saying ‘all women are pigs’, I would still say that is way more offensive than ‘thats a funny looking hammer, get back to work’~~” That is in no way a fair comparison! Let’s take a look at what you’re stating here: A woman staying in the kitchen, making sandwiches for her husband and having no empowerment is the same as a man with a regular job for which he is paid.
~~Are you seriously focusing on the fact that I said ‘hammer’? I could just have easily written any male oriented thing. How you can focus on that is beyond me, as it had nothing really to do with my main point. Also, how is a hammer any less of a work tool than a saucepan? chefs use saucepans, full-time mums use saucepans. stay at home dads use hammers. use your head.
Jm: “I didn’t say it was a joke. I said it was an attempt at humour.” A thus the tiniest hair is split.
~~ But a pretty important split nonetheless. I don’t find it funny, thus I am separating myself from the bigots who do. Ok?
Jm: “If men (generally) are naturally physically stronger because of our testosterone levels and feminism takes that away from us, then what do we have left? ” Women are not trying to take your testosterone away from you, logic. Calm down. No feminist is going to come at night and steal your precious testosterone, they don’t particularly want it.
~~ I’m not sure how you can take a point and twist it so abstractly. I know a woman isn’t going to physical take a mans testosterone LOL. you weirdo.
Jm: “if men aren’t allowed to be better at sports, then you may as well just throw us away” Ah, the mighty cry of “What about the menzzzzzz!”
~~
No one is saying men are not allowed to be good at sports. That’s being silly. What this post and many women are asking is a better recognition of women in sport.
~~ And my rebuttal is that I recognise skill. Any woman who is the best at something I will/do recognise and watch them. If the all-woman australian cricket team beats the mens team, I will recognise them and suggest to make a mixed team of all our best players. The exact same goes for if our mens B team beats our A team. why would I care about our second best team? why would I watch them on TV? I’m not being sexist. I think anyone who is worse than another player IS worse than that player and I don’t want to watch them. If Americans are awesome at basketball, why would I watch Japanese basketball?? why don’t they get the same amount of coverage?? In fact, I’m being less sexist by NOT categorizing the players. I am treating them as equals. Do you understand that? If you wanted every sports game to be equally received, even though the players are worse, you would have a lot of sports on tv.
Jm: Now, the actually logical person says “Well, we recognise great achievements among men based on the training, endurance and skills, why not also recognise great achievements among women”
~~ I do recognise those achievements. I made a list of all the sports that woman a naturally equal/superior in my first post. If a woman achieves greatly against everyone, then of course I will recognise them. why must they only verse their own gender? it’s kind of cheating. everyone is naturally good/bad at certain things. and much of that has to do with race, gender, upbringing. should Caucasians only race each other in marathons because Ethiopians are just too darn good?? No.
Jm: A person with the user tag of “logic” instead says: “But if we recognise successful women, we won’t be paying enough attention to men. And then it’ll be misandry! The women will come and steal all of our precious testosterone!”
~~ LOL HOW DID I SAY THAT?? I will say it again, I recognise skill. In fact, if women are far superior to men in a certain sport, then I wont bother watching the men. why? because they aren’t the best. end of story. and there are sports like that, pro darts comes mind.
Jm: Seriously, calm down. Women aren’t going to through you away once women’s cricket gets the attention it deserves. Now, if you think focusing on muscles isn’t enough and you should focus on other skills as well (Which, incidentally is what most atheletes already do. You need more than simple muscle strength in most sports-balance, strategy and technique are also kind of important), that might be a good idea, as being a simple muscle head isn’;t good for anyone.
~~ Firstly, throw*. Secondly, I agree with this point. However, different strategies and techniques must be used at higher and lower levels of skill. Watching top-end strategies is the entire reason I don’t watch TV sports to see lower skilled teams. whether it be women’s teams, reserve teams, casual teams, or young teams. But that wasn’t the point, not all men have technique, balance, and strategy. But we all have testosterone and mostly we’re stronger than woman. Thus, high-impact sports tend to favour men’s physique. If feminists want to ‘equalise’ with men, why would you look towards the one thing that men are pretty much strictly better at? Americans and Japanese are equal races, but not at basketball. the Japanese make up for that by being better at other things, and women should do the same (and of course most of them do). I would give my left arm to be able to do some things as well as women can. but i can’t, and i’m not trying to become equal in those areas.
“I have a wife (who agrees with what I’ve written here by the way) ”
Has a wife. Is not a sexist. Got it.
“. I also think calling an entire group of people ‘pigs’ is the most ignorant thing that has been said on this page.”
Jeez-did you read the comments? Please tell me how beign called a pig is worse than the constant sexualised comments here? I mean, constantly treating women as sexual objects leads to rape. What exactly does being called a pig lead to?
“Also, how is a hammer any less of a work tool than a saucepan? chefs use saucepans, full-time mums use saucepans. stay at home dads use hammers. use your head.”
Are you seriously telling me that our culture sees a woman with a saucepan as a chef highly paid, and a man with a hammer as a stay at home dad? Are you honestly telling me this?
Next you’ll be telling me all those stay in the kitchen comments were actually tleling owmen “You are good cooks and owuld make a lot of money as a chef. Just sayin’ your work should be rewarded is all”
“I don’t find it funny, thus I am separating myself from the bigots who do. Ok?”
You separate yourself, while diminishign their comments. “It’s okay, I didn’t find it funny. But it was a joke, so it’s okay. Whereas a joke about men being pgis-totally evil!”
Then came multiple comments about how when oyu said if feminism takes away our testosteorne induced strength, what would men have left, oyu didn’t actually mean any of that.
So what did you mean?
“Any woman who is the best at something I will/do recognise and watch them. ”
Okay. So what do you watch women being their best at, thne? Please be specific.
“In fact, I’m being less sexist by NOT categorizing the players. I am treating them as equals.”
So, to be clear, if your wife wanted to play sport, you’d tell her “Don’t bother. Unless you’re as good as the male players, why would I watch?”
And the whole “I’m not sexist, I’m treating everyone equally, while caring more for men than I do women! Because soceity is equal!” when it’s not.
” Do you understand that? If you wanted every sports game to be equally received, even though the players are worse, you would have a lot of sports on tv.”
And we have how many dedicated sports channels on tv already, filled with overseas sports which have no relations to us? More sport on tv isn’t exactly a problem if you like sport.
“LOL HOW DID I SAY THAT?? I will say it again, I recognise skill. ”
Except when you said if feminism takes our testosterone induced strength. Again, you’re trying to pretend you never said it or that it didn’t mean what it actually mans, so feel free to clarify that.
” I would give my left arm to be able to do some things as well as women can. but i can’t, and i’m not trying to become equal in those areas.”
And what are those areas you consider women better at than men which you could never hope to compete with?
Some real anger and bitterness in some of these comments…. ease up people. Many of you are generalizing and stereotyping us (M and F) to fit into a certain box, a certain criteria. I am certain that the only box I fit into is my own, nobody else I’ve met quite fits how I process my thoughts.
Go Perry and the other cricketers. Apparently they lost the women’s ashes but went down fighting. It seems that they don’t get much TV air-time, not that I saw anyway.
ps: should I apologise now for putting the M before the F? I’m sure someone will take offense at that, or pickup on a spelling mistake and then advise me to go read a book and learn about a particular subject. Here Here!
How far can the comments get from the original point?
Assholes comment on woman cricketer + all men are assholes+ all women who say all men are assholes are assholes. We got one asshole of nothingness now. No meaningful dialogue, no possible solutions. FFS can’t some of you just pull your head in and accept that there are men and women and women have been and are still getting the worst of it. So are poor people, ethnic and religious minorities and LGBT peoples – none of it fair, none of it solved by bagging other groups. I have no idea what it is really like to be discriminated against. Call me a pig – bug fucking deal, it only hurts a little bit. I have never been denied a job or an interview because of my gender or race so what the fuck would I actually know? These guys, and their ilk are the ones we should be taking to task – who the hell do you think you are : Adam Adamson, Adam Morris, Alex Tucker, Andre Corban, Andrew Cutter, Andrew Willcox, Ben Coventry, Brayden Couper, Clint McGrath, Connor Riley, Daniel Harvey, David Avante, David Hardaway, Dean Nesbit, Deva Nadesan, Dillon Lamour, Drew Williams, Jesse William, Joel Mitchell, John Fraser, Keiran Murphy, Linc Oliver, Lloyd Greenhill, Mark Lux, Matt Nelson, Rhys Locke, Rus Tee, Sam West, Sam White, Scott Free, Scott Meikle,Ted Yeung, Timothy Power, Tom Wilson?
Ok, so we’ve got someone who represents their nation in not one but 2 sports and has done so since the age of 17 in both, who performed fantastically in a particular game, and we get these pathetic jerks making sexist comments. As a father of a daughter who I hope might one day achieve even a fraction of what Elise Perry has, I’m sickened by these arsehats.
I’m disappointed. Given the description in the press, I thought this page may have some educated discussions. Instead I find an incredible irony: most of the comments appear to be made by chauvinists, feminists or other types of bogans.
A few people have tried to settle the flames with logic and reason, only to be set upon by a plethora of nonsensical rebuttal. While it naivety is sometimes amusing in a child, it’s just sad when it exists on such a large scale. This ‘discussion’ is no more meaningful than the average YouTube debate – it just has a slightly larger vocabulary.
Please point out the logic and reason,. Because all I saw were a lot of comments about
“What about the menz!!!!!”
“It’s just a joke, get over it!”
“Well, women are inferior…..” and
“These are just bad guys. There’s definitely not an overwhelming trend in society to treat women as sexual objects, posessions or men and not allowed independence. Definitely not. Just a few bad eggs making all guys look bad. Now feminists on the other hand……”
Jm: Has a wife. Is not a sexist. Got it.
~Yep. A wife who agrees with me. She understands true equality is about being treated as an equal human being. Not having delusions of equal skill sets.
Jm: Jeez-did you read the comments? Please tell me how beign called a pig is worse than the constant sexualised comments here? I mean, constantly treating women as sexual objects leads to rape. What exactly does being called a pig lead to?
~ I’m not talking about treating women as sexual objects. I’m only talking about the comments. If you construe these comments into a belief system, then treating someone as if you believe that they truly are a pig is worse than a sexual object. Pigs get cut up and eaten. So if a woman tells me that she thinks that I am a pig, I am supposed to assume it is an allusion to my grotesqueness and I cannot take it literally? Oh no, that’s just banter. Your argument has a Freudian answer, which means it’s not a true argument. Let’s take any humour or double-speak out of the sentence, now read it – “you are a pig”. SUB-HUMAN. But obviously the person who wrote this won’t treat me like an actual pig unless they are truly evil and morally deaf. That’s why I am JUST talking about the comment itself. Saying ‘get back to the kitchen’ may be subversive towards women as a gender, but saying ‘you are all pigs’ is subversive towards men as human beings. Also, the correlation between sexist humour and proclivity of rape is a slightly negative relationship. Why? Because truly sick people can’t tell that it is humour, and won’t enjoy the humourous aspect of the sentence. In any case, in every study that has been conducted, the researchers are very careful to note they are not testing whether these remarks cause rape. Obviously they don’t, they propagate stupidity and evil, but so does any prejudicial statement.~
Jm: Are you seriously telling me that our culture sees a woman with a saucepan as a chef highly paid, and a man with a hammer as a stay at home dad? Are you honestly telling me this?
~No, but I find it strange that you think that I am asking you what society thinks. I’m asking you to think for yourself. I simply switched saucepan for hammer because I was making a point about gender. Not occupation or class or anything other than gender. So I chose a utensil that is seen as gender specific. Ok now on to the ACTUAL point – If a man was to say ‘all women are pigs’ I would be horribly offended by that. But if a man had a cricket bat and a woman said ‘that’s a funny looking hammer’, I wouldn’t be all that offended. So it’s not the gender roles I’m concerned with, but the comment itself. ‘All men/women are pigs’ seems worse. That is the main point I wanted to make, if you want to nitpick about what utensil I put in my hypothetical mans hands instead of the cricket bat, then go ahead, but you are missing the entire point.~
Jm: Next you’ll be telling me all those stay in the kitchen comments were actually tleling owmen “You are good cooks and owuld make a lot of money as a chef. Just sayin’ your work should be rewarded is all”
~ Did you type that with your face? I have mostly answered this previously. But again this if just a Freudian answer. Next minute you’ll be telling men “Just keep hammering away and one day your kids will admire and love you”. Also, why did you have to bring money into this? The hammer may very well make you more money but the saucepan gets you love from your kids. I know which one I’d prefer, but that’s because, unlike you, I refuse to put money on a pedestal as the be all and end all, and measuring stick for status and class.~
Jm: You separate yourself, while diminishign their comments. “It’s okay, I didn’t find it funny. But it was a joke, so it’s okay. Whereas a joke about men being pgis-totally evil!”
~Stop doing quotation marks if your not actually quoting anyone. I didn’t say this. I never, ever, said that these men’s comments are OK. Also, why would I call the pigs comment a joke when it clearly wasn’t? It had precisely 0 wit. So did most of the men’s comments, but they are objectifying one person as a sex object. Which, in my opinion, is less horrible than objectifying an entire group of people as an animal that plays in mud, then we eat it.~
Jm: Then came multiple comments about how when oyu said if feminism takes away our testosteorne induced strength, what would men have left, oyu didn’t actually mean any of that. So what did you mean?
~ I meant everything I said. Also, the prior argument you made about sports not requiring muscle, it requires balance and technique and strategy bla bla. Yeah, you’re right, it does. Too bad testosterone on its own doesn’t give you those things which makes you argument sound pretty ridiculous. My argument was in respect to impact sports, where testosterone actually gives a clear advantage. Also, when did I ever say that I didn’t mean any of what I said? What was this paragraph even in response to? You’re making things up and attempting to put words in my mouth. Unfortunately for you, I teach grade 12 English for a living and have too much experience with debating to even acknowledge this as a relevant point.~
Jm: Okay. So what do you watch women being their best at, thne? Please be specific.
~In the last olympic games I watched the womens sailing team with much greater enthusiasm than the mens because I truly believed that they were the better team. Women are also generally better at shooting, archery and equestrian events.~
Jm: So, to be clear, if your wife wanted to play sport, you’d tell her “Don’t bother. Unless you’re as good as the male players, why would I watch?”
~ We both play in the touch football, which is mixed only. So far I’ve found that men and women are relatively equal in touch football. If it was on TV? No. I wouldn’t watch it. However, I fail to understand how this question has any relation to the points I’ve made. I would have a personal investment and interest in one of the players in the case you’ve presented. That changes everything. I certainly would watch a mediocre game that is not top tier sporting if I know the people playing. I do that all the time at my chess club hahaha. And yes, we have mixed gender games there too.~
Jm: And the whole “I’m not sexist, I’m treating everyone equally, while caring more for men than I do women! Because soceity is equal!” when it’s not.
~ And the whole “using quotation marks for things I never said”. I just love how you try to put words in my mouth when this is not a true quote. I watch men’s teams in impact sports because they are better teams, not because I’m ‘caring for men more than I do women’ (your words, not mine). Of course society is not equal (unto separate parts of itself, I’ll assume you mean), but there is more inequality throughout society than just man/woman. At the very least, in sports there is definitely racial inequality because of the physique of certain races. However, these races focus on another sport they are better at, as opposed to demanding the same air coverage as the top teams of a sport that requires a different physique because the world is being ‘racist’.~
Jm: And we have how many dedicated sports channels on tv already, filled with overseas sports which have no relations to us? More sport on tv isn’t exactly a problem if you like sport.
~ Wait a second. If you are going to give every single game equal coverage then you can’t discriminate against international teams because the players aren’t Australian. How far down this rabbit hole do you want to go? Anyway, you can have as many channels as you want with all kinds of mediocre teams playing each other, you are still going to have the same problem that caused this meme – no one noticed a player on form because everyone was watching the good teams for some reason. Funny that, hey.~
Jm: “LOL HOW DID I SAY THAT?? I will say it again, I recognise skill.” (properly quoting me) Except when you said if feminism takes our testosterone induced strength. Again, you’re trying to pretend you never said it or that it didn’t mean what it actually mans, so feel free to clarify that.
~ Oh, I meant that. Let me clarify it for you. These two sentences are not in contention with each other in any way. Feminist activists demand we consider women’s leagues equal to men’s leagues, that is how they are taking away men’s difference as a gender, and the cause of this difference is testosterone. Thus, by extension you are ‘taking away our testosterone’. Now, when I say I recognise skill, that means gender-less, colour-blind, SKILL. Having men’s and women’s leagues can be likened to having Asian-only gymnastics at the Olympics. It’s not a test of true skill if our female cricketers are only versing other females. It would not be a true test of skill if Caucasian gymnasts only competed against other Caucasians. The statement that was directly quoted (about recognising skill) was about having separate leagues in the first place, and how they are not conducive to a competitive atmosphere. The second quote (about females taking our testosterone) was regarding the feminist push for equal airtime and recognition in a woman-only league. Thus, these two statements have nothing to do with each other. LOL. ~
Jm: “I would give my left arm to be able to do some things as well as women can. but i can’t, and i’m not trying to become equal in those areas.”
And what are those areas you consider women better at than men which you could never hope to compete with?
~ I have answered this question like 3 time now, but if you are a woman and you don’t know what women are naturally good at in general, then I feel very sorry for you. Let me give you a hint: It’s not impact sports. I had to reply to this post instead of the actual post that this is in regards to, the reply button wasn’t available on that post.~
“a pig is worse than a sexual object. Pigs get cut up and eaten.”
Wait, have you ever heard of any feminist cutting up and eating men? Because you know there’s plenty of examples of men using women as sexual objects.
“Saying ‘get back to the kitchen’ may be subversive towards women as a gender, but saying ‘you are all pigs’ is subversive towards men as human beings”
So to be clear, you think that someone seeing all women as “Lesser human beings” is better than seeing men as “Less than human beings”? It’s another split hair, isn’t it. Unless you’re telling me that you would feel better about being called a “Lesser human being” than you would a “less than human being”
“Also, the correlation between sexist humour and proclivity of rape is a slightly negative relationship. Why? Because truly sick people can’t tell that it is humour, and won’t enjoy the humourous aspect of the sentence. ”
Rape is too common for us to say “It’s just a bunch of sicko’s” out there. Way too common. The fiction of the stranger with a knife is not the reality of rape in Australia. It’s the person you know who doesn’t accept the word “no” or doesn’t think it matters. It’s the person who manipulates a woman into saying yes, rather than accepting what she wants. There are entire communities, strategies, known about and popularised on tv shows and movies devoted to coercion, manipulation, and taking advantage of women. That’s what rape is in Australia today.
And when you treat women as only sex objects, why would you consider consent? It’s not like you ask other objects for consent.
It would be silly to say “x causes rape”-because of course it doesn’t. But humour, along with dismissing of rape impact, ongoing sexualisation of women in all fields, and anti-rape promotions focusing on what women should do to stop beign a target, all add to a culture where a woman is seen as a sex object first and only.
“Also, why did you have to bring money into this? The hammer may very well make you more money but the saucepan gets you love from your kids.”
Because society rewards things that produce wealth. If you have wealth, you have power. Pretedning that we reward the contribution of stay at home mums as equally as we reward men pulling in thousands of dollars every week ignores the reality that we punish people for wanting to stay at home with their kids. If they don’t have a job-they are punished for staying home with their kids by government welfare agencies. If they want to return to work at some point in the future they are punished because they have a large gap in their employment history, preventing them from getting many jobs.
“kids. I know which one I’d prefer, but that’s because, unlike you, I refuse to put money on a pedestal as the be all and end all, and measuring stick for status and class.~
Oh please. If this is true, quit your job and become a stay at home Dad. And when your mortgage or rent repayment comes up, try and pay that off with the love of your kids. Tell me how much society rewards the love of children then.
“So did most of the men’s comments, but they are objectifying one person as a sex object. ”
Again, the difference is that no men are being cut up and eaten like pigs, as you stated pigs are to be treated. Women are being used as sexual objects every day.
“I certainly would watch a mediocre game that is not top tier sporting if I know the people playing. I do that all the time at my chess club”
So you are willing to celebrate the achievements of people you know personally, but think the achievements of someone you don’t know, but has achieved much for Australia, should be ignored?
So, you’d want to watch your wife play touch football on tv if you had a chance, but wouldn’t want anyone else to watch their family members on tv.
“At the very least, in sports there is definitely racial inequality because of the physique of certain races. ”
Except the difference is we allow people of racial equality equal chances. And the arguemnt of physique changes over time. Basketball in America used to be a sport largely played by Jewish people. Then African americans were considered the best players. Now we have some great players coming thorugh who are Asian. Stuff changes.
“If you are going to give every single game equal coverage then you can’t discriminate against international teams because the players aren’t Australian.
I take your freudian answer and raise you a jump to extremes.
We are not giving every single game coverage right now. AFL and Rugby get more attention than tennis and cricket, which gets more attention than netball and soccer, which gets more attention than Basketball. I’m not stating every sport in the world needs the same level of coverage-just that we have more opportunities for womens sports to be presented.
I mean, let’s be honest. you say you watch sport to see the best of the best-which I’m sure is true for you. Btu it’s not true for a lot of people who enjoy sport. People who follow our main sports of Rugby, AFL, Cricket, and Soccer are not wanting to see the best of the best perform primarily, they want to see “our side win”
Similarly at the Olympics, while seeing the best of the best occurs some time,s plenty of times we want to watch “Australia wins!”
In fact the few sports I can think of where people aim to watch the best of the best over their own team (Tennis, golf, track and swimming) are also the sports where female athletes are given some sort of recognition.
Now, if we had more opportunities for recognising women in sport, that would provide more opportunities for celebrating acheivements of our country. Why do you think this is a problem? If you don’t like it, you don’t have to watch it. And I’m sure muscular men will still have a lot left.
And I also have no issues with Australian channels giving more attention to Australian teams, and prioritising Australian sporting leagues over international sporting leagues we have no attendance in. Of course, for huge matches overseas (Soccer usually) the size of the event makes it newsworthy, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to prioritise screening of the australian women’s cricket team in Australia where 100% of the population are australian and more than 50% of the population is female, over coverage of a minor American baseball team in Australia, where the majority of the country is not American.
“Anyway, you can have as many channels as you want with all kinds of mediocre teams playing each other, you are still going to have the same problem that caused this meme – no one noticed a player on form because everyone was watching the good teams for some reason.”
So your argument is “No one will watch it, so there’s no reason to show it” (This is called summarising by the way-not making up comments).
Tell me this though-have we ever given it a shot? Have we ever shown Australian women’s cricket, or AFL, or any team sport regularly on Australian tv and given it even half the amount of publicity as male sport? Because if we haven’t tried it at all, it’s a bit rich to say “No one is going to notice if it’s on”
And now, we step into conspiracy town!
“Feminist activists demand we consider women’s leagues equal to men’s leagues”
Again, trip to extremes. I’m a feminist activist, and I’d like women in sport to have some recognition of their achievements. I’m not going to pretend that the AFL Grand Final will have the same viewing numbers of the Women’s grand final, but I’d like a world where people can watch both.
” that is how they are taking away men’s difference as a gender, ”
Really? You honestly beleive that feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender? You’ve got any evidence, because it sounds a little bit crazy.
I am a feminist. And a man. I was raised by two feminists, one of whom was a man the other a woman. At no point was my gender attempted to be denied as different from my sisters. I was raised to want to not deny difference, but respect diversity and give equal recognition and appreciation to the achievements of all. That’s what feminism means to me.
But naturally you’ll have plenty of examples of naughty feminists trying to take away your difference as a gender that contradict my experience. I hope so, because right now it seems you’re understanding of feminism is based on some sort of crazy men’s right organisation, which may use the word feminazi a bit liberally.
“It’s not a test of true skill if our female cricketers are only versing other females. It would not be a true test of skill if Caucasian gymnasts only competed against other Caucasians. ”
You’ve said this a few time,s and I’ve let this pass, but if this is truly what you believe, then I presume you’ll want AFL to no longer be shown. I mean, it’s not a true test of skill at all. All teams are Australian, no foreign teams are allowed in, nor even given a chance. It’s only Australian (Mostly Victorian teams) which are allowed to participate, with players almost all coming from Australia. How is this a true test of skill?
The same can be said about pretty much every sports outside of international events (And even then, you can rule out cricket, the commonwealth games and world series baseball. If most countries arne’t playing, it’s not a true test of skill).
So in other words, your belief that the point in watching sport is to see a true test of skill, and therefore there’s no point in showing women’s sports other than the 5-6 you have selected; is not actually recognised in the practise of Australia’s most popular sports today. Whereas, my belief that the point of watching sport is to cheer on your team and celebrate their achievements, so having coverage of women’s sport will allow more chances of that celebration, is recognised in the majority of Australia’s sports, popular and not.
But then again, my belief isn’t based in a conspiracy where feminists are trying to deny the existence of gender. So that could be seen as a fault to some.
” but if you are a woman and you don’t know what women are naturally good at in general, then I feel very sorry for you.”
Well, no need to feel sorry. I’m not a woman.
Yes KP…. and it comes down to a question we all would have heard countless times, which is – would you say these same vile and offensive comments out loud to a person’s face eye to eye that you happily type hidden behind a keyboard? I include the immature and destructive generalistic ‘all men are pigs’ comments in this.
In the majority of cases I suggest not.
Congratulations to Ellyse Perry, she is living her dream.
Those men are my heroes. Embrace male chauvanism today.
We knew that. After all you wrote
“Their hardier life resulted in hardier bodies and more capable bodies at that.”
Sorry you won’t get any dates from them. You will have to worship their hard bodies from afar.
😈
Ahhh sandwich jokes, and chained to the kitchen jokes. This is the equivalent of me (a woman) saying “Who cares if Mitchell Johnson can bowl? I just want to ride that moustache”.
All men are not idiots, nor pigs – but a minority reflects badly on all the decent guys, of which there are many. Likewise not all feminists wish to go about removing the ball sacks of said idiots, but there are a few who make the rest of us look a bit deranged. It takes all sorts.
Targeted handouts of free condoms before certain people are conceived will nip the problem in the bud.
I agree – bloody awful. But let’s put these nasty comments in perspective. They come from the very lowest of the male species and represent (I hope) a very small bunch of “dicks” or if you like, a bunch of very small dicks. The “cowards’ punch” of blogging.
We do however give our female sporting events too little attention and respect. I’m as guilty as anyone. If it was on TV, I watch it – if it was on the radio – I listen to it. Unrealistic to expect commercial broadcaster to step, but perhaps the ABC… Kerry O’Keefe might be persuaded to do the commentary. (I’m going to miss that laugh!)
KB of Kyruna
Sexism exists because people let comments like the above slide. On the internet everyone is more willing to express their views (no matter how harsh) however when face-to-face with someone making derogatory comments whether sexist/racist etc. most people don’t speak up. The majority of people (at least I like to think) believe in equality however if they do not speak out against sexist behavior then they are not helping this injustice.
Many people who make sexist jokes or comments are doing it for a laugh, not realizing that it can be taken to be offensive to others. They cannot be educated until some tells them that it is inappropriate. I’m not saying that people who are yelling and screaming at every little comment are helping educate these people (because they’re not) nor am I saying that those people who are doing this are doing the wrong thing necessarily, as when faced with sexist comments day in and day out it is completely acceptable to get angry.
People learn sexist behavior from a variety of sources (mainly home life however internet and television are also to blame) and until they are out in the real world, communicating with those outside of their community they are unable to learn about the injustices in everyday life.
My point is that everyone on this post who is speaking up is doing the right thing and I just hope that they are doing this in real life as well. The majority of us are on the same page despite all the comments of ‘men being pigs’ and ‘women being just as sexist as men’ (which is not true as a generalization however some women also grow up in households which promote sexist views which is where the ‘real man’ comes from). And even if some think that getting angry over some idiots stupid remark is a waste of time it is the only way we can get past this injustice and educate others.
As an Australian male, I want to apologise. The funny thing is, Ellyse Perry would hit all these guys for six and bowl the ball straight in their micro-dicks on its way to middle stump.
What self respecting woman would spend time with any of these idiots?
I made that saucepan comment. Sorry.
Now, I don’t care about cricket nor am I sexist (well, everyone is a tiny bit sexist I’m sure). My comment was a cliche that I knew would bring a little joy to readers, many of them not sexist either (girls ‘liked’ it too). Some of the other comments were quite bad, I agree.
While I haven’t read all of your responses I’m sure many of them are reasonable and intelligent and then there are many of you who like to dwell on this type of thing. I just want to point out that this isn’t real. People are a bit nasty from the safety of their office chair but that doesn’t mean it materializes in the real world, they’re just thoughts, misspent frustrations, scapegoats. These people wouldn’t say these things in person, perhaps in a derelict group of mates but the real world will sort them out.
I wish this Cricketing lady many bats and balls or whatever those people do. To those who want to retort with some feminist or pseudo intellectual crap – I don’t need your forgiveness. Thanks.
Good for you for standing up and accepting responsbility. You’re correct that not every bloke on that thread is a complete turd, but they weren’t doing a very good job of letting anyone think otherwise.
Although the comments are not in “the real world”, they still hurt people for real. It’s no fun for any women to read those comments. In relation to you saying that even some women liked your comment. Please don’t think that because some women think it’s ok, that all women do. We’re not all the same.
Jm: Wait, have you ever heard of any feminist cutting up and eating men? Because you know there’s plenty of examples of men using women as sexual objects.
~That’s only because it’s more extreme to actually treat someone like a pig than it is to treat someone like a sex object. Obviously, the more horrific the crime the less frequently it will occur.~
Jm: So to be clear, you think that someone seeing all women as “Lesser human beings” is better than seeing men as “Less than human beings”? It’s another split hair, isn’t it. Unless you’re telling me that you would feel better about being called a “Lesser human being” than you would a “less than human being”
~ Yes. I am telling you right now that I would rather someone call me a lesser human-being than calling me sub-human (less than human).~
Jm: Rape is too common for us to say “It’s just a bunch of sicko’s” out there. Way too common. The fiction of the stranger with a knife is not the reality of rape in Australia. It’s the person you know who doesn’t accept the word “no” or doesn’t think it matters. It’s the person who manipulates a woman into saying yes, rather than accepting what she wants. There are entire communities, strategies, known about and popularised on tv shows and movies devoted to coercion, manipulation, and taking advantage of women. That’s what rape is in Australia today.
And when you treat women as only sex objects, why would you consider consent? It’s not like you ask other objects for consent.
~If someone is morally deficient to the extent that they would rape someone, then I would call that person ‘sick’. Both criminally and mentally. Other than that, I agree completely with what you have written here, and I don’t believe that the rest of this paragraph argues against any point I’ve made.~
Jm: It would be silly to say “x causes rape”-because of course it doesn’t. But humour, along with dismissing of rape impact, ongoing sexualisation of women in all fields, and anti-rape promotions focusing on what women should do to stop beign a target, all add to a culture where a woman is seen as a sex object first and only.
~I personally don’t live in a town where the culture considers women to be sex object first and foremost so I cannot agree with your statements here. Again, I have previously acknowledged that these ‘jokes’ propagate ignorance and evil somewhat, as does any prejudicial statement (such as ‘all men are pigs’).~
Jm: Because society rewards things that produce wealth. If you have wealth, you have power. Pretedning that we reward the contribution of stay at home mums as equally as we reward men pulling in thousands of dollars every week ignores the reality that we punish people for wanting to stay at home with their kids. If they don’t have a job-they are punished for staying home with their kids by government welfare agencies. If they want to return to work at some point in the future they are punished because they have a large gap in their employment history, preventing them from getting many jobs.
~ You’re missing the point. The reward IS the love of the kids. Society need not reward any more or less in my view. I have no need for worldly things, and my calling was to teach Maths/English in a Christian school. I am a Christian and I don’t need more money or any of societies ‘rewards’. If you do, then you (along with most of Australia) need to prioritise. That’s my personal belief. Deal with it. Love > money. No questions asked.~
Jm: Oh please. If this is true, quit your job and become a stay at home Dad. And when your mortgage or rent repayment comes up, try and pay that off with the love of your kids. Tell me how much society rewards the love of children then.
~ No, because that is my calling. I will only do what I love doing. I love my career so much. Also, god will provide. Sorry if this goes against your belief system, I don’t care.~
Jm: Again, the difference is that no men are being cut up and eaten like pigs, as you stated pigs are to be treated. Women are being used as sexual objects every day.
~But murder does occur, and if sexist remarks propagate rape, then sub-humanist remarks propagate murder. You can’t say that it’s OK to call an entire group of people pigs. So stop skirting around the issue. Rape happens. Murder happens. Now let’s talk about these comments for a second. ‘All men are pigs’ is worse than ‘thats a funny looking fry pan’. Both of them are horrible, but murder is worse than rape.~
Jm: So you are willing to celebrate the achievements of people you know personally, but think the achievements of someone you don’t know, but has achieved much for Australia, should be ignored?
~ No. Firstly, I’m not trying to assert what I do onto others like it seems your suggesting. Secondly, when did I say I would ignore someone who has done great things for Australia? I said I would ignore someone who I don’t know and who is in a mediocre league.~
So, you’d want to watch your wife play touch football on tv if you had a chance, but wouldn’t want anyone else to watch their family members on tv.
~WTF? How did you get to this conclusion? It seems like it’s becoming habitual for you to start a sentence with something I have said and then tack on something completely ridiculous on the end. I have agreed with you soo many times now that we could easily air more sports on TV. I also stated that memes like this would still pop up because people usually watch the higher end games if they’re on at the same time. No, I’m not saying people shouldn’t watch their teams play. But please, stop pleading for the same audience reception as the top tier leagues get.~
Jm: Except the difference is we allow people of racial equality equal chances. And the arguemnt of physique changes over time. Basketball in America used to be a sport largely played by Jewish people. Then African americans were considered the best players. Now we have some great players coming thorugh who are Asian. Stuff changes.
~ Yeah thanks for agreeing with me again. We give them equal chances by putting them in the same leagues. I am saying that we should have mixed gender leagues in all cases. That is the equal chance you are asking for here. So what are you trying to argue here?~
Jm: I take your freudian answer and raise you a jump to extremes.
We are not giving every single game coverage right now. AFL and Rugby get more attention than tennis and cricket, which gets more attention than netball and soccer, which gets more attention than Basketball. I’m not stating every sport in the world needs the same level of coverage-just that we have more opportunities for womens sports to be presented.
~ Wow. Again, I completely agree with you. More sports on TV. That would be great. Just add more channels if need be. Also, again, this will not stop memes like this happening. I’m not saying people should watch top tier leagues, I’m saying that most people do watch top tier leagues. I’m describing, not prescribing. This meme is pleading for equal audience reception, not equal coverage. Also, even if this is occuring, it probably still wont get equal coverage because the TV networks will give the games with larger audiences more time/media/advertising etc. Look at the meme, then look at your argument, notice the discrepancies?~
Jm: I mean, let’s be honest. you say you watch sport to see the best of the best-which I’m sure is true for you. Btu it’s not true for a lot of people who enjoy sport. People who follow our main sports of Rugby, AFL, Cricket, and Soccer are not wanting to see the best of the best perform primarily, they want to see “our side win”
Similarly at the Olympics, while seeing the best of the best occurs some time,s plenty of times we want to watch “Australia wins!”
In fact the few sports I can think of where people aim to watch the best of the best over their own team (Tennis, golf, track and swimming) are also the sports where female athletes are given some sort of recognition.
~ Ok, so you can watch the games you want to watch. They’re probably on the net or some random channels. Good for you, go watch them. What is the argument here?~
Jm: Now, if we had more opportunities for recognising women in sport, that would provide more opportunities for celebrating acheivements of our country. Why do you think this is a problem? If you don’t like it, you don’t have to watch it. And I’m sure muscular men will still have a lot left.
~ Hey, I agree, put the on the TV or the interwebs or whatever they want to do. Don’t cram them down my throat because I, along with the majority of Australians, want to watch our best teams compete. Why do you think the Friday night NRL games are most heavily advertised? Because they are the teams on form. All of the games are on cable television through the week but I don’t watch them, and neither do many other Rugby fans. They also aren’t advertised much, but the people who love their team can watch their game. They don’t put up memes like this if someone does well and gets practically no media attention.~
Jm: And I also have no issues with Australian channels giving more attention to Australian teams, and prioritising Australian sporting leagues over international sporting leagues we have no attendance in. Of course, for huge matches overseas (Soccer usually) the size of the event makes it newsworthy, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to prioritise screening of the australian women’s cricket team in Australia where 100% of the population are australian and more than 50% of the population is female, over coverage of a minor American baseball team in Australia, where the majority of the country is not American.
~Here you’re getting into murky waters. There is surely some invisible threshold of enjoyment between watching top-tier games and personally invested teams. So yes, that argument can be made and I’m not the one to answer it. This meme, however, is referring to a personally invested top-tier team for Australians having priority over a personally invested mediocre team for Australians.~
Jm: So your argument is “No one will watch it, so there’s no reason to show it” (This is called summarising by the way-not making up comments).
~ Is it summarising? Because my points never lead to ‘there’s no reason to show it’. Again, you are pretending to quote me but tacking on something ridiculous at the end. What I really said was that I agree with you, they should show it. I don’t know if they already do because I just don’t know. The only argument I made was that memes like this will still pop up, especially if they are competing for media slots such as newspaper headline positions.~
Jm: Tell me this though-have we ever given it a shot? Have we ever shown Australian women’s cricket, or AFL, or any team sport regularly on Australian tv and given it even half the amount of publicity as male sport? Because if we haven’t tried it at all, it’s a bit rich to say “No one is going to notice if it’s on”
~ I don’t know. Have we? I’m pretty certain I’ve seen a fair amount of women playing sports on TV. Or an unfair amount, as I said, I don’t know.~
Jm: And now, we step into conspiracy town!
“Feminist activists demand we consider women’s leagues equal to men’s leagues”
Again, trip to extremes. I’m a feminist activist, and I’d like women in sport to have some recognition of their achievements. I’m not going to pretend that the AFL Grand Final will have the same viewing numbers of the Women’s grand final, but I’d like a world where people can watch both.
~ I wasn’t talking about you, I was referring to the meme which seems to be asking for equal audience reception. Women obviously get some kind of recognition, this meme is recognition of her skill on its own. Also, I’m pretty sure you can find somewhere to watch most womens games. Some people would like our under 21s shown too and our B teams and it does happen occasionally on television. The networks want money right? Advertising and playing popular sports is in their best interest. If they aren’t showing it, it’s because most people don’t want to watch it. I have to go onto the internet to watch world chess championships and that takes a lot of bandwidth. No-one cares about Magnus Carlsen totally owning everyone lately. I should do up a meme about it.~
Jm: Really? You honestly beleive that feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender? You’ve got any evidence, because it sounds a little bit crazy.
~ This meme is evidence of women attempting to equalise in an area at which they are not equal. Women are equal to men. They are also different. That is an awesome thing, love it.~
Jm: I am a feminist. And a man. I was raised by two feminists, one of whom was a man the other a woman. At no point was my gender attempted to be denied as different from my sisters. I was raised to want to not deny difference, but respect diversity and give equal recognition and appreciation to the achievements of all. That’s what feminism means to me.
But naturally you’ll have plenty of examples of naughty feminists trying to take away your difference as a gender that contradict my experience. I hope so, because right now it seems you’re understanding of feminism is based on some sort of crazy men’s right organisation, which may use the word feminazi a bit liberally.
~ Just one example, the meme that I am referring to at the top of this page. I think it’s incorrectly assuming our culture is sexist because women don’t get as much audience reception in sports, and it wants to equalise that audience reception. I don’t think it’s sexist, just our natural desire to want to watch better teams play. My understanding of feminism throughout history has little impact on the argument I am making in relation to women in sports. I appreciate the sacred feminine in all humans, but also understand that the word ‘equal’ is a mathematical term and unsuitable for creating fruitful development in the area of women’s rights.~
Jm: You’ve said this a few time,s and I’ve let this pass, but if this is truly what you believe, then I presume you’ll want AFL to no longer be shown. I mean, it’s not a true test of skill at all. All teams are Australian, no foreign teams are allowed in, nor even given a chance. It’s only Australian (Mostly Victorian teams) which are allowed to participate, with players almost all coming from Australia. How is this a true test of skill?
~ Again, I never said that I want anything to be ‘no longer shown’. Yes, restricting the league to only Australians is not conducive of competition. If we opened AFL up to an international platform, I would be very, very happy with this. Please, if you are going to attempt to rebut my statements, try giving some points that actually rebut my statements.~
Jm: The same can be said about pretty much every sports outside of international events (And even then, you can rule out cricket, the commonwealth games and world series baseball. If most countries arne’t playing, it’s not a true test of skill).
~ Generally, sports that a country is very good (or the best) at will be that countries national sports. So generally, they are testing skill. Playing sports internationally only is not convenient in most cases, so countries try their best to get good teams to play each other. However, it doesn’t seem that inconvenient to allow mixed teams and mixed leagues. So why are the women only versing other women? I would prefer if they were in the same league. Oh that’s right, because they would get stomped.~
Jm: So in other words, your belief that the point in watching sport is to see a true test of skill, and therefore there’s no point in showing women’s sports other than the 5-6 you have selected; is not actually recognised in the practise of Australia’s most popular sports today. Whereas, my belief that the point of watching sport is to cheer on your team and celebrate their achievements, so having coverage of women’s sport will allow more chances of that celebration, is recognised in the majority of Australia’s sports, popular and not.
~Firstly, psychologists have recently concluded that the ‘cheer-for-our-team’ emotion is the only useless emotion that human brains create. Secondly, I never said I wanted anything off air. Here is the exact quote that you are referring to (I think) “Why would I care about our second best team? why would I watch them on TV?”. If you read the context of those statements, obviously I am not requesting these teams to be taken off air, I am simply communicating my personal preferences. So you can keep ‘summarising’ my statements all you want, but the arguments you’re making can’t be made if you directly quote me.~
Jm: But then again, my belief isn’t based in a conspiracy where feminists are trying to deny the existence of gender. So that could be seen as a fault to some.
~Yet you are pleading for women to be recognised as equal in areas where they clearly aren’t. You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though the majority of cricket fans in Australia are male. You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though their fastest bowlers average the same speeds as the men’s average bowlers. It may not be the denial of gender, but you’re certainly denying something and I would say that is a fault in your argument.~
Jm: Well, no need to feel sorry. I’m not a woman.
~Ok. I want to make one last comment. If women go into cricket knowing that their team will always be mediocre compared to the same level men’s team. Then why do they do it? It’s not for fame. It’s not for recognition, nor monetary gain. It’s for the love of the sport and the enjoyment of playing. That’s why there will always be a women’s league, because they generally aren’t as good which makes it fair for each other. This increases the fun and enjoyment aspect of their sport. They may just get rich playing because there is surely an audience of some kind and advertisers always love sportspeople wearing their symbols. But these women cannot be in the game for monetary gain alone. Nor recognition, nor honour. I submit to you that the men aren’t playing for this reason either. Sportspeople play because it is their calling and they love what they do. I am not a teacher for honour or monetary gain but because it’s my calling and I love it.~
Before I start responding, let me give you a chance to take a break. You are saying really stupid things here. Really really stupid things. I don’t think you believe any of them, and in fact you have frequently contradicted yourself from what you’ve said earlier reflecting that you tihnk some of what you’ve said is incorrect, but you’re so caught up in trying to argue with me, you’re ending up agreeing to crazy things rather than realise that maybe, just maybe, you’ve gone a bit too far.
“~That’s only because it’s more extreme to actually treat someone like a pig than it is to treat someone like a sex object. Obviously, the more horrific the crime the less frequently it will occur.~”
You are really tying yourself in knots today.
So calling men pigs is bad because it may, but doesn’t lead to cannibalism, because it is more extreme; whereas treating women as a sexual object is slightly better, even though it does lead to rape, because it’s less extreme than cannibalism. That’s right? It’s silly, but it’s what you honestly believe, you’re not just saying silly stuff because it’s easier than saying “Yeah, I guess you have a point there”, right? Because that’s what it sounds like.
It’s not just less frequent. I’m absolutely sure there has been 0 cases of feminist cutting up and eating men.
Prove me wrong, please.
“~ Yes. I am telling you right now that I would rather someone call me a lesser human-being than calling me sub-human (less than human).~”
And yet another tiniest hair is split. Another comment which I am sure you don’t actually believe, but prefer to say than back down at all.
Anyway, please, tell me a distinct way you can tell the difference between being treated as a lesser human beign, than being treated as a sub-human. Be specific.
“~If someone is morally deficient to the extent that they would rape someone, then I would call that person ‘sick’. Both criminally and mentally. ”
You are pushing rape as someone else’s problem. Using the term “sick” is an easy way out. It’s a way of saying “Well, it’s nothing to do with me, or anyone I know. It’s all to do with those few sick people out there”
Which is what anti-rape strategies have been focusing on for decades, and which have effected no one.
“Other than that, I agree completely with what you have written here, and I don’t believe that the rest of this paragraph argues against any point I’ve made.~”
So, you agree sexual objectification is related to rape, which exists in alarming amounts in Australia, but still think the sexual objectification leading to rape in Australia is less severe than calling men pigs, which potentially, but never has, lead to the cannibalisation of men?
Contradiction much?
“I personally don’t live in a town where the culture considers women to be sex object first and foremost so I cannot agree with your statements here. ”
Oh really? So you live in a town where picturs of women never focus on their body parts, where images of women are displayed based on looks and nothing else. You live in a town where no woman is ever told to “Smile more” “Let your hair grow long”, where no wolf whistles or lewd comments are shouted outside of car windows, where no allegations were made of women succeeding based on looks or their sexuality.
Where is this utopia? Please, let me know!
” I am a Christian and I don’t need more money or any of societies ‘rewards’. ”
You’re the missing the point. Do you pay for food, rent, mortgage, school bills etc, with love, or do you use money? Which one?
Again, money is power. A stay at home mother who receives no money has less power than a full time worker. Are you trying to honestly tell me that if both a stay at home mother and a full time worker needed to suddenly move, such as due to an abusive relationship, both would have equal resources to do that?
“Also, god will provide. Sorry if this goes against your belief system,”
Okay, I’m a Christian too. But here’s the thing, your belief that you get to do what you love to do and don’t need money-that’s a luxury you have because you have money. You don’t need to worry about money, so you don’t worry about money. People who don’t have money do not have that luxury.
There are plenty of good, faithful Christians who are struggling to make ends meet. Telling them “But you have the love of your kids” is not helpful when they’re about to be evicted. Telling them “God will provide” is not helpful when they’re telling you they have no idea where they’re going to sleep tonight, or tomorrow. Tell me if I’m being wrong here.
I ask again, when you need to pay your mortgage, do you pay with god, with love, or with money? When you buy food do you pay for it with love, with God, or with money?
“But murder does occur, and if sexist remarks propagate rape, then sub-humanist remarks propagate murder. ”
And you naturally have examples of feminists encouraged by sub humanist remarks going on to kill men, and eat them. Because that’s what you’ve been claiming.
Incidentally, most murders are not caused by sub human remarks, particularly in Australia. Most murders are caused by intense aggression and other intense emotions leading standard morals to be overlooked (Sometime enhanced by alcohol).
There is no cultural messges about “Men like being killed” or “Men exist to be murdered” No jokes about “How about we kill all the men”-tell me if I’m wrong here. Prove me wrong. Go ahead.
“Secondly, when did I say I would ignore someone who has done great things for Australia? I said I would ignore someone who I don’t know and who is in a mediocre league.~
So an Australian woman becomes the greatest success story, the fastest woman alive. She is still not as fast as the fastest man alive. Are you going to ignore her because she’s not as fast as the fastest man, or celebrate her achievement for Australia?
“~WTF? How did you get to this conclusion?”
Here’s how. You object to equal or anything approximating equal representation of women’s sport on TV, unless it’s someone you care about. True?
But everyone cares about a female athlete. For every female athelete or sportswoman there are multiple people who care about them. Why doesn’t their existence justify exposure of female sporting success?
“It seems like it’s becoming habitual for you to start a sentence with something I have said and then tack on something completely ridiculous on the end. ”
Well I think I’ve explained the link fairly well. Still waiting on you explaining how feminists want to eradicate the differences of the male gender.
“I have agreed with you soo many times now that we could easily air more sports on TV. ”
No you didn’t. When I suggested more sports to allow more representation of women you said that this wouldn’t be possible because we’d need to show equal representation of every sport, for every country and that there wouldn’t be enough sports channels to do this.
Are you backtracking?
“I also stated that memes like this would still pop up because people usually watch the higher end games if they’re on at the same time. ”
No, you said that women would still be overlooked. And I said no channel has ever tried to publicise women’s sports.
And who said they need to be on at the same time? The Rugby and AFL grand final aren’t on at the same time. The AFL and VFL grand final don’t need to be on at the same time. That’s a condition you’ve demanded here, which no one wants.
“But please, stop pleading for the same audience reception as the top tier leagues get.~”
Oh, you’re making stuff up? Good on you, using your imagination.
Where I have I pleaded that women’s sports get the same audience reception as top tier leagues? Please point it out.
I believe I did say that women’s sports should have the same exposure, with the same level of publicity as male sport. But you’ve chosen to ignore that for some reason.
“~ Yeah thanks for agreeing with me again. ”
Except I didn’t. You were saying allowing for women’s sports would be like havign an asian league, or african league, as some ethnic groups are better at some sports than others. I pointed out that the cultural groups are not so distinct in sport as they are in women’s sport, and therefore while it is fair to have women’s sports, having african only sports, asians sports, etc, is not needed.
Are you intentionally contradicting yourself with what you said earlier? If so, that’s fine. What you said earlier was ridiculous. I look forward to you saying “Thinking that feminists are about to eradicate the differences of the male gender is crazy. What sort of crazy person would think that!”
“~ Wow. Again, I completely agree with you. More sports on TV. ”
Wow-did you tell yourself that earlier today when you said that wasn’t possible?
This is what you said earlier ‘~ Wait a second. If you are going to give every single game equal coverage then you can’t discriminate against international teams because the players aren’t Australian. How far down this rabbit hole do you want to go? ‘
So, when I suggested more sports earlier and you said that wasn’t possible, were you wrong then, or wrong now? These are complete contradictions.
“I’m not saying people should watch top tier leagues,”
Well you did say you only wanted to see genuine tests of skill, not meidocre teams, implying all women teams that aren’t as good as men are mediocre.
Are you the same logic who spoke earlier? Or has someone hacked into your account?
“This meme is pleading for equal audience reception, not equal coverage.
And equal opportunity most of all. How exactly are people going to watch women’s sport if it’s not on tv, advertised and publicised for people to watch?
“Also, even if this is occuring, it probably still wont get equal coverage because the TV networks will give the games with larger audiences more time/media/advertising etc. ”
Again, has ansyone tried advertising and broadcasting women’s sports? It’s easy to say “No one will watch it”-they said the same thing about soccer now. Ask SBS how it’s going now.
“Look at the meme, then look at your argument, notice the discrepancies?~
I didn’t make this meme. I’m arguing from my own point of view. Not a meme’s.
I thought you were arguing from your own point of view. Apparently you’re not anymore.
“~ Ok, so you can watch the games you want to watch. They’re probably on the net or some random channels. ”
So, to be clear. You needing to switch off the tv to avoid watching women’s sport because you consider it meidocre is “OMG-feminists are trying to diminish the male gender!”
Me asking for equal opportunity and representation for women’s sport has the response of “Go find it somewhere. It probably exists-quit complaining”
This is truly ridiculous, you know that. Equal opportunity is all I’m asking for. Equal opportunity means both sides of sport are advertised, are easy to access, and promoted equally. People can choose to watch or not watch.
What you’re suggesting is “Sport I consider mediocre should be allowed to be shown in places that are hard to find, not advertised at all, and therefore guaranteed never to be succesful, and I can feel justified!”
“~ Hey, I agree, put the on the TV or the interwebs or whatever they want to do. ”
Again, you didn’t think that earlier today. Did a bowling ball land on your head in the meantime?
“Don’t cram them down my throat because I, along with the majority of Australians, want to watch our best teams compete. ”
How exactly are they going to be crammed down your throat? Are you suggesting you are going to be forced at gun point to watch them? Are you that paranoid?
Or, are you suggesting that advertising and promoting women’s sport, that would be considered “ramming down your throat”-which means you’re a bit too sensitive there.
Which one? Are you paranoid and worried you’re going to be forced to watch women’s sport, or too sensitive and don’t want to see any advertising for women’s sport ever?
“Why do you think the Friday night NRL games are most heavily advertised? Because they are the teams on form. ”
Or, or because the teams are very popular, and have strong fan clubs. True, teams which win tend to get more fans, but fans aren’t particularly discerning at that point.
I mean, I’ve never seen a group of fans of NRL or AFL ever say “My team won, but they weren’t on top form, so I was dissapointed” I have seen a lot of people cheering “We won! Whooooooo!”
“This meme, however, is referring to a personally invested top-tier team for Australians having priority over a personally invested mediocre team for Australians.~”
You’re imagining things again. I get a real feeling from you that you feel your masculinity or male identity is constantly under threat, and that women can’t get things without you losing something. I saw it earlier when you said “If women take sport away from us, what will we have less” and more recently that “Feminists are trying to get rid of differences in the male gender” and now apparently this meme asking for attention and recognition of a succesful female sports team, and one athlete in particular, is translated to you as asking for “Priority”
Sit down, this will shock you. If women get more opportunities, men don’t get less. If women’s sport gets more attention, more opportunities, and promotions than it has previously, you have nothing to lose. Yet you’re afraid of it. You worry it’s going to be shoved down your throat, that it will mean the end of the male gender-why? What possible harm is it going to cause you?
“What I really said was that I agree with you, they should show it.”
And again-you didn’t think that earlier today. Are you going to change your thoughts every time you post?
“I don’t know if they already do because I just don’t know. ”
They don’t. If it is broadcasted (At all), it is never publicised to anywhere near as much of a degree as men’s sports. I’m not talking about 50% of the publicity male’s sports get. Even 10% would be an improvement!
“I’m pretty certain I’ve seen a fair amount of women playing sports on TV. Or an unfair amount, as I said, I don’t know.~”
You’re contradicting yourself in two sentences. In the first sentence you’re certain you’ve seen a fair amount. The second you don’t know if you’ve seen a fair amount. Do you know what you’re talking about now?
“Women obviously get some kind of recognition, this meme is recognition of her skill on its own. ”
Memes are sufficient recognition now. A great sporting success for an Australian deserves the same attention as a tall cat, you think?
“Also, I’m pretty sure you can find somewhere to watch most womens games. ”
So first you were you were certain I could. Then you were unsure. Now you’re pretty sure.
Like I said, when it is not advertised, when it is not promoted, when it is not presented in a way that is easily accesible to the population, it has not been given anywhere near fair representation.
“Some people would like our under 21s shown too and our B teams and it does happen occasionally on television.
To be clear, you’re comparing the greatest sportswomen in Australia to teenagers. You don’t have a problem with women at all, do you?
“The networks want money right? Advertising and playing popular sports is in their best interest. If they aren’t showing it, it’s because most people don’t want to watch it. ”
And again how do they know people don’t want to watch it if they haven’t ever tried it? Crystal ball?
“~ This meme is evidence of women attempting to equalise in an area at which they are not equal. ”
So a meme pointing out that we do not acknowledge successes amongst our female sportswomen was translated to you as “Women are trying to be equal in areas they are not equal” which lead to “Feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender!” – I think this says more about you, how you see feminism, how you see your own gender and feel about your masculinity than it says about feminism, this meme or anything else.
“~ Just one example, the meme that I am referring to at the top of this page. ”
Wait, you are claiming that feminists want to remove men’s difference as a gender based on one, just one, meme which doesn’t even say what you want it to say!
There’s jumping to conclusions. Then there’s catapulting to conclusions.
“I don’t think it’s sexist, just our natural desire to want to watch better teams play. ”
Again, your belief that people watching sports only want the best teams tends to overlook how Australians competing tend to be more popular in Australia than non-Australians.
“My understanding of feminism throughout history has little impact on the argument I am making in relation to women in sports. ”
Yes it does. Your understanding of feminism has lead to a persecution complex where you see any attempt at improving representation of women in sport as a threat to your masculinity. You have seen a request that women get more exposure in sport as an attempt to eradicate differences in the male gender.
Your understanding feminism has completely written your understanding of this issue, and your fear that if women have more exposure as sportswomen, you will somehow lose your gender, have women’s sport crammed down your throat (Your words, not mine), and that you will be forced to all watch women’s sport.
“Yes, restricting the league to only Australians is not conducive of competition. If we opened AFL up to an international platform, I would be very, very happy with this.”
So giving more opportunities for women’s sport to be shown on tv is not possible (As you said earlier today, before completely contradicting yourself tonight), but incorporating every country in the world into local games is something we do have channel space for.
“~Firstly, psychologists have recently concluded that the ‘cheer-for-our-team’ emotion is the only useless emotion that human brains create. ”
Happiness in your teams’ success is a useless emotion? What more so than anger? Regret? I’d like to read that study. I would love to know how they even measured what is a useful compared ot useless emotion. I believe you made it up.
And just so we’re clear here, you’re now saying that people cheering for their team are doing sport wrong. All those fans in their team colours, all those spectators with the green and gold-they’re the ones that are at fault. Is that right? They’re developing useless emotions?
You know, for a guy who likes sport, it seems you have little relation to Australian sports fans.
“I am simply communicating my personal preferences.”
Here’s the interesting thing about your personal preferecnes. When it comes to women’s sport, it’s not enough for you to switch off, as is your preference that no one can deny. You want it on a sub channel where it won’t be pushed down your throat at all.
That’s your preference: “I don’t mind it being on. But I don’t want to know it’s on, or have any chance of seeing it by accident”
It kind of infringes on other people’s preferences, doens’t it?
“~Yet you are pleading for women to be recognised as equal in areas where they clearly aren’t.”
Still making stuff up? I asked for equal opportunity for women to receive recognition for their sporting success. You have interpreted it as meaning “Women and men must have thier success viewed equally” which admittedly is easier to argue, but not what I was saying.
“You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though the majority of cricket fans in Australia are male.”
Again, never said that. Keep on being imaginative there! In your next response, no doubt, you’ll claim I said “Red is blue! Up is down!” which is even easier to argue.
Again, I want equal opportunity for women to have their sporting achievement recognised. That includes being shown on a channel most Australians can access, at a time advertised and publicised to a similar degree as male’s sports are. If no one watches, fine. But give people a chance.
Incidentally, isn’t it possible that if we paid more attention to women’s cricket, more women may get interested in cricket? Isn’t it even slightly possible?
“You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though their fastest bowlers average the same speeds as the men’s average bowlers. ”
Again, never said that. Just as you never said “Feminism wants to castrate me!” though it is easier to argue.
“It may not be the denial of gender, ”
So you admit you were deep into crazy town with that statement?
“but you’re certainly denying something and I would say that is a fault in your argument.~”
Fault in what I’m saying? Or fault in what you’re imagining I’m saying? They’re quite different.
“Then why do they do it? It’s not for fame. It’s not for recognition, nor monetary gain. It’s for the love of the sport and the enjoyment of playing.
So, women play sport for the love of the game and enjoyment of playing, which are pretty good reasons to playing. Therefore we should not recognise their achievements because they don’t want them.
You previously stated you don’t work for money, you work for your love of teaching. Naturally then, if they cut your salary to nothing, you get no positive feedback from students, that’s okay, because you don’t need that. Is that right? I mean, you don’t need money, or positive feedback, or any positive response whatsoever, so you don’t want any of it either, right?
“I submit to you that the men aren’t playing for this reason either. Sportspeople play because it is their calling and they love what they do. ”
What is your point here? Women play sport because they love sport, so we shouldn’t recognise their achievements or give them opportunities to reward that love with financial independence, fame and success. Meanwhile men also play sport becuase they love sport, and isn’t it great that we do recognise their achievements and given them opportunities to reward their love with financial independence, fame and success.
No idea what you’re getting at here. None at all.
~Before I start, I just want to say that most of your arguments are made at an emotional level so I’ll keep it brief. None of your arguments were even close to being valid.~
Jm: Before I start responding, let me give you a chance to take a break. You are saying really stupid things here. Really really stupid things. I don’t think you believe any of them, and in fact you have frequently contradicted yourself from what you’ve said earlier reflecting that you tihnk some of what you’ve said is incorrect, but you’re so caught up in trying to argue with me, you’re ending up agreeing to crazy things rather than realise that maybe, just maybe, you’ve gone a bit too far.
~ I never contradicted myself throughout my argument, and I will detail the reasons why as clearly as I can. Also, if I’m “agreeing to crazy things” then that implies the person I’m responding to is suggesting crazy things. So yes, I agree. :)~
Jm: You are really tying yourself in knots today. So calling men pigs is bad because it may, but doesn’t lead to cannibalism, because it is more extreme; whereas treating women as a sexual object is slightly better, even though it does lead to rape, because it’s less extreme than cannibalism. That’s right? It’s silly, but it’s what you honestly believe, you’re not just saying silly stuff because it’s easier than saying “Yeah, I guess you have a point there”, right? Because that’s what it sounds like.
~ I will say this once more for your obviously inferior mind. Neither sexist, nor degrading, nor prejudicial remarks lead to anything. They are not a cause. Sexist remarks don’t lead to rape, every study confirms this. I’m not saying silly stuff at all. In-fact after my last post I asked three other people if they would rather be called a lesser-human (like a kitchen slave) or sub-human (like a pig) and all three agreed that being called sub-human (a pig) is more offensive. Your initial argument was that treating women like sexual objects is worse than calling men pigs. My counter-argument was that a better comparison would be ‘treating someone as a sex object’ versus ‘treating someone like a pig’. This ruins your argument because obviously treating someone like a pig is much worse. If your argument were to have been simply that ‘thats a funny looking saucepan’ is worse than ‘all men are pigs’ it wouldn’t have held up because obviously the ‘all men are pigs’ statement is just more ignorant, at least according to me and the small sample of people I’ve asked. So you convoluted the statement by adding the entirety of the treatment women to it in order to hold up your argument, and I still rebutted it easily by doing the same to the other statement.~
Jm: It’s not just less frequent. I’m absolutely sure there has been 0 cases of feminist cutting up and eating men. Prove me wrong, please.
~ But that doesn’t matter because you’re taking what I’ve said out of context. If we were just arguing about the comments I wouldn’t have to consider the treatment of animals. But you had to take it a step further and compare the entire treatment of women against the single sentence of ‘all men are pigs’, where of course the treatment of women would dwarf this sentence in terms of immorality. But that isn’t a fair comparison unless you also consider the other sentence as more than just a sentence and that this person actually treats men as pigs. Once again, its just a Freudian answer because every argument you’ve made has been irrelevant/false. Stop trying to complicate the matter, just ask yourself – would you rather be called a lesser human or less than human?~
Jm: And yet another tiniest hair is split. Another comment which I am sure you don’t actually believe, but prefer to say than back down at all.
~WHAT??? But doesn’t that dictate which comment is more offensive? It is not petty at all. Anyway, this is another appeal to emotion, claiming something is ‘petty’ is a great way to avoid answering with any rational thought.~
Jm: Anyway, please, tell me a distinct way you can tell the difference between being treated as a lesser human beign, than being treated as a sub-human. Be specific.
~ Did you even think about this at all before you wrote it? Did you try to come up with an example? Because I thought of one before I even finished reading the sentence. A kitchen slave has to cook dinner every night, day in and day out. A sub-human is the dinner. “Oh but that’s unrealistic”. Of course it is, that’s why comparing the entire treatment of women to a single statement was ridiculous. If you just argued about the remarks themselves, instead of the actions and ideologies behind the remark, I wouldn’t have to go into the disgusting realm that the statement ‘all men are pigs’ would lead someone.~
Jm: You are pushing rape as someone else’s problem. Using the term “sick” is an easy way out. It’s a way of saying “Well, it’s nothing to do with me, or anyone I know. It’s all to do with those few sick people out there”
Which is what anti-rape strategies have been focusing on for decades, and which have effected no one.
~ Yet nowhere in your argument did you claim that someone who rapes people is NOT morally deficient and criminally sick. You take a point I’ve made then spew dribble that doesn’t even rebut my statement and think you’ve answered me. If someone rapes someone else, that person should go to jail. A person who will not rape someone else is not morally deficient in that way, no matter how many sexist remarks they make. You’re trying to diagnosed rape as a product of sexism and culture, but it’s actually a product of the evil that dwells within the heart of the individual. It makes no difference how many sexist remarks a normal, moral person hears, those remarks will not cause that person to rape anyone. All the studies have concluded this.~
Jm: So, you agree sexual objectification is related to rape, which exists in alarming amounts in Australia, but still think the sexual objectification leading to rape in Australia is less severe than calling men pigs, which potentially, but never has, lead to the cannibalisation of men? Contradiction much?
~How can you misinterpret so much of what I’ve written? If you had properly read and understood what I’ve said, you wouldn’t even be asking this because it doesn’t make sense. Firstly, I never agreed to any of those claims, as those claims weren’t in the paragraph that I was agreeing to. The reason rape happens so much is because many rapists aren’t going directly to jail. I do not believe that sexist remarks cause anything and neither do any researchers on the matter. I’ll say it again, all prejudice remarks propagate ignorance in general. The paragraph I was agreeing to was claiming that rapists ignore women who say no (empathetically deaf) and manipulate women into giving in (criminal behaviour). You conveniently forgot about serial rapists who are simply mentally unstable. All these people are sick (whether criminally or mentally) and need to be put in jail. I’ll ignore what you said about cannibalism above, because if you understood anything I’ve written, you would not have asked me this question, because you would understand that I was hypothetically following the ideologies and actions behind the remark ‘all men are pigs’.~
Jm: Oh really? So you live in a town where picturs of women never focus on their body parts, where images of women are displayed based on looks and nothing else. You live in a town where no woman is ever told to “Smile more” “Let your hair grow long”, where no wolf whistles or lewd comments are shouted outside of car windows, where no allegations were made of women succeeding based on looks or their sexuality. Where is this utopia? Please, let me know!
~That stuff happens here, but we are talking about women being treated first and foremost as sex objects. Not ‘a woman’, but ‘women’. Women, in my town, are first and foremost treated like regular human beings. Secondarily, as co-workers. Thirdly, as wives and family members. Fourthly, friends. Probably around fifth or sixth would be sex objects. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are plenty of towns where sex objects would be higher up the list (I’m thinking of mining towns mostly).~
Jm: You’re the missing the point. Do you pay for food, rent, mortgage, school bills etc, with love, or do you use money? Which one? Again, money is power. A stay at home mother who receives no money has less power than a full time worker. Are you trying to honestly tell me that if both a stay at home mother and a full time worker needed to suddenly move, such as due to an abusive relationship, both would have equal resources to do that?
~ Well that’s a funny example you’ve given me there, because it just so happens that friendships, family, and love help a great deal when moving houses. If any suffering occurs, the individual can learn from it. If she places her faith in God, everything will work out in the end. I truly believe this, as I had whooping cough as as an infant and almost died. This gave me a hiatus hernia in my teens which was very difficult to diagnose because I was complaining about breathing problems. 12 years later they found out I was breathing stomach acid into my lungs and developed oesophagitis. During my teens I experimented with drugs and became addicted to cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana. However, because they effected me so much more than everyone else I had to quit otherwise I would surely die. I have no doubt that if I didn’t suffer so many illnesses, I would still be a smoker, and I certainly wouldn’t have found Jesus. By the way, you cannot claim yourself to be a Christian while believing money is power. Money isn’t power. Love is power. Christ is power.~
Jm: Okay, I’m a Christian too. But here’s the thing, your belief that you get to do what you love to do and don’t need money-that’s a luxury you have because you have money. You don’t need to worry about money, so you don’t worry about money. People who don’t have money do not have that luxury.
There are plenty of good, faithful Christians who are struggling to make ends meet. Telling them “But you have the love of your kids” is not helpful when they’re about to be evicted. Telling them “God will provide” is not helpful when they’re telling you they have no idea where they’re going to sleep tonight, or tomorrow. Tell me if I’m being wrong here
~You are wrong here. I am comforting them by saying these things. God truly will provide, if you have faith. Some suffering is necessary for learning. Maybe the children will find their calling in life so they may be successful. Maybe the mother will realise that she has other callings in life that she must accomplish. You don’t know God’s plan for these people. Also, if I could say these things to this hypothetical family, I would also help them out in any way I can. Because love truly does help.~
Jm: I ask again, when you need to pay your mortgage, do you pay with god, with love, or with money? When you buy food do you pay for it with love, with God, or with money?
~ With the money that God has provided because of His love. Do you think you can measure your success with money? Is it something you can boast about? If you answered yes to either of these, then you’re not a Christian. My ONLY goal in life if to be responsible to God, myself, and those around me. The rest gets filled in with faith. So when you claimed that the saucepan is less symbolic of success than the hammer, you just showed your true colours as just another one of the sheeple. Everyone has their own talents and don’t you dare diminish that.~
Jm: And you naturally have examples of feminists encouraged by sub humanist remarks going on to kill men, and eat them. Because that’s what you’ve been claiming.
~ No, I’ve been claiming quite the opposite, are you illiterate or just very young? Read the word “if”. “IF” sexist remarks cause rape (which they don’t), “then” dehumanising remarks cause murder (which they don’t). All I’m doing is using a Freudian answer to your initial statement. So no, I don’t have any examples of dehumanising remarks causing murder, do you have any examples of sexist remarks causing rape? No, you don’t because rape is not caused by sexist remarks but from a deeper underlying evil trait of an individual.~
Jm: Incidentally, most murders are not caused by sub human remarks, particularly in Australia. Most murders are caused by intense aggression and other intense emotions leading standard morals to be overlooked (Sometime enhanced by alcohol).
~ LOL You just said – “most murders are not caused by sub human remarks”. No murders are caused by these remarks. The rest of the paragraph I agree with and is totally irrelevant.~
Jm: There is no cultural messges about “Men like being killed” or “Men exist to be murdered” No jokes about “How about we kill all the men”-tell me if I’m wrong here. Prove me wrong. Go ahead.
~ “Women don’t need men”. I’ve heard that said a few times. I think it’s in reference to test-tube babies and how the human race could continue without men because of this technology. Here’s another one for you – “all men are pigs”. Both of these comments imply some kind of relinquishment to man’s right to life, especially if the ideologies behind such statements are acted upon.~
Jm: So an Australian woman becomes the greatest success story, the fastest woman alive. She is still not as fast as the fastest man alive. Are you going to ignore her because she’s not as fast as the fastest man, or celebrate her achievement for Australia?
~ Personally, I would celebrate her greatness inasmuch as it is great. If shes not faster than the fastest man, but faster than the second fastest man, then I definitely would celebrate that. But that’s just me, you may be happy that she got a gold for your country or your people because of that cheer-for-your-team attitude, and I won’t deny you of that. But if she is still much slower than most of the male runners, then I personally wouldn’t celebrate her ‘greatness’ because, in my opinion, she is racing in a non-competitive league.~
Jm: “~WTF? How did you get to this conclusion?” Here’s how. You object to equal or anything approximating equal representation of women’s sport on TV, unless it’s someone you care about. True?
~ Firstly, No. I object to any non-competitive mediocre league getting the same representation as the the best leagues, whether I know someone in them or not. I never alluded to any other opinion about this other than the one I just expressed. I would watch them if I knew someone in them, but I would not ask for the same representation as our A team for cricket. Secondly, I love when I ask how you come to a conclusion and you say ‘heres how’, but then neglect to properly quote anything I’ve said nor give a detailed explanation of how you understood any particular sentence. You just put words into my mouth then argued against those words.~
Jm: But everyone cares about a female athlete. For every female athelete or sportswoman there are multiple people who care about them. Why doesn’t their existence justify exposure of female sporting success?
~ Why does it? I have fans of my chess prowess, does that justify me to have the same representation as our best teams of our favourite games? No. “But everyone cares about a female athlete,” let me prove wrong, I don’t care about female some female athletes (the ones in sports where men are just better). I don’t think you could even say ‘most people care about a female athlete’. If I went around my school and asked how many people sincerely care about female cricket, I’m guessing the majority of people won’t care. Almost certainly most women won’t care. Trust me, that’s not because of a lack of representation, that’s because of a lack of caring. I don’t understand your fascination with equal representation anyway, what does it matter to you what sport other people watch? If it’s available to watch at all, that should be enough. When you ask for equal representation, what you’re really asking for is a larger audience otherwise the only difference it makes to you personally is what channel or website you watch it on. Do you think these women aren’t getting enough credit for their actions? enough pay? enough glory? If they got the same glory and pay as men, but were significantly worse at cricket, isn’t that sexist against men? We don’t pay the worst player on our team the same as the best player on our team. Their contracts are negotiated based on SKILL. So if sporting contracts are based on skill, why should this person get more money just because they are female, even though they have much less skill?~
Jm: “It seems like it’s becoming habitual for you to start a sentence with something I have said and then tack on something completely ridiculous on the end. ”
Well I think I’ve explained the link fairly well.
~ No, you never explained the link between me wanting to watch my wife play a sport, and me not wanting other people to watch their loved ones play a sport. There is no link. Not once did I ever say to take anything off the air. If the mediocre team or league is accessible to those who want to watch it, that is enough.~
Jm: Still waiting on you explaining how feminists want to eradicate the differences of the male gender.
~Really? Because I’m pretty certain that’s all I’ve been talking about. Feminists are pushing for equality in an area where they are unequal. Of course, I never used the term ‘eradicating the differences in gender’, as I would never say anything so absolute. Feminist activists aren’t trying to eradicate all the differences of course, they still love the perks of men buying them drinks, and women practically always getting custody of children during a break-up.~
Jm: “I have agreed with you soo many times now that we could easily air more sports on TV. ” No you didn’t. When I suggested more sports to allow more representation of women you said that this wouldn’t be possible because we’d need to show equal representation of every sport, for every country and that there wouldn’t be enough sports channels to do this. Are you backtracking?
~ LOLOLOL Airing sports on TV is nothing the same as having equal representation of all sports. Having equal representation of every game would be ABSURD. It simply wouldn’t work, not once did I say that a certain game or league shouldn’t be aired or able to be viewed in any way. Let me give you every relevant quote – Me: “If you wanted every sports game to be equally received, even though the players are worse, you would have a lot of sports on tv.”- equally received, see that?? – Jm: “And we have how many dedicated sports channels on tv already, filled with overseas sports which have no relations to us?” – Seems a little discriminatory but OK I went with it – Me: “If you are going to give every single game equal coverage then you can’t discriminate against international teams because the players aren’t Australian. How far down this rabbit hole do you want to go?” – Apparently this is where I said that I don’t want women’s leagues aired. But what I’m really saying is if you give every game the same amount of media coverage, you will lose all coherency because there are so many games being played at any time. Being aired =/= equal coverage.~
Jm: No, you said that women would still be overlooked. And I said no channel has ever tried to publicise women’s sports.
~ Of course channels have previously aired women’s sports. They still do. What are you on about? I saw a game of women’s cricket on TV last year. That is publicising them, they are making those games available to the public. They don’t advertise them or have them on at prime-time because they won’t hit their viewer targets. Buddy, listen to me, if you have women’s cricket on channel 7 at 7pm a LOT of people are going to change the channel.~
Jm: And who said they need to be on at the same time? The Rugby and AFL grand final aren’t on at the same time. The AFL and VFL grand final don’t need to be on at the same time. That’s a condition you’ve demanded here, which no one wants.
~ Hey, yeah, listen if there’s no better sport to watch then I’m sure some die-hard sports nuts will watch the women’s finals of whatever sport it is. Of course, you will have the people with some kind of personal investment watching that game too. Having top-skilled, top-tier games on at the same time isn’t a condition I’ve demanded, it’s just very likely. Again, when competing for newspaper headlines, you’re competing with sports news on a range of sports throughout the day/week. If you think every mediocre league can get equal media coverage there, you’re kidding yourself.~
Jm: Oh, you’re making stuff up? Good on you, using your imagination.
Where I have I pleaded that women’s sports get the same audience reception as top tier leagues? Please point it out.
~You alluded to having equal coverage here – Me:”If you wanted every sports game to be equally received, even though the players are worse, you would have a lot of sports on tv.” – Jm:”And we have how many dedicated sports channels on tv already, filled with overseas sports which have no relations to us? More sport on tv isn’t exactly a problem if you like sport.” either you were answering me by saying yes, you would like to see equal coverage, otherwise you were not answering me at all, which of course is highly likely judging by your other ‘answers’. Also, you are defending this meme, which I personally don’t agree with. It’s complaining that the A team of cricket is unfairly stealing the limelight off this woman. That much is obvious. To me, that seems slightly ridiculous because they are the best team Australia can muster with our resources, so of course they will steal the limelight.~
Jm: I believe I did say that women’s sports should have the same exposure, with the same level of publicity as male sport. But you’ve chosen to ignore that for some reason.
~Why would you want equal exposure without equal reception? What is the point of putting women’s leagues on during prime-time viewing if the audience won’t become equally receptive of it? That seems detrimental to both the television network and the viewers. Why equally advertise the league if you have no care for audience reception? It doesn’t make sense. If they don’t get at least somewhat equal reception, and I assume the networks have already concluded from current trends in audience viewing that they will not, then why give them equal exposure and publicity? It doesn’t make sense, and honestly, neither does your irrational need for them to have better audience reception. “I don’t care about audience reception, I just care about exposure”. Yes, you do. exposure = reception = recognition. Why would you plea for exposure when you don’t want the others? You do. putting ‘equal exposure/reception/recognition to our A team’ shouldn’t change this equation. If it does, than they are giving them too much exposure. Consider watching the women’s NRL on Friday night, Bulldogs vs. Broncos, prime-time television, and just knowing that practically any under21 or local 21+ rugby side would mop the floor with either of these teams. Some people may ‘cheer-for-their-team’. I know the only reason most men would watch it, and it’s got nothing to do with stopping sexism in sports.~
Jm: “Yeah thanks for agreeing with me again. ” Except I didn’t. You were saying allowing for women’s sports would be like havign an asian league, or african league, as some ethnic groups are better at some sports than others. I pointed out that the cultural groups are not so distinct in sport as they are in women’s sport, and therefore while it is fair to have women’s sports, having african only sports, asians sports, etc, is not needed.
~But what you really said was ‘we allow people of racial equality equal chances’. You say you’re a feminist activist who wants gender equality, but you don’t want women to have the same equal chances in this regard. If you want women to have equal exposure, and by extension, equal recognition, then one would assume they should have equally fierce competition. These would be the pleas of a proponent of mixed gender leagues, and you’re almost there. Mixed leagues truly would test skill, and through them, some select heroins would get very famous. But that won’t ever happen because why do people do what they do? Because they love doing it, and mixed leagues would take too much enjoyment out of the sport for many women. But of course you don’t want women to have equally fierce competition as men. Therefore, you don’t want women to be treated equally in sports. Therefore, you are in agreement with me (see my very first post)~
Jm: Are you intentionally contradicting yourself with what you said earlier? If so, that’s fine. What you said earlier was ridiculous. I look forward to you saying “Thinking that feminists are about to eradicate the differences of the male gender is crazy. What sort of crazy person would think that!”
~ Find a contradiction in my argument, please, do it. You are a contradiction to yourself. You are a feminist activist who just admitted that treating women equally in sports is unfair. You say self-imploding statements like “I don’t want equal audience reception, I just want equal exposure”. You realise that doesn’t make sense, right? If you want equal exposure, then who are you exposing it to? An audience.~
Jm: “Wow. Again, I completely agree with you. More sports on TV. ”
Wow-did you tell yourself that earlier today when you said that wasn’t possible?
~ Which I never said 😀 😀 😀 ~
Jm: This is what you said earlier ‘~ Wait a second. If you are going to give every single game equal coverage then you can’t discriminate against international teams because the players aren’t Australian.
~ The concept of ‘equal exposure’ is a far cry from whether sports get aired on television or not. This is too easy.~
Jm: So, when I suggested more sports earlier and you said that wasn’t possible, were you wrong then, or wrong now? These are complete contradictions.
~ I was never wrong before because I never said that more sports on television was a bad idea. In fact, having more sports means you are definitely not going to have ‘equal coverage’.~
Jm: “I’m not saying people should watch top tier leagues,”
Well you did say you only wanted to see genuine tests of skill, not meidocre teams, implying all women teams that aren’t as good as men are mediocre.
~ Just re-read what you’ve written here for a sec. Now, am I wrong in “implying all women teams that aren’t as good as men are mediocre”. I can say that,that’s a true statement. But you missed the point – even men’s teams can be mediocre teams. Men have entire mediocre leagues, B-leagues, club leagues. Wheres their ‘equal coverage’ and ‘equal exposure’? And I stand by what I said, I am not asserting my views that people should only watch top-tier leagues like I do. I am simply describing the reality that most people do only watch these leagues, and I am of this majority. Also, yes I did say that, I agree with you completely that is what I said. I only want to see genuine tests of skill, not meidocre teams. This is a personal preference. What’s your point?~
Are you the same logic who spoke earlier? Or has someone hacked into your account?
“This meme is pleading for equal audience reception, not equal coverage.
And equal opportunity most of all. How exactly are people going to watch women’s sport if it’s not on tv, advertised and publicised for people to watch?
~LOL. ‘equal opportunity’ = ‘equal coverage’ = ‘equal exposure’. Not like before, when the equation was saying that each section requires the other to remain stable, but this time the ‘=’ means that these things mean exactly the same thing. Here I am explaining an important point that this meme is directed at the audience, asking ‘why aren’t you watch us?’ and it skips the exposure/opportunity thing all-together. In fact, this meme assumes they do get enough exposure, otherwise they couldn’t blame A grade cricket on taking the limelight that they never had.~
Jm: “Also, even if this is occuring, it probably still wont get equal coverage because the TV networks will give the games with larger audiences more time/media/advertising etc.” Again, has ansyone tried advertising and broadcasting women’s sports? It’s easy to say “No one will watch it”-they said the same thing about soccer now. Ask SBS how it’s going now.
~ Yes, they have. And no, it won’t get the same audience reception. That’s why you may find women sports on during the middle of the day. Oh yeah the soccer, you mean our A league? You mean how they started showing the best soccer games Australia has to offer without going international? Yeah, funny how that got popular hey.~
“Look at the meme, then look at your argument, notice the discrepancies?~
I didn’t make this meme. I’m arguing from my own point of view. Not a meme’s.
~Yep, you are, and quite poorly I might add. What you’re arguing for isn’t even detailed in any of the comments nor the meme (equal exposure). everything you said to rebut me was just a lie or an emotional appeal. I’m talking about the meme. I’m talking about the comments. I’ve been relating back to the meme and comments the whole time.~
So, as we start, look at how much time you’ve spent telling me that I’m stupid or my arguments are wrong instead of showing how they’re wrong. What do you think that says about you?
And now, let’s get back into your persecution complex. Hopefully you won’t be too scared of the evil feminists, with their free drinks, that you can’t get to sleep tonight.
“Also, if I’m “agreeing to crazy things” then that implies the person I’m responding to is suggesting crazy things. ”
So the only reason you’re saying “Feminists are trying to destroy masculinity” is because I’m sayign crazy stuff like “I’d like women to have equal opportunity for recognition in sport”
Oh, totally fair then.
“~ I will say this once more for your obviously inferior mind.”
Didn’t you just start by complaining my arguments were at a personal level? Hypocrisy much?
“Sexist remarks don’t lead to rape, every study confirms this. ”
You said earleir that there was a relationship between sexual objectification and rape. Now you say that every study, every single study doesn’t show this. I await your source.
” In-fact after my last post I asked three other people if they would rather be called a lesser-human (like a kitchen slave) or sub-human (like a pig) and all three agreed that being called sub-human (a pig) is more offensive. ”
Wow! Three whole people. That’s a sample right there. Three people you know even!
“~ But that doesn’t matter because you’re taking what I’ve said out of context. ”
You said that cannibalism by feminists wwas less common than rape because it was less extreme. I again put it to you that there have been 0 cases of cannibalism by feminists, and plenty of examples of rape. I asked you to prove me wrong. You can’t.
” Anyway, this is another appeal to emotion, claiming something is ‘petty’ is a great way to avoid answering with any rational thought.~”
Yes, how dare I appeal to emotion. It’s like I’m a human being or something.
“A kitchen slave has to cook dinner every night, day in and day out. A sub-human is the dinner”
Again with the cannibalism-it’s a worryingly disturbing fixation you seem to have. Which has never existed, yet you compare to sub human treatment that does exist.
Tell me, do you honestly think that slaves think to themselves “Well, at least I’m not being eaten alive” or do they not feel grateful for this.
” Of course it is, that’s why comparing the entire treatment of women to a single statement was ridiculous. ”
Multiple statements. Not just one.
“If you just argued about the remarks themselves, instead of the actions and ideologies behind the remark, I wouldn’t have to go into the disgusting realm that the statement ‘all men are pigs’ would lead someone.~”
Still waiting on any evidence that the line “all men are pigs” has ever lead to any crime ever. Because lines like “All women are sex objects” have lead to rape. Rapists say those things.
“If someone rapes someone else, that person should go to jail. A person who will not rape someone else is not morally deficient in that way, no matter how many sexist remarks they make.”
Let me break this down to you. We both think a rapist should go to prison.
What about the people who support the rapist? The ones who told him “She really wants it, and ignore it when she says no” the one who says “Don’t take no for an answer, a no is just a yes in disguise”-are these perfectly fine people who have nothing to answer for? What about the people saying of the victim “Well, she did wear revealing clothes” or “What was she doing at night on her own” or “She went back to his place, what did she think was going to happen?”-these are people who have no responsibility when rape occurs?
Again, rape is far too common for us to say “Well it’s just sick people-nothing to do with society’s messages. Let’s just punish the bad people and be done with it”-how does that sickness come about? Come on, you’re meant to be logic, are these rapists born to ignore consent, born taking advantage of women, or are they taught?
“You’re trying to diagnosed rape as a product of sexism and culture, but it’s actually a product of the evil that dwells within the heart of the individual”
There’s logic for you. Rape is called by the evil that lives in the heart of man. So, in other words, rapists are born with evil in them.
Or are you saying all men have evil rape inside them, but some have it better under control. I don’t know which is worse-evil babies, or everyone’s potentially evil.
“It makes no difference how many sexist remarks a normal, moral person hears, those remarks will not cause that person to rape anyone. All the studies have concluded this.~”
Please, tell me about lal the studies that have found evil lives in the hearts of man. How did they research the existence of evil? Does it count as criminology, psychology, or theology?
“You conveniently forgot about serial rapists who are simply mentally unstable. ”
The ones who are caught are. Many serial rapists are not mentally unstable. That’s again you pushing away the problem, as something someone else has to solve. There are entire communities of men existing to manipulate, and coerce women into sex-books are writen about and by them and published as “Getting a yes from a no”-these aren’t mentally unstable guys. Deeply mysoginist guys, yes, but unstable, no.
“All these people are sick (whether criminally or mentally) and need to be put in jail.”
But they’re not, logic. Rape conviction rates are incredibly low. So how can that be? How can police and juries not see the “evil that lives in the heart of man”-do they not have “evil detection” machines in court now?
Or, could it be, that society supports the rapist, by asking victims “How many sexual partners did you have?” “What were you wearing?” “Why did you go back to the accused’s house on your own?”
“because you would understand that I was hypothetically following the ideologies and actions behind the remark ‘all men are pigs’.~”
So you look into the hypothetical actions of someone thinking of men as a pig, which have never happened, and somehow think it’s worth comparing to the actual actions of someone who thinks women are sex objects. Totally fair!
“That stuff happens here, but we are talking about women being treated first and foremost as sex objects. ”
So women are treated as sex objects, but they are treated as human beings. But human beings who are judged on the way they look in a way that men aren’t.
Or are you telling me that when women in your town are told they need to look better, those making those comments to women are quick to preface it with “Not that I’m judging you on your looks or anything, but….”
“If any suffering occurs, the individual can learn from it. If she places her faith in God, everything will work out in the end. ”
Great. So I’m going to see a parent tomorrow who is unable to afford for her child’s medication. Should I work with her to investigate financial counselling, learning to make a budget, contacting those she owes money in order to delay payments, look into charity support, or tell her “If you trust God, everything will be okay”? Let me know which you recommend.
“By the way, you cannot claim yourself to be a Christian while believing money is power. ”
I can and do. I’m a realist. I live in a capitalist society. I do not like it, but I do not deny it either, as you do.
You remind me so much of someone who has never ever been poor. Never even known someone who is poor. Your privilege is so apparent it’s shocking!
“I am comforting them by saying these things. ”
And that’s a great place to start. Religion does bring a lot of people hope. But when things are not going so well, hope only takes you so far, before you need action.
” Some suffering is necessary for learning. ”
You would honestly tell a woman who is about to be evicted from her home with her six kids and has no place to live that she should think of it as a learning experience? Isn’t that a little heartless?
“Maybe the children will find their calling in life so they may be successful. ”
And how will they do that if they’re living on the streets? How will they do that as they move from school to school as their parents chase the hope of a job somehwere?
“Maybe the mother will realise that she has other callings in life that she must accomplish. ”
And how is a woman with no money, being evicted, going to be able to access those callings? She has no money for training, no time to train, no capital to start up a business-how is she going to do that?
“You don’t know God’s plan for these people. ”
Neither do you, but at least I’m trying to help them sort out their problems now, rather than proivide glib platitudes that they do not want when they’re in a panicked state.
“Also, if I could say these things to this hypothetical family, I would also help them out in any way I can. ”
With money or with God’s love? Which? Again, God’s love is great, but we do not live in a theocracy. You cannot get those families out of a burden by hope alone. Action is required, and in many cases, action requires money.
I mean, look at the multiple christian charity groups operating in Australia. They do great stuff, and the reason they are able to do great stuff isn’t because they are deeply religious people, but because they are able to manage finances, get donations, and use that money in productive ways. It sounds like if you were running them, you’d want all fundraising to stop and be replaced by a prayer-in.
“With the money that God has provided because of His love. ”
So money then.
“Do you think you can measure your success with money?”
Nope. But it does make it easier for me to live in this society.
” Is it something you can boast about? ”
Hah! I’m a social worker. We can’t boast about our pay!
“If you answered yes to either of these, then you’re not a Christian. ”
Well I didn’t, but again, realising that money is powerful in society doesn’t make me anti christian, it makes me realistic.
“My ONLY goal in life if to be responsible to God, myself, and those around me. ”
And the same is true for poor people. But again, they have to worry about money because they don’t have any. Not worrying about money is a luxury only the well off can afford.
” So when you claimed that the saucepan is less symbolic of success than the hammer, you just showed your true colours as just another one of the sheeple. ”
Sheeple? What are you-a christian ayn rand devotee? How does seeing most people as sheep negatively fit with Christ’s love? Love one another as I have loved you-don’t remember that including “Including those annoying sheeple”
Again, I live in a capitlaist society. Who is rewarded in this society, congratulated by government and has an easier life? Those who have an income, or those who do not? I look forward to your continual insistance that apparently people are rewarded in this world by religious devotion alone (Unlike what I was raised up as a Anglican to bleieve that we are rewarded in our next life, and sufferring exists in this world so that good Christians can try to alleviate it).
“Everyone has their own talents and don’t you dare diminish that.~”
Where have I ever tried to deiminish it? I’m not the one calling people “sheeple” and telling the poor to just “Believe in God and everything will work out. Enjoy your homelessness!”
“So no, I don’t have any examples of dehumanising remarks causing murder, do you have any examples of sexist remarks causing rape? ”
Again, sexist remarks are an example of a sexist culture. Sexist culture causes rape. Hence our low conviction rate, low charge rate for rapists, and increased blame being placed on rapie victims.
““most murders are not caused by sub human remarks”. No murders are caused by these remarks.”
Again, sub human remarks are an example of a culture where some people are considered sub human, which has lead to the holocaust, lynchings. Let me guess-the holocaust was caused by evil in the hearts of men, not the German people being taught through non stop propoganda that Jews were evil, right?
Of course, before you start to sya “Aha! Then feminists are cannibals” you now even don’t even try to claim that feminist cannibalism exists.
“~ “Women don’t need men”. I’ve heard that said a few times. ”
It’s true. Men don’t need women either. Both can be perfectly happy separated, but it they chose to join it should be cause they want to be togethner-not because they “need”
” I think it’s in reference to test-tube babies and how the human race could continue without men because of this technology.
Catapulting to conclusions there a little. Again, a statement encouraging independance of womne, encouraging women to succeed on their own, without being reliant on men is translated to “Women want test tube babies! What about the menzzzzz!”
“Both of these comments imply some kind of relinquishment to man’s right to life, especially if the ideologies behind such statements are acted upon.~”
Again, “Women don’t need men” a statement of independence is to you a statement that “Men don’t deserve to live!”
How exactly are women allowed to be independent of men without you seeing it as a threat to you?
“But if she is still much slower than most of the male runners, then I personally wouldn’t celebrate her ‘greatness’ because, in my opinion, she is racing in a non-competitive league.~”
So you object, naturally, to female atheletes in track and swimming events in the olympics getting equal attention as male atheletes? Right?
“~ Why does it? I have fans of my chess prowess, does that justify me to have the same representation as our best teams of our favourite games? ”
So, t obe clear, you’re comparign chess, which is not popular in Australia for either gender, to women’s sport, which is popular among women who like sport. Right?
““But everyone cares about a female athlete,” let me prove wrong, I don’t care about female some female athletes”
You’ve willfully misinterpreted me here. I did not say everyone cares for every female athlete. I meant that every female sportsperson has someone who cares for them and wants to cheer them on.
” Trust me, that’s not because of a lack of representation, that’s because of a lack of caring.”
Trust you? Why would I want to do that? Do you have a scientific study telling me that not trusting you isn’t useless?
“I don’t understand your fascination with equal representation anyway, what does it matter to you what sport other people watch?”
Again, making stuff up. I have not demanded equal representation-I have demanded equal opportunity for representation. As in, women’s sport is available of easily accessible channels, publicised and advertised to a similar level as male’s sport.
But it again is easier to argue that I want to force everyone to watch women’s sport. So you argue that instead.
“If it’s available to watch at all, that should be enough.”
It’s not easily available to watch, so we agree it’s not enough then.
” When you ask for equal representation, what you’re really asking for is a larger audience otherwise the only difference it makes to you personally is what channel or website you watch it on. ”
Nope, when I ask for equal opportunity and representation I mean I want women’s sport of an easily accesbile channel, with similar level of publicisation and advertising as male sports.
Or in other words, I meant what I said. Not what you wanted me to say.
“Do you think these women aren’t getting enough credit for their actions? enough pay? enough glory? ”
No, no, and no.
“If they got the same glory and pay as men, but were significantly worse at cricket, isn’t that sexist against men?”
They’re not going to have the same amount as glory as men, we all know that. But to have even a comparable level of glory, to be in the same range, that would be a start, wouldn’t it?
“Not once did I ever say to take anything off the air. ”
No, you said put it on the interwbes, and not to push it down your throat. So welcoming!
“If the mediocre team or league is accessible to those who want to watch it, that is enough.~ ”
So, to be clear, you want women’s sport to be accessible to those who want to watch it, while men’s sport is easily accessible to anyone, whether they want to watch it or not?
“Feminist activists aren’t trying to eradicate all the differences of course, they still love the perks of men buying them drinks, and women practically always getting custody of children during a break-up.~”
Men’s right activist, anyone? Let me guess, things were so much simpler in the 50’s, before all these new fangled divorces, and women’s rights. Telling a woman that she should stay in the kitchen is a reward, right?
You know, not all women like men paying for drinks. A lot of women angrily reject the offer of a man paying for dinner. I know-shocking, it’s like they enjoy being independent or something.
And you’re not providing any examples of feminists trying to eradicate difference in the male gender. You just say “The sport-the sport is proof” and ignore possibility that women want women’s sport to be supported to some degree, not replacing men at all. That’s your persecution complex talking.
“. But what I’m really saying is if you give every game the same amount of media coverage, you will lose all coherency because there are so many games being played at any time. Being aired =/= equal coverage.~”
So when I first mentioned allowing more women’s sports, you said it was impossible because there are too many sports, but you still secretly thoguht that more sports on tv, including women’s sports was good. You just didn’t want to say it at that time because, I don’t know, feminism makes you buy drinks and stuff!
“I saw a game of women’s cricket on TV last year. ”
What channel? Where was it advertised? How did people find out about it?
“They don’t advertise them or have them on at prime-time because they won’t hit their viewer targets. ”
So they don’t advertise because they won’t get veiwing figures. But they don’t get viewing figures because they don’t advertise.
Nice little circular logic loop you got going there.
“Buddy, listen to me, if you have women’s cricket on channel 7 at 7pm a LOT of people are going to change the channel.~”
Again, when have we ever tried to advertise women’s sport to a comparable degree as we do men’s sports?
” Having top-skilled, top-tier games on at the same time isn’t a condition I’ve demanded, it’s just very likely. ”
How is it likely? We already space out less popular sports to avoid conflict, why not do that also with women’s source?
You’re spending a lot of time building a wall to block out women’s sport, then saying “Look-it would be nice if we had women’s sport, but there’s no way they could get through this wall” What is your real problem with women’s sport being on tv? Is it your male persecution complex?
“If you think every mediocre league can get equal media coverage there, you’re kidding yourself.~”
Again, equal is not the goal. Comparable is the goal. It’s no where near comparable now.
“~You alluded to having equal coverage here ”
So now, instead of me saying stuff, I’m alluding to things. Just as all feminist statements, are statements of “We can eradicate all men”-I don’t trust your internal analysis of information.
“More sport on tv isn’t exactly a problem if you like sport.” either you were answering me by saying yes, you would like to see equal coverage, otherwise you were not answering me at all, which of course is highly likely judging by your other ‘answers’. ”
So me saying women’s sport should get equal opportunity for representation is translateds as “All women’s sports must be watched equally as men’s sports-all hail the feminists and their multiple free drinks!”
You’re catapulting yourself again. When I said I wanted equal opportunity for representation in women’s sport, I meant that. I did not mean equal audience share-that isn’t up for me. But keep on making stuff up.
“Also, you are defending this meme, which I personally don’t agree with. ”
No, I am criticising the comments. Totally different. But keep on with your binary thinking.
“~Why would you want equal exposure without equal reception? ”
So I say something, you choose to argue a different point, and whe nI point out that’s not my point, you respond with “Why isn’t it your point?”
It’s not up to me whether women have equal audience share. What I want is people to have a choice on an equal platform. Equal platform means both male and female sports are easy to access and find by all australians, means it is advertised at a comprable way and promoted by their networks. That is a fair opportunity.
“What is the point of putting women’s leagues on during prime-time viewing if the audience won’t become equally receptive of it?”
Never said prime time. Said “reasonable time”-time people can access.
and you’re back in your circle: “No one will watch it if it’s on at prime time, and no one watches it at other times because it’s hard-therefore no one likes it”
You’re setting up conditions that guarantee failure for women’s sport to justify your own crusade againast thme. What is your real problem with women, logic? You seem to have a huge persecution complex about them, and feminists in particular.
“Why equally advertise the league if you have no care for audience reception?”
To allow people a choice. I would like more people to watch women’s sport, but it’s not up to me, it’s up to them. However, if no one is told about it, it is not promoted at all, of course women’s sport is not going to be noticed.
“If they don’t get at least somewhat equal reception, and I assume the networks have already concluded from current trends in audience viewing that they will not, then why give them equal exposure and publicity? ”
And back in the circle we go again:
“Why would they advertise when no one watches? and no one will watch because they don’t advertise”-round and round we go.
“It doesn’t make sense, and honestly, neither does your irrational need for them to have better audience reception. ”
Again, making stuff up. Do you want me to just create a fake sockpuppet who can argue with you on points you want to argue on, rather than what I’m actually arguing on.
I repeat, I do not have a need for better audience reception. I have a desire for equal opportunity for better audience reception. You see that as a threat, but then again you also think feminists want to get rid of you, so you think a lot of things.
“Yes, you do. exposure = reception = recognition. Why would you plea for exposure when you don’t want the others? ”
Because I believe in free will, and allowing people to choose. More exposure allows the opportunity for more reception, allowing for the opportunity for more recognition. However, it also allows the possibiltiy for none of those things. What I want is just the opportunity for these to occur. If no one watches them, as you seem certain they will, then you lose nothing. So why the fear of the opportunity?
“I know the only reason most men would watch it, and it’s got nothing to do with stopping sexism in sports.~”
They can watch it because they want to cheer on their side, or see great sports people do greatthings perhaps?
Or are you going to come out and say what you’re alluding to here.
“Therefore, you don’t want women to be treated equally in sports. Therefore, you are in agreement with me (see my very first post)~ ”
For a guy who has no basis in science, you say “therefore” a lot.
I repeat, I pointed out that the cultural groups are not so distinct in sport as they are in women’s sport, and therefore while it is fair to have women’s sports, having african only sports, asians sports, etc, is not needed.
Now you again don’t want me to say it, as it’s easy to argue a different point. But I have said it.
“You say self-imploding statements like “I don’t want equal audience reception, I just want equal exposure”. You realise that doesn’t make sense, right?”
You are a men’s right activists, with a huge male persecution complex who ignores what people say and instread argues what he wishes they said.
I have explained before why I want equal exposure, but do not demand equal audience reception. You have repeatedly chosen to ignore it.
“~ Which I never said 😀 😀 😀 ~”
No, you just decided to respond to a request about more sport on tv with “That’s not possible!” while apparently thinking “That would be nice!”
Totally reasonable response there!
“I only want to see genuine tests of skill, not meidocre teams.
Except for NRL, where you say to yourself “Well, it’s probably the best teams in the world because they’re the bext ones playing, so I won’t bother to consider that an unfair test of skill”
“~ Yes, they have. And no, it won’t get the same audience reception. ”
Who has tried it, and when. What sports? Or is this another one of your science studies that probably doesn’t exist?
“Oh yeah the soccer, you mean our A league? You mean how they started showing the best soccer games Australia has to offer without going international? Yeah, funny how that got popular hey.~”
So an unfair test of skill then, right? I mean, the best soccer Austrlaia has is nowhere near the best in the world.
But somehow it’s gone well, making a lot on pay tv ratings, heading over to free to air tv now. I’ts almost like people like cheering for a team or something. You better tell them how science says that’s useless!
“What you’re arguing for isn’t even detailed in any of the comments nor the meme (equal exposure). everything you said to rebut me was just a lie or an emotional appeal. ”
I have told you multiple times what I want. You’ve chosen to ignore it. Now you call me a liar. where have I lied? Tell me specifically where I have lied.
“I’m talking about the meme. I’m talking about the comments. I’ve been relating back to the meme and comments the whole time.~”
And of course, how feminism is trying to get rid of the male gender. And how poor people should just hope for the best, and that will be enough.
I was dissapointed to note you’ve skipped quite a bit. I’m sure you’re mistaken, so here it is again!
Here we go:
1. So, to be clear. You needing to switch off the tv to avoid watching women’s sport because you consider it meidocre is “OMG-feminists are trying to diminish the male gender!”
Me asking for equal opportunity and representation for women’s sport has the response of “Go find it somewhere. It probably exists-quit complaining”
2. “Don’t cram them down my throat because I, along with the majority of Australians, want to watch our best teams compete. ”
How exactly are they going to be crammed down your throat? Are you suggesting you are going to be forced at gun point to watch them? Are you that paranoid?
Or, are you suggesting that advertising and promoting women’s sport, that would be considered “ramming down your throat”-which means you’re a bit too sensitive there.
Which one? Are you paranoid and worried you’re going to be forced to watch women’s sport, or too sensitive and don’t want to see any advertising for women’s sport ever?
3. True, teams which win tend to get more fans, but fans aren’t particularly discerning at that point.
I mean, I’ve never seen a group of fans of NRL or AFL ever say “My team won, but they weren’t on top form, so I was dissapointed” I have seen a lot of people cheering “We won! Whooooooo!”
4. Sit down, this will shock you. If women get more opportunities, men don’t get less. If women’s sport gets more attention, more opportunities, and promotions than it has previously, you have nothing to lose. Yet you’re afraid of it. You worry it’s going to be shoved down your throat, that it will mean the end of the male gender-why? What possible harm is it going to cause you?
5. “I’m pretty certain I’ve seen a fair amount of women playing sports on TV. Or an unfair amount, as I said, I don’t know.~”
You’re contradicting yourself in two sentences. In the first sentence you’re certain you’ve seen a fair amount. The second you don’t know if you’ve seen a fair amount. Do you know what you’re talking about now?
6. “Women obviously get some kind of recognition, this meme is recognition of her skill on its own. ”
Memes are sufficient recognition now. A great sporting success for an Australian deserves the same attention as a tall cat, you think?
7. “The networks want money right? Advertising and playing popular sports is in their best interest. If they aren’t showing it, it’s because most people don’t want to watch it. ”
And again how do they know people don’t want to watch it if they haven’t ever tried it? Crystal ball?
8. “~ This meme is evidence of women attempting to equalise in an area at which they are not equal. ”
So a meme pointing out that we do not acknowledge successes amongst our female sportswomen was translated to you as “Women are trying to be equal in areas they are not equal” which lead to “Feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender!” – I think this says more about you, how you see feminism, how you see your own gender and feel about your masculinity than it says about feminism, this meme or anything else.
9. “~ Just one example, the meme that I am referring to at the top of this page. ”
Wait, you are claiming that feminists want to remove men’s difference as a gender based on one, just one, meme which doesn’t even say what you want it to say!
10. “I don’t think it’s sexist, just our natural desire to want to watch better teams play. ”
Again, your belief that people watching sports only want the best teams tends to overlook how Australians competing tend to be more popular in Australia than non-Australians.
11. “My understanding of feminism throughout history has little impact on the argument I am making in relation to women in sports. ”
Yes it does. Your understanding of feminism has lead to a persecution complex where you see any attempt at improving representation of women in sport as a threat to your masculinity. You have seen a request that women get more exposure in sport as an attempt to eradicate differences in the male gender.
Your understanding feminism has completely written your understanding of this issue, and your fear that if women have more exposure as sportswomen, you will somehow lose your gender, have women’s sport crammed down your throat (Your words, not mine), and that you will be forced to all watch women’s sport.
12. “~Firstly, psychologists have recently concluded that the ‘cheer-for-our-team’ emotion is the only useless emotion that human brains create. ”
Happiness in your teams’ success is a useless emotion? What more so than anger? Regret? I’d like to read that study. I would love to know how they even measured what is a useful compared ot useless emotion. I believe you made it up.
13. Incidentally, isn’t it possible that if we paid more attention to women’s cricket, more women may get interested in cricket? Isn’t it even slightly possible?
14. “It may not be the denial of gender, ”
So you admit you were deep into crazy town with that statement?
“but you’re certainly denying something and I would say that is a fault in your argument.~”
Fault in what I’m saying? Or fault in what you’re imagining I’m saying? They’re quite different.
15. So, women play sport for the love of the game and enjoyment of playing, which are pretty good reasons to playing. Therefore we should not recognise their achievements because they don’t want them.
You previously stated you don’t work for money, you work for your love of teaching. Naturally then, if they cut your salary to nothing, you get no positive feedback from students, that’s okay, because you don’t need that. Is that right? I mean, you don’t need money, or positive feedback, or any positive response whatsoever, so you don’t want any of it either, right?
16. What is your point here? Women play sport because they love sport, so we shouldn’t recognise their achievements or give them opportunities to reward that love with financial independence, fame and success. Meanwhile men also play sport becuase they love sport, and isn’t it great that we do recognise their achievements and given them opportunities to reward their love with financial independence, fame and success.
No idea what you’re getting at here. None at all.
I look forward to you ignoring more in the future-particularly your scientific studies that have found evil in the hearts of men, and other studies finding cheering ofr your team is a useless emotion.
It’s inevitable that any discussion on sexism ends up with sexist comments – pretty much confirming for me why we need to call out when people are being jerks (on both sides). Same with racism. Anyhow – Ellyse Perry doesn’t need confirmation from a bunch of wankers who think its okay to make these sorts of comments. If I was their wife/mother/sister I’d be very upset and dissappointed about a family member denigrating someones achievements because of their gender.
~Let me finish Jm~
Jm: I thought you were arguing from your own point of view. Apparently you’re not anymore.
~ You see this here? Where did you get this from? What is this in response to?~
Jm: “so you can watch the games you want to watch. They’re probably on the net or some random channels.” So, to be clear. You needing to switch off the tv to avoid watching women’s sport because you consider it meidocre is “OMG-feminists are trying to diminish the male gender!”
~How the? How did you get that from that. So, to be clear, you quote something I write, which was about easy access in this day and age to almost every game that’s being played. Then you use this quote to make the claim that I have an urge to actively avoid my television showing women in sport? What is the reasoning behind this linkage? I personally have to search many an interweb to find the sports I like watching because they are unpopular sports. If you are having difficulty accessing games in some leagues then I suggest you try the same. I don’t think you should try pushing said league onto prime-time television for reasons unknown. But seriously, how did you get that, from that.~
Jm: Me asking for equal opportunity and representation for women’s sport has the response of “Go find it somewhere. It probably exists-quit complaining”
~ I hereby would like announce that I want to see the chess masters games to be running alongside every Rugby game that’s on television because I want to go for my fav. player, and I want everyone else to as well. Seriously though, go find said game. If you want to watch it, go watch it. wtf? asking for equal opportunity and representation can only lead to equal audience reception, and if it doesn’t get that reception, it gets pulled.~
Jm: This is truly ridiculous, you know that. Equal opportunity is all I’m asking for. Equal opportunity means both sides of sport are advertised, are easy to access, and promoted equally. People can choose to watch or not watch.
What you’re suggesting is “Sport I consider mediocre should be allowed to be shown in places that are hard to find, not advertised at all, and therefore guaranteed never to be succesful, and I can feel justified!”
~That’s not what equal opportunity really means though, is it? For all you know, women’s sports have had equal opportunity to prove their entertainment value to the masses over the decades. It failed. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t get the opportunity to try. Also, there is just no such thing as ‘hard to find’. Google it. Find it. Watch it. Done.~
Jm: “Hey, I agree, put the on the TV or the interwebs or whatever they want to do. ”
Again, you didn’t think that earlier today. Did a bowling ball land on your head in the meantime?
~ Again, no. You misinterpreted my argument because you think having something accessible to watch and having ‘equal coverage’ mean the same thing. They certainly don’t. I’ll say it again, having more games accessible to watch would surely diminish the medias ability to produce ‘equal coverage’. You want every league in every sport to have the same coverage as the NRL? Good luck with that. By all means air them, access to the masses all the way. equal coverage? no.~
Jm: “Don’t cram them down my throat because I, along with the majority of Australians, want to watch our best teams compete. ”
How exactly are they going to be crammed down your throat? Are you suggesting you are going to be forced at gun point to watch them? Are you that paranoid?
Or, are you suggesting that advertising and promoting women’s sport, that would be considered “ramming down your throat”-which means you’re a bit too sensitive there. Which one? Are you paranoid and worried you’re going to be forced to watch women’s sport, or too sensitive and don’t want to see any advertising for women’s sport ever?
~ By advertising, duhhhh… in this quote, i’m referring to equal coverage of every mediocre league to the extent of the most popular top-tier leagues, do you know how much advertising time that would take? Or are you talking about only womens leagues? in that case, the following questions are moot because I was talking about all leagues. I said ‘cramming down my throat’ as expressive of how much advertising time sports would then take up.~
Jm: “Why do you think the Friday night NRL games are most heavily advertised? Because they are the teams on form.” Or, or because the teams are very popular, and have strong fan clubs. True, teams which win tend to get more fans, but fans aren’t particularly discerning at that point.
I mean, I’ve never seen a group of fans of NRL or AFL ever say “My team won, but they weren’t on top form, so I was dissapointed” I have seen a lot of people cheering “We won! Whooooooo!”
~ Just no. In the NRL, the only reason a team plays on a main event day is because they are high on the ladder, ie. they are on form. Nothing to do with popularity. I agree, most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their own team, I never said otherwise. Please, this time, if you claim that I have said otherwise, please find a direct quote and explain how it contradicts, because those other so-called ‘contradictions’ sounded like some primary-school logic.~
Jm: “This meme, however, is referring to a personally invested top-tier team for Australians having priority over a personally invested mediocre team for Australians.~”
You’re imagining things again. I get a real feeling from you that you feel your masculinity or male identity is constantly under threat, and that women can’t get things without you losing something. I saw it earlier when you said “If women take sport away from us, what will we have less” and more recently that “Feminists are trying to get rid of differences in the male gender” and now apparently this meme asking for attention and recognition of a succesful female sports team, and one athlete in particular, is translated to you as asking for “Priority”
~ JUST NO. You took it the wrong way again. I’m describing the ‘priority’ that the current A grade men’s team has in the opinion of the Australian culture. I’m not saying that the meme writer is asking for this athlete to have ‘priority’. I am simply stating facts about what is, I made no assertions as to what ought to be.~
Jm: Sit down, this will shock you. If women get more opportunities, men don’t get less. If women’s sport gets more attention, more opportunities, and promotions than it has previously, you have nothing to lose. Yet you’re afraid of it. You worry it’s going to be shoved down your throat, that it will mean the end of the male gender-why? What possible harm is it going to cause you?
~None. I’m telling you why it’s not going to happen. To maintain equal exposure, equal audience reception is required. everything you say, it’s just the same answer because the only arguments you are producing appeals, the actual content has no information or insight. It doesn’t hurt me at all. But the very essence of your argument is wrong. The majority of Australians simply don’t want the women’s league covering the same amount of television time as our top-tier leagues. Again, especially in the case of Newspaper articles. These certainly have finite room. If women’s sports are on prime-time television, then something else is simultaneously being taken off to accommodate for that time taken. Or, shows that are unpopular get relegated to non-invasive times on television and other areas. Or does that just seem a bit too realistic for you?~
Jm: “What I really said was that I agree with you, they should show it.”
And again-you didn’t think that earlier today. Are you going to change your thoughts every time you post?
~ I already answered this.~
Jm: “I don’t know if they already do because I just don’t know. ”
They don’t. If it is broadcasted (At all), it is never publicised to anywhere near as much of a degree as men’s sports. I’m not talking about 50% of the publicity male’s sports get. Even 10% would be an improvement!
“I’m pretty certain I’ve seen a fair amount of women playing sports on TV. Or an unfair amount, as I said, I don’t know.~”
You’re contradicting yourself in two sentences. In the first sentence you’re certain you’ve seen a fair amount. The second you don’t know if you’ve seen a fair amount. Do you know what you’re talking about now?
~ Firstly, I wasn’t talking about advertising or publicising, just airing. Do they air them? I don’t know and I don’t care because you can just go to the web like most people do if they love something that the majority of people don’t care about. Secondly, I have seen an amount of women’s sports on television, I’m not sure if the amount shown is totally fair or not. That’s what I meant, if you didn’t get that then you’re dumber than I thought. I’m not interested in such nitpicking details, as most games are certainly on the net. You like em? Go find em. Seriously.~
Jm: “Women obviously get some kind of recognition, this meme is recognition of her skill on its own. ” Memes are sufficient recognition now. A great sporting success for an Australian deserves the same attention as a tall cat, you think?
~ No, but it alludes to the fact that there was limelight stolen by the A grade cricketers. The author could have just as easily written “But no-one was watching because women’s cricket doesn’t get enough exposure”. But the author didn’t say that, they suggested that there was a fairly significant drop in recognition because another game was being played. It’s becoming more obvious to me that you never gave more than a quick glance at anything I wrote.~
Jm: “Also, I’m pretty sure you can find somewhere to watch most womens games. ”
So first you were you were certain I could. Then you were unsure. Now you’re pretty sure. Like I said, when it is not advertised, when it is not promoted, when it is not presented in a way that is easily accesible to the population, it has not been given anywhere near fair representation.
~ Oh go cry more, whinge whinge. Neither do my favourite leagues. But here’s a little secret, good people don’t do what they do for fame, they do it because they love doing it. If you are having difficulty following any teams you love with all this technology around, then maybe my assumptions about your illiteracy are true.~
“Some people would like our under 21s shown too and our B teams and it does happen occasionally on television.
To be clear, you’re comparing the greatest sportswomen in Australia to teenagers. You don’t have a problem with women at all, do you?
~To be clear, yes I am. Under 21s aren’t teenagers, they are mostly grown fit young men and they’re pretty mediocre. I would say about as mediocre as our best womens team. The higher the impact of the sport, the more these young guys would simply decimate the women. You’re a fool. Women are nurturers, lovers, carers, teachers, intellects, growers, business gurus, and just downright aesthetically more beautiful than men. I don’t have a problem with women, you do. You’re asking for women who have unequal skill sets in cricket, to get equal exposure, equal advertising, equal publicity and promotion, unequal competition and unequal audience reception. You’re all over the place.~
Jm: “The networks want money right? Advertising and playing popular sports is in their best interest. If they aren’t showing it, it’s because most people don’t want to watch it.” And again how do they know people don’t want to watch it if they haven’t ever tried it? Crystal ball?
~ Uhhhh statistics? Why do you think the Australian public was doubtful when SBS was going to show soccer but SBS did it anyway? Because they had a crystal ball? No, they have access to statistics.~
Jm: “This meme is evidence of women attempting to equalise in an area at which they are not equal. ” So a meme pointing out that we do not acknowledge successes amongst our female sportswomen was translated to you as “Women are trying to be equal in areas they are not equal” which lead to “Feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender!” – I think this says more about you, how you see feminism, how you see your own gender and feel about your masculinity than it says about feminism, this meme or anything else.
~ Getting all the way to “Feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender” just from the meme alone was a little crude. The implications it makes and certainly the actions you are suggesting are actually doing just that. equal exposure requires equal audience reception to be maintained. but there are a few reasons why women will never get equal audience reception. The audience is mostly male, and many of them only want to watch the best teams play. We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best. We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. I personally think that if you recognise the top female cricketer alongside the top male cricketer, even though the competition is so different, you are actually being sexist against men.~
Jm: “Just one example, the meme that I am referring to at the top of this page. ”
Wait, you are claiming that feminists want to remove men’s difference as a gender based on one, just one, meme which doesn’t even say what you want it to say!
There’s jumping to conclusions. Then there’s catapulting to conclusions.
~ What? You only asked me to give an example and I did. Just copy/paste this same argument for any impact sports. I can’t give any more examples because therein lies our biggest difference. Women are already taking over construction and the army and the rest and I’m totally cool with that because I don’t see any physical difference that would make men significantly better at those things. But if I can’t give you any examples other than impact sports, then doesn’t that help my argument as to why women should just leave this one area alone? And why this one area truly does mean something to so many men. We are better in impact sports, there’s really nothing else. So stop pleading for equality in the one area where it’s not there.~
Jm: “I don’t think it’s sexist, just our natural desire to want to watch better teams play.” Again, your belief that people watching sports only want the best teams tends to overlook how Australians competing tend to be more popular in Australia than non-Australians.
~Most Australians would still prefer to watch the best team we can muster. International A grade sporting events have consistently been the most popular. Statistics are fun 😀 ~
Jm: “My understanding of feminism throughout history has little impact on the argument I am making in relation to women in sports. ” Yes it does. Your understanding of feminism has lead to a persecution complex where you see any attempt at improving representation of women in sport as a threat to your masculinity. You have seen a request that women get more exposure in sport as an attempt to eradicate differences in the male gender. Your understanding feminism has completely written your understanding of this issue, and your fear that if women have more exposure as sportswomen, you will somehow lose your gender, have women’s sport crammed down your throat (Your words, not mine), and that you will be forced to all watch women’s sport.
~ You didn’t actually make any arguments here. You just disagreed with me using an incredible long-winded passage that really just reads “Yes it does”. You’ve got to answer ‘how?’ How has my understanding of feminist movement throughout history and the impacts it’s made on society changed anything I believe about this particular subject? I don’t believe it has because this particular areas is unique, because it’s based on physique, strength, body mass etc. and these things make large and significant differences to the way it is executed. No other feminist movement has pushed women for equality where those things matter so obviously. As I previously stated, in the end those things don’t really matter in construction or the army. So how? What other feminist movements am I claiming as illegitimate? None.~
Jm:“Yes, restricting the league to only Australians is not conducive of competition. If we opened AFL up to an international platform, I would be very, very happy with this.” So giving more opportunities for women’s sport to be shown on tv is not possible (As you said earlier today, before completely contradicting yourself tonight), but incorporating every country in the world into local games is something we do have channel space for.
~ Again, I didn’t ever claim that there was no room on tv for women’s sports to be aired. One last time – I was referring to ‘equal coverage’ there. I never made these claims so the question you’re asking is totally redundant.~
Jm: “Firstly, psychologists have recently concluded that the ‘cheer-for-our-team’ emotion is the only useless emotion that human brains create. ” Happiness in your teams’ success is a useless emotion? What more so than anger? Regret? I’d like to read that study. I would love to know how they even measured what is a useful compared ot useless emotion. I believe you made it up. And just so we’re clear here, you’re now saying that people cheering for their team are doing sport wrong. All those fans in their team colours, all those spectators with the green and gold-they’re the ones that are at fault. Is that right? They’re developing useless emotions?
~
~ Those other emotions you listed definitely have their uses. This one is, in a scientific sense, devoid of any rational reason for it’s existence. No, I think sports are very lucky that this emotion exists, maybe sports are the sole reason for it. If these sports are fulfilling these peoples desires to see someone who is not actually themselves win, then kudos. It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy.~
Jm: You know, for a guy who likes sport, it seems you have little relation to Australian sports fans. “I am simply communicating my personal preferences.”
Here’s the interesting thing about your personal preferecnes. When it comes to women’s sport, it’s not enough for you to switch off, as is your preference that no one can deny. You want it on a sub channel where it won’t be pushed down your throat at all. That’s your preference: “I don’t mind it being on. But I don’t want to know it’s on, or have any chance of seeing it by accident”
It kind of infringes on other people’s preferences, doens’t it?
~ I don’t want any mediocre leagues on a prime viewing station at all. I’m not sexist, I’m including men’s mediocre leagues in that. But couldn’t I just rebut with this: If you want to put a relatively unpopular sporting league on a prime viewing station then – ‘It kind of infringes on other people’s preferences, doesn’t it?’~
Jm: “Yet you are pleading for women to be recognised as equal in areas where they clearly aren’t.” Still making stuff up? I asked for equal opportunity for women to receive recognition for their sporting success. You have interpreted it as meaning “Women and men must have thier success viewed equally” which admittedly is easier to argue, but not what I was saying. “You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though the majority of cricket fans in Australia are male.” Again, never said that. Keep on being imaginative there! In your next response, no doubt, you’ll claim I said “Red is blue! Up is down!” which is even easier to argue. Again, I want equal opportunity for women to have their sporting achievement recognised. That includes being shown on a channel most Australians can access, at a time advertised and publicised to a similar degree as male’s sports are. If no one watches, fine. But give people a chance.
~ LOL Ok There’s two problems here. Firstly, having equal opportunity isn’t really the same as equal coverage, women have had thousands of years of equal opportunity to display their sporting vigor and entertainment value. More importantly, you are actually asking for equal audience reception when you ask for equal exposure. There is no way they would get the same exposure that the men’s NRL league gets and expect to maintain a stagnant audience reception. It would either have to become pretty much equal audience reception or it would have to be relegated back to having less exposure. Again, when you publicise something, who are you publicising it to? An audience. So no, I didn’t make anything up, another lie and another appeal to emotion.
Jm: Incidentally, isn’t it possible that if we paid more attention to women’s cricket, more women may get interested in cricket? Isn’t it even slightly possible?
“You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though their fastest bowlers average the same speeds as the men’s average bowlers. ”
Again, never said that. Just as you never said “Feminism wants to castrate me!” though it is easier to argue.
~ Uhh.. Statistics. Also, yes, you did say that, you just don’t know it because you’re not smart enough to understand simple cause and effect. LOL and then you go on to apparently quote me when I actually, truly, didn’t say ‘Feminism wants to castrate me!’~
Jm: “It may not be the denial of gender, ” So you admit you were deep into crazy town with that statement?
~ WRONG. I’m only contrasting against the absolute statements that you seem to be ‘summarising’ me with.~
Jm: “but you’re certainly denying something and I would say that is a fault in your argument” Fault in what I’m saying? Or fault in what you’re imagining I’m saying? They’re quite different.
~ Faults in what you don’t know that you’re saying.~
Jm:”Then why do they do it? It’s not for fame. It’s not for recognition, nor monetary gain. It’s for the love of the sport and the enjoyment of playing.”
So, women play sport for the love of the game and enjoyment of playing, which are pretty good reasons to playing. Therefore we should not recognise their achievements because they don’t want them.
You previously stated you don’t work for money, you work for your love of teaching. Naturally then, if they cut your salary to nothing, you get no positive feedback from students, that’s okay, because you don’t need that. Is that right? I mean, you don’t need money, or positive feedback, or any positive response whatsoever, so you don’t want any of it either, right?
~ Again, not a valid argument in the slightest. I happily receive any perk that comes with my job. My job doesn’t come with the ‘fame’ perk and I don’t care. I’m surprised you care so much about someone else’s fame. You’re so adamant they deserve more fame, probably more adamant then they are. But the true fans don’t care about how famous their hero is, they still copy their batting technique. These women still get paid, still wear sponsor clothing, still play the game they love, still get fans. What are you complaining about? Oh they need more? Sounds an aweful lot like you think they deserve to be rich. You’re shallow and money loving.~
Jm: “I submit to you that the men aren’t playing for this reason either. Sportspeople play because it is their calling and they love what they do.” What is your point here? Women play sport because they love sport, so we shouldn’t recognise their achievements or give them opportunities to reward that love with financial independence, fame and success. Meanwhile men also play sport becuase they love sport, and isn’t it great that we do recognise their achievements and given them opportunities to reward their love with financial independence, fame and success. No idea what you’re getting at here. None at all.
~ I have no idea what you’re getting at either because these women certainly have financial independence. They also have some fame. My definition of success is a little more worldly than yours (which is monetarily based), and I think that if they love what they do then they have succeeded. My point was that it shouldn’t matter which gender is more famous for their deeds because that’s not what they are in it for. You do what you love, whatever perks you gain along the way are yours. That’s how you succeed. Your arguments are not only invalid at a gender level, but also at a human and spiritual level.~
“~ You see this here? Where did you get this from? What is this in response to?~”
Your constant contradictions. Oh I’m sorry, I forgot. You don’t contradict yourself. When I suggested more women’s sport on tv you said that wouldn’t be possible, while thinking it was. Which isn’t a contradiction apparently.
” I don’t think you should try pushing said league onto prime-time television for reasons unknown. ”
I never said prime time, I said reasonable time. And having women’s sport on a channel that is hard to find, and is not advertised, is not a fair representation.
I ‘ve repeated this multiple times and you’ve ignored it every single time. I’m getting tired of repeating it, do you want me to pay for you to get a tattoo instead?
” But seriously, how did you get that, from that.~”
Again, I’m referring your persecution complex which underlies most of the beliefs you are expousing here. Also, reflecting that you see having women’s sport at an easily accessible channel and a reasonable time is terribly wrong, when if you don’t like it, all you’ll need to do is switch off. But rather than hampering you with switching off, you’d prefer if women’s sport is hid away and has to be searched for.
“~ I hereby would like announce that I want to see the chess masters games to be running alongside every Rugby game that’s on television because I want to go for my fav. player, and I want everyone else to as well. ”
You’re allowed to ask for that. Get people on side, call for it. Demanding everyone else watches it is something you want me to think, but as I’ve stated multiple times now (Another tattoo you might want to get), I am not demanding anyone watches it. I want people to have the opportunity for it.
” asking for equal opportunity and representation can only lead to equal audience reception, and if it doesn’t get that reception, it gets pulled.~ ”
That’s fine! Again, I am not demanding equal audience reception, just opportunity to get that reception, including publicity, accesibility, and promotion. It has not been tried. If it is tried and fails, absolutely move it to a poorer time slot.
Why is this so terrifying to you?
“or all you know, women’s sports have had equal opportunity to prove their entertainment value to the masses over the decades. It failed. ”
When? When did they try? What sports? What channels? How were they advertised? Let’s be honest, if there had been a serious attempt to publicise and advertise women’s sports-you and I would know about it. That’s the point of advertising.
The fact that neither of us can name an attempt by women’s sports to prove their entertainment value suggests to me that perhaps we have given it a go.
“Also, there is just no such thing as ‘hard to find’. Google it. Find it. Watch it. Done.~”
Yes there is such a thing as hard to find. If you have to search for something, it means only the truly committed and devoted fans watch-it doesn’t pick up new interest. Easy to find sports easily pick up new interest because everyone knows they are on, when they are on, what channels they are on, and then can choose to watch it.
Do you not see the difference here?
” I’ll say it again, having more games accessible to watch would surely diminish the medias ability to produce ‘equal coverage’. ”
As I’ve said before, I know we aren’t going to have completely equal coverage. But improved coverage between the two genders is enough for now.
“You want every league in every sport to have the same coverage as the NRL? ”
No I don’t. But keep on imagining stuff. IT sounds like it’s fun.
I’m am asking, again, for women’s sports, the sports they play which are popular, to be shown at an easily accesible time, on an easily accesible channel, with publicity and promotion to a comparable rate of male sport.
You have taken this to the extreme of “You want all the psorts all the time always! Impossible”-which again is easier to argue against, but it’s not what I’m saying.
“~ By advertising, duhhhh…”
So, let’s be clear. Men’s sport advertising is going to be shown to everyone whether they like it or not, but you demand that women’s sport advertising doesn’t get crammed down your throat? You only want to see the sport you want to see, and even a glimpse of it in advertising will make you angry, is that right?
Tell me, do you like every other ad you’ve ever seen in the world, and it’s just women’s sports you object to seeing ads for, or do you hate other ads too but only the prospect of women’s sport causes you to complain about the possibility of it being “crammed down your throat”?
“in that case, the following questions are moot because I was talking about all leagues. I said ‘cramming down my throat’ as expressive of how much advertising time sports would then take up.~”
Nice back pedal there. Going so fast! It’s incredible!
“I agree, most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their own team, I never said otherwise. ”
You did call that feeling useless, though. I imagine you’ll be telling rugby fans “You have useless emotions though!”
But thanks for agreeing with me. So as you have pointed out, most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their own team (Which would either contradict you when earlier you said the majority of Australians wnat the best of the best sport on tv, not just their favourite team playing, or require you to tell me that the majority of Australians aren’t fans of any football or NRL team, and only watch sport on tv to see the best of the best like you do. Which is it? The contradiction, or the total twister), giving opportunities for womens sports to be shown at better times on accesible channels may be succesful, as viewers will watch to cheer on their team, just as they do for NRL, right?
“Please, this time, if you claim that I have said otherwise, please find a direct quote and explain how it contradicts”
Certainly. You said earlier:
“Please, this time, if you claim that I have said otherwise, please find a direct quote and explain how it contradicts”
Which means you think the majority of Australians (Which is a bit of a big call, but not too surprising) watch sport to watch the best of the best, just like you do.
You have just said however:
“I agree, most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their own team, I never said otherwise. ”
Which states most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their team, regardless as to whether or not they are the best of the best.
So, I earlier suggested this was either a contradiction, or alternatively, you were going to tell me the majority of Australians are not fans of any NRL (And, let’s be honest, AFL, and A-league are the same) teams. It’s not neccessarily a contradiction, true, but to have it not be a contradiction, it would mean that fans of sports are the exception, not the rule.
“None”
Glad you could agree to me. Women’s sport attempting to have equal exposure will not harm you in anyway, so there’s no reason to challenge it. Bit of a turn around, but I’m glad we could come to an agreement.
“But the very essence of your argument is wrong.”
Oh, and we were going so well.
” The majority of Australians simply don’t want the women’s league covering the same amount of television time as our top-tier leagues.”
You’ve used the phrase “Majority of Australians” a lot in our discussion. So I’m going to call you up on it.
On what basis can you say you talk for the majority of Australians? On what basis can you be sure that the majority of Australians would reject women’s sport having the same amount of coverage as male sport? Do you have a science test that you made up? Have you looked into their hearts?
“Or, shows that are unpopular get relegated to non-invasive times on television and other areas. ”
Again, equal representation will be nice, but anything approximating that, any attempt to get closer to that will be an improvement. You see it as a threat.
” If women’s sports are on prime-time television, then something else is simultaneously being taken off to accommodate for that time taken. ”
I’ve never said prime time tv, I’ve said a good time slot. There’s a difference there. I’m not asking for prime time, just a time slot where you can be reasonably confident people would not have work.
“Or, shows that are unpopular get relegated to non-invasive times on television and other areas. ”
Again, seriously get a tattoo. I am fine with women’s sport if proven unpopular when given a fair chance, being moved to a different time slot. You have imagined I thought differently, because you want to argue a different point. May I suggest to make an imaginary friend to argue such points to.
“I don’t know and I don’t care because you can just go to the web like most people do if they love something that the majority of people don’t care about. ”
Again, you’re claiming to be talking on behalf a majority. On what basis do you say that?
“Secondly, I have seen an amount of women’s sports on television, I’m not sure if the amount shown is totally fair or not. That’s what I meant, ”
What channels? What sports? What times?
“If you are having difficulty following any teams you love with all this technology around, then maybe my assumptions about your illiteracy are true.~”
Personal attacks for the win. So classy!
“Under 21s aren’t teenagers, they are mostly grown fit young men and they’re pretty mediocre. ”
Legally, teenagehood in Australian family law runs up until 25 now.
“You’re a fool.”
And you’re a sexist. Let’s find out how the exact next sentence proves that.
“Women are nurturers, lovers, carers, teachers, intellects, growers, business gurus, and just downright aesthetically more beautiful than men. ”
Wow, what sexist gender roles. Let me guess, you thought about saying “Women can be whatever they want to be” but then realised you don’t think that at all. Men can be whatever they want to be, women can be the 8 things you listed here, and that’s it.
And remember how you said women aren’t judged as sexual objects-one of your 8 roles women can have is “beautiful”
Good on you. As soon as you can end up in the 1950’s you’re jumping off there, away from those evil feminists with their free drinks!
“I don’t have a problem with women, you do. You’re asking for women who have unequal skill sets in cricket, to get equal exposure, equal advertising, equal publicity and promotion, unequal competition and unequal audience reception. ”
So to be clear, me wanting better recognition for women who want to pursue sport to be recognised and celebrated for their success shows a problem with women. You on the other hand, when challenged for your sexism pull out 8 gender roles you see women as having, and not acknowledging anything else, showing you have no problem with women whatsoever, right?
“~ Uhhhh statistics? ”
What statistics? Show them.
“Why do you think the Australian public was doubtful when SBS was going to show soccer but SBS did it anyway? ”
Wait, so you’re saying the Australian public can be doubtful about whether a sport will be popular, and be wrong. Yet you still don’t want to give women’s sport a chance, because this time the majority of Australians (Which probably is entirely comprised by you and the three people you asked) are sure it won’t be popular.
“~ Getting all the way to “Feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender” just from the meme alone was a little crude. ”
Yes, it was crude. And crazy. Glad you’re admitting it. First step to sanity.
“The implications it makes and certainly the actions you are suggesting are actually doing just that. ”
Wait, now I’m trying to eradicate differences in the male gender?
“equal exposure requires equal audience reception to be maintained.”
And who said anything about forcing it to be maintained? I’ve said repeatedly (Get the tattoo) I want women’s sport to have a chance. If it fails, then it loses equal exposure, and goes back to the places you never need to see it and get scared.
“The audience is mostly male,”
Depending on the sport. NRL is mostly male. AFL is largely 50/50. Tennis also has a high percentage of female supporters.
“many of them only want to watch the best teams play. ”
Earlier it was the majority. Then it was “Most fans just wangt their team to win” and now it’s “many”
I can’t wait until it drops down to “some” “a few” and then “Me”
“We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best. ”
Wait, so now you’re defending men’s sport on behalf of guys who don’t like cricket?
Seriously you just get into arguments for fun, right? If women’s cricket was shown, you and the “majority” you imagine to have wouldn’t watch it, because you don’t like cricket anyway. What about all the people who do like cricket? Or do they not exist, and the majority of Australians have been tricked into thinking they do like cricket enough to watch it?
“We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. ”
What clubs? Not sporting clubs, because you’ve already said you’re not a fan, and apparently neither is anyone else in Australia. You’re telling me there’s an underground statistics ring, where the majority of Australian guys, and only guys, share notes about sports in general, not focusing on any one team as a fan.
Is it next door to Narnia, this club?
“I personally think that if you recognise the top female cricketer alongside the top male cricketer, even though the competition is so different, you are actually being sexist against men.~”
Okay, well you can think that. And in your magical club which appears to exist 60 years ago, you can discuss this, to your heart’s content.
“~ What? You only asked me to give an example and I did.”
It’s a huge leap to make to go from a meme that doesn’t say anything about erasing men’s difference as a gender to saying “Feminists are trying to erase men’s difference as a gender”
“I can’t give any more examples because therein lies our biggest difference. ”
Because they don’t exist.
“Women are already taking over construction and the army and the rest and I’m totally cool with that ”
Yep, because nothing says “I’m totally cool” like the phrase “Women are taking over….”
Seriously, I think you might not be as cool as you want to be with that. I’m sure you were the one very dissapointed to see women in the army (Because they’re meant to be beautiful nurturers and lovers).
“But if I can’t give you any examples other than impact sports, then doesn’t that help my argument as to why women should just leave this one area alone?”
Why? Why do we men need special places just for us? Women don’t have special places just for them-why do we get a “No women girls hating club” stamp on some of our areas?
And to be clear, you made an extreme statement about feminists trying to remove the difference in the male gender, without clarification, and are now saying that you only meant for contact sports.
“We are better in impact sports, there’s really nothing else. ”
We also rule the world. When you’re crying yourself to sleep about “Women are playing cricket-but that’s our thing, which I don’t even like, but women aren’t allowed to play”, remember that. We rule the entire world.
“~International A grade sporting events have consistently been the most popular. ”
International A grade sporting events are very popular. Like the Olympics (Male and female atheletes compete, both are given plenty of attention), Commonwealth games (Male and female atheletes compete, both are given plenty of attention), and most tennis tournaments (Male and female atheletes compete, both are given plenty of attention).
Whereas soccer is generally very popular, when Australia is doing well. The early matches of Australia competing get great ratings, but when Australia drops out, the ratings drop too. It almost seems like Australians like cheering for Australia more than they like to watch the best of the best perform. Which would suggest Australians may also like to cheer on female Australian athletes too.
But that would go against your belief that feminists are trying to get rid of differences in the male gender. So it must be wrong.
“Statistics are fun 😀 ”
You know, you can’t just say statistics over and over again without providing them. They don’t just suddenly appear, you know.
“How has my understanding of feminist movement throughout history and the impacts it’s made on society changed anything I believe about this particular subject?”
Because you have a persecution complex. You see women as invading “your” territory as a man (Using phrases like “women are taking over” is an example of that), and therefore see women getting the opportunity for more attention as a threat to you as a man.
This is the underlying belief behind everything you’ve written here. You have an idea of what a woman should be, and while you have reluctantly extended that to allow some areas such as military and construction (With great reluctance), you will fight tooth and claw to prevent women from occupying any other of your man’s space. You even described contact sports as a special thing for men that you see women taking away from you by being involved.
That’s your underlying belief. This isn’t about women’s sport, it’s not about feminism. It’s about you and your view of women which belongs in the 1950’s.
“~ Again, I didn’t ever claim that there was no room on tv for women’s sports to be aired.”
No, you said that we couldn’t show everything, but secretly thouht “I am okay with women’s sports being on television, but I won’t say so yet!’
Got it. No need to repeat.
“~ Those other emotions you listed definitely have their uses. ”
What benefit is regret? Please, describe how regret is helpful.
“This one is, in a scientific sense, devoid of any rational reason for it’s existence. ”
Except, you know, making people happy. Happiness leading to positive reactions all over the body. Sounds pretty useful to me.
I’m still waiting on that study by the way. I don’t think it exists. I think you made it up. Along with the study that found rape is caused by evil in the hearts of men.
“It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. ”
You mean it’s something you made up. But to be clear, you’re now saying that not only do the majority of Australians like sport, but do not support any particular team, but those that do have low IQ’s.
You have no evidence of this, because it’s not true. But it raises a bigger point here. You keep on saying you are talking about a majority of Australians, but who is this majority?
It’s not for people who like women in sport (Obviously)
It’s not people who like cricket-because you claim the majority of Australians barely like cricket.
It’s not for people who cheer on thier own side, because you consider them idiots.
Instead, you are telling me that the majority of Australians, who you are talking on behalf of, like sport without following any team (Including team Australia), hate cricket but watch it anyway (Yet are supremely intelligent), and only watch sport so they can discuss strategy and statistics with other similar people who love sport without supporting any particular team.
I want proof. I want proof that you are speaking on behalf of the majority of all Australians here. Because I think you are speaking on behalf of many 10 Australians, all of whom you know first hand, and meet at your special club, and have generalised those ten people to the entirety of Australia.
“~ I don’t want any mediocre leagues on a prime viewing station at all. I’m not sexist, I’m including men’s mediocre leagues in that. ”
So you’re not a sexist, because you want some men’s teams not to be on at a decent time, and ALL women’s teams to not be on at a different times.
Next you’ll be telling me “I’m not a sexist, I hate some men, and every single woman in the world!”
” If you want to put a relatively unpopular sporting league on a prime viewing station then – ‘It kind of infringes on other people’s preferences, doesn’t it?’~”
No, they can switch off. No one is forcing anyone to watch anything. They can choose not to.
” women have had thousands of years of equal opportunity to display their sporting vigor and entertainment value. ”
THOUSANDS OF YEARS! Are you shitting me? Are you honestly telling me that during the middle ages, when women didn’t have the freakin’ vote, nor the right to study, and were married off and impregnated at an early age, they had equal opportunity to show off their sporting skills? Are you seriously telling me this?
I seriously am starting to think you’re just shitting with me at this stage.
“More importantly, you are actually asking for equal audience reception when you ask for equal exposure.”
No am I not. You’re making that up again. I am asking for an opportunity to have improved audience reception through equal exposure. Like I said, get it tattooed, I’m tired of telling you this over and over again.
“It would either have to become pretty much equal audience reception or it would have to be relegated back to having less exposure.”
For the millionth time now, that’s okay. I’m not demanding it’s on at an easy time for all of eternity. I’m asking for it to be trialed, publicised, and given a chance. Your response is “Why weren’t there women practising sport during Viking incursions? They had their chance!”
“Again, when you publicise something, who are you publicising it to? An audience.”
Yes, to the audience. I don’t see what your complaint is here. I do think women’s sport should be advertised to a public. The public can choose to watch or not watch it. I don’t watch everytihng that’s advertised to me, do you?
“So no, I didn’t make anything up, another lie and another appeal to emotion.”
You did make it up. You are again annoyed that I am not saying what you want me to say, so you change what I say, and argue against that.
“~ Uhh.. Statistics. ”
You keep on saying that like you expect them to appear. They’re not hear. I can say stuff too and follow it up with statistics-doesn’t mean it’s true or making sense at all.
“Also, yes, you did say that, you just don’t know it because you’re not smart enough to understand simple cause and effect. ”
So, let’s be clear, you’re directly saying that I’m saying things that are different from what I mean, but only you can understand that, because you are the wise one, terrified that women are going to take sport away from you. Is that right? Because it sounds like you’ve come right out and said “I want to change what you say so I can argue against it better. Cool bro?”
Again, get it tattooed. I want an equal opportunity for women’s sport to increase their audience share. If that results in an equal audience share, of course I’ll be happy, but what I would like is just the opportunity. You seem to have problems understanding. Are you illiterate? I don’t think you should be teaching english if you are illiterate?
“LOL and then you go on to apparently quote me when I actually, truly, didn’t say ‘Feminism wants to castrate me!’~”
Well, to quote you, you did say that, you just didn’t know that, because you’re not smart enough to understand simple cause and effect, apparently.
What? If you can change what I say, and say I’m not smart enough to realise it, I can change what you say and so you’re not smart enough to realise it.
“~ WRONG. I’m only contrasting against the absolute statements that you seem to be ‘summarising’ me with.~”
So when you said your only example of denial of gender may not be a denial of gender, you weren’t contradicting yourself at all?
“~ Faults in what you don’t know that you’re saying.~”
Talks about faults, doesn’t present them. That would be hard. Much easier just to say the faults exist, right?
“I happily receive any perk that comes with my job. ”
Not what I was asking. I repeat- You previously stated you don’t work for money, you work for your love of teaching. Naturally then, if they cut your salary to nothing, you get no positive feedback from students, that’s okay, because you don’t need that. Is that right? I mean, you don’t need money, or positive feedback, or any positive response whatsoever, so you don’t want any of it either, right?
Or to put it simply, would you work for nothing?
“But the true fans don’t care about how famous their hero is, ”
I thought true fans were stupid? Didn’t you say that earlier? Now apparently you’re using them as an example.
And also, how does a person gets fans without any fame whatsoever?
“What are you complaining about? Oh they need more?”
Yes, especially as you seem to suggest the amount of fame female athletes deserve is a picture meme.
“Sounds an aweful lot like you think they deserve to be rich.”
No, I don’t. I think they deserve more attention. More money may come with this, but positive recognition is the main point.
“You’re shallow and money loving.~”
So classy. You’re a sexist who offers nothing to those in need by hollow statements. You have been born into a priveleged life where money was never in doubt, grown up into an adulthood where money was never in doubt, and so have the luxury of thinking it doesn’t matter to you.
Then you have the nerve to call other people, who see how poverty actually effects people, to see how people who have little money scrape to get by, who helps these people, with so called Christians like yourself doing nothing to help, be more financially secure, shallow amd money loving.
I’m a Christian, so I hope you never have to experience poverty. Never have to make a choice betwen food and rent. But I’d like you to get a chance to see it. Then you might just might realise you live in a bubble, a bubble of privelege where you simply don’t understand that hoping for the best, and doing nothing, doesn’t change anything.
” They also have some fame. ”
Honesty time-had you heard of any female cricketer before you read this article?
“My definition of success is a little more worldly than yours (which is monetarily based), ”
Oh fuck off. My definition of success is happiness more times than not. Yes, money comes into play with that because if you are able to afford rent, food, and to care for your family, happiness occurs much more easily.
Your definition of success is monetarily based also, but because you have always lived in luxury you don’t have to acknowledge it. For example, if you lost your house, your income, everything you owned, had your job changed to unpaid volunteer, and had to live on the streets-how succesful would you feel? Be honest.
“My point was that it shouldn’t matter which gender is more famous for their deeds because that’s not what they are in it for. ”
If it shouldn’t matter, why shouldn’t it be women? I agree, it shouldn’t matter which gender is more famous-so let’s give women athletes a shot and see how famous they become by showing them off and being proud of them, through promotion, advertising and easily found reception.
“You do what you love, whatever perks you gain along the way are yours. That’s how you succeed. ”
There’s a guy I know about, he’s a teacher in Melbourne. Loves teaching, can’t find a job so has to do volunteer work teaching english. Is currently on a newstart allowance and is wondering how he will make rent when it is cut, as is expected.
He still loves teaching though. So, by your definition, he should be thinking of himself as succesful, as he goes to sleep under a bridge?
“Your arguments are not only invalid at a gender level, but also at a human and spiritual level.~”
Listen, logic, you need to make a choice. You can either sound like a robot, saying things like “Your argument is invalid” and “You are being emotional-error, error”, or you can sound like a human being and complaing about poor examples of spirtualism and humanism. You can’t be a spiritualist robot.
And, please, define humanism for me. Tell me how humanist you are as you tell people who’ve lost their homes “You don’t need a home-you just need to do something you love, then everything else will sort itself out. Let’s find you something you can love while you’re homeless”
I’d love to know!
Jm: “I have explained before why I want equal exposure, but do not demand equal audience reception.”
Jm: “I believe I did say that women’s sports should have the same exposure, with the same level of publicity as male sport.”
Jm: “And who said anything about forcing it to be maintained?”
Jm: “I am not demanding equal audience reception”
Jm: “I never said prime time, I said reasonable time.”
Jm: “As I’ve said before, I know we aren’t going to have completely equal coverage.”
~ So.. you want equal exposure, but not prime-time viewing, which one would think is inclusive in ‘equal exposure’.
Oh, I get it, you want the opportunity for equal audience reception using equal exposure, but only for a little while because in the end you ‘know we aren’t going to have completely equal coverage’.
No no, you think there should be maintained equal exposure but equal audience reception doesn’t matter (but it does). Oh, it’s only maintained IF they get equal audience reception? Then why do you say that you ‘know we aren’t going to have completely equal coverage’?
Ok, so you want a group of people who have unequal skill sets to get equal exposure, equal advertising, equal publicity, equal promotion, unequal viewing slots, unequal levels of competition, and inevitably unequal audience reception because you know you can only get unequal coverage.~
WAIT. NOW I get it. I’m being trolled.
Funny. I’m being accused of being a troll by a guy who claims to speak on behalf othe majority of Australia-a majority who hate cricket but watch it anyway, support no particular sports teams (Because fans are idiots-imaginary science says so!), and only watch sport to compare notes they make at a club afterwards….a club which, by the way, totally exists and isn’t something logic just made up after reading too many 19th century novels. I’m being accused of being a troll by a guy who says women have had thousands of years to prove themselves in sports, while most sports are lress than a thousand years old, and women until recently were treated as property without the right to work, or be independant in any way.
Logic, you’ve written all these things. You’ve made these crazy claims. If the person you are arguing against is making reasonable claims which you have to turn into extremes in order to disagree with them, maybe you’re not as logical as you thought.
Anyway, what’s so hard to understand? I would like equal coverage, but I am aware this is not going to happen. So instead I ask for a reasonable time, a time people can watch without skipping work, on a time that’s advertised.
I would like a chance for equal audience numbers, but I know that won’t happen immediatly, so instead I would be happy to give them a fair chance (Including advertising and promotion and easy accesibility) to increae their ratings and gain an audience.
It’s called asking for a small realistic change, instead of demanding a huge unrealistic one. You don’t understand that because, to be honest, you like leaping to extremes. Hence “Women are trying to eradicate differences in the male gender” and translating “Women don’t need men” as meaning “Women are going to make babies with test tubes”
I admit, it is easier to argue against extremes, but that’s not what I’ve been saying. You have chosen to misinterpret what I’m saying so it’s easier to argue, and in the hope I’ll overlook you’re quite frankly ignorant and crazy statements.
No such luck though. Here we go again:
1. “Also, if I’m “agreeing to crazy things” then that implies the person I’m responding to is suggesting crazy things. ”
So the only reason you’re saying “Feminists are trying to destroy masculinity” is because I’m sayign crazy stuff like “I’d like women to have equal opportunity for recognition in sport” ?
2. “~ I will say this once more for your obviously inferior mind.”
Didn’t you just start by complaining my arguments were at a personal level? Hypocrisy much?
3. “Sexist remarks don’t lead to rape, every study confirms this. ”
You said earleir that there was a relationship between sexual objectification and rape. Now you say that every study, every single study doesn’t show this. I await your source.
4. “~ But that doesn’t matter because you’re taking what I’ve said out of context. ”
You said that cannibalism by feminists wwas less common than rape because it was less extreme. I again put it to you that there have been 0 cases of cannibalism by feminists, and plenty of examples of rape. I asked you to prove me wrong. You can’t.
5. Tell me, do you honestly think that slaves think to themselves “Well, at least I’m not being eaten alive” or do they not feel grateful for this.
6. Let me break this down to you. We both think a rapist should go to prison.
What about the people who support the rapist? The ones who told him “She really wants it, and ignore it when she says no” the one who says “Don’t take no for an answer, a no is just a yes in disguise”-are these perfectly fine people who have nothing to answer for? What about the people saying of the victim “Well, she did wear revealing clothes” or “What was she doing at night on her own” or “She went back to his place, what did she think was going to happen?”-these are people who have no responsibility when rape occurs?
7. There’s logic for you. Rape is called by the evil that lives in the heart of man. So, in other words, rapists are born with evil in them.
Or are you saying all men have evil rape inside them, but some have it better under control? I don’t know which is worse-evil babies, or everyone’s potentially evil.
8. Please, tell me about all the studies that have found evil lives in the hearts of man. How did they research the existence of evil? Does it count as criminology, psychology, or theology?
9. “All these people are sick (whether criminally or mentally) and need to be put in jail.”
But they’re not, logic. Rape conviction rates are incredibly low. So how can that be? How can police and juries not see the “evil that lives in the heart of man”-do they not have “evil detection” machines in court now?
Or, could it be, that society supports the rapist, by asking victims “How many sexual partners did you have?” “What were you wearing?” “Why did you go back to the accused’s house on your own?”
10. “because you would understand that I was hypothetically following the ideologies and actions behind the remark ‘all men are pigs’.~”
So you look into the hypothetical actions of someone thinking of men as a pig, which have never happened, and somehow think it’s worth comparing to the actual actions of someone who thinks women are sex objects. Totally fair!
11. “That stuff happens here, but we are talking about women being treated first and foremost as sex objects. ”
So women are treated as sex objects, but they are treated as human beings. But human beings who are judged on the way they look in a way that men aren’t.
Or are you telling me that when women in your town are told they need to look better, those making those comments to women are quick to preface it with “Not that I’m judging you on your looks or anything, but….”
12. “If any suffering occurs, the individual can learn from it. If she places her faith in God, everything will work out in the end. ”
Great. So I’m going to see a parent tomorrow who is unable to afford for her child’s medication. Should I work with her to investigate financial counselling, learning to make a budget, contacting those she owes money in order to delay payments, look into charity support, or tell her “If you trust God, everything will be okay”? Let me know which you recommend.
13. ” Some suffering is necessary for learning. ”
You would honestly tell a woman who is about to be evicted from her home with her six kids and has no place to live that she should think of it as a learning experience? Isn’t that a little heartless?
14. “Maybe the children will find their calling in life so they may be successful. ”
And how will they do that if they’re living on the streets? How will they do that as they move from school to school as their parents chase the hope of a job somehwere?
15. “Maybe the mother will realise that she has other callings in life that she must accomplish. ”
And how is a woman with no money, being evicted, going to be able to access those callings? She has no money for training, no time to train, no capital to start up a business-how is she going to do that?
16. “Also, if I could say these things to this hypothetical family, I would also help them out in any way I can. ”
With money or with God’s love? Which? Again, God’s love is great, but we do not live in a theocracy. You cannot get those families out of a burden by hope alone. Action is required, and in many cases, action requires money.
I mean, look at the multiple christian charity groups operating in Australia. They do great stuff, and the reason they are able to do great stuff isn’t because they are deeply religious people, but because they are able to manage finances, get donations, and use that money in productive ways. It sounds like if you were running them, you’d want all fundraising to stop and be replaced by a prayer-in.
17. “With the money that God has provided because of His love. ”
So money then?
18. ” So when you claimed that the saucepan is less symbolic of success than the hammer, you just showed your true colours as just another one of the sheeple. ”
Sheeple? What are you-a christian ayn rand devotee? How does seeing most people as sheep negatively fit with Christ’s love? Love one another as I have loved you-don’t remember that including “Including those annoying sheeple”
19. Again, I live in a capitlaist society. Who is rewarded in this society, congratulated by government and has an easier life? Those who have an income, or those who do not? I look forward to your continual insistance that apparently people are rewarded in this world by religious devotion alone (Unlike what I was raised up as a Anglican to bleieve that we are rewarded in our next life, and sufferring exists in this world so that good Christians can try to alleviate it).
20. “Everyone has their own talents and don’t you dare diminish that.~”
Where have I ever tried to deiminish it? I’m not the one calling people “sheeple” and telling the poor to just “Believe in God and everything will work out. Enjoy your homelessness!”
21. ““most murders are not caused by sub human remarks”. No murders are caused by these remarks.”
Again, sub human remarks are an example of a culture where some people are considered sub human, which has lead to the holocaust, lynchings. Let me guess-the holocaust was caused by evil in the hearts of men, not the German people being taught through non stop propoganda that Jews were evil, right?
22. “~ “Women don’t need men”. I’ve heard that said a few times. ”
It’s true. Men don’t need women either. Both can be perfectly happy separated, but it they chose to join it should be cause they want to be togethner-not because they “need”
23. ” I think it’s in reference to test-tube babies and how the human race could continue without men because of this technology.
Catapulting to conclusions there a little. Again, a statement encouraging independance of womne, encouraging women to succeed on their own, without being reliant on men is translated to “Women want test tube babies! What about the menzzzzz!”
24. How exactly are women allowed to be independent of men without you seeing it as a threat to you?
25. “But if she is still much slower than most of the male runners, then I personally wouldn’t celebrate her ‘greatness’ because, in my opinion, she is racing in a non-competitive league.~”
So you object, naturally, to female atheletes in track and swimming events in the olympics getting equal attention as male atheletes? Right?
26. “~ Why does it? I have fans of my chess prowess, does that justify me to have the same representation as our best teams of our favourite games? ”
So, t obe clear, you’re comparign chess, which is not popular in Australia for either gender, to women’s sport, which is popular among women who like sport. Right?
27. ” Trust me, that’s not because of a lack of representation, that’s because of a lack of caring.”
Trust you? Why would I want to do that? Do you have a scientific study telling me that not trusting you isn’t useless?
28. “If it’s available to watch at all, that should be enough.”
It’s not easily available to watch, so we agree it’s not enough then.
29. “If they got the same glory and pay as men, but were significantly worse at cricket, isn’t that sexist against men?”
They’re not going to have the same amount as glory as men, we all know that. But to have even a comparable level of glory, to be in the same range, that would be a start, wouldn’t it?
30. “If the mediocre team or league is accessible to those who want to watch it, that is enough.~ ”
So, to be clear, you want women’s sport to be accessible to those who want to watch it, while men’s sport is easily accessible to anyone, whether they want to watch it or not?
31. “Feminist activists aren’t trying to eradicate all the differences of course, they still love the perks of men buying them drinks, and women practically always getting custody of children during a break-up.~”
Men’s right activist, anyone? Let me guess, things were so much simpler in the 50′s, before all these new fangled divorces, and women’s rights. Telling a woman that she should stay in the kitchen is a reward, right?
32. And you’re not providing any examples of feminists trying to eradicate difference in the male gender. You just say “The sport-the sport is proof” and ignore possibility that women want women’s sport to be supported to some degree, not replacing men at all.
33. So when I first mentioned allowing more women’s sports, you said it was impossible because there are too many sports, but you still secretly thoguht that more sports on tv, including women’s sports was good. Is that right?
34. “I saw a game of women’s cricket on TV last year. ”
What channel? Where was it advertised? How did people find out about it?
35. “They don’t advertise them or have them on at prime-time because they won’t hit their viewer targets. ”
So they don’t advertise because they won’t get veiwing figures. But they don’t get viewing figures because they don’t advertise.
Nice little circular logic loop you got going there.
36. “Buddy, listen to me, if you have women’s cricket on channel 7 at 7pm a LOT of people are going to change the channel.~”
Again, when have we ever tried to advertise women’s sport to a comparable degree as we do men’s sports?
37. ” Having top-skilled, top-tier games on at the same time isn’t a condition I’ve demanded, it’s just very likely. ”
How is it likely? We already space out less popular sports to avoid conflict, why not do that also with women’s source?
38. You’re spending a lot of time building a wall to block out women’s sport, then saying “Look-it would be nice if we had women’s sport, but there’s no way they could get through this wall” What is your real problem with women’s sport being on tv? Is it your male persecution complex?
39. “~Why would you want equal exposure without equal reception? ”
So I say something, you choose to argue a different point, and whe nI point out that’s not my point, you respond with “Why isn’t it your point?”
40. You’re setting up conditions that guarantee failure for women’s sport to justify your own crusade againast thme. What is your real problem with women, logic? You seem to have a huge persecution complex about them, and feminists in particular.
41. “I know the only reason most men would watch it, and it’s got nothing to do with stopping sexism in sports.~”
They can watch it because they want to cheer on their side, or see great sports people do greatthings perhaps?
Or are you going to come out and say what you’re alluding to here.
42. “~ Yes, they have. And no, it won’t get the same audience reception. ”
Who has tried it, and when. What sports? Or is this another one of your science studies that probably doesn’t exist?
43. “Oh yeah the soccer, you mean our A league? You mean how they started showing the best soccer games Australia has to offer without going international? Yeah, funny how that got popular hey.~”
So an unfair test of skill then, right? I mean, the best soccer Austrlaia has is nowhere near the best in the world.
But somehow it’s gone well, making a lot on pay tv ratings, heading over to free to air tv now. I’ts almost like people like cheering for a team or something. You better tell them how science says that’s useless!
44. Now you call me a liar. where have I lied? Tell me specifically where I have lied.
45. “or all you know, women’s sports have had equal opportunity to prove their entertainment value to the masses over the decades. It failed. ”
When? When did they try? What sports? What channels? How were they advertised? Let’s be honest, if there had been a serious attempt to publicise and advertise women’s sports-you and I would know about it. That’s the point of advertising.
The fact that neither of us can name an attempt by women’s sports to prove their entertainment value suggests to me that perhaps we have given it a go.
46. “Also, there is just no such thing as ‘hard to find’. Google it. Find it. Watch it. Done.~”
Yes there is such a thing as hard to find. If you have to search for something, it means only the truly committed and devoted fans watch-it doesn’t pick up new interest. Easy to find sports easily pick up new interest because everyone knows they are on, when they are on, what channels they are on, and then can choose to watch it.
Do you not see the difference here?
47. So, let’s be clear. Men’s sport advertising is going to be shown to everyone whether they like it or not, but you demand that women’s sport advertising doesn’t get crammed down your throat? You only want to see the sport you want to see, and even a glimpse of it in advertising will make you angry, is that right?
Tell me, do you like every other ad you’ve ever seen in the world, and it’s just women’s sports you object to seeing ads for, or do you hate other ads too but only the prospect of women’s sport causes you to complain about the possibility of it being “crammed down your throat”?
48. So as you have pointed out, most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their own team (Which would either contradict you when earlier you said the majority of Australians wnat the best of the best sport on tv, not just their favourite team playing, or require you to tell me that the majority of Australians aren’t fans of any football or NRL team, and only watch sport on tv to see the best of the best like you do. Which is it? The contradiction, or the total twister), giving opportunities for womens sports to be shown at better times on accesible channels may be succesful, as viewers will watch to cheer on their team, just as they do for NRL, right?
49. ” The majority of Australians simply don’t want the women’s league covering the same amount of television time as our top-tier leagues.”
You’ve used the phrase “Majority of Australians” a lot in our discussion. So I’m going to call you up on it.
On what basis can you say you talk for the majority of Australians? On what basis can you be sure that the majority of Australians would reject women’s sport having the same amount of coverage as male sport? Do you have a science test that you made up? Have you looked into their hearts?
50. “I don’t know and I don’t care because you can just go to the web like most people do if they love something that the majority of people don’t care about. ”
Again, you’re claiming to be talking on behalf a majority. On what basis do you say that?
51. “Women are nurturers, lovers, carers, teachers, intellects, growers, business gurus, and just downright aesthetically more beautiful than men. ”
Wow, what sexist gender roles. Let me guess, you thought about saying “Women can be whatever they want to be” but then realised you don’t think that at all. Men can be whatever they want to be, women can be the 8 things you listed here, and that’s it, right?
And remember how you said women aren’t judged as sexual objects-one of your 8 roles women can have is “beautiful”
52. So to be clear, me wanting better recognition for women who want to pursue sport to be recognised and celebrated for their success shows a problem with women. You on the other hand, when challenged for your sexism pull out 8 gender roles you see women as having, and not acknowledging anything else, showing you have no problem with women whatsoever, right?
53. So to be clear, me wanting better recognition for women who want to pursue sport to be recognised and celebrated for their success shows a problem with women. You on the other hand, when challenged for your sexism pull out 8 gender roles you see women as having, and not acknowledging anything else, showing you have no problem with women whatsoever, right?
54. Wait, so you’re saying the Australian public can be doubtful about whether a sport will be popular, and be wrong, right? Yet you still don’t want to give women’s sport a chance, because this time the majority of Australians (Which probably is entirely comprised by you and the three people you asked) are sure it won’t be popular.
55. “The implications it makes and certainly the actions you are suggesting are actually doing just that. ”
Wait, now I’m trying to eradicate differences in the male gender?
56. “We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best. ”
Wait, so now you’re defending men’s sport on behalf of guys who don’t like cricket?
Seriously you just get into arguments for fun, right? If women’s cricket was shown, you and the “majority” you imagine to have wouldn’t watch it, because you don’t like cricket anyway. What about all the people who do like cricket? Or do they not exist, and the majority of Australians have been tricked into thinking they do like cricket enough to watch it?
57. “We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. ”
What clubs? Not sporting clubs, because you’ve already said you’re not a fan, and apparently neither is anyone else in Australia. You’re telling me there’s an underground statistics ring, where the majority of Australian guys, and only guys, share notes about sports in general, not focusing on any one team as a fan.
58. “Women are already taking over construction and the army and the rest and I’m totally cool with that ”
Yep, because nothing says “I’m totally cool” like the phrase “Women are taking over….”
59. “But if I can’t give you any examples other than impact sports, then doesn’t that help my argument as to why women should just leave this one area alone?”
Why? Why do we men need special places just for us? Women don’t have special places just for them-why do we get a “No women girls hating club” stamp on some of our areas?
And to be clear, you made an extreme statement about feminists trying to remove the difference in the male gender, without clarification, and are now saying that you only meant for contact sports. Right?
60. “But if I can’t give you any examples other than impact sports, then doesn’t that help my argument as to why women should just leave this one area alone?”
Why? Why do we men need special places just for us? Women don’t have special places just for them-why do we get a “No women girls hating club” stamp on some of our areas?
And to be clear, you made an extreme statement about feminists trying to remove the difference in the male gender, without clarification, and are now saying that you only meant for contact sports.
61. “Statistics are fun 😀 ”
You know, you can’t just say statistics over and over again without providing them. They don’t just suddenly appear, you know.
62. “~ Those other emotions you listed definitely have their uses. ”
What benefit is regret? Please, describe how regret is helpful.
63. “This one is, in a scientific sense, devoid of any rational reason for it’s existence. ”
Except, you know, making people happy. Happiness leading to positive reactions all over the body. Sounds pretty useful to me.
I’m still waiting on that study by the way. I don’t think it exists. I think you made it up. Along with the study that found rape is caused by evil in the hearts of men.
64. “It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. ”
You mean it’s something you made up.
65. But to be clear, you’re now saying that not only do the majority of Australians like sport, but do not support any particular team, but those that do have low IQ’s.
You have no evidence of this, because it’s not true. But it raises a bigger point here. You keep on saying you are talking about a majority of Australians, but who is this majority?
It’s not for people who like women in sport (Obviously)
It’s not people who like cricket-because you claim the majority of Australians barely like cricket.
It’s not for people who cheer on thier own side, because you consider them idiots.
Instead, you are telling me that the majority of Australians, who you are talking on behalf of, like sport without following any team (Including team Australia), hate cricket but watch it anyway (Yet are supremely intelligent), and only watch sport so they can discuss strategy and statistics with other similar people who love sport without supporting any particular team.
I want proof. I want proof that you are speaking on behalf of the majority of all Australians here. Because I think you are speaking on behalf of many 10 Australians, all of whom you know first hand, and meet at your special club, and have generalised those ten people to the entirety of Australia.
66. “~ I don’t want any mediocre leagues on a prime viewing station at all. I’m not sexist, I’m including men’s mediocre leagues in that. ”
So you’re not a sexist, because you want some men’s teams not to be on at a decent time, and ALL women’s teams to not be on at a different times.
Next you’ll be telling me “I’m not a sexist, I hate some men, and every single woman in the world!”
67. ” If you want to put a relatively unpopular sporting league on a prime viewing station then – ‘It kind of infringes on other people’s preferences, doesn’t it?’~”
No, they can switch off. No one is forcing anyone to watch anything. They can choose not to.
68. ” women have had thousands of years of equal opportunity to display their sporting vigor and entertainment value. ”
THOUSANDS OF YEARS! Are you shitting me? Are you honestly telling me that during the middle ages, when women didn’t have the freakin’ vote, nor the right to study, and were married off and impregnated at an early age, they had equal opportunity to show off their sporting skills? Are you seriously telling me this?
I seriously am starting to think you’re just shitting with me at this stage.
69. “Again, when you publicise something, who are you publicising it to? An audience.”
Yes, to the audience. I don’t see what your complaint is here. I do think women’s sport should be advertised to a public. The public can choose to watch or not watch it. I don’t watch everytihng that’s advertised to me, do you?
70. “~ WRONG. I’m only contrasting against the absolute statements that you seem to be ‘summarising’ me with.~”
So when you said your only example of denial of gender may not be a denial of gender, you weren’t contradicting yourself at all?
71. “~ Faults in what you don’t know that you’re saying.~”
Talks about faults, doesn’t present them. That would be hard. Much easier just to say the faults exist, right?
72. You previously stated you don’t work for money, you work for your love of teaching. Naturally then, if they cut your salary to nothing, you get no positive feedback from students, that’s okay, because you don’t need that. Is that right? I mean, you don’t need money, or positive feedback, or any positive response whatsoever, so you don’t want any of it either, right?
Or to put it simply, would you work for nothing?
73. “But the true fans don’t care about how famous their hero is, ”
I thought true fans were stupid? Didn’t you say that earlier? Now apparently you’re using them as an example.
And also, how does a person gets fans without any fame whatsoever?
74. ” They also have some fame. ”
Honesty time-had you heard of any female cricketer before you read this article?
75. “My definition of success is a little more worldly than yours (which is monetarily based), ”
Oh fuck off. My definition of success is happiness more times than not. Yes, money comes into play with that because if you are able to afford rent, food, and to care for your family, happiness occurs much more easily.
Your definition of success is monetarily based also, but because you have always lived in luxury you don’t have to acknowledge it. For example, if you lost your house, your income, everything you owned, had your job changed to unpaid volunteer, and had to live on the streets-how succesful would you feel? Be honest.
76. “My point was that it shouldn’t matter which gender is more famous for their deeds because that’s not what they are in it for. ”
If it shouldn’t matter, why shouldn’t it be women? I agree, it shouldn’t matter which gender is more famous-so let’s give women athletes a shot and see how famous they become by showing them off and being proud of them, through promotion, advertising and easily found reception.
77. “You do what you love, whatever perks you gain along the way are yours. That’s how you succeed. ”
There’s a guy I know about, he’s a teacher in Melbourne. Loves teaching, can’t find a job so has to do volunteer work teaching english. Is currently on a newstart allowance and is wondering how he will make rent when it is cut, as is expected.
He still loves teaching though. So, by your definition, he should be thinking of himself as succesful, as he goes to sleep under a bridge?
78. And, please, define humanism for me. Tell me how humanist you are as you tell people who’ve lost their homes “You don’t need a home-you just need to do something you love, then everything else will sort itself out. Let’s find you something you can love while you’re homeless”
“Funny. I’m being accused of being a troll by a guy who claims to speak on behalf othe majority of Australia-a majority who hate cricket but watch it anyway, support no particular sports teams (Because fans are idiots-imaginary science says so!), and only watch sport to compare notes they make at a club afterwards”
~I stopped reading here. I never said this. I said I am in the majority of cricket viewers because I only watch our top league. I also said that, unlike the majority, I watch to analyse strategies and techniques, whereas most people watch to cheer for their team. When did I say that the majority of cricket viewers also do that? You just misinterpret the text, pretend to directly quote me, add your own twist, and call it ‘summarising’. This is not the first time you’ve done this, most of your arguments are against points I’m not even making. I’m not reading this dribble if your very first point is just slandering lies. We’re going in circles because every answer just involves repeating what I’ve already said in a way that is accessible to someone with the comprehension skills of a 5th grader.~
“I said I am in the majority of cricket viewers because I only watch our top league. ”
Here is your exact quote:
“but there are a few reasons why women will never get equal audience reception. The audience is mostly male, and many of them only want to watch the best teams play. We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best. ”
Where did you say you are only speaking on behalf of the majority of cricket viewers? Because I do see you saying the majority of Australians don’t like cricket, but watch it anyway right here.
And before you start telling me: “Well obviously I meant only cricket viewers”, that doesn’t make sense either. Are you trying to tell me that when you wrote “We don’t like cricket all that much” you were referring to the majority of cricket viewers? You were saying “The majority of cricket viewers don’t like cricket”?
This is you backpedalling yet again. Not enough changing what I wrote, you now have to change what you wrote too. Just admit, you said something stupid, decided that the majority of Australians had your mind, and didn’t think it through.
“I also said that, unlike the majority, I watch to analyse strategies and techniques, whereas most people watch to cheer for their team. ”
Again, you didn’t. Here’s your exact line:
“We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. ”
Where did you say “Unlike the majority”-where did you say “This action applies to me and not a lot of other people”
Hell, where did you even use the word “I”? You were talking in in the plural. And what makes it even more damning is that that sentence occurs right after you talk on behalf of the majority of Australains (Or even the majority of cricket viewers as you have since claimed you met).
So you either have said something you now regret, or you went from talking about the majority of Australian cricket viewers (Which you are claiming don’t actually like cricket), to talking about what the majority don’t do in the space of two sentences, without any change in language being used at all, which suggests English language probably shouldn’t be a class you’re teaching.
Let me break down what’s actually happened, or at least what I think has happened. You said some crazy stuff here, and in order to give it some weight (Of which it had little), you claimed to be talking on behalf of the entire country, when really you are just talking on behalf of you. Nothing wrong with that-I’m talking on my behalf as well, I don’t pretend the majority care what I think.
However, when I call you out on your claims to be talking on behalf of the majority, you quickly realised that you had no idea if you talked on behalf of the majority, and in a few cases were sure you didn’t, so instead of saying “Yeah, fair enough. I guess I’m just talking on my own behalf” (Which again is fine, your argument would have just as much weight as my own)- you claim that I’ve lied, rewriting your sentences and hope I won’t bother to do a qucik search for what you actually did write.
I don’t think it worked, do you?
“When did I say that the majority of cricket viewers also do that? ”
Now that I’ve pointed it out to you, do you see it now? Or are you going to tell me these two sentences “The majority of cricket fans don’t like cricket. And we like to compare stats with our friends at the club” are actually meaning “The majority of cricket fans prefer the best games. And I like comparing stats with friends, definitely not the majority I was referring to in the first sentence”?
Good luck with that.
“This is not the first time you’ve done this, most of your arguments are against points I’m not even making. ”
What arguments am I making that are against points you haven’t made? And didn’t you complain earlier that all I was doing was arguing against your points?
“I’m not reading this dribble if your very first point is just slandering lies. ”
If that makes you feel better, fine. You have tried to lie about what you have wrote because it’s embarrassing, and worse, you have been unsuccesful. If you want to blame me for it, go ahead. It’s your life.
But you know you wrote stupid stuff here. No matter what you try and tell yourself, you know it. I know it. And any poor fool who reads through this mass of text will know it too.
“We’re going in circles because every answer just involves repeating what I’ve already said in a way that is accessible to someone with the comprehension skills of a 5th grader.~”
Hell, when have you repeated anything? Meanwhile I have to explain my belief to the point I am willing to pay for you to have it tattood because you’re annoyed that I’m not asking for an extreme result, which you’d find easy to argue.
Now, you’re a teacher, so you tell me-and what year level would you classify a student who repeatedly receives information, but denies it because they don’t like it?
Anyway, good night logic. If this is the last I hear from you, I wish you all the best in life, and hope you can manage to break your fear that women are going to steal all your special places, eradicate the differences in the male gender, and force you to watch women’s sports. Feminists are actually very nice people-you should try meeting some, instead of being terrified of them all the time.
Lets all abuse men in their entirety and alienate the men who would be on our side by holding them to the very same type of sexist stereotyping that we are complaining about. Such as the idea that men are mentally tough and should “get over it” , that they are “sooky pants” when they are offended by misandry! The reason why a lot of men react so badly to being lumped in with these guys isn’t because they are defending their team or whatever, its because they find these comments as revolting as YOU DO and they take it personally when accused of being one of these pieces of shit.
I get where you’re coming from, but as a male the reason we get lumped into this negative comments is that we are part of a society that allows these arguments exist, and encourages them to be thought, if not said.
We may not want that to be the case, but we still benefit from living in this society, and are the gender keeping this society being run as a patriarchy. Which explains why some feminists (Definitely only some) can express global complaints about men. To be honest, it isn’t helpful, but I do think it’s understandable.
Here is my exact quote:
“but there are a few reasons why women will never get equal audience reception. The audience is mostly male, and many of them only want to watch the best teams play. We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best.” (an actual quote)
~ This is your interpretation – “a majority who hate cricket but watch it anyway, support no particular sports teams (Because fans are idiots-imaginary science says so!), and only watch sport to compare notes they make at a club afterwards”. Compare these two quotes. How does my quote say that? It doesn’t. My quote gave no reasons for viewing. So again, you’re wrong. Secondly, when I say the majority of viewers don’t like it that much, I mean as much as crazy die hard fans. Most cricket viewers watch CASUALLY (still not reasons for viewing, or has anything to do with “comparing notes”). Here is a more appropriate quote, I’ll give it to you for free, “If these sports are fulfilling these peoples desires to see someone who is not actually themselves win, then kudos. It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy.” Ohhh waiit… that disproves your lies about what I said because I’m not asserting my reasons for viewing onto the majority. 😦 ~
Jm: Where did you say you are only speaking on behalf of the majority of cricket viewers? Because I do see you saying the majority of Australians don’t like cricket, but watch it anyway right here.
~Again, I agree with this non-argument. I was only speaking on behalf of the majority that watches top-tier cricket, on-season, casually (not a majority who watches for a particular reason, because I am not in the majority in that sense). I said that I only watch the best league, and the majority does also. I also described the majority of cricket viewers as casual or that they ‘dont like cricket that much’. Which in my experience and to my knowledge, is true. It’s a seasonal game. I’m not speaking on their behalf in terms of reasons for watching. I watch for personal reasons and I’m guessing I’m in the minority in that regard (‘I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy’).~
Jm: And before you start telling me: “Well obviously I meant only cricket viewers”, that doesn’t make sense either. Are you trying to tell me that when you wrote “We don’t like cricket all that much” you were referring to the majority of cricket viewers? You were saying “The majority of cricket viewers don’t like cricket”?
~ hmm… notice how I actually answer everything you say instead of picking and choosing?? anyway.. I was in-fact referring to the majority of cricket viewers as being casual viewers. Which in my experience and to my knowledge, is true.~
Jm: This is you backpedalling yet again. Not enough changing what I wrote, you now have to change what you wrote too. Just admit, you said something stupid, decided that the majority of Australians had your mind, and didn’t think it through.
~This is an emotional appeal again and is also a lie because I have never backpedaled on anything I’ve said. Please, please prove me wrong. You just glance at my arguments, assume I’ve said something else, quote the unread and misinterpreted statement, then either A. Make emotional appeal, or B. Argue against a point that I didn’t make. I can’t answer this because the premise is false.~
Jm: “I also said that, unlike the majority, I watch to analyse strategies and techniques, whereas most people watch to cheer for their team. ”Again, you didn’t. Here’s your exact line: “We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs.” Where did you say “Unlike the majority”-where did you say “This action applies to me and not a lot of other people”
~ Initially, I did not say ‘unlike the majority’ on purpose because I can’t speak for the reasoning behind why (the reasons) the majority of cricket viewers view cricket. They may in-fact be watching for the same reasons I watch. I may be in the majority in that sense too, I don’t know. On later thought, I heavily doubt that I am, but I never said that the majority watches for the same reasons as me. I prefer my initial line actually, before you pushed me to revise it.~
Jm: Hell, where did you even use the word “I”? You were talking in in the plural. And what makes it even more damning is that that sentence occurs right after you talk on behalf of the majority of Australains (Or even the majority of cricket viewers as you have since claimed you met).
~ To my understanding, I am in the majority in that I view top-tier cricket casually and when it’s in season (note: nothing to do with reason for watching). Notice ‘OR’ in this sentence “We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs.” “We” is referring to a majority, but then I have split the majority into the reasons for watching. So why would you assume the initial reference to majority in ‘we’ is in regards to reasons for watching? That doesn’t make sense. Someone may be in the majority and watch for both reasons, it doesn’t matter because in a binary statement such as this, ‘or’ is inclusive of ‘and’. Most likely, the majority OF the majority of casual viewers, view for reasons separate to mine. It really sucks that I have to explain such things to you as an argument. This has nothing to do with the derogatory comments or sexism in sport, but instead is turning into an English lesson. I hope you present a valid argument soon.~
Jm: So you either have said something you now regret, or you went from talking about the majority of Australian cricket viewers (Which you are claiming don’t actually like cricket), to talking about what the majority don’t do in the space of two sentences, without any change in language being used at all, which suggests English language probably shouldn’t be a class you’re teaching.
~ When reading over what I’ve written, I can see no fault in my argument grammatically. I can only see faults in your comprehension. If I’m splitting up a majority (“we”, casual, on seasons, top league viewers) into reasons for watching, then why would you assume that the initial majority that I’m splitting is based on reasons for watching? “We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs”. Oh nice, a personal attack right at the end there. My students aren’t allowed to that in their debates.~
Jm: Let me break down what’s actually happened, or at least what I think has happened. You said some crazy stuff here, and in order to give it some weight (Of which it had little), you claimed to be talking on behalf of the entire country, when really you are just talking on behalf of you. Nothing wrong with that-I’m talking on my behalf as well, I don’t pretend the majority care what I think.
~ After the first line, this paragraph stops making sense because of the false premise. Let me break down what really happened here, I said some things that sound ‘crazy’ to you because that’s what intelligence sounds like to people who can’t comprehend it.~
Jm: However, when I call you out on your claims to be talking on behalf of the majority, you quickly realised that you had no idea if you talked on behalf of the majority, and in a few cases were sure you didn’t, so instead of saying “Yeah, fair enough. I guess I’m just talking on my own behalf” (Which again is fine, your argument would have just as much weight as my own)- you claim that I’ve lied, rewriting your sentences and hope I won’t bother to do a qucik search for what you actually did write.
I don’t think it worked, do you?
~ You know, the problem with rehashing the exact same premise over and over as the foundation of every argument you make is that if the premise is wrong (that I backpedaled) then the entire argument becomes irrelevant. I noticed you wrote so much so I decided to answer your arguments as best I could. THAT is what I regret. These aren’t arguments, it’s all just complete nonsense. Do you really want me to answer that nonsensical question at the end? umm… no… you quoted me twice, the first wasn’t even referenced, with the argument being about something totally off-topic. The second one was TOTALLY misinterpreted. My students would never make that rookie error in their debates.~
Jm: “When did I say that the majority of cricket viewers also do that? ”
Now that I’ve pointed it out to you, do you see it now? Or are you going to tell me these two sentences “The majority of cricket fans don’t like cricket. And we like to compare stats with our friends at the club” are actually meaning “The majority of cricket fans prefer the best games. And I like comparing stats with friends, definitely not the majority I was referring to in the first sentence”?
Good luck with that.
~ To my knowledge, the majority of cricket viewers are casual, on-season viewers, who only watch the top league/players (they aren’t die hard fans OK). More specifically, the first statement you’ve given would be incorrect because it assumes that all of the majority viewers have the same reason for viewing. The second statement is correct, in that I like discussing strategies with friends, and that definitely has nothing to do with the majority of cricket viewers who all have different reasons for watching.~
Jm: “This is not the first time you’ve done this, most of your arguments are against points I’m not even making. ”
What arguments am I making that are against points you haven’t made? And didn’t you complain earlier that all I was doing was arguing against your points?
“I’m not reading this dribble if your very first point is just slandering lies. ”
If that makes you feel better, fine. You have tried to lie about what you have wrote because it’s embarrassing, and worse, you have been unsuccessful. If you want to blame me for it, go ahead. It’s your life.
~ You said I didn’t want any women’s sports on TV. I never said that. You used that as a premise for half a post. You think I asserted my reasons for viewing onto the majority of viewers, which I’m apart of. I did no such thing. Look – “I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy”. How about this “quote” you made up – “Moreover, while comments made about me are abusive, evil and must be stopped, comments made about people who aren’t me are just jokes, not abuse, and an is completely understandable,so no one has the right to be offended”. Nicely ‘summarised’, too bad this is completely devoid of any truthfulness to what I said. Here’s another ridiculous ‘summary’ of my words – “It’s okay, I didn’t find it funny. But it was a joke, so it’s okay. Whereas a joke about men being pgis-totally evil!” Do you realise that pretending to quote someone like that is illegal? Or “I’m not sexist, I’m treating everyone equally, while caring more for men than I do women! Because soceity is equal!” Not only are these false direct quotes, but I never even came close to alluding to such stupidity. How about this – Jm: “I presume you’ll want AFL to no longer be shown. I mean, it’s not a true test of skill at all.” Why would I not want it to be shown? What does a noncompetitive atmosphere in a sport have to do with pulling it off the air? You just added that arbitrarily.~
Jm: But you know you wrote stupid stuff here. No matter what you try and tell yourself, you know it. I know it. And any poor fool who reads through this mass of text will know it too.
“We’re going in circles because every answer just involves repeating what I’ve already said in a way that is accessible to someone with the comprehension skills of a 5th grader.~”
Hell, when have you repeated anything? Meanwhile I have to explain my belief to the point I am willing to pay for you to have it tattood because you’re annoyed that I’m not asking for an extreme result, which you’d find easy to argue.
~ Dribble. Same premise. More emotional appeal. No actual content.~
Jm: Now, you’re a teacher, so you tell me-and what year level would you classify a student who repeatedly receives information, but denies it because they don’t like it?
~ If you deny something just because you don’t like it, then probably around year 9 or 10. Meta-cognitive questioning regarding one’s own ideas usually don’t kick in until around then. In reality, you should never deny anything just because ‘you don’t like it’.~
Jm: Anyway, good night logic. If this is the last I hear from you, I wish you all the best in life, and hope you can manage to break your fear that women are going to steal all your special places, eradicate the differences in the male gender, and force you to watch women’s sports. Feminists are actually very nice people-you should try meeting some, instead of being terrified of them all the time.
~ More personal slander. Thanks. By the way, I gathered some references regarding the consequences of team identification on aggression, social inadequacies and anxiety causing team identification, all the research on sexist remarks (ALL of them conclude that it cannot ever be called a ’cause’), and even some women’s cricket online sites with videos on demand and tv schedules. I was going to post them for you, but you just don’t deserve any more of my time.~
“How does my quote say that? It doesn’t. My quote gave no reasons for viewing.”
Your exact next sentence did.
“The audience is mostly male, and many of them only want to watch the best teams play. We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best. We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. ”
This is the full quote. Not your hastily edited one. Look at the last sentence.
As for calling people who support their clubs stupid, true you didn’t say it at that time. You said it later:
“It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. ”
Are you denying your wrote that now?
“Secondly, when I say the majority of viewers don’t like it that much, I mean as much as crazy die hard fans.”
Wow-that’s totally not what you said. You’re ading stuff now. You wrote the majority of viewers who wrote cricket don’t particularly like cricket.
Now you’re saying “We like cricket, but not as much as crazy fans”
That is a change. That is you adding information to make an unreasonable statement into something reasonable.
“If these sports are fulfilling these peoples desires to see someone who is not actually themselves win, then kudos. It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy.”
This is a quote you made, insutling anyone who follows any sports team. However, it is not the quote I was referring to.
“I was only speaking on behalf of the majority that watches top-tier cricket, on-season, casually”
And you agree you didn’t say that originally. Your original statement said to be speaking on behalf of the majority of people who watch cricket at all.
“I said that I only watch the best league, and the majority does also. ”
No, you said the majority don’t like cricket that much, and when they do they only want to watch the best. This is you trying to again turn an unreasonable statement into something reasonable.
“I’m guessing I’m in the minority in that regard (‘I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy’).~”
And that’s fine, to talk on behalf of a minority, even a minority of one. So you’ll be agreeing that when you also said to speak on behalf of the majority in this sentence:
“We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. “”
You were not actually speaking on behalf of the majority. Just on behalf of yourself, right?
“notice how I actually answer everything you say instead of picking and choosing??”
Really? Where’s those studies that prove rape is caused by evil at the heart of man, or that prove supporting your own team is the most useless emotion, or that shows people who support a team have lower IQ’s? Where is that proof I’ve asked for repeatedly?
“anyway.. I was in-fact referring to the majority of cricket viewers as being casual viewers. ”
Where did you say the word “majority”? Where did you even say the word “casual”?
No, you’re backpedaling now. It’s okay. We can all see it.
“I have never backpedaled on anything I’ve said. ”
So going from “A majority of australians don’t like cricket” to “A majority of cricket viewers don’t like cricket” to “A majority of cricket viewers are casual and do not like cricket as much as die hard fans” is not changing the meaning whatsoever in your sentences?
Let’s make this clear-are you saying that the majority of people who watch cricket don’t like cricket? If you say yes to that, you are being ridiculous. If you say no to that, you are contradicting what you said earlier. Which is fine, what you said earlier is incorrect.
“Please, please prove me wrong. ”
I’ve done that now. You’re rewriting your own comments to try and challenge what I’ve written. But those original comments are still there.
” On later thought, I heavily doubt that I am, but I never said that the majority watches for the same reasons as me. ”
No, you said the majority of people don’t particularly like cricket, then in the next sentence said “We” watch to see best of the best or compare notes at our clubs.
Again, you’re trying to tell me that going from speaking on behalf of a majority in one sentence, to speaking in a minority in the next sentence without referring to a change at all is good english there?
“I prefer my initial line actually, before you pushed me to revise it.~”
So you admit you’re revising stuff when you’ve found that the original is unsupportable?
“I am in the majority in that I view top-tier cricket casually and when it’s in season ”
Not what you said. You said the majority don’t like cricket.
“So why would you assume the initial reference to majority in ‘we’ is in regards to reasons for watching? That doesn’t make sense. ”
Ah, so when you presented the reasons for people watching cricket as expressly being the reasons for the the majority of viewers, you only meant that majority in the first half of the sentence, before losing it in the second half.
Okay, so if I said “The majority of Australians eat food because it provides them with sustenance, or to prevent the evil feminists from getting free drinks”-that would be a perfectly fine sentence, which clearly says to you that while the word “minority” is never used, the second half of the sentence was clearly referring to a minority?
“Most likely, the majority OF the majority of casual viewers, view for reasons separate to mine.”
This is you backpedaling again. You never admit you made a mistake ever, do you? You did not use the word casual originally. You are adding that now because it makes things slighlty easier to argue.
“This has nothing to do with the derogatory comments or sexism in sport, ”
Well yes it does. You are presenting your views as being on behlaf of a majority, but when pressed to provide evidence of a majority you either deny ever speaking on behalf of a majority, reclassify a minority as a majority, or rewrite whole sentences so you don’t have to prove a majority.
If you had spent all this time speaking just on your own behalf, things would be different. Instead you are speaking on bhealf of all Australians, because you think that adds weight to your argument. That’s how this is relevent.
“Oh nice, a personal attack right at the end there. ”
Well, I was getting a bit tired of all the personal attacks from you. I thought you could get as good as you give.
“My students aren’t allowed to that in their debates.~”
Have you told your debating students that apparently they can include this argument in every debate: “The majority of Australians talk freely. They do that to express their free speech rights, or to oppose the debate topic!” – and apparently everyone will know as they hear it that the debater was referring to a majority in the first half of the sentence, but only a minority in the second?
” said some things that sound ‘crazy’ to you because that’s what intelligence sounds like to people who can’t comprehend it.~”
Isn’t that exactly what a crazy person would say?
“My students would never make that rookie error in their debates.~”
But apparently in their debates they should be referring to a majority and minority in the same sentence, without using the word minority at all, and everyone will understand, right?
“~ To my knowledge, the majority of cricket viewers are casual, on-season viewers, who only watch the top league/players (they aren’t die hard fans OK). ”
You never used the word die hard fan. Or, like minority, is that something that’s just implied in general conversation?
“~ You said I didn’t want any women’s sports on TV. I never said that. ”
You asked for it not to be crammed down your throat, and when I suggested allowing more sport on tv to include women;’s sport you went to a long post saying “That’s not possible because”-while apparently meaning “I agree, we should have more womens sport on tv”
You also said you only want to watch a true test of skill, and that women’s sports are not a true test of skill.
“Why would I not want it to be shown? What does a noncompetitive atmosphere in a sport have to do with pulling it off the air? ”
Again, you have said you only want to watch sport as a true test of skill. Having a noncompetitive atmosphere would make it not be a true test of skill.
” By the way, I gathered some references regarding the consequences of team identification on aggression, social inadequacies and anxiety causing team identification, all the research on sexist remarks (ALL of them conclude that it cannot ever be called a ’cause’), and even some women’s cricket online sites with videos on demand and tv schedules. I was going to post them for you, but you just don’t deserve any more of my time.~”
Oh, you have all the proof in the world, but you won’t show it? Funny that. And I was so looking forward to the study showing that supporting a team is the most “useless emotion” (Particularly how psychologists would measure usefulness of emotions), and how all the science confirms that rape is caused by evil at the hearts of men (I mean, proving evil exists would be amazing-why aren’t these studies which you are totally sure exist, more popularly discussed around the world?). Oh well, I’ll have to live with the great likelihood you were talking crap.
Tell me, in your debating class, do you tell the students it’s okay to claim to have evidence, and when asked for it, refuse to show it because the opposition doesn’t deserve it?
men need to wake up to the fact that a large majority of us never really grow up we just become bigger boys. It is threatening to think that we are all lumped into one and we often want to hide behind comments like ” not all men are sexist ” . The reality is this if the majority of men were not sexists then sexism in the main would not exist. The best thing men can do is acknowledge that sexism exists and we all play a part in it. Many men try whenever possible to remain non sexist but for most of us years of conditioning and the fact we hang around other men often leads us off the just path. Men cannot fight women’s causes and should never think that they understand what its like to be a woman in what is essentially still a mans world. Any sense of injustice we men might feel from perceived sexism directed at us is a drop in an ocean. Anyone man or woman with any sense can clearly see that these comment were sexist and inappropriate. Men should simply acknowledge that and challenge other men that make such comments. Engaging in futile semantic debate beyond that simply confirms what women already know men don’t grow up they just become bigger boys.
It’s really sad that womens’ sport isn’t taken as seriously as mens’ sport.
I agree the comments are out of league, but really why should one care. Social media is anonymous and has been regarded as grafitti even by the PM Tony Abbott. No one is spared on social media, whether Obama, Abbott, Muslims or even Ellyse perry. So why should we care about what such goons say. They perhaps have nothing better to do. By the time Ellyse retires she will be placed along the likes of Bradman for her contribution. That’s all that really counts.
you said it... 
Hopefully someone will nuke us soon … there’s no hope left for anything vaguely approaching civilization in this country.
Totally agree with you Anne.
I love that some of the blokes who made these comments are called out for it. Names available for everybody to see. Now if only some of those mean trolls would harass them so they knew what it felt like.
I think it’s a damn shame we allow men to learn to read and write. Plainly they aren’t fit for participation in public life. Definitely should not be let out without a grown up.
Well… That’s productive.
So your idea of battling sexism is to be sexist then? Is that it?
^ This.
The idea here is to imagine what it is like to be subject to those kind of rules – to put yourself in the same position. Your comment indicates you find even the mere suggestion unacceptable, even though there is no real threat of that happening. But that is the real situation for many millions of women right now and for the foreseeable future. The same for Ellyse Perry. Many men just don’t understand what it must be like to be on the receiving end, and every woman will cope with it differently. Obviously Ellyse Perry can’t focus on it, in order to remain focussed on her game. A little role play, from men, even in the mind, for a few moments won’t hurt will it? It appears it will.
Saying that men shouldn’t be allowed to read, write or go outdoors without supervision makes you just as sexist as any of the above comments. Comments like that do not belong here.
#wearenotallthesame
Learn what humour is, please.
You’re missing the point, or rather confirming it. We all know what Catherine suggests is not the case and there is no real threat that it will be. Yet it is the case for many millions of women around the world (and a lot worse than that). The attitudes displayed above toward women cricketers are basically the same problem – sexism and misogyny. I agree that the men with those attitudes should not be in any public decision making capacity or be in any position of power. But the fact is they still are and there is no prospect of any radical change. The frustration from women is understandable and even commendable. More people need to be outraged by this.
^this. Stupid feminists with illogical one-way ideals.
Are you fucking stupid? Nice generalisation there you moron. You do realise that in writing that paragraph you’ve proved yourself to be no better than the people you’re criticising? You are one dense sexist idiot.
That’s why you can’t get dates with women 😀
hmmm can you fight sexism with sexism?
Read Ted’s comment. I think he got it right.
Big flapping mouths and tiny wizened junk – the Australian drongo male
“Man, I’m sure glad this vagina completely invalidates every success I achieve, ever,” said all the women across the world in unison, “It makes a nice change from being responsible for not getting myself raped”.
Aussie respect for women, ladies and gentlemen! Be sure to mention this the next time someone tells you “those rotten ethnics, they don’t respect women like we do here in Australia!”
Catherine, your generalisation about men does nothing to help either. I coach a girls team with my school and we play in the boys’ competitions and it is magnificent and I am proud to say that other teams treat then as equals and with full respect. Catherine once more please know that not all men are like that and I do not appreciate being lumped in with the ‘men’ above. Our house, I cook two nights, my partner two nights and the kids one night each. We share house duties and have respect when the other has had a difficult week and might need a break. We are equals, although I enjoy my metal music, cricket, footy, my mates – I also have an English literature degree and a performing arts degree (drama) so I enjoy my reading and my plays and theatre. My partner enjoys her shopping, dresses (she is beautiful when she dresses up and I enjoy that), romantic movies, but she is also formidable as an intellect, has a uni degree, and built the sheds in the yard. So Catherine, we can be traditional but it does not have to be all the time. Anyway I am sure you and I are on the same side and well done to the cricket star above, very proud of this Australian Cricket team and I follow their progress as much as possible, wish the tele did.
Well then Leigh, if you’re such a good man, then you should know that you weren’t the type of man she was referring to, so why does it bother you so much? She wasn’t speaking about you, move on.
Although it is pretty telling (and disgusting) that your biggest concern here is someone criticising men, rather than the whole swath of hatred and derision spewed against women in the screen-shot. A woman reacting to that with frustration (because we experience this nonsense from men every day of our lives), saying in a clearly facetious way, that we shouldn’t waste time teaching men to read and write when so many of them use it to hurt women, is not a threat to men. Does Catherine have the power to take your right to an education away, the way men actually prevented women from learning for centuries? No. She doesn’t have the social power to actually hurt you in any way. All she’s doing is wounding your man-pride. You have made your feelings the focus of the discussion here, instead of sympathising with women. You have told us that if we’re not friendly enough to you, you won’t care about sexism and will instead make everything about yourself.
So I guess what I’m saying is get over it. She was not oppressing you in any way, and if you’re putting your own feelings before a systematic culture of devaluation of women, your priorities show that you’re not really with us, regardless of how progressive you think you are.
wait, what? “get over it”? that’s your solution? this wouldn’t even be a thing if “get over it” was a valid response to any woman being upset by the ridiculous comments of the guys above. and we both know it’s not a valid response.
this isn’t about man-pride. this is about forming an intelligent response, lest you only damage the voice of other women who have something more constructive to offer. you know, since it’s convenient to assume everyone within the same gender is exactly the same…
I am saying learn to differentiate between actual oppression (i.e. the comments made in response to the photo), and women reacting to that oppression with anger. You know, women not actually oppressing men. Women don’t actually have the systematic power to do that.
Focusing on how offended you are, and telling women they aren’t allowed to be angry because if they’re angry you won’t listen to them, makes excuses for men to continue sexism. The only reason angry women ‘damage’ the voices of other women, is because men demand we never get angry at how they treat us. They tell us that our anger is as bad as their treatment of us. It isn’t.
So maybe you should read a few books on systematic oppression. It was about his hurt man feelings, and your comment is about tone policing women, telling them that if they step out of line, they are bringing oppression upon themselves.
No, it’s cool, I’ll stick with my take on things. I prefer logical reasoning over angst. There should be no “this only works this way, not that way”. The guys making the facebook comments are jerks, nothing to do with oppression. They’re just plain jerks. Hitting back with jerky comments and saying it’s cool because men aren’t oppressed by them is lazy arguing and void of any reasoning. You’re welcome to have your take of things, so we’ll just have to accept that we differ!
What a bizarre response. Keep in mind, Catherine said “I think it’s a damn shame we allow men to learn to read and write. Plainly they aren’t fit for participation in public life.” Men. Not those men or men who behave like that. Men.
So, you think the facebook comments above are entirely inappropriate. However, it is appropriate to have a sexist comment back, stereotyping all men, as women are allowed to get angry when responding to systematic oppression?? The original comments were directed at Elyse Perry, not all women, by a selection of men. Many comments on the post were complimentary, as quite obviously, Elyse Perry is awesome. As anyone who listen to JJJ knows. However, you think an appropriate response is all women get to direct sexist comments at all men??
Herp derp.
Women can get angry at it and attack those making the comments, but to throw sexist comments back at all men based on that is just as crap as the original comments.
Oh, for fuck’s sake! Catherine’s comment was clearly humour, and clearly a play on the sorts of things women hear all the time. Take a step back from being a sookypants and really think about why a woman might a flippantly sarcastic comment like this in response to the constant abuse women receive. And when you realise the original point Catherine was making, then maybe you can join the conversation.
Oh for fuck’s sake, p’bee, those guys’ comments on facebook were clearly humour. Take a step back from being a sookypants!
Or maybe those guys made stupid remarks, and it’s hardly clever to fire back at stupid remarks with equally stupid remarks. Nobody wins there, particularly those trying to stand above the facebook trolls.
@KR Reading through some of your comments here, it is amusing and sad how you don’t get the irony of some of your responses to comments. You’re obviously clearly affronted by some of them. Actually the only thing that gives me comfort after reading your posts, is the thought that you will have to live with the same sort of prejudice and oppression that women do – even for a short while – in order to understand it. But judging from your posts, even if you did so, I doubt you would use that experience to be outraged by what is happening to women. You would more likely use it to complain about the plight of men and the sexism they cop from women.
Classic reply. While an eye for an eye isn’t the ideal solution…I just love how we cop sexist crap our whole lives, as did our mothers, grandmothers and likely our daughters and grand daughters will…but the minute one of us says something slightly sexist, then men kick up a huge stink calling us out on the double standard! I mean seriously.
When you this lot stop being sexist, then we’ll show you the respect you finally deserve. Until then, cop it sweet…princess.
I understand both your points!
Oh can it, Sarah. He was addressing the fact that she spoke like all men were the same, when obviously they’re not. Just like not all women are the same. Pull your head in.
Another idiot feminist. You’re totally missing the point, aren’t you? If we could all “get over it” this post wouldn’t exist. This is one of the most hypocritical comment feeds i’ve ever read; Catherine’s generalising and making overtly sexist comments on a post about how sexism is wrong and inappropriate. If you honestly don’t see an issue here then you’re beyond help.
As a male, I’m almost scared to reply after some of these comments. Actually, I AM scared. ….
Welcome to our world. Again, why are there so many comments about a single (facetious) comment?? I just read pages of sexist drivel that is actually the focus of this site.
Leigh, I’m sure Catherines post was sarcasm and certainly more wholesome than the above posts. As for being “lumped in” with the bad behavior of others of your gender, welcome to our world.
Joe Hildebrand’s next docco could be about the Aussie male being dumb, drunk and sexist.
I came across this via Facebook. Could have missed it but isn’t it also a damn shame that not once in the comments or this article for that matter is the woman’s NAME mentioned? Antibogan -would it not assist to put names to the objectified?
Fixed. The material was pictorial and came from elsewhere. 🙂
Men are all pigs. Who would even go near one? Give all the power to us girls and remove men from society!
Yeah Jane S, way to combat sexism with sexism
I like how feminism has the goals of wanting women to have equal rights and many other things equal to men, and now here you are, claiming that all men are pigs. Good to see your strong, independent, feminist logic is working well for you.
Funny, I’m a man and I can’t see where all men are being called pigs here….
I can see that the behaviour of the individuals who made those posts are being called out for what it is – moronic bogan, sexist stupidity.
Something strikes me as really offensive though about some men perceiving other men who are publicly being dickheads as being the ones who need defending.
I guess it’s okay if the talk about your wives, sisters, daughters or girlfriends like that, just blokes being blokes after all… apparently….
You must have missed the parent comment to your reply where Jane S says “Men are all pigs”.
Spot on, Volvo!
Nice trolling, Volvo. Jane s, as it has been pointed out, clearly said that.
One woman reacts to outrageous sexism with a angry comment, the bogan male replies: “Proof feminism is wrong!”
Multiple. Ales make degrading and insulting sexist messages online, the bogan male replies with with a stern silence or “Get a sense of humour!”
So, in other words, women can be judged on the extreme action of o e. While men’s extreme actions are allied. Equality!
Come now, Jm, don’t use quotations when you’re not quoting. There’s just no need to make things up to make your point, that doesn’t serve to help. There is nothing in Lyle’s comment that is distinctively “bogan male”. He’s obviously not a keen feminist, yet why should he be when it seems to be a prerequisite to be so accusing? He’s pretty much pointing out that if you’re going to say that men making cheap, sexist remarks is poor form, then the way to combat it is not to make cheap, sexist remarks, lest you be ridiculed for being no different. and the feminism debate will be the worse for it, too.
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Remember that quote KR?
Lyle sees one poster, posting an extreme response to outrageous sexist comments as evidence than feminism itself in its entirety is wrong. However he has no complaint whatsoever about male sexism. Why would he? It doesn’t effect him.
It’s the privilege white males have in this country that no other group have. If a white guy says or does something terrible, I know I won’t be blamed for his actions, or my image harmed by it. Any other group in society though, if one of their members does something even slightly extreme, then all will be blamed for it.
hahaha that’s a pretty funny comment.
But if you want the power you’ll have to earn it.
It doesn’t matter if you are male or female, it is the internet, people are douche bags on the internet. sure they wouldn’t be as sexist if it was a guy, but they would prob be racist, homophobic or pretty crude. 9/10 of these people think it is okay to say stuff they wouldn’t say in real life online, and it becomes a competition to see who has most shock value or is most outrageous. Not saying it is right. Just saying.
Jane, I agree. That’s a rational and reasonable response to male sexism.
I do agree with a lot of stuff that gets posted here, but I do wonder, if I was to trawl the web for the most objectionable possible behaviour from females, if you’d all be upset if I posted a page somewhere and announced that ‘all women are whores’ or similar. I realise it’s those commenting who are making those sort of replies, that’s who my comment is aimed at. The women posted ‘all men are pigs’ are hiding behind their keyboards and their bias as much as the idiots whose posts are the main topic of this particular post.
aah I love it. How many tired cliches can a comment section get!? lol
This isn’t a generalisation about men – it’s a window into the “mindset” (They’d need a mind first..) of the brainless Aussie bogan morons who unfortunately drive so much of what the rest of us have to put up with in society, the media and so on.
Real men go “Wow, thanks for letting me know about this, that’s awesome, how do we find out more”. Bogan morons aren’t men, they’re just brainless redneck tools.
+1
Unfortunately, I disagree. Men who are sexist, are still men. A lot of masculinity teaches men to treat women badly, and ignoring the fact that MEN perpetrate sexism, in order to denigrate the men who do perpetrate it, is profoundly unhelpful.
Yes, sexist men are tools, but let’s not pretend that it isn’t men who are doing this, and men who let other men get away with it, by instead complaining that some woman called them a pig indirectly and that therefore sexism is justified because of how mean we women are to them.
Your comment should have come with a ‘generalisation alert’.
A couple of lame jokes on a meme is not really indicative of any sort of attitude.
Quite frankly, I just thought “who cares? Finch has done better only a few games ago”.
So using sexism to fight sexism, two wrongs don’t make a right
and the opposite of dysfunctional is dysfunctional…
C’mon – this is the type of humour that Aussie’s have!! I highly doubt that the majority of the guys who commented are actually sexist pigs. I know my brothers would make jokes like that, and they would be JOKING. Whether or not their humour is in poor taste or not … obviously that is up to individual taste, but I laughed at the comments… because they are JOKING.
We are hard pressed to identify any “humour”.
Yeah I get that. It isn’t there for you.
But it is there. There is great irony in these comments that you are completely missing due to cultural differences. I have been in tears of laughter. Yet I would claim to certainly not be a misogynist, not a feminist as I have a problem with the bias inherent in the term, but I believe in a kind of differentiated equality which respects the fact that we are biologically and chemically different. Worth the same but not the same. Most of these guys would think the same, believe me. They are parodying and satirising themselves, or more accurately the way they are portrayed as young Aussie men. You know. Bogans right?
It is a shame that you don’t get it because through your lens I totally get that it is offensive and I am totally getting your self-righteous fury. Good luck with it.
So, to be clear, if a woman is offended by comments like those above, it’s her own fault for not having a sense of humour to be able to distinguish between satire and actual sexism. Is that right?
By the way, how can you tell the difference between sexism and satire? Because your separation seems to be “it’s not sexist if they are nice in real life” which isn’t very reliable.
Truth is though, it’s not satire, it’s abuse with a wink. Satirising themselves would involve self put downs (like the great Louis ck has done about being a white man, or even with Jonathan swift in a modest proposal), whereas the only put downs here are directed to her. If it’s humour, it’s the type of humour that comes from reminding segments of the population that they are not equal, and are only worth what their use is to that of the dominant community of white men. In this case the “humour” is in the message “you are only worthy as a sexual object, all else is meaningless. But it’s funny that you try. Look at me, being edgy”
Hilarious, isn’t it?
“C’mon ladies, don’t be such a bitch, lighten up, they’re just joking, blokes will be blokes”. Really? Other people should take responsibility for the poor choices these dicks publicly made?
No, they’re being pricks and should accept responsibility for being pricks and choose not to be.
A racist joke is not just a joke – it’s racism.
A sexist joke is not just a joke, it’s sexism.
When only the dickheads are laughing, it’s not a joke – it’s something to be ashamed of.
“A racist joke is not just a joke – it’s racism.
A sexist joke is not just a joke, it’s sexism.”
*Like*
Thankyou for telling us all how to think and what to like.
That you’re too stupid to need to be told speaks volumes.
If you find humour in comments like that, next time I challenge you to say to the commentator “You only find it funny because you have a small dick” and then see where the conversation goes.
What if it’s a woman? Do I say she’s got a loose vagina?
Humour is great. It’s a great way to show a mirror to society, challenge the way we live, and send a message about the world.
Whereas these jokes seem to send the message of “Women can’t do anything except make dinner and babies, and fuck me too! Look at m, bing all edgy!”
Tell you what, if it’s all in good fun, and your brother has no problem to humour that humiliates him, go to your brother right now that he’s impotent, never been able to have sex successfully. And is kinda worried he’s gay, or wants to be wit one of his mates.
What? It’s a joke! Surely h’d be okay with you saying a joke like that!
Interestingly, Jm, I’d laugh it off if that was said to me. Because I know it’s not true. But yeah, I know some guys would get upset.
If you know what the truth is, and you can handle people saying nonsense as being nothing more than hot air, your ability to take a joke is stronger.
This is all said NOT excusing any of what was posted on facebook as being an acceptable “joke”. But just putting some context into play. Because, contrary to what may be spouted here, SOME women will simply shrug their shoulders. Not to defy their fellow women, but just because they know it’s all a bunch of hot air from muppets trying to get a cheap rise out of others.
So you’d dismiss the joke, by the sounds of it, but wouldn’t find it funny. So kind of eliminates the “it’s just a joke” defence.
Toleratin abuse does not mean we should accept it. Take a look at the everyday sexism project to see what terrible things women just shrug their shoulders at every day and accept, while hating that it occurs. More importantly , social change does not occur by shrugging your shoulders and accepting things, it occurs by outright challenging and debating social norms which allow the prejudice to occur.
@Jm
Just because you don’t find a joke funny doesn’t mean it’s not a joke. There is no general consensus on humour.
Not all jokes are funny. Fact.
And you keep talking like ALL women interpret things as you do. Not all men think like me. It’ll cause me grief sometimes, but it’s not a requirement that they do as I say.
No, you’re interpreting what I say as being about all women. But to be clear, do you need unanimous condemnation from all women everywhere before you condemn a terrible attempt at a joke? Because it seems like you’re trying to say “some women wouldn’t complain about the joke, so why would we complain?”bother wise why would it matter if all women or only some women would object to the continued sexualisation of women.
Again, social change does not come from acceptance. It comes from challenging society to change. Do you disagree with these statements, KR?
Wow. I recognise they are jokes. But I think you’d have to be a sexist pig to say them, like them, laugh at them. And they wouldn’t be considered ‘jokes’ if the wider society wasn’t actually sexist.
There is no such thing as “wider society”. There is also no arbiter of good taste or good humour.
WOW, some of you women are just as bad as the men commenting on that.
Just more proof that it’s not what you have in your pant’s but what you have in your head..
I hope you don’t have daughters who will no doubt get the message that it is OK for men to carry on like knobs but when a woman comes over as assertive then it’s not on.
Don’t you think women are sick of seeing the very worst of male behaviour legitimised by comments such as those from the epic failures on that post?
Calm down. If they get that message, they’re obviously not getting it from House Dad. He calls them out as being bad. Why is there “no doubt” that “it is OK for men to carry on like knobs”? It’s not ok to many of us, both males and females, House Dad included. Your comment is a little out of place really.
Just gobsmacked at the sexist responses, both towards Ellyse Perry and also the the responses to those here above (all men are (insert creature here)) – I should note it’s the former I find most offensive.
Both sides are a sad indictment on the Australian psyche, one that’s become more prevalent to my eyes now that I live in a truly multicultural and accepting environment on the other side of the world (note, that doesn’t mean sexism doesn’t exist here – it just shows me how much worse Australia is!)
She had a great game – top performance, and I hope that efforts like hers go a long way to promoting the sport back in Australia and everywhere around the world.
+1
gobsmacked? If you were a woman you’d be used to it by now.
gobsmacked? If you were a woman you would not be surprised.
Elyse Perry has no need to take any of these comments personally. She knows she is a legend, just as anyone worth knowing agrees. The good thing about social media is these young lads, silly enough to make these posts, have identified themselves publicly for public shaming. Nice one boys
I’ve known pigs. Comparing them to some of the worst representatives of humanity does them a terrible disservice.
+1
Ladies you’re ‘real man’ ideals are emasculating and perpetuate the problem…let me explain:
For fear of sounding pompous, I’m an Aussie male and after living many years in Europe I can say – hand-across -heart – I can’t stand the vast majority of Australian popular male culture here. I do miss the more sophisticated and open mindedness of European in general: Education, multiple languages, access to multiple cultures tends to make them arguably more well rounded IMHO. I do miss Europe and have given up looking to find that in a partner here many years ago.
The bullshit macho, ego fuelled “I’m a strong male” display is pathetic. It’s destructive both socially and environmentally. It centres around this young, narrow conservative view that the world is here to serve you. Look at the prime minister these people elect, it’s an absolute disgrace!
Australia really is a back-water country: Bogan’s rule this country along with their limited brain power and ‘real tough man’ ethics (be tough, work hard, protect and kill for your family (a destructive misguided characteristic) etc. But they did not get here alone. Many women, dare I say it, encourage this behaviour – subtly but they do. I’ll explain, I have seen it within my network/community time and time again and it makes me cringe everytime. The old ‘I want a REAL man’ is still the crux of many (young(?) women’s desires. No man wants to be on the end of that emasculating statement and, I imagine, it propels young men towards seeking out and taking on ‘real man’ characteristics. So what do they do, they look around at other Australian ‘tough’ men and shazam! there you have it! This is such a subtle process yet one that both women and men play a role in.
So ladies the ‘REAL MAN’ position is rubbish. It really show’s you have some growing up to do yourself. It’s a moving goal post that is flippant and destructive.
So tell me..what’s a ‘REAL WOMEN’ is it the ones gracing the pages of COSMO? or the ones sculling the beer on Nek nominate? Because there are far and few between. I have my ideals in a partner aswell but I don’t encourage you to go lose 10kg do I…by imposing and disempowering you with my ‘real women’ ideals..
People tend to make decisions from a young age towards meeting other young men and women so what do they do; They look around at the men (and women) that ‘seem to be popular with ladies’ and adopt similar characteristics, this doesn’t seem to stop as men get older either. Right now if I hop down to the pub or club and I see this shallowness coming from both sexes. So if you’re one person on this forum and another in the bar, club whatever out with your friends, you have double standards, and need to put yourself in check. Men and women judge each other on their looks to a large extent whether you like it or not. That doesn’t mean to say it’s the deciding factor and the ‘alpha male’ (doesn’t matter how smart he is) only that he displays the characteristics of an ‘alpha’ (strong, confident, leader etc) then women gravitate to him. I see it time and time and time again. I keep seeing this shit and feeling ashamed and sorry for the human race when this shallowness rues the day.
Time to take responsibility and like a game of chess think a few moves ahead..
Brilliant! – I am more of a ‘Velveteen Rabbit/Skin Horse’ kinda ‘real woman’ – bit shabby & loose in the joints these days, but it’s taken time and I am loved for my ‘realness’. I think the collective age of these cruel commentators (joking or otherwise) must be quite low as evidenced by the brash, hard edged bravado (trolling) that often accompanies this age group. Poor loves perhaps they’re a little jealous and worried their backyard cricket skills wouldn’t quite match up against Miss Elyse….
Antonio, that’s a good response you’ve written, however there are a few problems with it.
If a woman says she wants a ‘real man’, she is not saying she wants a sexist, alpha male who thinks that her only place in is in the kitchen. It is much more complicated than that and usually just means she wants someone with emotional maturity, humbleness and a steady job. It’s not an alienating concept.
I’m not quite sure how the idea of ‘real man’ is emasculating, personally I see the concept of emasculating someone to be akin to making them more feminine. Because the WORST thing a man could ever be is a woman. It’s bullshit and the definition of masculine and feminine need to be expanded upon greatly. So much so that they should essentially mean the same thing except one you use when talking about a man and the other a woman.
Secondly. ‘real men’ and ‘real women’ concepts are stupid, I agree. People are people and they are real based on the fact that they exist. Different people want different things and not everyone is going to like everyone else; we should stop pretending like we have to.
Thirdly, it’s not women’s fault that men feel pressure to be a particular way. The idealised version of ‘male’ is actually created by the patriarchy men put in place many hundreds of years ago. If men are feeling pressure to be everything all at once and to squash their emotions and perhaps more traditionally ‘feminine’ qualities, then that is the fault of the patriarchy, not of women. Turning around and telling women to change their game is a redundant comment, we can do only so much as long as this patriarchal society is in play. Both men and women gladly participate in the current structure of society and each individual should do much more to diversify their own views and to un-learn lessons they have been taught. But I want to stress; pressure on men is not women’s fault. Change the structure of society, place more women in positions of power, change the way media depict both men and women, stop perpetrating harmful stereotypes and teach all kids that they can be all things and that is when you will start to see a change in the pressures on men.
You’ll probably find that the most unmale thing a man can be is a woman, and the most unwomanly thing a woman can be is a man. (You’re the one who said “worst”, lol).
Hooray for binary opposites. Our universe is full of ’em.
Well yes, you’re right. The most unwomanly thing I could be is a man. But that’s not what the phrasing is suggesting. The phrasing suggests that for a man to display ‘womanly qualities’ takes away from his manness, while a woman displaying ‘manly qualities’ takes away from the fact that she a woman. The problem is in the gendered qualities, not in actually being the opposite sex.
Well said Emma.
Why the steady job, Emma? To provide? I’m just curious, as this would seem to be a bit old-timey to be a prerequisite. Not only in that “traditional” interpretation of the term, but also against a changing working environment where “steady jobs” aren’t the only option to a successful working life. I for one am not deterred by a potential partner who is living a curious and exciting lifestyle vs one of expectations and predictability.
Hi KR,
I didn’t mean a steady job in the traditional sense, and certainly not to provide! I have a stead y job myself and don’t need anyone else to help me along.
I guess I meant steady job to mean a steady source of income. You’re right, this doesn’t have to be a boring old office job; careers like photography, or freelancing or any number of things are totally legitimate ways to make money and build the life you want.
I guess the most important part for me is work ethic and long term goals that are being worked towards. I hate laziness in that regard and people who are happy to sit stagnant aren’t usually well matched with me 🙂
That’s cool, I didn’t want to seem all nit-picky, was just curious given the term used 😉
Hi Emma,
Thanks for the thoughtful response 🙂
“Pressure on men is not women’s fault” – I would say you are right and no so right 😉 Sometimes women do put pressure (even subtly) on men to be a certain way – i.e the notion of a ‘real man’. Same for men with women – no doubt about it!
I don’t think it’s a question of ‘fault’ as it is as much about ‘responsibility’. I think you missed the point of my statement.
People need to be accountable for their roles and the extent of their compassion. There is little point in blaming – past or present – it simply removes the power from choices that lay ahead.
I don’t believe a ‘real man’ exists. I believe all men are ‘real men’ expressing themselves in many different existential forms.
I believe women (and men equally) impose their desires onto one another. Some of those desires are actually quite detached from reality and are at their core emotionally destructive. I do come across a great deal of disenchanted discussions and opinions within the gender debate. I, naturally, try to remain neutral, but it’s good to discuss issues at a fundamental level.
I will say this, it’s an idea I’ve been kicking around, though it may be somewhat controversial.. I do believe that we are all disappointed when our desires aren’t met in life be it work, relationships, dreams, goals etc as we come of age we accept these short-comings more and more yet with time we get better at blaming ‘the world’ around us either discreetly, subtly, display it through soft rebellion or individualism and, of course, our opinions correspond with our experience.
Relationships tend to be subject to the lofty heights of our aspirations and fantasy’s and when they work they are ecstatic, when they don’t they are horrible and all that emotional energy creates a catalyst for some pre-tty heav-y gender debates when everyone finally get’s to let off the steam..
Just sayin…
I think it’s about personal responsibility … we’re all at fault..
Antonio, well put. I agree with you for sure 🙂
Was just saying to my mum the other day that we would like to watch some of the female national team play. Shame I missed out on this innings.
This is why I hate sport. Not only is it deeply pointless, but the entire culture surrounding it makes me ill. Sexism exists in varying degrees almost everywhere, but it’s amplified to sickening degree by these sledge browed, back slapping, mouth breathers. Fuck mainstream sport, and fuck these men. Women shouldn’t have to put up with this shit.
Easy there, Tim, sport exists because of how we interact. It will continue to exist, and deserves to. Yes, it is an amplification of emotion. But don’t let the actions of some douchebags hide the fact that women also bag out women, in sport, in the workplace, in social circles etc. As men do to men. And women to men. And obviously, men to women. Do they deserve it? No. Will it stop? No.
And what exactly is “mainstream sport”? Should we all be playing underground sports to get our fill of competition?
Deeply pointless.
Deeply.
Deeply pointless.
What Antonio said. … You can’t have it both ways. You certainly cannot expect to keep the support of men who agree with you, if you look at the behavior of the worst, and say things like ‘men are all pigs’ and ‘why do we teach them to read’.
Why are you blaming women, for the masculine ideals men put in place for themselves? It wasn’t women who taught men that they aren’t allowed to cry. It wasn’t women who taught men that they have to be dominant over women. It wasn’t women who taught men that they have to physically fight each other. Women didn’t create these systems, they are centuries old.
Stop blaming women for things that the patriarchy instituted. Women didn’t create these problems for men, other men did. I understand that it’s easier to blame women for the sexism they face than it is to acknowledge that masculinity as upheld and reinforced primarily by men is harmful, both to men and women, but it’s clearly wrong.
Stop blaming the patriarchy institution. Stop blaming other men..quite hypocritical don’t you think?
It’s not wrong that men are men.
What’s ‘wrong’ is people not being accountable for their lack of compassion. The universe doesn’t not bend to your will.
There are countless positions you can take on this debate, which one serves women, men and brings solidarity..take that position..
I actually missed the “All men are pigs” line so apologies.
It’s as stupid, vapid and worthless as the men making disgusting comments about Elyse Perry
Way to go girls! Fight sexism with sexism. So is it wrong to point out that she is good looking? Any man or woman can look at Ellyse and go “yes she is good looking”. Good looking and our best young sportswoman currently. Not only does she play cricket for Australia but also plays Soccer for Australia and jumped onto the JJJ morning show in years gone by.
Does that make me a pig because i know what she has done? No it makes me a sports fan. Not a pig, a moron, a drongo or a bogan, a sports fan who listens to JJJ. Yes there is some pigish comments on here. But 99% of men would not say that to a woman’s face so to generalise the whole male population is disgraceful. I hope my daughter, when she grows up, can realise that it shouldn’t matter what people say about you, it’s about how you feel within yourself.
I haven’t heard Ellyse’s reply to this. Has anyone? That is right she probably doesn’t care. She would have heard worse on a cricket pitch. Some of the comments on here from certain women makes me realise that feminists are just as bad as the “male population” they are trying to offend. Get off your high horse and find something better to do than whinge about a picture of a female sporting superstar with some derogatory comments below.
I would put $1000 down to say that the good comments about her sporting prowess from the male population have been totally removed. And no woman commented on this post? Not 1 comment good or bad? I think not.
If this was the 1930′ or 40’s this would be propaganda at its finest!
So your defence is it’s okay to say completelyiggish and horrible things, if yo would never say the. To a person’s face?
So if someone wrote you frequent letters saying “you deserve to die, everyone hates you!” You’d be fine with it? I mean,they’re not saying it to your face!
Loy’s of women have given up careers, hobbies, everything because of frequent comments, none of which were said to their face. Rape threats, death threats, constant messages of “you are only worth your body to me, and nothing else”
You say women should just get over it, because it’s nothing y have to deal with. Let’s be honest, if men likely and I had to, only a daily basis,be judged as a sexual object first and a person second, talk like this would have been banned centuries ago.
Brad’s on the money about a few things –
Ellyse’s take on things is relevant, as she is the one who’s offense counts the most. Of course you’re allowed to be defensive on behalf of others, but sometimes you’re defending something that the victim doesn’t require defending from. I think if she stood up and said “these guys are all obvious trolls and jerks, I feel no pain from such uneducated words” we could move on because we could all nod our heads and hope that their ensuing embarrassment would do more to deter future efforts than to call them out oh so obviously with cries of sexism. That’s just the response they’re craving!
Definite propaganda as he has pointed out, the comments are obviously selective. And some of the commentors are obviously not real names. But that said, there are many genuine comments so there is validity in their collaboration, but there should be a caveat that some men would have stood to Ellyse’s defense.
But-
Just because someone wouldn’t say something to your face shouldn’t excuse it. Jm goes a little overboard with their argument here, but I’ll say that some guys do think what they have to say is fair, and it does kind of kick around the collective drongo minds that it’s cool to spout tired sexist junk and it may then settle as common drongo thought. People should at least try to be a bit more creative, because it only impresses the lowest of the low brows when this stuff gets trumpeted.
Brad: I am a dude. I cannot look at that photo and not notice that she is a very pretty girl. I could not imagine of commenting on that, in the manner these guys were, or acting as if her social worth is tied up in an accident of genetics. How she looks has no bearing on her achievements in the world of sport. My kids watch Star Trek, and I was recently astounded to realise that, in the world where that show was made, the nicest thing you could say to a girl is how attractive she was. I have encountered this in the workplace, too ( being asked what I thought of how female employees looked, when my response was to note that I could care less what they look like, I care about how good they are at their job ).
There’s nothing wrong in my view with being a guy. There’s nothing wrong with noticing that a female is attractive to you. There’s everything wrong with letting discussion of a girl’s looks be in any way allowed to overshadow her achievements. Even if it’s said amongst blokes, in a blokey way, when it plumbs the depths evident in the discussions above, it frames the way we think of women, and what we think is important about who they are.
Of course, that’s more spirited defence than the women posting sexist comments on this thread deserve, but that’s also half the point, on both sides, we’re talking about extremes of behaviour, not the median or the norm. I do continue to believe that much of what gets posted here, represents a depressing extreme, and then gets discussed as if it’s more common than it is.
I am 100% for women being equal in society. I want my wife to have the same opportunities I have had or have in life. But that does not mean men and women are the same physically or mentally. Saying men have to become more effeminant because you don’t like there “macho bullshit” is just as bad as a man telling you to get in to kitchen. Each person is different some women like being in the kitchen, some women like to be objectified. Some men like to be in the kitchen and some men like to be objectified… That is their right as an individual, people need to chill the fuck out and let people be who they are. If they are different from you… Get over it. If you don’t like the way someone talks… Don’t assosciate with them. Changing social injustice, yes… Changing people to be the way you want is as bad as everyone else.
some women like to be objectified.
Evidence?
All the girls on Facebook who post risque pictures of themselves and then “like” all the comments that say “aw ye dayumm beb u hotttt” and reply with “omg thanks bby xoxoxox <3".
Or all the "Rate me, /b/" threads on 4chan.
Won choosing to ask for attention to their features is not the same as a woman being degraded as a sexual object without her consent. Firstly,a woman has choice to put those pictures online, Elisha did not have choice to be seen as only good for sex, and cooking.
Objectification means no consent. Just as a lamp does not consent to being switched on, women when objectified do not have their consent considered at all.
SELFIEs, P.Hilton, Any of the Kardashains for a start. Been to the mall lately or seen the odd picture of some pop starlet arse on instagram per chance.
Sorry I try and block out ephemera and the whole celebriy rubbish. Next week it will be something else.
But sexism is unfortunately going to be around for quite a while.
So society rewards women based on their looks and sexuality first and foremost. Some women realise that to succeed they must use their sexuality and looks. Therefore, Anthony says “women like to be objectified, therefore objectification is okay”
Firstly, a woman using her own sexuality through her own choice is not objectifying. Objects don’t have choices.
Secondly, that rationale would justify all scores of terrible actions through history. Not all African Americans supported desegregation. They lived in a world where they realised they would be rewarded based on how demure, supportive and generally inoffensive , passive and accepting they were to the white establishment. And once they knew how to be rewarded in society, they became passive to live well.
Now under your reasoning, you’d be shouting to the civil rights movement “not all black people want equal rights. So you should stop complaining about improving the rights, because it’s not wanted”
What’s scary is that exact argument was used in support of segregation, even today. Slavery too. And I do hope you’d not be supporting either of those crimes.
So how do ou suggest e challenge social injustice of sexism, such as is displayed in the above comments without trying to change people?
And eve if some women like to be objectified, shouldn’t we try to treat them as people first, before finding out how they like to be treated, rather than as an object first, and refusing to liste. To them afterwards? After all, once a person is an object, they are always an object.
Look, I think when you try to guilt-trip people about not watching a certain sport, don’t be surprised when people to take the piss.
I’m sure Elyse Perry is happy enough about her own achievements without needing some internet feminist crusader hijacking her image to make other people feel bad about not worshipping womens’ cricket.
Why should I be made to feel as if I have something to apologize for by not watching or paying attention to womens’ cricket? Heck, I barely watch mens’ bloody cricket.
That’s not what this blog post is about.
Please pay attention.
Actually it is.
I very much doubt the comments would have been as vulgar if the top two lines had been omitted. You know, the lines that criticized everyone who didn’t watch womens’ cricket?
Your comment translated:
“Comeon girls, it’s not the guys fault he said you were only good for being in the kitchen, and fucking, it’s your fault for mentioning how successful you’ve been, yet how little attention has been paid to you. If you had just said nothing, the guy wouldn’t have done those terrible things. REAlly yo should be apologising to the guy for making him say those terrible things…he’s a really good guy, usually”
Read about rape culture. It’s what you’re doing right now.
So, it’s wrong for people on the internet to use elyse’s success as evidence of how female sports overlooked, but totally okay for you to useelyse’s imagined opinions to show how women on the internet are or to complain about poor coverage of women in sport. Is that right?
Hypocrisy much?
I think sexism, from men or women, is plain bigotry. If some offer derogatory comments about all men or all women, chances are that he or she is a sexist. Shame on them.
The real feminists of the world are out there forging careers or starting businesses, while you all comment on blogs. That’s why you aren’t taken seriously.
The real men of the world are out there forging careers or starting businesses while the knuckle-dragging yobs are ensuring their place on the dole by making dumb and gratuitous phwoar comments on blogs. That’s why they aren’t taken seriously.
He had a point, though. WP is like tumblr for 30-pluses.
Yeah as much as I have loved your other comments on this, this is actually really classist. it’s suggesting that people on welfare are yobs, only there because they’re too lazy to work hard and ‘forge careers.’ It’s a really unfair generalisation, given how much social power middle class men have. Why do we need to criticise poor people, in order to hit out at sexism? Poor people are already not taken seriously, no need to add to that.
The point was that these losers would never be able to get a job in the real world.
Oh, mindmadeup, I do believe you just lost much credibility there!
And yeah, most of us know not to pay any credit to the knuckle-dragging yobs out there, whatever their source of income.
On a side-note, that Shane Warne guy doesn’t make to much, does he? Or Robin Thicke? Or Tony Abbott?…
Tell me what a ‘real man’ is and I’ll tell you what a ‘real women’ is. Then in our world we will find only loneliness..
So, to be clear, if a woman complains ago anything, she’s wasting her time. But if a man complains about something, as you are doing here, not a waste of time.
Hypocrisy much?
Women are just as much pigs are as males these days. People wonder why relationships don’t last anymore. Equal rights yep good, but why would a woman want a relationship when it’s now ok for both sexes to be sluts? Wasn’t it bad enough with just guys being assholes? Now we have women who think they are dudes, and dudes who think they are women.
Single, I’m guessing for a long time.
Just to be clear, relationships end earlier now because women are allowed to end them earlier. THE days whe they had to stick with abusive, violent, unloving partners is over. And do you really want them back?
How exactly are men becoming men, by the way?
What the hell kind of response is that, Jm? Your posts are harder and harder to understand through your terrible misspellings and such. But this time you’re way off the mark.
“Single, I’m guessing for a long time.” Where the heck did that come from?
Mike seems to have an issue that is a little off topic and confusing, but your answer is just rubbish.
The day is not over, sadly, where women can always leave abusive relationships. It’s just not kept out of the public conscience, but its foolish to no end to say this no longer happens!
My response came from the reality that guys who are single online for a long time tend to blame women for everything. Take a look at some MRA blogs. He’s using th term sluts to describe all women, and you don’t even consider criticising him! Come on!
True, women can’t always leave abusive relationships, but it is true that part of the reason we have more separation of relationships now than we did 50 years ago is that through the no fault divorce both parties are more able to leave relationships that we hurtful to one party. When people, such as mike, complain about “People leave relationships too early now, because all women are sluts” they ignore the other factors influencing that separation rate, and just blame women for sleeping around.
Stop making stuff up!
I did criticise his comment as being confusing, but since he was EQUALLY scathing to men and women, there’s no need for me to call it out as sexist.
He did NOT use the “term sluts to describe all women”! He actually said, verbatim, “when it’s now ok for both sexes to be sluts”.
Just keep your comments factual and you’ll make case for a better argument. Right now you just come off as a seething, penis-hating, sex-loathing XX’er.
Stop making stuff up!
I did criticise his comment as being confusing, but since he was EQUALLY scathing to men and women, there’s no need for me to call it out as sexist.
He did NOT use the “term sluts to describe all women”! He actually said, verbatim, “when it’s now ok for both sexes to be sluts”.
Just keep your comments factual and you’ll make case for a better argument. Right now you just come off as a seething, penis-hating, sex-loating XX’er.
Well, first off I’m a man, who quite likes sex and has a penis. I know-shocking! A man who can consider the woman’s side of thing, sees the danger of using the word “slut” around women.
And you’re coming off as the sort of guy who tacitly accepts sexism on a regular basis all through his life, only to suddenly flare up when one person makes a comment about “Men are quite bad y’know”
The word slut is never equal across genders, because it’s never been a negative around men. True, he didn’t say all women were sluts, but he did blame the women (and only the women) and their sexuality for the reduction of long term relationships.
i actually agree that most men are pigs
Look, much of what is said there is terribly sexist, but I fail to see why the comments that compliment her looks, such as “she is stunning”, are included. It’s hardly offensive, and all I would have to do is find a picture of an attractive male on a similar memes page to see almost identical comments from women.
I’m not condoning the rest of what is written, but claiming sexism for calling someone attractive is ridiculous.
Calling a woman attractive is one thing (though it should be noticed that male athletes are recognised by their achievements first, looks second at best, whereas a female athelete’s looks are the first thing ever mentioned about them), but there is a big difference between “you look great” and “I’d fuck you”
The latter is not a compliment, not to anyone.
Wow, that’s the most generalised nonsense you’ve spouted so far, Jm!
Male achievements are always recognised over their looks, and a female’s looks are always first.
No, no, no. Just rubbish.
And Tyler’s point is ONLY the part you agree on – he says nothing about taking a compliment to an unsavory level, he only plays at the fact that finding an attractive person attractive shouldn’t be seen as a sin.
Okay then, if what I’ve said is rubbish, naturally you can find tennis player, a male tennis player in the Australian open, whose looks are being discussed in any forum, superseding and separate from his achievements. I can wait. I think you’ll be taking a while.
And for the record, making a generalised comment about society, is wrong! But making a generalised and sexualised comment about women online….that’s just a joke that people should get over.
How did so many Texas Tea Party asses end up in Australia?
Penis envy was once a buzz word; it would appear that envy has moved 180 degrees in the Southern Hemisphere.
None of the women here are suffering for want of a penis. They’d be useful if you needed to take a leak next to the freeway though.
I dunno, you might be. ;P
Pingback: Aussie Sexism for Female Aussie Cricket Star | spacegirlerin
Reblogged this on spacegirlerin and commented:
Anger level is high. As is frustration level. Ellyse Perry is a star.
People, enough of the crap. How dare any of you take down a female Aussie athlete? Are we not one country with a massive value toward supporting our sorting stars! I don’t care if they are male or female and not should you! This is embarrassing that this is even an issue, be proud we have a team fronting up. And let me say I’d like to see half you boys take her on in field, surely funny times ahead 🙂 seriously, calm the f down, we are one and should support accordingly, come on peeps, would we say the same of Cathy Freeman winning gold? Or our boys bringing home the Ashes? Get aligned and support, we are one pure and simple.
I am all fucked
*sob*
and that cricket chick is hot
i wish my dick was her bat so she could give me an arm pit choo choo
What’s the matter, local brothel knock back your maxed credit card?
hahahaha nice!
You’re just feeding the troll, mindmadeup. No points to be won in doing that…
You really see both layers of sexism here, the men who prey on women directly and then the ones that take women down when they point it out.
The extremely talented female cricketer is Meg Lanning,the sister of a friend of mine.Get your mind out of the gutters gentleman,can’t believe the sexist disgusting and lewd comments posted above.Just goes to show the low life scum alot of you half wits are.
How not to have a healthy discussion about this:
1. Ignorant sexist men act like themselves (intentionally sexist, vulgar and generally appalling).
2. Someone then generalizes about men (perhaps inferring that they are all similar).
3. Men get offended by the double standard.
4. Someone suggests it’s not a double standard because of present power roles in society.
5. Division forms between both the men and women who hate the men from step 1
6. Actual point is lost.
The whole point is that A, these facebookers are total fuckwits for their sexism, and B that sexism is a form of generalization against a specific sex. Surely if you want to progress away from sexism EVERYONE needs to be careful with generalizations. Justifying it for some and not others is logically incompatible with the equality most of us here hope to see.
Although, I don’t really see how a comment thread on this could really achieve much more than a spam of ‘yeah fuck those morons’. At least it lets them know that there are others who dislike them for it i suppose.
+1
While there is definitely an element of sad, sexist truth to what these guys are saying, I think half these comments are for shock value only. I personally love saying shocking stuff (that I don’t believe or agree with) just to put the cat amongst the politically correct pigeons, and cos it’s so stupid it’s funny
You need a hobby
Sound alike fun. So you’d be okay with me saying you rape and murder puppies-for shock value, mind you, and tell everyone you know about it-just for shits and giggles.
Your FACE rapes and murders puppies, Jm.
… Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
Welcome to the internet gentlemen and ladies (G comes before L in the alphabet. L coming before G makes no sense. Keep your sexism at the door =P), where scumbag comments roam free and people fish for easy negative reactions (that includes you, Jm.)
Here, we all get to be ‘the asshole that no one likes’. Until such time as every little thing you say on the internet has negative repercussions on real life (no thank you) due to everything being tied to your real person (aka, your real name, etc), it will always be that way.
Some of the things people say here on the internet, they actually don’t agree with in reality. They say it, as Simon has pointed out, to get a rise out of the fools who always seem to have a carrot shoved firmly up their arses. Humans in general seem to delight on drama.
Is it okay? Probably not. Does it often get boring to see? Eeeyup. Will it ever change? Probably not.
Obviously responding to fire with fire doesn’t ever help in any given discussion. The people here who decided to comment on sexism with more sexism, for example. Whether they are being ‘sarcastic’ or not makes little difference. In fact, a lot of what I read in this comment section seems to be said for shock value, from both sexes. It is a very special person who can’t realise that both men and women can be equally sexist in their comments, just as they can be equally nasty toward anything outside of their sex.
This was a comment that is aimed at this entire comment section, and only the first part really pertains to a particular commenter. So don’t get too butt-hurt over it =D
Complacency, while depressingly easy, never changes anything. Saying “it will never change” doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, as throughout history every social change has occurred in an environment where the community said “it will never happen”
+0.95
Yeah go ahead
Cool. Well put your facebook details down and I’ll be sure to spread the word…for shock value only, of course.
All the blokes complaining of sexism in the comments. Who are these clowns? Check your privilege white boys.
So bad behaviour is only poor when men conduct it…..I see …….good work…..makes sense. Why do you treat women like children Andrew? Thats sexist in itself………….everybody is capable of sexism…………..equality right???
We live in an unequal society. It is the privilege of us white men that we don’t have to know about inequality because it doesn’t have to effect us.
Sexism is wrong for either gender. But whenever a father is portrayed as a doofus on tv, or a woman complains about men generally, I stop to think about how:
No matter what happens yo me, I can be confident the police will support me
In any job application, my chances will be based on my skills and experience
I can be confident as a worker, a customer and a service user, I will be treated with respect.
No matter where I am, I canbefIrly confident I’ll be treated at the same standard or better than the people around me.
Everyone is too busy arguing over sexism to point out the real error….
“watching men cricket”?
Surely it isn’t too hard to say “men’s cricket” or “men playing cricket”
just sayin’
We didn’t create the meme. If we had, there’d be no typo.
Incredible. I look at the photo and Elyse Perry’s achievement and the appalling, imbecilic, sexist, bogan responses and all I can think is that this is a window of the crap women in general have to put up with throughout their lives and that it’s something all men should be better than by now.
To me, a majority of men would be as appalled at this boorish stupidity as I am and feel good that they too are better than acting like neanderthals.
Instead, I see a stream of highly offended men carrying on as though THEY are the victims here – as though the issue isn’t outdated sexism and misogyny in our society but rather of women being ‘so offensive’ as to point it out.
The issue appears to be (to them at least) that women can’t take a “joke” and that “women should get over it” Amazing. Women “should get over it” coming from some men who can’t stand the thought of looking in the mirror and seeing just how ugly they and there actions really are.
How brutally hard it must be for such small minds to struggle to simply acknowledge the gross inequity of women’s endeavours and achievements being rated as secondary – whether it’s in business, politics, sport or elsewhere?
What does it take from any of you to do that? Absolutely nothing, that’s what – but the problem, YOUR problem, is that you are so deeply insecure, despite having all the advantages society throws your way, that you can’t imagine there’s room for them too.
Yes, there have been idiotic remarks about all men – which simply are not true – made by some women here, but I can imagine the lifetime of bullish women put up with that can lead to such remarks that have me going “fxck it, I’ll let that one slide”.
I think the inequality and utterly offensive treatment women receive in our society – dished out so casually by neanderthal bogan halfwits is a far bigger issue than one or two women saying that they hate men or making a sweeping generalisation.
This country is full of real, amazing men who see honour in standing up for anyone who isn’t copping a fair deal and women in this country get a pretty raw deal wen you compare their daily reality with those of a man doing the same.
So seriously boys, grow up. If you feel threatened by women standing up for themselves and pointing out the inequality in our society, it’s you who have the giant chips on your shoulders and you who need to “get over it”
Oh ffs, mansplaining ftw – pull up your big boy panties, take the sexist assholes to task for posting such shit on the OP and stop whining about women who are vocal about how fed up they are with this kind of behaviour.
You can actively spend hours patiently explaining to all of us how one woman cracking the shits is terrible and out of line and “just as sexist” – how about you go and use that fabulous logic and tell bogan males to fuck off?
I am SO TIRED of being explained to by men that I should take the higher ground, be nicer, be kinder than dickheads who make comments about women like those in the OP. As if my having a vagina means I can’t take a swipe at some loser without voiding my feminist credentials.
And kudos to the blokes I see above who have stepped away from dudebro land and are just as fed up as most women are with this kind of pointless energy sapping moronic behaviour.
I unfortunately found myself half giggling to some of those comments, knowing how wrong, degrading and disrespectful they are. This comes from a lifetime of conditioning of sexist jokes and unconscious realization that if you can’t beat them, join them! I have in my younger years tried the whole ‘It doesn’t effect me, they are just jokes, I can be just as funny by making sexist remarks and getting a reaction’ but really as a woman you really never feel ok with that. Yes for some women it helps them feel less victimized by joining in, ‘being one of the boys’, ignoring, not getting angry or not ever thinking about the inequality behind all the banter, basically ignorance is bliss. It’s easy to think it’s acceptable because there are so few people out there who will put there true emotions on the line to say, ‘Don’t say that, it actually hurts!’, ‘I am just as worthy and valuable as you and every other person’. I truly admire the women and men who stand up to this crap, who have consciously decided to go against the grain of what’s socially standard, to become the targets for ill-minded people who themselves aren’t strong enough to do the same. For me feminism is bravery, and sexism is cowardly. I believe most men will never understand many of the gender related issues that women have to deal with as it will never impact you, not until you have children and daughters or something awful happens to a female family member/ friend that leaves you confused, angry and guilty. So to all the feminists out there please don’t stop writing informative and challenging opinions on blogs like this, I want to learn more and keep learning so I don’t keep oppressing myself and others around me. And to the others, I hope you find the strength one day to not protect yourself so much and start standing up for those who actually need your support. If you can do this I promise you will feel like the strongest person you have ever been.
firstly, i am a male, and personally i find the ‘men are all pigs’ comment to be slightly more offensive than ‘that’s a weird looking saucepan’. if i heard a male say ‘women are all pigs’ i would be very upset, because that’s a horrible thing to say about any group. at least the saucepan comment was an attempt at humour and not a personal attack. it’s still bad, don’t get me wrong.
secondly, i think sexism in sports is sort of understandable (hear me out). if i want to watch the very best team vs the second best team in the world, they are going to be all male teams. why? we are naturally faster and stronger. the fastest recorded female bowl is 120 km/hr MAX. this is very slow for the fast bowlers in male cricket who clock between 120-160 km/hr. so if there was some guy from some mediocre team who played well some day, you wouldn’t post it on facebook. this is sorta the equivalent of one of the best female players. in high impact sports, all male teams trump all female teams every time. if you are really into a sport, you want to watch the metagame, you want to take data, you want to see what strategies work against the best of the best. cricket happens to be a sport where males are naturally superior (don’t hate me, research this yourself). when a female, or female team, ranks among the best in the world legitimately (none of this woman vs woman only stuff) then I will follow her/them just like any other athlete. you think i’m sexist? no. i’m a gamer. Women are very very good at long distance walking/running. Women are often more agile than men in martial arts and rank among the best. women are generally good at bowling and darts. cycling. equestrian games. yachting. and don’t forget chess. in these games, i will watch women, women will make the headlines and women dominate the sport usually. if men were much worse at these sports, i wouldn’t want to hear about them because as good as they try to be they just aren’t as good. african-americans have smaller lung capacities and can’t swim as far, should we have an ‘african-american only’ league? NO. i’m not being racist, i’m being logical. koreans are far superior at Starcraft and they have korean and non-korean ladders. no one watches or cares about the non-korean ladder because they suck. end. of. story. thats not racist. this isn’t sexist. the pic says ‘everyone so busy watching men cricket they didn’t notice this lady bla bla’.. no, no one noticed the kid down the road doing well either. i’m sure some man did really well out there in some game and it wasn’t noticed because another game was being played with way better teams. read this carefully, i am not being sexist.
Let me sum up what you’ve written for you: “I am a male and am more offended by comments related to me, than I am comments related to people who are different than me. Moreover, while comments made about me are abusive, evil and must be stopped, comments made about people who aren’t me are just jokes, not abuse, and an is completely understandable, so no one has the right to be offended”
Sit down, because I have a shock for you. People who aren’t you exist, and have opinions completely separate from you. I know-shocking. It’s like they’re people or something.
Jm: Let me sum up what you’ve written for you: “I am a male and am more offended by comments related to me, than I am comments related to people who are different than me.
~~no, i’m not personally offended by much at all. However, I think a broad statement such as ‘all men are pigs’ is the extremity of bigotry. I find ‘thats a funny looking saucepan’ to be offensive as well. It’s not quite as broad nor such a personal attack at the character of the group of people it is offending. If you were to switch around the male and female here, saying ‘all women are pigs’, I would still say that is way more offensive than ‘thats a funny looking hammer, get back to work’~~
Jm: Moreover, while comments made about me are abusive, evil and must be stopped,
~~ I never alluded to this and I think freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.~~
Jm: comments made about people who aren’t me are just jokes, not abuse, and an is completely understandable,so no one has the right to be offended”
~~I didn’t say it was a joke. I said it was an attempt at humour. I don’t find it funny, I find it very offensive. But ‘all men are pigs’ isn’t even trying to be witty in any way. Women certainly have a right to be offended. And men certainly have a right to be offended at the rebuttal of ‘all men are pigs’. Furthermore, I am not changing what I have previously written in my above post. I never alluded to such allegations. So Jm, let me sum up what you’ve written for you: “I didn’t properly read nor understand your post at all.”~~
Also, on the sexism in sport – I just want to add one more thing. If men (generally) are naturally physically stronger because of our testosterone levels and feminism takes that away from us, then what do we have left? practically nothing. women (generally) are much better at pretty much everything else. if men aren’t allowed to be better at sports, then you may as well just throw us away. Other than in sports, mining and construction, muscles aren’t all that useful in this day and age. In fact, many scientists are claiming that humans will slowly get weaker because the creation and maintenance of muscle mass isn’t going to be worth the advantages of having that muscle in such a technologically advanced society.
You know what’s amazing, you looked at this entire article, eveyr section about it, and never stopped to consider “Maybe I don’t find sexism directed to women as offensive as sexism directed towards men because I am not a woman” Never even considered it.
Amazing.
“If you were to switch around the male and female here, saying ‘all women are pigs’, I would still say that is way more offensive than ‘thats a funny looking hammer, get back to work’~~”
That is in no way a fair comparison! Let’s take a look at what you’re stating here:
A woman staying in the kitchen, making sandwiches for her husband and having no empowerment is the same as a man with a regular job for which he is paid.
“I didn’t say it was a joke. I said it was an attempt at humour.”
A thus the tiniest hair is split.
” If men (generally) are naturally physically stronger because of our testosterone levels and feminism takes that away from us, then what do we have left? ”
Women are not trying to take your testosterone away from you, logic. Calm down. No feminist is going to come at night and steal your precious testosterone, they don’t particularly want it.
“if men aren’t allowed to be better at sports, then you may as well just throw us away”
Ah, the mighty cry of “What about the menzzzzzz!”
No one is saying men are not allowed to be good at sports. That’s being silly. What this post and many women are asking is a better recognition of women in sport.
Now, the actually logical person says “Well, we recognise great achievements among men based on the training, endurance and skills, why not also recognise great achievements among women”
A person with the user tag of “logic” instead says:
“But if we recognise successful women, we won’t be paying enough attention to men. And then it’ll be misandry! The women will come and steal all of our precious testosterone!”
Seriously, calm down. Women aren’t going to through you away once women’s cricket gets the attention it deserves. Now, if you think focusing on muscles isn’t enough and you should focus on other skills as well (Which, incidentally is what most atheletes already do. You need more than simple muscle strength in most sports-balance, strategy and technique are also kind of important), that might be a good idea, as being a simple muscle head isn’;t good for anyone.
As interesting/entertaining as this has been, I must remind myself that THIS IS THE INTERNETS & if people really want to unload/vent in a meaningful way perhaps a different forum might be useful, e.g. one that involves TALKING to ACTUAL PEOPLE’S FACE
Well, for an online forum, these comments have now been going into mainstream news sites, leading to questions being asked of the widespread sexist element of sport in Australia.
So not so meaningless, but if you want to start a public forum on sexism in sport I’m happy to support you.
Jm: You know what’s amazing, you looked at this entire article, eveyr section about it, and never stopped to consider “Maybe I don’t find sexism directed to women as offensive as sexism directed towards men because I am not a woman” Never even considered it.
Amazing.
~~ I find sexist remarks directed at woman just as offensive. I have a wife (who agrees with what I’ve written here by the way) and I truly get personally offended by such comments just thinking about how they would affect her. I also think calling an entire group of people ‘pigs’ is the most ignorant thing that has been said on this page.
Jm: “If you were to switch around the male and female here, saying ‘all women are pigs’, I would still say that is way more offensive than ‘thats a funny looking hammer, get back to work’~~” That is in no way a fair comparison! Let’s take a look at what you’re stating here: A woman staying in the kitchen, making sandwiches for her husband and having no empowerment is the same as a man with a regular job for which he is paid.
~~Are you seriously focusing on the fact that I said ‘hammer’? I could just have easily written any male oriented thing. How you can focus on that is beyond me, as it had nothing really to do with my main point. Also, how is a hammer any less of a work tool than a saucepan? chefs use saucepans, full-time mums use saucepans. stay at home dads use hammers. use your head.
Jm: “I didn’t say it was a joke. I said it was an attempt at humour.” A thus the tiniest hair is split.
~~ But a pretty important split nonetheless. I don’t find it funny, thus I am separating myself from the bigots who do. Ok?
Jm: “If men (generally) are naturally physically stronger because of our testosterone levels and feminism takes that away from us, then what do we have left? ” Women are not trying to take your testosterone away from you, logic. Calm down. No feminist is going to come at night and steal your precious testosterone, they don’t particularly want it.
~~ I’m not sure how you can take a point and twist it so abstractly. I know a woman isn’t going to physical take a mans testosterone LOL. you weirdo.
Jm: “if men aren’t allowed to be better at sports, then you may as well just throw us away” Ah, the mighty cry of “What about the menzzzzzz!”
~~
No one is saying men are not allowed to be good at sports. That’s being silly. What this post and many women are asking is a better recognition of women in sport.
~~ And my rebuttal is that I recognise skill. Any woman who is the best at something I will/do recognise and watch them. If the all-woman australian cricket team beats the mens team, I will recognise them and suggest to make a mixed team of all our best players. The exact same goes for if our mens B team beats our A team. why would I care about our second best team? why would I watch them on TV? I’m not being sexist. I think anyone who is worse than another player IS worse than that player and I don’t want to watch them. If Americans are awesome at basketball, why would I watch Japanese basketball?? why don’t they get the same amount of coverage?? In fact, I’m being less sexist by NOT categorizing the players. I am treating them as equals. Do you understand that? If you wanted every sports game to be equally received, even though the players are worse, you would have a lot of sports on tv.
Jm: Now, the actually logical person says “Well, we recognise great achievements among men based on the training, endurance and skills, why not also recognise great achievements among women”
~~ I do recognise those achievements. I made a list of all the sports that woman a naturally equal/superior in my first post. If a woman achieves greatly against everyone, then of course I will recognise them. why must they only verse their own gender? it’s kind of cheating. everyone is naturally good/bad at certain things. and much of that has to do with race, gender, upbringing. should Caucasians only race each other in marathons because Ethiopians are just too darn good?? No.
Jm: A person with the user tag of “logic” instead says: “But if we recognise successful women, we won’t be paying enough attention to men. And then it’ll be misandry! The women will come and steal all of our precious testosterone!”
~~ LOL HOW DID I SAY THAT?? I will say it again, I recognise skill. In fact, if women are far superior to men in a certain sport, then I wont bother watching the men. why? because they aren’t the best. end of story. and there are sports like that, pro darts comes mind.
Jm: Seriously, calm down. Women aren’t going to through you away once women’s cricket gets the attention it deserves. Now, if you think focusing on muscles isn’t enough and you should focus on other skills as well (Which, incidentally is what most atheletes already do. You need more than simple muscle strength in most sports-balance, strategy and technique are also kind of important), that might be a good idea, as being a simple muscle head isn’;t good for anyone.
~~ Firstly, throw*. Secondly, I agree with this point. However, different strategies and techniques must be used at higher and lower levels of skill. Watching top-end strategies is the entire reason I don’t watch TV sports to see lower skilled teams. whether it be women’s teams, reserve teams, casual teams, or young teams. But that wasn’t the point, not all men have technique, balance, and strategy. But we all have testosterone and mostly we’re stronger than woman. Thus, high-impact sports tend to favour men’s physique. If feminists want to ‘equalise’ with men, why would you look towards the one thing that men are pretty much strictly better at? Americans and Japanese are equal races, but not at basketball. the Japanese make up for that by being better at other things, and women should do the same (and of course most of them do). I would give my left arm to be able to do some things as well as women can. but i can’t, and i’m not trying to become equal in those areas.
“I have a wife (who agrees with what I’ve written here by the way) ”
Has a wife. Is not a sexist. Got it.
“. I also think calling an entire group of people ‘pigs’ is the most ignorant thing that has been said on this page.”
Jeez-did you read the comments? Please tell me how beign called a pig is worse than the constant sexualised comments here? I mean, constantly treating women as sexual objects leads to rape. What exactly does being called a pig lead to?
“Also, how is a hammer any less of a work tool than a saucepan? chefs use saucepans, full-time mums use saucepans. stay at home dads use hammers. use your head.”
Are you seriously telling me that our culture sees a woman with a saucepan as a chef highly paid, and a man with a hammer as a stay at home dad? Are you honestly telling me this?
Next you’ll be telling me all those stay in the kitchen comments were actually tleling owmen “You are good cooks and owuld make a lot of money as a chef. Just sayin’ your work should be rewarded is all”
“I don’t find it funny, thus I am separating myself from the bigots who do. Ok?”
You separate yourself, while diminishign their comments. “It’s okay, I didn’t find it funny. But it was a joke, so it’s okay. Whereas a joke about men being pgis-totally evil!”
Then came multiple comments about how when oyu said if feminism takes away our testosteorne induced strength, what would men have left, oyu didn’t actually mean any of that.
So what did you mean?
“Any woman who is the best at something I will/do recognise and watch them. ”
Okay. So what do you watch women being their best at, thne? Please be specific.
“In fact, I’m being less sexist by NOT categorizing the players. I am treating them as equals.”
So, to be clear, if your wife wanted to play sport, you’d tell her “Don’t bother. Unless you’re as good as the male players, why would I watch?”
And the whole “I’m not sexist, I’m treating everyone equally, while caring more for men than I do women! Because soceity is equal!” when it’s not.
” Do you understand that? If you wanted every sports game to be equally received, even though the players are worse, you would have a lot of sports on tv.”
And we have how many dedicated sports channels on tv already, filled with overseas sports which have no relations to us? More sport on tv isn’t exactly a problem if you like sport.
“LOL HOW DID I SAY THAT?? I will say it again, I recognise skill. ”
Except when you said if feminism takes our testosterone induced strength. Again, you’re trying to pretend you never said it or that it didn’t mean what it actually mans, so feel free to clarify that.
” I would give my left arm to be able to do some things as well as women can. but i can’t, and i’m not trying to become equal in those areas.”
And what are those areas you consider women better at than men which you could never hope to compete with?
Some real anger and bitterness in some of these comments…. ease up people. Many of you are generalizing and stereotyping us (M and F) to fit into a certain box, a certain criteria. I am certain that the only box I fit into is my own, nobody else I’ve met quite fits how I process my thoughts.
Go Perry and the other cricketers. Apparently they lost the women’s ashes but went down fighting. It seems that they don’t get much TV air-time, not that I saw anyway.
ps: should I apologise now for putting the M before the F? I’m sure someone will take offense at that, or pickup on a spelling mistake and then advise me to go read a book and learn about a particular subject. Here Here!
Pingback: The Official Cricket Thread - Page 42
Pingback: Women as Chauvinist Pigs? | Mouldy Pilgrim
How far can the comments get from the original point?
Assholes comment on woman cricketer + all men are assholes+ all women who say all men are assholes are assholes. We got one asshole of nothingness now. No meaningful dialogue, no possible solutions. FFS can’t some of you just pull your head in and accept that there are men and women and women have been and are still getting the worst of it. So are poor people, ethnic and religious minorities and LGBT peoples – none of it fair, none of it solved by bagging other groups. I have no idea what it is really like to be discriminated against. Call me a pig – bug fucking deal, it only hurts a little bit. I have never been denied a job or an interview because of my gender or race so what the fuck would I actually know? These guys, and their ilk are the ones we should be taking to task – who the hell do you think you are : Adam Adamson, Adam Morris, Alex Tucker, Andre Corban, Andrew Cutter, Andrew Willcox, Ben Coventry, Brayden Couper, Clint McGrath, Connor Riley, Daniel Harvey, David Avante, David Hardaway, Dean Nesbit, Deva Nadesan, Dillon Lamour, Drew Williams, Jesse William, Joel Mitchell, John Fraser, Keiran Murphy, Linc Oliver, Lloyd Greenhill, Mark Lux, Matt Nelson, Rhys Locke, Rus Tee, Sam West, Sam White, Scott Free, Scott Meikle,Ted Yeung, Timothy Power, Tom Wilson?
Ok, so we’ve got someone who represents their nation in not one but 2 sports and has done so since the age of 17 in both, who performed fantastically in a particular game, and we get these pathetic jerks making sexist comments. As a father of a daughter who I hope might one day achieve even a fraction of what Elise Perry has, I’m sickened by these arsehats.
I’m disappointed. Given the description in the press, I thought this page may have some educated discussions. Instead I find an incredible irony: most of the comments appear to be made by chauvinists, feminists or other types of bogans.
A few people have tried to settle the flames with logic and reason, only to be set upon by a plethora of nonsensical rebuttal. While it naivety is sometimes amusing in a child, it’s just sad when it exists on such a large scale. This ‘discussion’ is no more meaningful than the average YouTube debate – it just has a slightly larger vocabulary.
Please point out the logic and reason,. Because all I saw were a lot of comments about
“What about the menz!!!!!”
“It’s just a joke, get over it!”
“Well, women are inferior…..” and
“These are just bad guys. There’s definitely not an overwhelming trend in society to treat women as sexual objects, posessions or men and not allowed independence. Definitely not. Just a few bad eggs making all guys look bad. Now feminists on the other hand……”
Jm: Has a wife. Is not a sexist. Got it.
~Yep. A wife who agrees with me. She understands true equality is about being treated as an equal human being. Not having delusions of equal skill sets.
Jm: Jeez-did you read the comments? Please tell me how beign called a pig is worse than the constant sexualised comments here? I mean, constantly treating women as sexual objects leads to rape. What exactly does being called a pig lead to?
~ I’m not talking about treating women as sexual objects. I’m only talking about the comments. If you construe these comments into a belief system, then treating someone as if you believe that they truly are a pig is worse than a sexual object. Pigs get cut up and eaten. So if a woman tells me that she thinks that I am a pig, I am supposed to assume it is an allusion to my grotesqueness and I cannot take it literally? Oh no, that’s just banter. Your argument has a Freudian answer, which means it’s not a true argument. Let’s take any humour or double-speak out of the sentence, now read it – “you are a pig”. SUB-HUMAN. But obviously the person who wrote this won’t treat me like an actual pig unless they are truly evil and morally deaf. That’s why I am JUST talking about the comment itself. Saying ‘get back to the kitchen’ may be subversive towards women as a gender, but saying ‘you are all pigs’ is subversive towards men as human beings. Also, the correlation between sexist humour and proclivity of rape is a slightly negative relationship. Why? Because truly sick people can’t tell that it is humour, and won’t enjoy the humourous aspect of the sentence. In any case, in every study that has been conducted, the researchers are very careful to note they are not testing whether these remarks cause rape. Obviously they don’t, they propagate stupidity and evil, but so does any prejudicial statement.~
Jm: Are you seriously telling me that our culture sees a woman with a saucepan as a chef highly paid, and a man with a hammer as a stay at home dad? Are you honestly telling me this?
~No, but I find it strange that you think that I am asking you what society thinks. I’m asking you to think for yourself. I simply switched saucepan for hammer because I was making a point about gender. Not occupation or class or anything other than gender. So I chose a utensil that is seen as gender specific. Ok now on to the ACTUAL point – If a man was to say ‘all women are pigs’ I would be horribly offended by that. But if a man had a cricket bat and a woman said ‘that’s a funny looking hammer’, I wouldn’t be all that offended. So it’s not the gender roles I’m concerned with, but the comment itself. ‘All men/women are pigs’ seems worse. That is the main point I wanted to make, if you want to nitpick about what utensil I put in my hypothetical mans hands instead of the cricket bat, then go ahead, but you are missing the entire point.~
Jm: Next you’ll be telling me all those stay in the kitchen comments were actually tleling owmen “You are good cooks and owuld make a lot of money as a chef. Just sayin’ your work should be rewarded is all”
~ Did you type that with your face? I have mostly answered this previously. But again this if just a Freudian answer. Next minute you’ll be telling men “Just keep hammering away and one day your kids will admire and love you”. Also, why did you have to bring money into this? The hammer may very well make you more money but the saucepan gets you love from your kids. I know which one I’d prefer, but that’s because, unlike you, I refuse to put money on a pedestal as the be all and end all, and measuring stick for status and class.~
Jm: You separate yourself, while diminishign their comments. “It’s okay, I didn’t find it funny. But it was a joke, so it’s okay. Whereas a joke about men being pgis-totally evil!”
~Stop doing quotation marks if your not actually quoting anyone. I didn’t say this. I never, ever, said that these men’s comments are OK. Also, why would I call the pigs comment a joke when it clearly wasn’t? It had precisely 0 wit. So did most of the men’s comments, but they are objectifying one person as a sex object. Which, in my opinion, is less horrible than objectifying an entire group of people as an animal that plays in mud, then we eat it.~
Jm: Then came multiple comments about how when oyu said if feminism takes away our testosteorne induced strength, what would men have left, oyu didn’t actually mean any of that. So what did you mean?
~ I meant everything I said. Also, the prior argument you made about sports not requiring muscle, it requires balance and technique and strategy bla bla. Yeah, you’re right, it does. Too bad testosterone on its own doesn’t give you those things which makes you argument sound pretty ridiculous. My argument was in respect to impact sports, where testosterone actually gives a clear advantage. Also, when did I ever say that I didn’t mean any of what I said? What was this paragraph even in response to? You’re making things up and attempting to put words in my mouth. Unfortunately for you, I teach grade 12 English for a living and have too much experience with debating to even acknowledge this as a relevant point.~
Jm: Okay. So what do you watch women being their best at, thne? Please be specific.
~In the last olympic games I watched the womens sailing team with much greater enthusiasm than the mens because I truly believed that they were the better team. Women are also generally better at shooting, archery and equestrian events.~
Jm: So, to be clear, if your wife wanted to play sport, you’d tell her “Don’t bother. Unless you’re as good as the male players, why would I watch?”
~ We both play in the touch football, which is mixed only. So far I’ve found that men and women are relatively equal in touch football. If it was on TV? No. I wouldn’t watch it. However, I fail to understand how this question has any relation to the points I’ve made. I would have a personal investment and interest in one of the players in the case you’ve presented. That changes everything. I certainly would watch a mediocre game that is not top tier sporting if I know the people playing. I do that all the time at my chess club hahaha. And yes, we have mixed gender games there too.~
Jm: And the whole “I’m not sexist, I’m treating everyone equally, while caring more for men than I do women! Because soceity is equal!” when it’s not.
~ And the whole “using quotation marks for things I never said”. I just love how you try to put words in my mouth when this is not a true quote. I watch men’s teams in impact sports because they are better teams, not because I’m ‘caring for men more than I do women’ (your words, not mine). Of course society is not equal (unto separate parts of itself, I’ll assume you mean), but there is more inequality throughout society than just man/woman. At the very least, in sports there is definitely racial inequality because of the physique of certain races. However, these races focus on another sport they are better at, as opposed to demanding the same air coverage as the top teams of a sport that requires a different physique because the world is being ‘racist’.~
Jm: And we have how many dedicated sports channels on tv already, filled with overseas sports which have no relations to us? More sport on tv isn’t exactly a problem if you like sport.
~ Wait a second. If you are going to give every single game equal coverage then you can’t discriminate against international teams because the players aren’t Australian. How far down this rabbit hole do you want to go? Anyway, you can have as many channels as you want with all kinds of mediocre teams playing each other, you are still going to have the same problem that caused this meme – no one noticed a player on form because everyone was watching the good teams for some reason. Funny that, hey.~
Jm: “LOL HOW DID I SAY THAT?? I will say it again, I recognise skill.” (properly quoting me) Except when you said if feminism takes our testosterone induced strength. Again, you’re trying to pretend you never said it or that it didn’t mean what it actually mans, so feel free to clarify that.
~ Oh, I meant that. Let me clarify it for you. These two sentences are not in contention with each other in any way. Feminist activists demand we consider women’s leagues equal to men’s leagues, that is how they are taking away men’s difference as a gender, and the cause of this difference is testosterone. Thus, by extension you are ‘taking away our testosterone’. Now, when I say I recognise skill, that means gender-less, colour-blind, SKILL. Having men’s and women’s leagues can be likened to having Asian-only gymnastics at the Olympics. It’s not a test of true skill if our female cricketers are only versing other females. It would not be a true test of skill if Caucasian gymnasts only competed against other Caucasians. The statement that was directly quoted (about recognising skill) was about having separate leagues in the first place, and how they are not conducive to a competitive atmosphere. The second quote (about females taking our testosterone) was regarding the feminist push for equal airtime and recognition in a woman-only league. Thus, these two statements have nothing to do with each other. LOL. ~
Jm: “I would give my left arm to be able to do some things as well as women can. but i can’t, and i’m not trying to become equal in those areas.”
And what are those areas you consider women better at than men which you could never hope to compete with?
~ I have answered this question like 3 time now, but if you are a woman and you don’t know what women are naturally good at in general, then I feel very sorry for you. Let me give you a hint: It’s not impact sports. I had to reply to this post instead of the actual post that this is in regards to, the reply button wasn’t available on that post.~
“a pig is worse than a sexual object. Pigs get cut up and eaten.”
Wait, have you ever heard of any feminist cutting up and eating men? Because you know there’s plenty of examples of men using women as sexual objects.
“Saying ‘get back to the kitchen’ may be subversive towards women as a gender, but saying ‘you are all pigs’ is subversive towards men as human beings”
So to be clear, you think that someone seeing all women as “Lesser human beings” is better than seeing men as “Less than human beings”? It’s another split hair, isn’t it. Unless you’re telling me that you would feel better about being called a “Lesser human being” than you would a “less than human being”
“Also, the correlation between sexist humour and proclivity of rape is a slightly negative relationship. Why? Because truly sick people can’t tell that it is humour, and won’t enjoy the humourous aspect of the sentence. ”
Rape is too common for us to say “It’s just a bunch of sicko’s” out there. Way too common. The fiction of the stranger with a knife is not the reality of rape in Australia. It’s the person you know who doesn’t accept the word “no” or doesn’t think it matters. It’s the person who manipulates a woman into saying yes, rather than accepting what she wants. There are entire communities, strategies, known about and popularised on tv shows and movies devoted to coercion, manipulation, and taking advantage of women. That’s what rape is in Australia today.
And when you treat women as only sex objects, why would you consider consent? It’s not like you ask other objects for consent.
It would be silly to say “x causes rape”-because of course it doesn’t. But humour, along with dismissing of rape impact, ongoing sexualisation of women in all fields, and anti-rape promotions focusing on what women should do to stop beign a target, all add to a culture where a woman is seen as a sex object first and only.
“Also, why did you have to bring money into this? The hammer may very well make you more money but the saucepan gets you love from your kids.”
Because society rewards things that produce wealth. If you have wealth, you have power. Pretedning that we reward the contribution of stay at home mums as equally as we reward men pulling in thousands of dollars every week ignores the reality that we punish people for wanting to stay at home with their kids. If they don’t have a job-they are punished for staying home with their kids by government welfare agencies. If they want to return to work at some point in the future they are punished because they have a large gap in their employment history, preventing them from getting many jobs.
“kids. I know which one I’d prefer, but that’s because, unlike you, I refuse to put money on a pedestal as the be all and end all, and measuring stick for status and class.~
Oh please. If this is true, quit your job and become a stay at home Dad. And when your mortgage or rent repayment comes up, try and pay that off with the love of your kids. Tell me how much society rewards the love of children then.
“So did most of the men’s comments, but they are objectifying one person as a sex object. ”
Again, the difference is that no men are being cut up and eaten like pigs, as you stated pigs are to be treated. Women are being used as sexual objects every day.
“I certainly would watch a mediocre game that is not top tier sporting if I know the people playing. I do that all the time at my chess club”
So you are willing to celebrate the achievements of people you know personally, but think the achievements of someone you don’t know, but has achieved much for Australia, should be ignored?
So, you’d want to watch your wife play touch football on tv if you had a chance, but wouldn’t want anyone else to watch their family members on tv.
“At the very least, in sports there is definitely racial inequality because of the physique of certain races. ”
Except the difference is we allow people of racial equality equal chances. And the arguemnt of physique changes over time. Basketball in America used to be a sport largely played by Jewish people. Then African americans were considered the best players. Now we have some great players coming thorugh who are Asian. Stuff changes.
“If you are going to give every single game equal coverage then you can’t discriminate against international teams because the players aren’t Australian.
I take your freudian answer and raise you a jump to extremes.
We are not giving every single game coverage right now. AFL and Rugby get more attention than tennis and cricket, which gets more attention than netball and soccer, which gets more attention than Basketball. I’m not stating every sport in the world needs the same level of coverage-just that we have more opportunities for womens sports to be presented.
I mean, let’s be honest. you say you watch sport to see the best of the best-which I’m sure is true for you. Btu it’s not true for a lot of people who enjoy sport. People who follow our main sports of Rugby, AFL, Cricket, and Soccer are not wanting to see the best of the best perform primarily, they want to see “our side win”
Similarly at the Olympics, while seeing the best of the best occurs some time,s plenty of times we want to watch “Australia wins!”
In fact the few sports I can think of where people aim to watch the best of the best over their own team (Tennis, golf, track and swimming) are also the sports where female athletes are given some sort of recognition.
Now, if we had more opportunities for recognising women in sport, that would provide more opportunities for celebrating acheivements of our country. Why do you think this is a problem? If you don’t like it, you don’t have to watch it. And I’m sure muscular men will still have a lot left.
And I also have no issues with Australian channels giving more attention to Australian teams, and prioritising Australian sporting leagues over international sporting leagues we have no attendance in. Of course, for huge matches overseas (Soccer usually) the size of the event makes it newsworthy, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to prioritise screening of the australian women’s cricket team in Australia where 100% of the population are australian and more than 50% of the population is female, over coverage of a minor American baseball team in Australia, where the majority of the country is not American.
“Anyway, you can have as many channels as you want with all kinds of mediocre teams playing each other, you are still going to have the same problem that caused this meme – no one noticed a player on form because everyone was watching the good teams for some reason.”
So your argument is “No one will watch it, so there’s no reason to show it” (This is called summarising by the way-not making up comments).
Tell me this though-have we ever given it a shot? Have we ever shown Australian women’s cricket, or AFL, or any team sport regularly on Australian tv and given it even half the amount of publicity as male sport? Because if we haven’t tried it at all, it’s a bit rich to say “No one is going to notice if it’s on”
And now, we step into conspiracy town!
“Feminist activists demand we consider women’s leagues equal to men’s leagues”
Again, trip to extremes. I’m a feminist activist, and I’d like women in sport to have some recognition of their achievements. I’m not going to pretend that the AFL Grand Final will have the same viewing numbers of the Women’s grand final, but I’d like a world where people can watch both.
” that is how they are taking away men’s difference as a gender, ”
Really? You honestly beleive that feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender? You’ve got any evidence, because it sounds a little bit crazy.
I am a feminist. And a man. I was raised by two feminists, one of whom was a man the other a woman. At no point was my gender attempted to be denied as different from my sisters. I was raised to want to not deny difference, but respect diversity and give equal recognition and appreciation to the achievements of all. That’s what feminism means to me.
But naturally you’ll have plenty of examples of naughty feminists trying to take away your difference as a gender that contradict my experience. I hope so, because right now it seems you’re understanding of feminism is based on some sort of crazy men’s right organisation, which may use the word feminazi a bit liberally.
“It’s not a test of true skill if our female cricketers are only versing other females. It would not be a true test of skill if Caucasian gymnasts only competed against other Caucasians. ”
You’ve said this a few time,s and I’ve let this pass, but if this is truly what you believe, then I presume you’ll want AFL to no longer be shown. I mean, it’s not a true test of skill at all. All teams are Australian, no foreign teams are allowed in, nor even given a chance. It’s only Australian (Mostly Victorian teams) which are allowed to participate, with players almost all coming from Australia. How is this a true test of skill?
The same can be said about pretty much every sports outside of international events (And even then, you can rule out cricket, the commonwealth games and world series baseball. If most countries arne’t playing, it’s not a true test of skill).
So in other words, your belief that the point in watching sport is to see a true test of skill, and therefore there’s no point in showing women’s sports other than the 5-6 you have selected; is not actually recognised in the practise of Australia’s most popular sports today. Whereas, my belief that the point of watching sport is to cheer on your team and celebrate their achievements, so having coverage of women’s sport will allow more chances of that celebration, is recognised in the majority of Australia’s sports, popular and not.
But then again, my belief isn’t based in a conspiracy where feminists are trying to deny the existence of gender. So that could be seen as a fault to some.
” but if you are a woman and you don’t know what women are naturally good at in general, then I feel very sorry for you.”
Well, no need to feel sorry. I’m not a woman.
Yes KP…. and it comes down to a question we all would have heard countless times, which is – would you say these same vile and offensive comments out loud to a person’s face eye to eye that you happily type hidden behind a keyboard? I include the immature and destructive generalistic ‘all men are pigs’ comments in this.
In the majority of cases I suggest not.
Congratulations to Ellyse Perry, she is living her dream.
Those men are my heroes. Embrace male chauvanism today.
We knew that. After all you wrote
“Their hardier life resulted in hardier bodies and more capable bodies at that.”
Sorry you won’t get any dates from them. You will have to worship their hard bodies from afar.
😈
Ahhh sandwich jokes, and chained to the kitchen jokes. This is the equivalent of me (a woman) saying “Who cares if Mitchell Johnson can bowl? I just want to ride that moustache”.
All men are not idiots, nor pigs – but a minority reflects badly on all the decent guys, of which there are many. Likewise not all feminists wish to go about removing the ball sacks of said idiots, but there are a few who make the rest of us look a bit deranged. It takes all sorts.
Targeted handouts of free condoms before certain people are conceived will nip the problem in the bud.
I agree – bloody awful. But let’s put these nasty comments in perspective. They come from the very lowest of the male species and represent (I hope) a very small bunch of “dicks” or if you like, a bunch of very small dicks. The “cowards’ punch” of blogging.
We do however give our female sporting events too little attention and respect. I’m as guilty as anyone. If it was on TV, I watch it – if it was on the radio – I listen to it. Unrealistic to expect commercial broadcaster to step, but perhaps the ABC… Kerry O’Keefe might be persuaded to do the commentary. (I’m going to miss that laugh!)
KB of Kyruna
Sexism exists because people let comments like the above slide. On the internet everyone is more willing to express their views (no matter how harsh) however when face-to-face with someone making derogatory comments whether sexist/racist etc. most people don’t speak up. The majority of people (at least I like to think) believe in equality however if they do not speak out against sexist behavior then they are not helping this injustice.
Many people who make sexist jokes or comments are doing it for a laugh, not realizing that it can be taken to be offensive to others. They cannot be educated until some tells them that it is inappropriate. I’m not saying that people who are yelling and screaming at every little comment are helping educate these people (because they’re not) nor am I saying that those people who are doing this are doing the wrong thing necessarily, as when faced with sexist comments day in and day out it is completely acceptable to get angry.
People learn sexist behavior from a variety of sources (mainly home life however internet and television are also to blame) and until they are out in the real world, communicating with those outside of their community they are unable to learn about the injustices in everyday life.
My point is that everyone on this post who is speaking up is doing the right thing and I just hope that they are doing this in real life as well. The majority of us are on the same page despite all the comments of ‘men being pigs’ and ‘women being just as sexist as men’ (which is not true as a generalization however some women also grow up in households which promote sexist views which is where the ‘real man’ comes from). And even if some think that getting angry over some idiots stupid remark is a waste of time it is the only way we can get past this injustice and educate others.
As an Australian male, I want to apologise. The funny thing is, Ellyse Perry would hit all these guys for six and bowl the ball straight in their micro-dicks on its way to middle stump.
What self respecting woman would spend time with any of these idiots?
I made that saucepan comment. Sorry.
Now, I don’t care about cricket nor am I sexist (well, everyone is a tiny bit sexist I’m sure). My comment was a cliche that I knew would bring a little joy to readers, many of them not sexist either (girls ‘liked’ it too). Some of the other comments were quite bad, I agree.
While I haven’t read all of your responses I’m sure many of them are reasonable and intelligent and then there are many of you who like to dwell on this type of thing. I just want to point out that this isn’t real. People are a bit nasty from the safety of their office chair but that doesn’t mean it materializes in the real world, they’re just thoughts, misspent frustrations, scapegoats. These people wouldn’t say these things in person, perhaps in a derelict group of mates but the real world will sort them out.
I wish this Cricketing lady many bats and balls or whatever those people do. To those who want to retort with some feminist or pseudo intellectual crap – I don’t need your forgiveness. Thanks.
Good for you for standing up and accepting responsbility. You’re correct that not every bloke on that thread is a complete turd, but they weren’t doing a very good job of letting anyone think otherwise.
Although the comments are not in “the real world”, they still hurt people for real. It’s no fun for any women to read those comments. In relation to you saying that even some women liked your comment. Please don’t think that because some women think it’s ok, that all women do. We’re not all the same.
Well done Dre. You’re a bigger man than most.
Pingback: Welcome to Monday ~ 10 February 2014 | feminaust ~ for australian feminism
Jm: Wait, have you ever heard of any feminist cutting up and eating men? Because you know there’s plenty of examples of men using women as sexual objects.
~That’s only because it’s more extreme to actually treat someone like a pig than it is to treat someone like a sex object. Obviously, the more horrific the crime the less frequently it will occur.~
Jm: So to be clear, you think that someone seeing all women as “Lesser human beings” is better than seeing men as “Less than human beings”? It’s another split hair, isn’t it. Unless you’re telling me that you would feel better about being called a “Lesser human being” than you would a “less than human being”
~ Yes. I am telling you right now that I would rather someone call me a lesser human-being than calling me sub-human (less than human).~
Jm: Rape is too common for us to say “It’s just a bunch of sicko’s” out there. Way too common. The fiction of the stranger with a knife is not the reality of rape in Australia. It’s the person you know who doesn’t accept the word “no” or doesn’t think it matters. It’s the person who manipulates a woman into saying yes, rather than accepting what she wants. There are entire communities, strategies, known about and popularised on tv shows and movies devoted to coercion, manipulation, and taking advantage of women. That’s what rape is in Australia today.
And when you treat women as only sex objects, why would you consider consent? It’s not like you ask other objects for consent.
~If someone is morally deficient to the extent that they would rape someone, then I would call that person ‘sick’. Both criminally and mentally. Other than that, I agree completely with what you have written here, and I don’t believe that the rest of this paragraph argues against any point I’ve made.~
Jm: It would be silly to say “x causes rape”-because of course it doesn’t. But humour, along with dismissing of rape impact, ongoing sexualisation of women in all fields, and anti-rape promotions focusing on what women should do to stop beign a target, all add to a culture where a woman is seen as a sex object first and only.
~I personally don’t live in a town where the culture considers women to be sex object first and foremost so I cannot agree with your statements here. Again, I have previously acknowledged that these ‘jokes’ propagate ignorance and evil somewhat, as does any prejudicial statement (such as ‘all men are pigs’).~
Jm: Because society rewards things that produce wealth. If you have wealth, you have power. Pretedning that we reward the contribution of stay at home mums as equally as we reward men pulling in thousands of dollars every week ignores the reality that we punish people for wanting to stay at home with their kids. If they don’t have a job-they are punished for staying home with their kids by government welfare agencies. If they want to return to work at some point in the future they are punished because they have a large gap in their employment history, preventing them from getting many jobs.
~ You’re missing the point. The reward IS the love of the kids. Society need not reward any more or less in my view. I have no need for worldly things, and my calling was to teach Maths/English in a Christian school. I am a Christian and I don’t need more money or any of societies ‘rewards’. If you do, then you (along with most of Australia) need to prioritise. That’s my personal belief. Deal with it. Love > money. No questions asked.~
Jm: Oh please. If this is true, quit your job and become a stay at home Dad. And when your mortgage or rent repayment comes up, try and pay that off with the love of your kids. Tell me how much society rewards the love of children then.
~ No, because that is my calling. I will only do what I love doing. I love my career so much. Also, god will provide. Sorry if this goes against your belief system, I don’t care.~
Jm: Again, the difference is that no men are being cut up and eaten like pigs, as you stated pigs are to be treated. Women are being used as sexual objects every day.
~But murder does occur, and if sexist remarks propagate rape, then sub-humanist remarks propagate murder. You can’t say that it’s OK to call an entire group of people pigs. So stop skirting around the issue. Rape happens. Murder happens. Now let’s talk about these comments for a second. ‘All men are pigs’ is worse than ‘thats a funny looking fry pan’. Both of them are horrible, but murder is worse than rape.~
Jm: So you are willing to celebrate the achievements of people you know personally, but think the achievements of someone you don’t know, but has achieved much for Australia, should be ignored?
~ No. Firstly, I’m not trying to assert what I do onto others like it seems your suggesting. Secondly, when did I say I would ignore someone who has done great things for Australia? I said I would ignore someone who I don’t know and who is in a mediocre league.~
So, you’d want to watch your wife play touch football on tv if you had a chance, but wouldn’t want anyone else to watch their family members on tv.
~WTF? How did you get to this conclusion? It seems like it’s becoming habitual for you to start a sentence with something I have said and then tack on something completely ridiculous on the end. I have agreed with you soo many times now that we could easily air more sports on TV. I also stated that memes like this would still pop up because people usually watch the higher end games if they’re on at the same time. No, I’m not saying people shouldn’t watch their teams play. But please, stop pleading for the same audience reception as the top tier leagues get.~
Jm: Except the difference is we allow people of racial equality equal chances. And the arguemnt of physique changes over time. Basketball in America used to be a sport largely played by Jewish people. Then African americans were considered the best players. Now we have some great players coming thorugh who are Asian. Stuff changes.
~ Yeah thanks for agreeing with me again. We give them equal chances by putting them in the same leagues. I am saying that we should have mixed gender leagues in all cases. That is the equal chance you are asking for here. So what are you trying to argue here?~
Jm: I take your freudian answer and raise you a jump to extremes.
We are not giving every single game coverage right now. AFL and Rugby get more attention than tennis and cricket, which gets more attention than netball and soccer, which gets more attention than Basketball. I’m not stating every sport in the world needs the same level of coverage-just that we have more opportunities for womens sports to be presented.
~ Wow. Again, I completely agree with you. More sports on TV. That would be great. Just add more channels if need be. Also, again, this will not stop memes like this happening. I’m not saying people should watch top tier leagues, I’m saying that most people do watch top tier leagues. I’m describing, not prescribing. This meme is pleading for equal audience reception, not equal coverage. Also, even if this is occuring, it probably still wont get equal coverage because the TV networks will give the games with larger audiences more time/media/advertising etc. Look at the meme, then look at your argument, notice the discrepancies?~
Jm: I mean, let’s be honest. you say you watch sport to see the best of the best-which I’m sure is true for you. Btu it’s not true for a lot of people who enjoy sport. People who follow our main sports of Rugby, AFL, Cricket, and Soccer are not wanting to see the best of the best perform primarily, they want to see “our side win”
Similarly at the Olympics, while seeing the best of the best occurs some time,s plenty of times we want to watch “Australia wins!”
In fact the few sports I can think of where people aim to watch the best of the best over their own team (Tennis, golf, track and swimming) are also the sports where female athletes are given some sort of recognition.
~ Ok, so you can watch the games you want to watch. They’re probably on the net or some random channels. Good for you, go watch them. What is the argument here?~
Jm: Now, if we had more opportunities for recognising women in sport, that would provide more opportunities for celebrating acheivements of our country. Why do you think this is a problem? If you don’t like it, you don’t have to watch it. And I’m sure muscular men will still have a lot left.
~ Hey, I agree, put the on the TV or the interwebs or whatever they want to do. Don’t cram them down my throat because I, along with the majority of Australians, want to watch our best teams compete. Why do you think the Friday night NRL games are most heavily advertised? Because they are the teams on form. All of the games are on cable television through the week but I don’t watch them, and neither do many other Rugby fans. They also aren’t advertised much, but the people who love their team can watch their game. They don’t put up memes like this if someone does well and gets practically no media attention.~
Jm: And I also have no issues with Australian channels giving more attention to Australian teams, and prioritising Australian sporting leagues over international sporting leagues we have no attendance in. Of course, for huge matches overseas (Soccer usually) the size of the event makes it newsworthy, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to prioritise screening of the australian women’s cricket team in Australia where 100% of the population are australian and more than 50% of the population is female, over coverage of a minor American baseball team in Australia, where the majority of the country is not American.
~Here you’re getting into murky waters. There is surely some invisible threshold of enjoyment between watching top-tier games and personally invested teams. So yes, that argument can be made and I’m not the one to answer it. This meme, however, is referring to a personally invested top-tier team for Australians having priority over a personally invested mediocre team for Australians.~
Jm: So your argument is “No one will watch it, so there’s no reason to show it” (This is called summarising by the way-not making up comments).
~ Is it summarising? Because my points never lead to ‘there’s no reason to show it’. Again, you are pretending to quote me but tacking on something ridiculous at the end. What I really said was that I agree with you, they should show it. I don’t know if they already do because I just don’t know. The only argument I made was that memes like this will still pop up, especially if they are competing for media slots such as newspaper headline positions.~
Jm: Tell me this though-have we ever given it a shot? Have we ever shown Australian women’s cricket, or AFL, or any team sport regularly on Australian tv and given it even half the amount of publicity as male sport? Because if we haven’t tried it at all, it’s a bit rich to say “No one is going to notice if it’s on”
~ I don’t know. Have we? I’m pretty certain I’ve seen a fair amount of women playing sports on TV. Or an unfair amount, as I said, I don’t know.~
Jm: And now, we step into conspiracy town!
“Feminist activists demand we consider women’s leagues equal to men’s leagues”
Again, trip to extremes. I’m a feminist activist, and I’d like women in sport to have some recognition of their achievements. I’m not going to pretend that the AFL Grand Final will have the same viewing numbers of the Women’s grand final, but I’d like a world where people can watch both.
~ I wasn’t talking about you, I was referring to the meme which seems to be asking for equal audience reception. Women obviously get some kind of recognition, this meme is recognition of her skill on its own. Also, I’m pretty sure you can find somewhere to watch most womens games. Some people would like our under 21s shown too and our B teams and it does happen occasionally on television. The networks want money right? Advertising and playing popular sports is in their best interest. If they aren’t showing it, it’s because most people don’t want to watch it. I have to go onto the internet to watch world chess championships and that takes a lot of bandwidth. No-one cares about Magnus Carlsen totally owning everyone lately. I should do up a meme about it.~
Jm: Really? You honestly beleive that feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender? You’ve got any evidence, because it sounds a little bit crazy.
~ This meme is evidence of women attempting to equalise in an area at which they are not equal. Women are equal to men. They are also different. That is an awesome thing, love it.~
Jm: I am a feminist. And a man. I was raised by two feminists, one of whom was a man the other a woman. At no point was my gender attempted to be denied as different from my sisters. I was raised to want to not deny difference, but respect diversity and give equal recognition and appreciation to the achievements of all. That’s what feminism means to me.
But naturally you’ll have plenty of examples of naughty feminists trying to take away your difference as a gender that contradict my experience. I hope so, because right now it seems you’re understanding of feminism is based on some sort of crazy men’s right organisation, which may use the word feminazi a bit liberally.
~ Just one example, the meme that I am referring to at the top of this page. I think it’s incorrectly assuming our culture is sexist because women don’t get as much audience reception in sports, and it wants to equalise that audience reception. I don’t think it’s sexist, just our natural desire to want to watch better teams play. My understanding of feminism throughout history has little impact on the argument I am making in relation to women in sports. I appreciate the sacred feminine in all humans, but also understand that the word ‘equal’ is a mathematical term and unsuitable for creating fruitful development in the area of women’s rights.~
Jm: You’ve said this a few time,s and I’ve let this pass, but if this is truly what you believe, then I presume you’ll want AFL to no longer be shown. I mean, it’s not a true test of skill at all. All teams are Australian, no foreign teams are allowed in, nor even given a chance. It’s only Australian (Mostly Victorian teams) which are allowed to participate, with players almost all coming from Australia. How is this a true test of skill?
~ Again, I never said that I want anything to be ‘no longer shown’. Yes, restricting the league to only Australians is not conducive of competition. If we opened AFL up to an international platform, I would be very, very happy with this. Please, if you are going to attempt to rebut my statements, try giving some points that actually rebut my statements.~
Jm: The same can be said about pretty much every sports outside of international events (And even then, you can rule out cricket, the commonwealth games and world series baseball. If most countries arne’t playing, it’s not a true test of skill).
~ Generally, sports that a country is very good (or the best) at will be that countries national sports. So generally, they are testing skill. Playing sports internationally only is not convenient in most cases, so countries try their best to get good teams to play each other. However, it doesn’t seem that inconvenient to allow mixed teams and mixed leagues. So why are the women only versing other women? I would prefer if they were in the same league. Oh that’s right, because they would get stomped.~
Jm: So in other words, your belief that the point in watching sport is to see a true test of skill, and therefore there’s no point in showing women’s sports other than the 5-6 you have selected; is not actually recognised in the practise of Australia’s most popular sports today. Whereas, my belief that the point of watching sport is to cheer on your team and celebrate their achievements, so having coverage of women’s sport will allow more chances of that celebration, is recognised in the majority of Australia’s sports, popular and not.
~Firstly, psychologists have recently concluded that the ‘cheer-for-our-team’ emotion is the only useless emotion that human brains create. Secondly, I never said I wanted anything off air. Here is the exact quote that you are referring to (I think) “Why would I care about our second best team? why would I watch them on TV?”. If you read the context of those statements, obviously I am not requesting these teams to be taken off air, I am simply communicating my personal preferences. So you can keep ‘summarising’ my statements all you want, but the arguments you’re making can’t be made if you directly quote me.~
Jm: But then again, my belief isn’t based in a conspiracy where feminists are trying to deny the existence of gender. So that could be seen as a fault to some.
~Yet you are pleading for women to be recognised as equal in areas where they clearly aren’t. You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though the majority of cricket fans in Australia are male. You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though their fastest bowlers average the same speeds as the men’s average bowlers. It may not be the denial of gender, but you’re certainly denying something and I would say that is a fault in your argument.~
Jm: Well, no need to feel sorry. I’m not a woman.
~Ok. I want to make one last comment. If women go into cricket knowing that their team will always be mediocre compared to the same level men’s team. Then why do they do it? It’s not for fame. It’s not for recognition, nor monetary gain. It’s for the love of the sport and the enjoyment of playing. That’s why there will always be a women’s league, because they generally aren’t as good which makes it fair for each other. This increases the fun and enjoyment aspect of their sport. They may just get rich playing because there is surely an audience of some kind and advertisers always love sportspeople wearing their symbols. But these women cannot be in the game for monetary gain alone. Nor recognition, nor honour. I submit to you that the men aren’t playing for this reason either. Sportspeople play because it is their calling and they love what they do. I am not a teacher for honour or monetary gain but because it’s my calling and I love it.~
Before I start responding, let me give you a chance to take a break. You are saying really stupid things here. Really really stupid things. I don’t think you believe any of them, and in fact you have frequently contradicted yourself from what you’ve said earlier reflecting that you tihnk some of what you’ve said is incorrect, but you’re so caught up in trying to argue with me, you’re ending up agreeing to crazy things rather than realise that maybe, just maybe, you’ve gone a bit too far.
“~That’s only because it’s more extreme to actually treat someone like a pig than it is to treat someone like a sex object. Obviously, the more horrific the crime the less frequently it will occur.~”
You are really tying yourself in knots today.
So calling men pigs is bad because it may, but doesn’t lead to cannibalism, because it is more extreme; whereas treating women as a sexual object is slightly better, even though it does lead to rape, because it’s less extreme than cannibalism. That’s right? It’s silly, but it’s what you honestly believe, you’re not just saying silly stuff because it’s easier than saying “Yeah, I guess you have a point there”, right? Because that’s what it sounds like.
It’s not just less frequent. I’m absolutely sure there has been 0 cases of feminist cutting up and eating men.
Prove me wrong, please.
“~ Yes. I am telling you right now that I would rather someone call me a lesser human-being than calling me sub-human (less than human).~”
And yet another tiniest hair is split. Another comment which I am sure you don’t actually believe, but prefer to say than back down at all.
Anyway, please, tell me a distinct way you can tell the difference between being treated as a lesser human beign, than being treated as a sub-human. Be specific.
“~If someone is morally deficient to the extent that they would rape someone, then I would call that person ‘sick’. Both criminally and mentally. ”
You are pushing rape as someone else’s problem. Using the term “sick” is an easy way out. It’s a way of saying “Well, it’s nothing to do with me, or anyone I know. It’s all to do with those few sick people out there”
Which is what anti-rape strategies have been focusing on for decades, and which have effected no one.
“Other than that, I agree completely with what you have written here, and I don’t believe that the rest of this paragraph argues against any point I’ve made.~”
So, you agree sexual objectification is related to rape, which exists in alarming amounts in Australia, but still think the sexual objectification leading to rape in Australia is less severe than calling men pigs, which potentially, but never has, lead to the cannibalisation of men?
Contradiction much?
“I personally don’t live in a town where the culture considers women to be sex object first and foremost so I cannot agree with your statements here. ”
Oh really? So you live in a town where picturs of women never focus on their body parts, where images of women are displayed based on looks and nothing else. You live in a town where no woman is ever told to “Smile more” “Let your hair grow long”, where no wolf whistles or lewd comments are shouted outside of car windows, where no allegations were made of women succeeding based on looks or their sexuality.
Where is this utopia? Please, let me know!
” I am a Christian and I don’t need more money or any of societies ‘rewards’. ”
You’re the missing the point. Do you pay for food, rent, mortgage, school bills etc, with love, or do you use money? Which one?
Again, money is power. A stay at home mother who receives no money has less power than a full time worker. Are you trying to honestly tell me that if both a stay at home mother and a full time worker needed to suddenly move, such as due to an abusive relationship, both would have equal resources to do that?
“Also, god will provide. Sorry if this goes against your belief system,”
Okay, I’m a Christian too. But here’s the thing, your belief that you get to do what you love to do and don’t need money-that’s a luxury you have because you have money. You don’t need to worry about money, so you don’t worry about money. People who don’t have money do not have that luxury.
There are plenty of good, faithful Christians who are struggling to make ends meet. Telling them “But you have the love of your kids” is not helpful when they’re about to be evicted. Telling them “God will provide” is not helpful when they’re telling you they have no idea where they’re going to sleep tonight, or tomorrow. Tell me if I’m being wrong here.
I ask again, when you need to pay your mortgage, do you pay with god, with love, or with money? When you buy food do you pay for it with love, with God, or with money?
“But murder does occur, and if sexist remarks propagate rape, then sub-humanist remarks propagate murder. ”
And you naturally have examples of feminists encouraged by sub humanist remarks going on to kill men, and eat them. Because that’s what you’ve been claiming.
Incidentally, most murders are not caused by sub human remarks, particularly in Australia. Most murders are caused by intense aggression and other intense emotions leading standard morals to be overlooked (Sometime enhanced by alcohol).
There is no cultural messges about “Men like being killed” or “Men exist to be murdered” No jokes about “How about we kill all the men”-tell me if I’m wrong here. Prove me wrong. Go ahead.
“Secondly, when did I say I would ignore someone who has done great things for Australia? I said I would ignore someone who I don’t know and who is in a mediocre league.~
So an Australian woman becomes the greatest success story, the fastest woman alive. She is still not as fast as the fastest man alive. Are you going to ignore her because she’s not as fast as the fastest man, or celebrate her achievement for Australia?
“~WTF? How did you get to this conclusion?”
Here’s how. You object to equal or anything approximating equal representation of women’s sport on TV, unless it’s someone you care about. True?
But everyone cares about a female athlete. For every female athelete or sportswoman there are multiple people who care about them. Why doesn’t their existence justify exposure of female sporting success?
“It seems like it’s becoming habitual for you to start a sentence with something I have said and then tack on something completely ridiculous on the end. ”
Well I think I’ve explained the link fairly well. Still waiting on you explaining how feminists want to eradicate the differences of the male gender.
“I have agreed with you soo many times now that we could easily air more sports on TV. ”
No you didn’t. When I suggested more sports to allow more representation of women you said that this wouldn’t be possible because we’d need to show equal representation of every sport, for every country and that there wouldn’t be enough sports channels to do this.
Are you backtracking?
“I also stated that memes like this would still pop up because people usually watch the higher end games if they’re on at the same time. ”
No, you said that women would still be overlooked. And I said no channel has ever tried to publicise women’s sports.
And who said they need to be on at the same time? The Rugby and AFL grand final aren’t on at the same time. The AFL and VFL grand final don’t need to be on at the same time. That’s a condition you’ve demanded here, which no one wants.
“But please, stop pleading for the same audience reception as the top tier leagues get.~”
Oh, you’re making stuff up? Good on you, using your imagination.
Where I have I pleaded that women’s sports get the same audience reception as top tier leagues? Please point it out.
I believe I did say that women’s sports should have the same exposure, with the same level of publicity as male sport. But you’ve chosen to ignore that for some reason.
“~ Yeah thanks for agreeing with me again. ”
Except I didn’t. You were saying allowing for women’s sports would be like havign an asian league, or african league, as some ethnic groups are better at some sports than others. I pointed out that the cultural groups are not so distinct in sport as they are in women’s sport, and therefore while it is fair to have women’s sports, having african only sports, asians sports, etc, is not needed.
Are you intentionally contradicting yourself with what you said earlier? If so, that’s fine. What you said earlier was ridiculous. I look forward to you saying “Thinking that feminists are about to eradicate the differences of the male gender is crazy. What sort of crazy person would think that!”
“~ Wow. Again, I completely agree with you. More sports on TV. ”
Wow-did you tell yourself that earlier today when you said that wasn’t possible?
This is what you said earlier ‘~ Wait a second. If you are going to give every single game equal coverage then you can’t discriminate against international teams because the players aren’t Australian. How far down this rabbit hole do you want to go? ‘
So, when I suggested more sports earlier and you said that wasn’t possible, were you wrong then, or wrong now? These are complete contradictions.
“I’m not saying people should watch top tier leagues,”
Well you did say you only wanted to see genuine tests of skill, not meidocre teams, implying all women teams that aren’t as good as men are mediocre.
Are you the same logic who spoke earlier? Or has someone hacked into your account?
“This meme is pleading for equal audience reception, not equal coverage.
And equal opportunity most of all. How exactly are people going to watch women’s sport if it’s not on tv, advertised and publicised for people to watch?
“Also, even if this is occuring, it probably still wont get equal coverage because the TV networks will give the games with larger audiences more time/media/advertising etc. ”
Again, has ansyone tried advertising and broadcasting women’s sports? It’s easy to say “No one will watch it”-they said the same thing about soccer now. Ask SBS how it’s going now.
“Look at the meme, then look at your argument, notice the discrepancies?~
I didn’t make this meme. I’m arguing from my own point of view. Not a meme’s.
I thought you were arguing from your own point of view. Apparently you’re not anymore.
“~ Ok, so you can watch the games you want to watch. They’re probably on the net or some random channels. ”
So, to be clear. You needing to switch off the tv to avoid watching women’s sport because you consider it meidocre is “OMG-feminists are trying to diminish the male gender!”
Me asking for equal opportunity and representation for women’s sport has the response of “Go find it somewhere. It probably exists-quit complaining”
This is truly ridiculous, you know that. Equal opportunity is all I’m asking for. Equal opportunity means both sides of sport are advertised, are easy to access, and promoted equally. People can choose to watch or not watch.
What you’re suggesting is “Sport I consider mediocre should be allowed to be shown in places that are hard to find, not advertised at all, and therefore guaranteed never to be succesful, and I can feel justified!”
“~ Hey, I agree, put the on the TV or the interwebs or whatever they want to do. ”
Again, you didn’t think that earlier today. Did a bowling ball land on your head in the meantime?
“Don’t cram them down my throat because I, along with the majority of Australians, want to watch our best teams compete. ”
How exactly are they going to be crammed down your throat? Are you suggesting you are going to be forced at gun point to watch them? Are you that paranoid?
Or, are you suggesting that advertising and promoting women’s sport, that would be considered “ramming down your throat”-which means you’re a bit too sensitive there.
Which one? Are you paranoid and worried you’re going to be forced to watch women’s sport, or too sensitive and don’t want to see any advertising for women’s sport ever?
“Why do you think the Friday night NRL games are most heavily advertised? Because they are the teams on form. ”
Or, or because the teams are very popular, and have strong fan clubs. True, teams which win tend to get more fans, but fans aren’t particularly discerning at that point.
I mean, I’ve never seen a group of fans of NRL or AFL ever say “My team won, but they weren’t on top form, so I was dissapointed” I have seen a lot of people cheering “We won! Whooooooo!”
“This meme, however, is referring to a personally invested top-tier team for Australians having priority over a personally invested mediocre team for Australians.~”
You’re imagining things again. I get a real feeling from you that you feel your masculinity or male identity is constantly under threat, and that women can’t get things without you losing something. I saw it earlier when you said “If women take sport away from us, what will we have less” and more recently that “Feminists are trying to get rid of differences in the male gender” and now apparently this meme asking for attention and recognition of a succesful female sports team, and one athlete in particular, is translated to you as asking for “Priority”
Sit down, this will shock you. If women get more opportunities, men don’t get less. If women’s sport gets more attention, more opportunities, and promotions than it has previously, you have nothing to lose. Yet you’re afraid of it. You worry it’s going to be shoved down your throat, that it will mean the end of the male gender-why? What possible harm is it going to cause you?
“What I really said was that I agree with you, they should show it.”
And again-you didn’t think that earlier today. Are you going to change your thoughts every time you post?
“I don’t know if they already do because I just don’t know. ”
They don’t. If it is broadcasted (At all), it is never publicised to anywhere near as much of a degree as men’s sports. I’m not talking about 50% of the publicity male’s sports get. Even 10% would be an improvement!
“I’m pretty certain I’ve seen a fair amount of women playing sports on TV. Or an unfair amount, as I said, I don’t know.~”
You’re contradicting yourself in two sentences. In the first sentence you’re certain you’ve seen a fair amount. The second you don’t know if you’ve seen a fair amount. Do you know what you’re talking about now?
“Women obviously get some kind of recognition, this meme is recognition of her skill on its own. ”
Memes are sufficient recognition now. A great sporting success for an Australian deserves the same attention as a tall cat, you think?
“Also, I’m pretty sure you can find somewhere to watch most womens games. ”
So first you were you were certain I could. Then you were unsure. Now you’re pretty sure.
Like I said, when it is not advertised, when it is not promoted, when it is not presented in a way that is easily accesible to the population, it has not been given anywhere near fair representation.
“Some people would like our under 21s shown too and our B teams and it does happen occasionally on television.
To be clear, you’re comparing the greatest sportswomen in Australia to teenagers. You don’t have a problem with women at all, do you?
“The networks want money right? Advertising and playing popular sports is in their best interest. If they aren’t showing it, it’s because most people don’t want to watch it. ”
And again how do they know people don’t want to watch it if they haven’t ever tried it? Crystal ball?
“~ This meme is evidence of women attempting to equalise in an area at which they are not equal. ”
So a meme pointing out that we do not acknowledge successes amongst our female sportswomen was translated to you as “Women are trying to be equal in areas they are not equal” which lead to “Feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender!” – I think this says more about you, how you see feminism, how you see your own gender and feel about your masculinity than it says about feminism, this meme or anything else.
“~ Just one example, the meme that I am referring to at the top of this page. ”
Wait, you are claiming that feminists want to remove men’s difference as a gender based on one, just one, meme which doesn’t even say what you want it to say!
There’s jumping to conclusions. Then there’s catapulting to conclusions.
“I don’t think it’s sexist, just our natural desire to want to watch better teams play. ”
Again, your belief that people watching sports only want the best teams tends to overlook how Australians competing tend to be more popular in Australia than non-Australians.
“My understanding of feminism throughout history has little impact on the argument I am making in relation to women in sports. ”
Yes it does. Your understanding of feminism has lead to a persecution complex where you see any attempt at improving representation of women in sport as a threat to your masculinity. You have seen a request that women get more exposure in sport as an attempt to eradicate differences in the male gender.
Your understanding feminism has completely written your understanding of this issue, and your fear that if women have more exposure as sportswomen, you will somehow lose your gender, have women’s sport crammed down your throat (Your words, not mine), and that you will be forced to all watch women’s sport.
“Yes, restricting the league to only Australians is not conducive of competition. If we opened AFL up to an international platform, I would be very, very happy with this.”
So giving more opportunities for women’s sport to be shown on tv is not possible (As you said earlier today, before completely contradicting yourself tonight), but incorporating every country in the world into local games is something we do have channel space for.
“~Firstly, psychologists have recently concluded that the ‘cheer-for-our-team’ emotion is the only useless emotion that human brains create. ”
Happiness in your teams’ success is a useless emotion? What more so than anger? Regret? I’d like to read that study. I would love to know how they even measured what is a useful compared ot useless emotion. I believe you made it up.
And just so we’re clear here, you’re now saying that people cheering for their team are doing sport wrong. All those fans in their team colours, all those spectators with the green and gold-they’re the ones that are at fault. Is that right? They’re developing useless emotions?
You know, for a guy who likes sport, it seems you have little relation to Australian sports fans.
“I am simply communicating my personal preferences.”
Here’s the interesting thing about your personal preferecnes. When it comes to women’s sport, it’s not enough for you to switch off, as is your preference that no one can deny. You want it on a sub channel where it won’t be pushed down your throat at all.
That’s your preference: “I don’t mind it being on. But I don’t want to know it’s on, or have any chance of seeing it by accident”
It kind of infringes on other people’s preferences, doens’t it?
“~Yet you are pleading for women to be recognised as equal in areas where they clearly aren’t.”
Still making stuff up? I asked for equal opportunity for women to receive recognition for their sporting success. You have interpreted it as meaning “Women and men must have thier success viewed equally” which admittedly is easier to argue, but not what I was saying.
“You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though the majority of cricket fans in Australia are male.”
Again, never said that. Keep on being imaginative there! In your next response, no doubt, you’ll claim I said “Red is blue! Up is down!” which is even easier to argue.
Again, I want equal opportunity for women to have their sporting achievement recognised. That includes being shown on a channel most Australians can access, at a time advertised and publicised to a similar degree as male’s sports are. If no one watches, fine. But give people a chance.
Incidentally, isn’t it possible that if we paid more attention to women’s cricket, more women may get interested in cricket? Isn’t it even slightly possible?
“You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though their fastest bowlers average the same speeds as the men’s average bowlers. ”
Again, never said that. Just as you never said “Feminism wants to castrate me!” though it is easier to argue.
“It may not be the denial of gender, ”
So you admit you were deep into crazy town with that statement?
“but you’re certainly denying something and I would say that is a fault in your argument.~”
Fault in what I’m saying? Or fault in what you’re imagining I’m saying? They’re quite different.
“Then why do they do it? It’s not for fame. It’s not for recognition, nor monetary gain. It’s for the love of the sport and the enjoyment of playing.
So, women play sport for the love of the game and enjoyment of playing, which are pretty good reasons to playing. Therefore we should not recognise their achievements because they don’t want them.
You previously stated you don’t work for money, you work for your love of teaching. Naturally then, if they cut your salary to nothing, you get no positive feedback from students, that’s okay, because you don’t need that. Is that right? I mean, you don’t need money, or positive feedback, or any positive response whatsoever, so you don’t want any of it either, right?
“I submit to you that the men aren’t playing for this reason either. Sportspeople play because it is their calling and they love what they do. ”
What is your point here? Women play sport because they love sport, so we shouldn’t recognise their achievements or give them opportunities to reward that love with financial independence, fame and success. Meanwhile men also play sport becuase they love sport, and isn’t it great that we do recognise their achievements and given them opportunities to reward their love with financial independence, fame and success.
No idea what you’re getting at here. None at all.
~Before I start, I just want to say that most of your arguments are made at an emotional level so I’ll keep it brief. None of your arguments were even close to being valid.~
Jm: Before I start responding, let me give you a chance to take a break. You are saying really stupid things here. Really really stupid things. I don’t think you believe any of them, and in fact you have frequently contradicted yourself from what you’ve said earlier reflecting that you tihnk some of what you’ve said is incorrect, but you’re so caught up in trying to argue with me, you’re ending up agreeing to crazy things rather than realise that maybe, just maybe, you’ve gone a bit too far.
~ I never contradicted myself throughout my argument, and I will detail the reasons why as clearly as I can. Also, if I’m “agreeing to crazy things” then that implies the person I’m responding to is suggesting crazy things. So yes, I agree. :)~
Jm: You are really tying yourself in knots today. So calling men pigs is bad because it may, but doesn’t lead to cannibalism, because it is more extreme; whereas treating women as a sexual object is slightly better, even though it does lead to rape, because it’s less extreme than cannibalism. That’s right? It’s silly, but it’s what you honestly believe, you’re not just saying silly stuff because it’s easier than saying “Yeah, I guess you have a point there”, right? Because that’s what it sounds like.
~ I will say this once more for your obviously inferior mind. Neither sexist, nor degrading, nor prejudicial remarks lead to anything. They are not a cause. Sexist remarks don’t lead to rape, every study confirms this. I’m not saying silly stuff at all. In-fact after my last post I asked three other people if they would rather be called a lesser-human (like a kitchen slave) or sub-human (like a pig) and all three agreed that being called sub-human (a pig) is more offensive. Your initial argument was that treating women like sexual objects is worse than calling men pigs. My counter-argument was that a better comparison would be ‘treating someone as a sex object’ versus ‘treating someone like a pig’. This ruins your argument because obviously treating someone like a pig is much worse. If your argument were to have been simply that ‘thats a funny looking saucepan’ is worse than ‘all men are pigs’ it wouldn’t have held up because obviously the ‘all men are pigs’ statement is just more ignorant, at least according to me and the small sample of people I’ve asked. So you convoluted the statement by adding the entirety of the treatment women to it in order to hold up your argument, and I still rebutted it easily by doing the same to the other statement.~
Jm: It’s not just less frequent. I’m absolutely sure there has been 0 cases of feminist cutting up and eating men. Prove me wrong, please.
~ But that doesn’t matter because you’re taking what I’ve said out of context. If we were just arguing about the comments I wouldn’t have to consider the treatment of animals. But you had to take it a step further and compare the entire treatment of women against the single sentence of ‘all men are pigs’, where of course the treatment of women would dwarf this sentence in terms of immorality. But that isn’t a fair comparison unless you also consider the other sentence as more than just a sentence and that this person actually treats men as pigs. Once again, its just a Freudian answer because every argument you’ve made has been irrelevant/false. Stop trying to complicate the matter, just ask yourself – would you rather be called a lesser human or less than human?~
Jm: And yet another tiniest hair is split. Another comment which I am sure you don’t actually believe, but prefer to say than back down at all.
~WHAT??? But doesn’t that dictate which comment is more offensive? It is not petty at all. Anyway, this is another appeal to emotion, claiming something is ‘petty’ is a great way to avoid answering with any rational thought.~
Jm: Anyway, please, tell me a distinct way you can tell the difference between being treated as a lesser human beign, than being treated as a sub-human. Be specific.
~ Did you even think about this at all before you wrote it? Did you try to come up with an example? Because I thought of one before I even finished reading the sentence. A kitchen slave has to cook dinner every night, day in and day out. A sub-human is the dinner. “Oh but that’s unrealistic”. Of course it is, that’s why comparing the entire treatment of women to a single statement was ridiculous. If you just argued about the remarks themselves, instead of the actions and ideologies behind the remark, I wouldn’t have to go into the disgusting realm that the statement ‘all men are pigs’ would lead someone.~
Jm: You are pushing rape as someone else’s problem. Using the term “sick” is an easy way out. It’s a way of saying “Well, it’s nothing to do with me, or anyone I know. It’s all to do with those few sick people out there”
Which is what anti-rape strategies have been focusing on for decades, and which have effected no one.
~ Yet nowhere in your argument did you claim that someone who rapes people is NOT morally deficient and criminally sick. You take a point I’ve made then spew dribble that doesn’t even rebut my statement and think you’ve answered me. If someone rapes someone else, that person should go to jail. A person who will not rape someone else is not morally deficient in that way, no matter how many sexist remarks they make. You’re trying to diagnosed rape as a product of sexism and culture, but it’s actually a product of the evil that dwells within the heart of the individual. It makes no difference how many sexist remarks a normal, moral person hears, those remarks will not cause that person to rape anyone. All the studies have concluded this.~
Jm: So, you agree sexual objectification is related to rape, which exists in alarming amounts in Australia, but still think the sexual objectification leading to rape in Australia is less severe than calling men pigs, which potentially, but never has, lead to the cannibalisation of men? Contradiction much?
~How can you misinterpret so much of what I’ve written? If you had properly read and understood what I’ve said, you wouldn’t even be asking this because it doesn’t make sense. Firstly, I never agreed to any of those claims, as those claims weren’t in the paragraph that I was agreeing to. The reason rape happens so much is because many rapists aren’t going directly to jail. I do not believe that sexist remarks cause anything and neither do any researchers on the matter. I’ll say it again, all prejudice remarks propagate ignorance in general. The paragraph I was agreeing to was claiming that rapists ignore women who say no (empathetically deaf) and manipulate women into giving in (criminal behaviour). You conveniently forgot about serial rapists who are simply mentally unstable. All these people are sick (whether criminally or mentally) and need to be put in jail. I’ll ignore what you said about cannibalism above, because if you understood anything I’ve written, you would not have asked me this question, because you would understand that I was hypothetically following the ideologies and actions behind the remark ‘all men are pigs’.~
Jm: Oh really? So you live in a town where picturs of women never focus on their body parts, where images of women are displayed based on looks and nothing else. You live in a town where no woman is ever told to “Smile more” “Let your hair grow long”, where no wolf whistles or lewd comments are shouted outside of car windows, where no allegations were made of women succeeding based on looks or their sexuality. Where is this utopia? Please, let me know!
~That stuff happens here, but we are talking about women being treated first and foremost as sex objects. Not ‘a woman’, but ‘women’. Women, in my town, are first and foremost treated like regular human beings. Secondarily, as co-workers. Thirdly, as wives and family members. Fourthly, friends. Probably around fifth or sixth would be sex objects. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are plenty of towns where sex objects would be higher up the list (I’m thinking of mining towns mostly).~
Jm: You’re the missing the point. Do you pay for food, rent, mortgage, school bills etc, with love, or do you use money? Which one? Again, money is power. A stay at home mother who receives no money has less power than a full time worker. Are you trying to honestly tell me that if both a stay at home mother and a full time worker needed to suddenly move, such as due to an abusive relationship, both would have equal resources to do that?
~ Well that’s a funny example you’ve given me there, because it just so happens that friendships, family, and love help a great deal when moving houses. If any suffering occurs, the individual can learn from it. If she places her faith in God, everything will work out in the end. I truly believe this, as I had whooping cough as as an infant and almost died. This gave me a hiatus hernia in my teens which was very difficult to diagnose because I was complaining about breathing problems. 12 years later they found out I was breathing stomach acid into my lungs and developed oesophagitis. During my teens I experimented with drugs and became addicted to cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana. However, because they effected me so much more than everyone else I had to quit otherwise I would surely die. I have no doubt that if I didn’t suffer so many illnesses, I would still be a smoker, and I certainly wouldn’t have found Jesus. By the way, you cannot claim yourself to be a Christian while believing money is power. Money isn’t power. Love is power. Christ is power.~
Jm: Okay, I’m a Christian too. But here’s the thing, your belief that you get to do what you love to do and don’t need money-that’s a luxury you have because you have money. You don’t need to worry about money, so you don’t worry about money. People who don’t have money do not have that luxury.
There are plenty of good, faithful Christians who are struggling to make ends meet. Telling them “But you have the love of your kids” is not helpful when they’re about to be evicted. Telling them “God will provide” is not helpful when they’re telling you they have no idea where they’re going to sleep tonight, or tomorrow. Tell me if I’m being wrong here
~You are wrong here. I am comforting them by saying these things. God truly will provide, if you have faith. Some suffering is necessary for learning. Maybe the children will find their calling in life so they may be successful. Maybe the mother will realise that she has other callings in life that she must accomplish. You don’t know God’s plan for these people. Also, if I could say these things to this hypothetical family, I would also help them out in any way I can. Because love truly does help.~
Jm: I ask again, when you need to pay your mortgage, do you pay with god, with love, or with money? When you buy food do you pay for it with love, with God, or with money?
~ With the money that God has provided because of His love. Do you think you can measure your success with money? Is it something you can boast about? If you answered yes to either of these, then you’re not a Christian. My ONLY goal in life if to be responsible to God, myself, and those around me. The rest gets filled in with faith. So when you claimed that the saucepan is less symbolic of success than the hammer, you just showed your true colours as just another one of the sheeple. Everyone has their own talents and don’t you dare diminish that.~
Jm: And you naturally have examples of feminists encouraged by sub humanist remarks going on to kill men, and eat them. Because that’s what you’ve been claiming.
~ No, I’ve been claiming quite the opposite, are you illiterate or just very young? Read the word “if”. “IF” sexist remarks cause rape (which they don’t), “then” dehumanising remarks cause murder (which they don’t). All I’m doing is using a Freudian answer to your initial statement. So no, I don’t have any examples of dehumanising remarks causing murder, do you have any examples of sexist remarks causing rape? No, you don’t because rape is not caused by sexist remarks but from a deeper underlying evil trait of an individual.~
Jm: Incidentally, most murders are not caused by sub human remarks, particularly in Australia. Most murders are caused by intense aggression and other intense emotions leading standard morals to be overlooked (Sometime enhanced by alcohol).
~ LOL You just said – “most murders are not caused by sub human remarks”. No murders are caused by these remarks. The rest of the paragraph I agree with and is totally irrelevant.~
Jm: There is no cultural messges about “Men like being killed” or “Men exist to be murdered” No jokes about “How about we kill all the men”-tell me if I’m wrong here. Prove me wrong. Go ahead.
~ “Women don’t need men”. I’ve heard that said a few times. I think it’s in reference to test-tube babies and how the human race could continue without men because of this technology. Here’s another one for you – “all men are pigs”. Both of these comments imply some kind of relinquishment to man’s right to life, especially if the ideologies behind such statements are acted upon.~
Jm: So an Australian woman becomes the greatest success story, the fastest woman alive. She is still not as fast as the fastest man alive. Are you going to ignore her because she’s not as fast as the fastest man, or celebrate her achievement for Australia?
~ Personally, I would celebrate her greatness inasmuch as it is great. If shes not faster than the fastest man, but faster than the second fastest man, then I definitely would celebrate that. But that’s just me, you may be happy that she got a gold for your country or your people because of that cheer-for-your-team attitude, and I won’t deny you of that. But if she is still much slower than most of the male runners, then I personally wouldn’t celebrate her ‘greatness’ because, in my opinion, she is racing in a non-competitive league.~
Jm: “~WTF? How did you get to this conclusion?” Here’s how. You object to equal or anything approximating equal representation of women’s sport on TV, unless it’s someone you care about. True?
~ Firstly, No. I object to any non-competitive mediocre league getting the same representation as the the best leagues, whether I know someone in them or not. I never alluded to any other opinion about this other than the one I just expressed. I would watch them if I knew someone in them, but I would not ask for the same representation as our A team for cricket. Secondly, I love when I ask how you come to a conclusion and you say ‘heres how’, but then neglect to properly quote anything I’ve said nor give a detailed explanation of how you understood any particular sentence. You just put words into my mouth then argued against those words.~
Jm: But everyone cares about a female athlete. For every female athelete or sportswoman there are multiple people who care about them. Why doesn’t their existence justify exposure of female sporting success?
~ Why does it? I have fans of my chess prowess, does that justify me to have the same representation as our best teams of our favourite games? No. “But everyone cares about a female athlete,” let me prove wrong, I don’t care about female some female athletes (the ones in sports where men are just better). I don’t think you could even say ‘most people care about a female athlete’. If I went around my school and asked how many people sincerely care about female cricket, I’m guessing the majority of people won’t care. Almost certainly most women won’t care. Trust me, that’s not because of a lack of representation, that’s because of a lack of caring. I don’t understand your fascination with equal representation anyway, what does it matter to you what sport other people watch? If it’s available to watch at all, that should be enough. When you ask for equal representation, what you’re really asking for is a larger audience otherwise the only difference it makes to you personally is what channel or website you watch it on. Do you think these women aren’t getting enough credit for their actions? enough pay? enough glory? If they got the same glory and pay as men, but were significantly worse at cricket, isn’t that sexist against men? We don’t pay the worst player on our team the same as the best player on our team. Their contracts are negotiated based on SKILL. So if sporting contracts are based on skill, why should this person get more money just because they are female, even though they have much less skill?~
Jm: “It seems like it’s becoming habitual for you to start a sentence with something I have said and then tack on something completely ridiculous on the end. ”
Well I think I’ve explained the link fairly well.
~ No, you never explained the link between me wanting to watch my wife play a sport, and me not wanting other people to watch their loved ones play a sport. There is no link. Not once did I ever say to take anything off the air. If the mediocre team or league is accessible to those who want to watch it, that is enough.~
Jm: Still waiting on you explaining how feminists want to eradicate the differences of the male gender.
~Really? Because I’m pretty certain that’s all I’ve been talking about. Feminists are pushing for equality in an area where they are unequal. Of course, I never used the term ‘eradicating the differences in gender’, as I would never say anything so absolute. Feminist activists aren’t trying to eradicate all the differences of course, they still love the perks of men buying them drinks, and women practically always getting custody of children during a break-up.~
Jm: “I have agreed with you soo many times now that we could easily air more sports on TV. ” No you didn’t. When I suggested more sports to allow more representation of women you said that this wouldn’t be possible because we’d need to show equal representation of every sport, for every country and that there wouldn’t be enough sports channels to do this. Are you backtracking?
~ LOLOLOL Airing sports on TV is nothing the same as having equal representation of all sports. Having equal representation of every game would be ABSURD. It simply wouldn’t work, not once did I say that a certain game or league shouldn’t be aired or able to be viewed in any way. Let me give you every relevant quote – Me: “If you wanted every sports game to be equally received, even though the players are worse, you would have a lot of sports on tv.”- equally received, see that?? – Jm: “And we have how many dedicated sports channels on tv already, filled with overseas sports which have no relations to us?” – Seems a little discriminatory but OK I went with it – Me: “If you are going to give every single game equal coverage then you can’t discriminate against international teams because the players aren’t Australian. How far down this rabbit hole do you want to go?” – Apparently this is where I said that I don’t want women’s leagues aired. But what I’m really saying is if you give every game the same amount of media coverage, you will lose all coherency because there are so many games being played at any time. Being aired =/= equal coverage.~
Jm: No, you said that women would still be overlooked. And I said no channel has ever tried to publicise women’s sports.
~ Of course channels have previously aired women’s sports. They still do. What are you on about? I saw a game of women’s cricket on TV last year. That is publicising them, they are making those games available to the public. They don’t advertise them or have them on at prime-time because they won’t hit their viewer targets. Buddy, listen to me, if you have women’s cricket on channel 7 at 7pm a LOT of people are going to change the channel.~
Jm: And who said they need to be on at the same time? The Rugby and AFL grand final aren’t on at the same time. The AFL and VFL grand final don’t need to be on at the same time. That’s a condition you’ve demanded here, which no one wants.
~ Hey, yeah, listen if there’s no better sport to watch then I’m sure some die-hard sports nuts will watch the women’s finals of whatever sport it is. Of course, you will have the people with some kind of personal investment watching that game too. Having top-skilled, top-tier games on at the same time isn’t a condition I’ve demanded, it’s just very likely. Again, when competing for newspaper headlines, you’re competing with sports news on a range of sports throughout the day/week. If you think every mediocre league can get equal media coverage there, you’re kidding yourself.~
Jm: Oh, you’re making stuff up? Good on you, using your imagination.
Where I have I pleaded that women’s sports get the same audience reception as top tier leagues? Please point it out.
~You alluded to having equal coverage here – Me:”If you wanted every sports game to be equally received, even though the players are worse, you would have a lot of sports on tv.” – Jm:”And we have how many dedicated sports channels on tv already, filled with overseas sports which have no relations to us? More sport on tv isn’t exactly a problem if you like sport.” either you were answering me by saying yes, you would like to see equal coverage, otherwise you were not answering me at all, which of course is highly likely judging by your other ‘answers’. Also, you are defending this meme, which I personally don’t agree with. It’s complaining that the A team of cricket is unfairly stealing the limelight off this woman. That much is obvious. To me, that seems slightly ridiculous because they are the best team Australia can muster with our resources, so of course they will steal the limelight.~
Jm: I believe I did say that women’s sports should have the same exposure, with the same level of publicity as male sport. But you’ve chosen to ignore that for some reason.
~Why would you want equal exposure without equal reception? What is the point of putting women’s leagues on during prime-time viewing if the audience won’t become equally receptive of it? That seems detrimental to both the television network and the viewers. Why equally advertise the league if you have no care for audience reception? It doesn’t make sense. If they don’t get at least somewhat equal reception, and I assume the networks have already concluded from current trends in audience viewing that they will not, then why give them equal exposure and publicity? It doesn’t make sense, and honestly, neither does your irrational need for them to have better audience reception. “I don’t care about audience reception, I just care about exposure”. Yes, you do. exposure = reception = recognition. Why would you plea for exposure when you don’t want the others? You do. putting ‘equal exposure/reception/recognition to our A team’ shouldn’t change this equation. If it does, than they are giving them too much exposure. Consider watching the women’s NRL on Friday night, Bulldogs vs. Broncos, prime-time television, and just knowing that practically any under21 or local 21+ rugby side would mop the floor with either of these teams. Some people may ‘cheer-for-their-team’. I know the only reason most men would watch it, and it’s got nothing to do with stopping sexism in sports.~
Jm: “Yeah thanks for agreeing with me again. ” Except I didn’t. You were saying allowing for women’s sports would be like havign an asian league, or african league, as some ethnic groups are better at some sports than others. I pointed out that the cultural groups are not so distinct in sport as they are in women’s sport, and therefore while it is fair to have women’s sports, having african only sports, asians sports, etc, is not needed.
~But what you really said was ‘we allow people of racial equality equal chances’. You say you’re a feminist activist who wants gender equality, but you don’t want women to have the same equal chances in this regard. If you want women to have equal exposure, and by extension, equal recognition, then one would assume they should have equally fierce competition. These would be the pleas of a proponent of mixed gender leagues, and you’re almost there. Mixed leagues truly would test skill, and through them, some select heroins would get very famous. But that won’t ever happen because why do people do what they do? Because they love doing it, and mixed leagues would take too much enjoyment out of the sport for many women. But of course you don’t want women to have equally fierce competition as men. Therefore, you don’t want women to be treated equally in sports. Therefore, you are in agreement with me (see my very first post)~
Jm: Are you intentionally contradicting yourself with what you said earlier? If so, that’s fine. What you said earlier was ridiculous. I look forward to you saying “Thinking that feminists are about to eradicate the differences of the male gender is crazy. What sort of crazy person would think that!”
~ Find a contradiction in my argument, please, do it. You are a contradiction to yourself. You are a feminist activist who just admitted that treating women equally in sports is unfair. You say self-imploding statements like “I don’t want equal audience reception, I just want equal exposure”. You realise that doesn’t make sense, right? If you want equal exposure, then who are you exposing it to? An audience.~
Jm: “Wow. Again, I completely agree with you. More sports on TV. ”
Wow-did you tell yourself that earlier today when you said that wasn’t possible?
~ Which I never said 😀 😀 😀 ~
Jm: This is what you said earlier ‘~ Wait a second. If you are going to give every single game equal coverage then you can’t discriminate against international teams because the players aren’t Australian.
~ The concept of ‘equal exposure’ is a far cry from whether sports get aired on television or not. This is too easy.~
Jm: So, when I suggested more sports earlier and you said that wasn’t possible, were you wrong then, or wrong now? These are complete contradictions.
~ I was never wrong before because I never said that more sports on television was a bad idea. In fact, having more sports means you are definitely not going to have ‘equal coverage’.~
Jm: “I’m not saying people should watch top tier leagues,”
Well you did say you only wanted to see genuine tests of skill, not meidocre teams, implying all women teams that aren’t as good as men are mediocre.
~ Just re-read what you’ve written here for a sec. Now, am I wrong in “implying all women teams that aren’t as good as men are mediocre”. I can say that,that’s a true statement. But you missed the point – even men’s teams can be mediocre teams. Men have entire mediocre leagues, B-leagues, club leagues. Wheres their ‘equal coverage’ and ‘equal exposure’? And I stand by what I said, I am not asserting my views that people should only watch top-tier leagues like I do. I am simply describing the reality that most people do only watch these leagues, and I am of this majority. Also, yes I did say that, I agree with you completely that is what I said. I only want to see genuine tests of skill, not meidocre teams. This is a personal preference. What’s your point?~
Are you the same logic who spoke earlier? Or has someone hacked into your account?
“This meme is pleading for equal audience reception, not equal coverage.
And equal opportunity most of all. How exactly are people going to watch women’s sport if it’s not on tv, advertised and publicised for people to watch?
~LOL. ‘equal opportunity’ = ‘equal coverage’ = ‘equal exposure’. Not like before, when the equation was saying that each section requires the other to remain stable, but this time the ‘=’ means that these things mean exactly the same thing. Here I am explaining an important point that this meme is directed at the audience, asking ‘why aren’t you watch us?’ and it skips the exposure/opportunity thing all-together. In fact, this meme assumes they do get enough exposure, otherwise they couldn’t blame A grade cricket on taking the limelight that they never had.~
Jm: “Also, even if this is occuring, it probably still wont get equal coverage because the TV networks will give the games with larger audiences more time/media/advertising etc.” Again, has ansyone tried advertising and broadcasting women’s sports? It’s easy to say “No one will watch it”-they said the same thing about soccer now. Ask SBS how it’s going now.
~ Yes, they have. And no, it won’t get the same audience reception. That’s why you may find women sports on during the middle of the day. Oh yeah the soccer, you mean our A league? You mean how they started showing the best soccer games Australia has to offer without going international? Yeah, funny how that got popular hey.~
“Look at the meme, then look at your argument, notice the discrepancies?~
I didn’t make this meme. I’m arguing from my own point of view. Not a meme’s.
~Yep, you are, and quite poorly I might add. What you’re arguing for isn’t even detailed in any of the comments nor the meme (equal exposure). everything you said to rebut me was just a lie or an emotional appeal. I’m talking about the meme. I’m talking about the comments. I’ve been relating back to the meme and comments the whole time.~
So, as we start, look at how much time you’ve spent telling me that I’m stupid or my arguments are wrong instead of showing how they’re wrong. What do you think that says about you?
And now, let’s get back into your persecution complex. Hopefully you won’t be too scared of the evil feminists, with their free drinks, that you can’t get to sleep tonight.
“Also, if I’m “agreeing to crazy things” then that implies the person I’m responding to is suggesting crazy things. ”
So the only reason you’re saying “Feminists are trying to destroy masculinity” is because I’m sayign crazy stuff like “I’d like women to have equal opportunity for recognition in sport”
Oh, totally fair then.
“~ I will say this once more for your obviously inferior mind.”
Didn’t you just start by complaining my arguments were at a personal level? Hypocrisy much?
“Sexist remarks don’t lead to rape, every study confirms this. ”
You said earleir that there was a relationship between sexual objectification and rape. Now you say that every study, every single study doesn’t show this. I await your source.
” In-fact after my last post I asked three other people if they would rather be called a lesser-human (like a kitchen slave) or sub-human (like a pig) and all three agreed that being called sub-human (a pig) is more offensive. ”
Wow! Three whole people. That’s a sample right there. Three people you know even!
“~ But that doesn’t matter because you’re taking what I’ve said out of context. ”
You said that cannibalism by feminists wwas less common than rape because it was less extreme. I again put it to you that there have been 0 cases of cannibalism by feminists, and plenty of examples of rape. I asked you to prove me wrong. You can’t.
” Anyway, this is another appeal to emotion, claiming something is ‘petty’ is a great way to avoid answering with any rational thought.~”
Yes, how dare I appeal to emotion. It’s like I’m a human being or something.
“A kitchen slave has to cook dinner every night, day in and day out. A sub-human is the dinner”
Again with the cannibalism-it’s a worryingly disturbing fixation you seem to have. Which has never existed, yet you compare to sub human treatment that does exist.
Tell me, do you honestly think that slaves think to themselves “Well, at least I’m not being eaten alive” or do they not feel grateful for this.
” Of course it is, that’s why comparing the entire treatment of women to a single statement was ridiculous. ”
Multiple statements. Not just one.
“If you just argued about the remarks themselves, instead of the actions and ideologies behind the remark, I wouldn’t have to go into the disgusting realm that the statement ‘all men are pigs’ would lead someone.~”
Still waiting on any evidence that the line “all men are pigs” has ever lead to any crime ever. Because lines like “All women are sex objects” have lead to rape. Rapists say those things.
“If someone rapes someone else, that person should go to jail. A person who will not rape someone else is not morally deficient in that way, no matter how many sexist remarks they make.”
Let me break this down to you. We both think a rapist should go to prison.
What about the people who support the rapist? The ones who told him “She really wants it, and ignore it when she says no” the one who says “Don’t take no for an answer, a no is just a yes in disguise”-are these perfectly fine people who have nothing to answer for? What about the people saying of the victim “Well, she did wear revealing clothes” or “What was she doing at night on her own” or “She went back to his place, what did she think was going to happen?”-these are people who have no responsibility when rape occurs?
Again, rape is far too common for us to say “Well it’s just sick people-nothing to do with society’s messages. Let’s just punish the bad people and be done with it”-how does that sickness come about? Come on, you’re meant to be logic, are these rapists born to ignore consent, born taking advantage of women, or are they taught?
“You’re trying to diagnosed rape as a product of sexism and culture, but it’s actually a product of the evil that dwells within the heart of the individual”
There’s logic for you. Rape is called by the evil that lives in the heart of man. So, in other words, rapists are born with evil in them.
Or are you saying all men have evil rape inside them, but some have it better under control. I don’t know which is worse-evil babies, or everyone’s potentially evil.
“It makes no difference how many sexist remarks a normal, moral person hears, those remarks will not cause that person to rape anyone. All the studies have concluded this.~”
Please, tell me about lal the studies that have found evil lives in the hearts of man. How did they research the existence of evil? Does it count as criminology, psychology, or theology?
“You conveniently forgot about serial rapists who are simply mentally unstable. ”
The ones who are caught are. Many serial rapists are not mentally unstable. That’s again you pushing away the problem, as something someone else has to solve. There are entire communities of men existing to manipulate, and coerce women into sex-books are writen about and by them and published as “Getting a yes from a no”-these aren’t mentally unstable guys. Deeply mysoginist guys, yes, but unstable, no.
“All these people are sick (whether criminally or mentally) and need to be put in jail.”
But they’re not, logic. Rape conviction rates are incredibly low. So how can that be? How can police and juries not see the “evil that lives in the heart of man”-do they not have “evil detection” machines in court now?
Or, could it be, that society supports the rapist, by asking victims “How many sexual partners did you have?” “What were you wearing?” “Why did you go back to the accused’s house on your own?”
“because you would understand that I was hypothetically following the ideologies and actions behind the remark ‘all men are pigs’.~”
So you look into the hypothetical actions of someone thinking of men as a pig, which have never happened, and somehow think it’s worth comparing to the actual actions of someone who thinks women are sex objects. Totally fair!
“That stuff happens here, but we are talking about women being treated first and foremost as sex objects. ”
So women are treated as sex objects, but they are treated as human beings. But human beings who are judged on the way they look in a way that men aren’t.
Or are you telling me that when women in your town are told they need to look better, those making those comments to women are quick to preface it with “Not that I’m judging you on your looks or anything, but….”
“If any suffering occurs, the individual can learn from it. If she places her faith in God, everything will work out in the end. ”
Great. So I’m going to see a parent tomorrow who is unable to afford for her child’s medication. Should I work with her to investigate financial counselling, learning to make a budget, contacting those she owes money in order to delay payments, look into charity support, or tell her “If you trust God, everything will be okay”? Let me know which you recommend.
“By the way, you cannot claim yourself to be a Christian while believing money is power. ”
I can and do. I’m a realist. I live in a capitalist society. I do not like it, but I do not deny it either, as you do.
You remind me so much of someone who has never ever been poor. Never even known someone who is poor. Your privilege is so apparent it’s shocking!
“I am comforting them by saying these things. ”
And that’s a great place to start. Religion does bring a lot of people hope. But when things are not going so well, hope only takes you so far, before you need action.
” Some suffering is necessary for learning. ”
You would honestly tell a woman who is about to be evicted from her home with her six kids and has no place to live that she should think of it as a learning experience? Isn’t that a little heartless?
“Maybe the children will find their calling in life so they may be successful. ”
And how will they do that if they’re living on the streets? How will they do that as they move from school to school as their parents chase the hope of a job somehwere?
“Maybe the mother will realise that she has other callings in life that she must accomplish. ”
And how is a woman with no money, being evicted, going to be able to access those callings? She has no money for training, no time to train, no capital to start up a business-how is she going to do that?
“You don’t know God’s plan for these people. ”
Neither do you, but at least I’m trying to help them sort out their problems now, rather than proivide glib platitudes that they do not want when they’re in a panicked state.
“Also, if I could say these things to this hypothetical family, I would also help them out in any way I can. ”
With money or with God’s love? Which? Again, God’s love is great, but we do not live in a theocracy. You cannot get those families out of a burden by hope alone. Action is required, and in many cases, action requires money.
I mean, look at the multiple christian charity groups operating in Australia. They do great stuff, and the reason they are able to do great stuff isn’t because they are deeply religious people, but because they are able to manage finances, get donations, and use that money in productive ways. It sounds like if you were running them, you’d want all fundraising to stop and be replaced by a prayer-in.
“With the money that God has provided because of His love. ”
So money then.
“Do you think you can measure your success with money?”
Nope. But it does make it easier for me to live in this society.
” Is it something you can boast about? ”
Hah! I’m a social worker. We can’t boast about our pay!
“If you answered yes to either of these, then you’re not a Christian. ”
Well I didn’t, but again, realising that money is powerful in society doesn’t make me anti christian, it makes me realistic.
“My ONLY goal in life if to be responsible to God, myself, and those around me. ”
And the same is true for poor people. But again, they have to worry about money because they don’t have any. Not worrying about money is a luxury only the well off can afford.
” So when you claimed that the saucepan is less symbolic of success than the hammer, you just showed your true colours as just another one of the sheeple. ”
Sheeple? What are you-a christian ayn rand devotee? How does seeing most people as sheep negatively fit with Christ’s love? Love one another as I have loved you-don’t remember that including “Including those annoying sheeple”
Again, I live in a capitlaist society. Who is rewarded in this society, congratulated by government and has an easier life? Those who have an income, or those who do not? I look forward to your continual insistance that apparently people are rewarded in this world by religious devotion alone (Unlike what I was raised up as a Anglican to bleieve that we are rewarded in our next life, and sufferring exists in this world so that good Christians can try to alleviate it).
“Everyone has their own talents and don’t you dare diminish that.~”
Where have I ever tried to deiminish it? I’m not the one calling people “sheeple” and telling the poor to just “Believe in God and everything will work out. Enjoy your homelessness!”
“So no, I don’t have any examples of dehumanising remarks causing murder, do you have any examples of sexist remarks causing rape? ”
Again, sexist remarks are an example of a sexist culture. Sexist culture causes rape. Hence our low conviction rate, low charge rate for rapists, and increased blame being placed on rapie victims.
““most murders are not caused by sub human remarks”. No murders are caused by these remarks.”
Again, sub human remarks are an example of a culture where some people are considered sub human, which has lead to the holocaust, lynchings. Let me guess-the holocaust was caused by evil in the hearts of men, not the German people being taught through non stop propoganda that Jews were evil, right?
Of course, before you start to sya “Aha! Then feminists are cannibals” you now even don’t even try to claim that feminist cannibalism exists.
“~ “Women don’t need men”. I’ve heard that said a few times. ”
It’s true. Men don’t need women either. Both can be perfectly happy separated, but it they chose to join it should be cause they want to be togethner-not because they “need”
” I think it’s in reference to test-tube babies and how the human race could continue without men because of this technology.
Catapulting to conclusions there a little. Again, a statement encouraging independance of womne, encouraging women to succeed on their own, without being reliant on men is translated to “Women want test tube babies! What about the menzzzzz!”
“Both of these comments imply some kind of relinquishment to man’s right to life, especially if the ideologies behind such statements are acted upon.~”
Again, “Women don’t need men” a statement of independence is to you a statement that “Men don’t deserve to live!”
How exactly are women allowed to be independent of men without you seeing it as a threat to you?
“But if she is still much slower than most of the male runners, then I personally wouldn’t celebrate her ‘greatness’ because, in my opinion, she is racing in a non-competitive league.~”
So you object, naturally, to female atheletes in track and swimming events in the olympics getting equal attention as male atheletes? Right?
“~ Why does it? I have fans of my chess prowess, does that justify me to have the same representation as our best teams of our favourite games? ”
So, t obe clear, you’re comparign chess, which is not popular in Australia for either gender, to women’s sport, which is popular among women who like sport. Right?
““But everyone cares about a female athlete,” let me prove wrong, I don’t care about female some female athletes”
You’ve willfully misinterpreted me here. I did not say everyone cares for every female athlete. I meant that every female sportsperson has someone who cares for them and wants to cheer them on.
” Trust me, that’s not because of a lack of representation, that’s because of a lack of caring.”
Trust you? Why would I want to do that? Do you have a scientific study telling me that not trusting you isn’t useless?
“I don’t understand your fascination with equal representation anyway, what does it matter to you what sport other people watch?”
Again, making stuff up. I have not demanded equal representation-I have demanded equal opportunity for representation. As in, women’s sport is available of easily accessible channels, publicised and advertised to a similar level as male’s sport.
But it again is easier to argue that I want to force everyone to watch women’s sport. So you argue that instead.
“If it’s available to watch at all, that should be enough.”
It’s not easily available to watch, so we agree it’s not enough then.
” When you ask for equal representation, what you’re really asking for is a larger audience otherwise the only difference it makes to you personally is what channel or website you watch it on. ”
Nope, when I ask for equal opportunity and representation I mean I want women’s sport of an easily accesbile channel, with similar level of publicisation and advertising as male sports.
Or in other words, I meant what I said. Not what you wanted me to say.
“Do you think these women aren’t getting enough credit for their actions? enough pay? enough glory? ”
No, no, and no.
“If they got the same glory and pay as men, but were significantly worse at cricket, isn’t that sexist against men?”
They’re not going to have the same amount as glory as men, we all know that. But to have even a comparable level of glory, to be in the same range, that would be a start, wouldn’t it?
“Not once did I ever say to take anything off the air. ”
No, you said put it on the interwbes, and not to push it down your throat. So welcoming!
“If the mediocre team or league is accessible to those who want to watch it, that is enough.~ ”
So, to be clear, you want women’s sport to be accessible to those who want to watch it, while men’s sport is easily accessible to anyone, whether they want to watch it or not?
“Feminist activists aren’t trying to eradicate all the differences of course, they still love the perks of men buying them drinks, and women practically always getting custody of children during a break-up.~”
Men’s right activist, anyone? Let me guess, things were so much simpler in the 50’s, before all these new fangled divorces, and women’s rights. Telling a woman that she should stay in the kitchen is a reward, right?
You know, not all women like men paying for drinks. A lot of women angrily reject the offer of a man paying for dinner. I know-shocking, it’s like they enjoy being independent or something.
And you’re not providing any examples of feminists trying to eradicate difference in the male gender. You just say “The sport-the sport is proof” and ignore possibility that women want women’s sport to be supported to some degree, not replacing men at all. That’s your persecution complex talking.
“. But what I’m really saying is if you give every game the same amount of media coverage, you will lose all coherency because there are so many games being played at any time. Being aired =/= equal coverage.~”
So when I first mentioned allowing more women’s sports, you said it was impossible because there are too many sports, but you still secretly thoguht that more sports on tv, including women’s sports was good. You just didn’t want to say it at that time because, I don’t know, feminism makes you buy drinks and stuff!
“I saw a game of women’s cricket on TV last year. ”
What channel? Where was it advertised? How did people find out about it?
“They don’t advertise them or have them on at prime-time because they won’t hit their viewer targets. ”
So they don’t advertise because they won’t get veiwing figures. But they don’t get viewing figures because they don’t advertise.
Nice little circular logic loop you got going there.
“Buddy, listen to me, if you have women’s cricket on channel 7 at 7pm a LOT of people are going to change the channel.~”
Again, when have we ever tried to advertise women’s sport to a comparable degree as we do men’s sports?
” Having top-skilled, top-tier games on at the same time isn’t a condition I’ve demanded, it’s just very likely. ”
How is it likely? We already space out less popular sports to avoid conflict, why not do that also with women’s source?
You’re spending a lot of time building a wall to block out women’s sport, then saying “Look-it would be nice if we had women’s sport, but there’s no way they could get through this wall” What is your real problem with women’s sport being on tv? Is it your male persecution complex?
“If you think every mediocre league can get equal media coverage there, you’re kidding yourself.~”
Again, equal is not the goal. Comparable is the goal. It’s no where near comparable now.
“~You alluded to having equal coverage here ”
So now, instead of me saying stuff, I’m alluding to things. Just as all feminist statements, are statements of “We can eradicate all men”-I don’t trust your internal analysis of information.
“More sport on tv isn’t exactly a problem if you like sport.” either you were answering me by saying yes, you would like to see equal coverage, otherwise you were not answering me at all, which of course is highly likely judging by your other ‘answers’. ”
So me saying women’s sport should get equal opportunity for representation is translateds as “All women’s sports must be watched equally as men’s sports-all hail the feminists and their multiple free drinks!”
You’re catapulting yourself again. When I said I wanted equal opportunity for representation in women’s sport, I meant that. I did not mean equal audience share-that isn’t up for me. But keep on making stuff up.
“Also, you are defending this meme, which I personally don’t agree with. ”
No, I am criticising the comments. Totally different. But keep on with your binary thinking.
“~Why would you want equal exposure without equal reception? ”
So I say something, you choose to argue a different point, and whe nI point out that’s not my point, you respond with “Why isn’t it your point?”
It’s not up to me whether women have equal audience share. What I want is people to have a choice on an equal platform. Equal platform means both male and female sports are easy to access and find by all australians, means it is advertised at a comprable way and promoted by their networks. That is a fair opportunity.
“What is the point of putting women’s leagues on during prime-time viewing if the audience won’t become equally receptive of it?”
Never said prime time. Said “reasonable time”-time people can access.
and you’re back in your circle: “No one will watch it if it’s on at prime time, and no one watches it at other times because it’s hard-therefore no one likes it”
You’re setting up conditions that guarantee failure for women’s sport to justify your own crusade againast thme. What is your real problem with women, logic? You seem to have a huge persecution complex about them, and feminists in particular.
“Why equally advertise the league if you have no care for audience reception?”
To allow people a choice. I would like more people to watch women’s sport, but it’s not up to me, it’s up to them. However, if no one is told about it, it is not promoted at all, of course women’s sport is not going to be noticed.
“If they don’t get at least somewhat equal reception, and I assume the networks have already concluded from current trends in audience viewing that they will not, then why give them equal exposure and publicity? ”
And back in the circle we go again:
“Why would they advertise when no one watches? and no one will watch because they don’t advertise”-round and round we go.
“It doesn’t make sense, and honestly, neither does your irrational need for them to have better audience reception. ”
Again, making stuff up. Do you want me to just create a fake sockpuppet who can argue with you on points you want to argue on, rather than what I’m actually arguing on.
I repeat, I do not have a need for better audience reception. I have a desire for equal opportunity for better audience reception. You see that as a threat, but then again you also think feminists want to get rid of you, so you think a lot of things.
“Yes, you do. exposure = reception = recognition. Why would you plea for exposure when you don’t want the others? ”
Because I believe in free will, and allowing people to choose. More exposure allows the opportunity for more reception, allowing for the opportunity for more recognition. However, it also allows the possibiltiy for none of those things. What I want is just the opportunity for these to occur. If no one watches them, as you seem certain they will, then you lose nothing. So why the fear of the opportunity?
“I know the only reason most men would watch it, and it’s got nothing to do with stopping sexism in sports.~”
They can watch it because they want to cheer on their side, or see great sports people do greatthings perhaps?
Or are you going to come out and say what you’re alluding to here.
“Therefore, you don’t want women to be treated equally in sports. Therefore, you are in agreement with me (see my very first post)~ ”
For a guy who has no basis in science, you say “therefore” a lot.
I repeat, I pointed out that the cultural groups are not so distinct in sport as they are in women’s sport, and therefore while it is fair to have women’s sports, having african only sports, asians sports, etc, is not needed.
Now you again don’t want me to say it, as it’s easy to argue a different point. But I have said it.
“You say self-imploding statements like “I don’t want equal audience reception, I just want equal exposure”. You realise that doesn’t make sense, right?”
You are a men’s right activists, with a huge male persecution complex who ignores what people say and instread argues what he wishes they said.
I have explained before why I want equal exposure, but do not demand equal audience reception. You have repeatedly chosen to ignore it.
“~ Which I never said 😀 😀 😀 ~”
No, you just decided to respond to a request about more sport on tv with “That’s not possible!” while apparently thinking “That would be nice!”
Totally reasonable response there!
“I only want to see genuine tests of skill, not meidocre teams.
Except for NRL, where you say to yourself “Well, it’s probably the best teams in the world because they’re the bext ones playing, so I won’t bother to consider that an unfair test of skill”
“~ Yes, they have. And no, it won’t get the same audience reception. ”
Who has tried it, and when. What sports? Or is this another one of your science studies that probably doesn’t exist?
“Oh yeah the soccer, you mean our A league? You mean how they started showing the best soccer games Australia has to offer without going international? Yeah, funny how that got popular hey.~”
So an unfair test of skill then, right? I mean, the best soccer Austrlaia has is nowhere near the best in the world.
But somehow it’s gone well, making a lot on pay tv ratings, heading over to free to air tv now. I’ts almost like people like cheering for a team or something. You better tell them how science says that’s useless!
“What you’re arguing for isn’t even detailed in any of the comments nor the meme (equal exposure). everything you said to rebut me was just a lie or an emotional appeal. ”
I have told you multiple times what I want. You’ve chosen to ignore it. Now you call me a liar. where have I lied? Tell me specifically where I have lied.
“I’m talking about the meme. I’m talking about the comments. I’ve been relating back to the meme and comments the whole time.~”
And of course, how feminism is trying to get rid of the male gender. And how poor people should just hope for the best, and that will be enough.
I was dissapointed to note you’ve skipped quite a bit. I’m sure you’re mistaken, so here it is again!
Here we go:
1. So, to be clear. You needing to switch off the tv to avoid watching women’s sport because you consider it meidocre is “OMG-feminists are trying to diminish the male gender!”
Me asking for equal opportunity and representation for women’s sport has the response of “Go find it somewhere. It probably exists-quit complaining”
2. “Don’t cram them down my throat because I, along with the majority of Australians, want to watch our best teams compete. ”
How exactly are they going to be crammed down your throat? Are you suggesting you are going to be forced at gun point to watch them? Are you that paranoid?
Or, are you suggesting that advertising and promoting women’s sport, that would be considered “ramming down your throat”-which means you’re a bit too sensitive there.
Which one? Are you paranoid and worried you’re going to be forced to watch women’s sport, or too sensitive and don’t want to see any advertising for women’s sport ever?
3. True, teams which win tend to get more fans, but fans aren’t particularly discerning at that point.
I mean, I’ve never seen a group of fans of NRL or AFL ever say “My team won, but they weren’t on top form, so I was dissapointed” I have seen a lot of people cheering “We won! Whooooooo!”
4. Sit down, this will shock you. If women get more opportunities, men don’t get less. If women’s sport gets more attention, more opportunities, and promotions than it has previously, you have nothing to lose. Yet you’re afraid of it. You worry it’s going to be shoved down your throat, that it will mean the end of the male gender-why? What possible harm is it going to cause you?
5. “I’m pretty certain I’ve seen a fair amount of women playing sports on TV. Or an unfair amount, as I said, I don’t know.~”
You’re contradicting yourself in two sentences. In the first sentence you’re certain you’ve seen a fair amount. The second you don’t know if you’ve seen a fair amount. Do you know what you’re talking about now?
6. “Women obviously get some kind of recognition, this meme is recognition of her skill on its own. ”
Memes are sufficient recognition now. A great sporting success for an Australian deserves the same attention as a tall cat, you think?
7. “The networks want money right? Advertising and playing popular sports is in their best interest. If they aren’t showing it, it’s because most people don’t want to watch it. ”
And again how do they know people don’t want to watch it if they haven’t ever tried it? Crystal ball?
8. “~ This meme is evidence of women attempting to equalise in an area at which they are not equal. ”
So a meme pointing out that we do not acknowledge successes amongst our female sportswomen was translated to you as “Women are trying to be equal in areas they are not equal” which lead to “Feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender!” – I think this says more about you, how you see feminism, how you see your own gender and feel about your masculinity than it says about feminism, this meme or anything else.
9. “~ Just one example, the meme that I am referring to at the top of this page. ”
Wait, you are claiming that feminists want to remove men’s difference as a gender based on one, just one, meme which doesn’t even say what you want it to say!
10. “I don’t think it’s sexist, just our natural desire to want to watch better teams play. ”
Again, your belief that people watching sports only want the best teams tends to overlook how Australians competing tend to be more popular in Australia than non-Australians.
11. “My understanding of feminism throughout history has little impact on the argument I am making in relation to women in sports. ”
Yes it does. Your understanding of feminism has lead to a persecution complex where you see any attempt at improving representation of women in sport as a threat to your masculinity. You have seen a request that women get more exposure in sport as an attempt to eradicate differences in the male gender.
Your understanding feminism has completely written your understanding of this issue, and your fear that if women have more exposure as sportswomen, you will somehow lose your gender, have women’s sport crammed down your throat (Your words, not mine), and that you will be forced to all watch women’s sport.
12. “~Firstly, psychologists have recently concluded that the ‘cheer-for-our-team’ emotion is the only useless emotion that human brains create. ”
Happiness in your teams’ success is a useless emotion? What more so than anger? Regret? I’d like to read that study. I would love to know how they even measured what is a useful compared ot useless emotion. I believe you made it up.
13. Incidentally, isn’t it possible that if we paid more attention to women’s cricket, more women may get interested in cricket? Isn’t it even slightly possible?
14. “It may not be the denial of gender, ”
So you admit you were deep into crazy town with that statement?
“but you’re certainly denying something and I would say that is a fault in your argument.~”
Fault in what I’m saying? Or fault in what you’re imagining I’m saying? They’re quite different.
15. So, women play sport for the love of the game and enjoyment of playing, which are pretty good reasons to playing. Therefore we should not recognise their achievements because they don’t want them.
You previously stated you don’t work for money, you work for your love of teaching. Naturally then, if they cut your salary to nothing, you get no positive feedback from students, that’s okay, because you don’t need that. Is that right? I mean, you don’t need money, or positive feedback, or any positive response whatsoever, so you don’t want any of it either, right?
16. What is your point here? Women play sport because they love sport, so we shouldn’t recognise their achievements or give them opportunities to reward that love with financial independence, fame and success. Meanwhile men also play sport becuase they love sport, and isn’t it great that we do recognise their achievements and given them opportunities to reward their love with financial independence, fame and success.
No idea what you’re getting at here. None at all.
I look forward to you ignoring more in the future-particularly your scientific studies that have found evil in the hearts of men, and other studies finding cheering ofr your team is a useless emotion.
It’s inevitable that any discussion on sexism ends up with sexist comments – pretty much confirming for me why we need to call out when people are being jerks (on both sides). Same with racism. Anyhow – Ellyse Perry doesn’t need confirmation from a bunch of wankers who think its okay to make these sorts of comments. If I was their wife/mother/sister I’d be very upset and dissappointed about a family member denigrating someones achievements because of their gender.
~Let me finish Jm~
Jm: I thought you were arguing from your own point of view. Apparently you’re not anymore.
~ You see this here? Where did you get this from? What is this in response to?~
Jm: “so you can watch the games you want to watch. They’re probably on the net or some random channels.” So, to be clear. You needing to switch off the tv to avoid watching women’s sport because you consider it meidocre is “OMG-feminists are trying to diminish the male gender!”
~How the? How did you get that from that. So, to be clear, you quote something I write, which was about easy access in this day and age to almost every game that’s being played. Then you use this quote to make the claim that I have an urge to actively avoid my television showing women in sport? What is the reasoning behind this linkage? I personally have to search many an interweb to find the sports I like watching because they are unpopular sports. If you are having difficulty accessing games in some leagues then I suggest you try the same. I don’t think you should try pushing said league onto prime-time television for reasons unknown. But seriously, how did you get that, from that.~
Jm: Me asking for equal opportunity and representation for women’s sport has the response of “Go find it somewhere. It probably exists-quit complaining”
~ I hereby would like announce that I want to see the chess masters games to be running alongside every Rugby game that’s on television because I want to go for my fav. player, and I want everyone else to as well. Seriously though, go find said game. If you want to watch it, go watch it. wtf? asking for equal opportunity and representation can only lead to equal audience reception, and if it doesn’t get that reception, it gets pulled.~
Jm: This is truly ridiculous, you know that. Equal opportunity is all I’m asking for. Equal opportunity means both sides of sport are advertised, are easy to access, and promoted equally. People can choose to watch or not watch.
What you’re suggesting is “Sport I consider mediocre should be allowed to be shown in places that are hard to find, not advertised at all, and therefore guaranteed never to be succesful, and I can feel justified!”
~That’s not what equal opportunity really means though, is it? For all you know, women’s sports have had equal opportunity to prove their entertainment value to the masses over the decades. It failed. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t get the opportunity to try. Also, there is just no such thing as ‘hard to find’. Google it. Find it. Watch it. Done.~
Jm: “Hey, I agree, put the on the TV or the interwebs or whatever they want to do. ”
Again, you didn’t think that earlier today. Did a bowling ball land on your head in the meantime?
~ Again, no. You misinterpreted my argument because you think having something accessible to watch and having ‘equal coverage’ mean the same thing. They certainly don’t. I’ll say it again, having more games accessible to watch would surely diminish the medias ability to produce ‘equal coverage’. You want every league in every sport to have the same coverage as the NRL? Good luck with that. By all means air them, access to the masses all the way. equal coverage? no.~
Jm: “Don’t cram them down my throat because I, along with the majority of Australians, want to watch our best teams compete. ”
How exactly are they going to be crammed down your throat? Are you suggesting you are going to be forced at gun point to watch them? Are you that paranoid?
Or, are you suggesting that advertising and promoting women’s sport, that would be considered “ramming down your throat”-which means you’re a bit too sensitive there. Which one? Are you paranoid and worried you’re going to be forced to watch women’s sport, or too sensitive and don’t want to see any advertising for women’s sport ever?
~ By advertising, duhhhh… in this quote, i’m referring to equal coverage of every mediocre league to the extent of the most popular top-tier leagues, do you know how much advertising time that would take? Or are you talking about only womens leagues? in that case, the following questions are moot because I was talking about all leagues. I said ‘cramming down my throat’ as expressive of how much advertising time sports would then take up.~
Jm: “Why do you think the Friday night NRL games are most heavily advertised? Because they are the teams on form.” Or, or because the teams are very popular, and have strong fan clubs. True, teams which win tend to get more fans, but fans aren’t particularly discerning at that point.
I mean, I’ve never seen a group of fans of NRL or AFL ever say “My team won, but they weren’t on top form, so I was dissapointed” I have seen a lot of people cheering “We won! Whooooooo!”
~ Just no. In the NRL, the only reason a team plays on a main event day is because they are high on the ladder, ie. they are on form. Nothing to do with popularity. I agree, most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their own team, I never said otherwise. Please, this time, if you claim that I have said otherwise, please find a direct quote and explain how it contradicts, because those other so-called ‘contradictions’ sounded like some primary-school logic.~
Jm: “This meme, however, is referring to a personally invested top-tier team for Australians having priority over a personally invested mediocre team for Australians.~”
You’re imagining things again. I get a real feeling from you that you feel your masculinity or male identity is constantly under threat, and that women can’t get things without you losing something. I saw it earlier when you said “If women take sport away from us, what will we have less” and more recently that “Feminists are trying to get rid of differences in the male gender” and now apparently this meme asking for attention and recognition of a succesful female sports team, and one athlete in particular, is translated to you as asking for “Priority”
~ JUST NO. You took it the wrong way again. I’m describing the ‘priority’ that the current A grade men’s team has in the opinion of the Australian culture. I’m not saying that the meme writer is asking for this athlete to have ‘priority’. I am simply stating facts about what is, I made no assertions as to what ought to be.~
Jm: Sit down, this will shock you. If women get more opportunities, men don’t get less. If women’s sport gets more attention, more opportunities, and promotions than it has previously, you have nothing to lose. Yet you’re afraid of it. You worry it’s going to be shoved down your throat, that it will mean the end of the male gender-why? What possible harm is it going to cause you?
~None. I’m telling you why it’s not going to happen. To maintain equal exposure, equal audience reception is required. everything you say, it’s just the same answer because the only arguments you are producing appeals, the actual content has no information or insight. It doesn’t hurt me at all. But the very essence of your argument is wrong. The majority of Australians simply don’t want the women’s league covering the same amount of television time as our top-tier leagues. Again, especially in the case of Newspaper articles. These certainly have finite room. If women’s sports are on prime-time television, then something else is simultaneously being taken off to accommodate for that time taken. Or, shows that are unpopular get relegated to non-invasive times on television and other areas. Or does that just seem a bit too realistic for you?~
Jm: “What I really said was that I agree with you, they should show it.”
And again-you didn’t think that earlier today. Are you going to change your thoughts every time you post?
~ I already answered this.~
Jm: “I don’t know if they already do because I just don’t know. ”
They don’t. If it is broadcasted (At all), it is never publicised to anywhere near as much of a degree as men’s sports. I’m not talking about 50% of the publicity male’s sports get. Even 10% would be an improvement!
“I’m pretty certain I’ve seen a fair amount of women playing sports on TV. Or an unfair amount, as I said, I don’t know.~”
You’re contradicting yourself in two sentences. In the first sentence you’re certain you’ve seen a fair amount. The second you don’t know if you’ve seen a fair amount. Do you know what you’re talking about now?
~ Firstly, I wasn’t talking about advertising or publicising, just airing. Do they air them? I don’t know and I don’t care because you can just go to the web like most people do if they love something that the majority of people don’t care about. Secondly, I have seen an amount of women’s sports on television, I’m not sure if the amount shown is totally fair or not. That’s what I meant, if you didn’t get that then you’re dumber than I thought. I’m not interested in such nitpicking details, as most games are certainly on the net. You like em? Go find em. Seriously.~
Jm: “Women obviously get some kind of recognition, this meme is recognition of her skill on its own. ” Memes are sufficient recognition now. A great sporting success for an Australian deserves the same attention as a tall cat, you think?
~ No, but it alludes to the fact that there was limelight stolen by the A grade cricketers. The author could have just as easily written “But no-one was watching because women’s cricket doesn’t get enough exposure”. But the author didn’t say that, they suggested that there was a fairly significant drop in recognition because another game was being played. It’s becoming more obvious to me that you never gave more than a quick glance at anything I wrote.~
Jm: “Also, I’m pretty sure you can find somewhere to watch most womens games. ”
So first you were you were certain I could. Then you were unsure. Now you’re pretty sure. Like I said, when it is not advertised, when it is not promoted, when it is not presented in a way that is easily accesible to the population, it has not been given anywhere near fair representation.
~ Oh go cry more, whinge whinge. Neither do my favourite leagues. But here’s a little secret, good people don’t do what they do for fame, they do it because they love doing it. If you are having difficulty following any teams you love with all this technology around, then maybe my assumptions about your illiteracy are true.~
“Some people would like our under 21s shown too and our B teams and it does happen occasionally on television.
To be clear, you’re comparing the greatest sportswomen in Australia to teenagers. You don’t have a problem with women at all, do you?
~To be clear, yes I am. Under 21s aren’t teenagers, they are mostly grown fit young men and they’re pretty mediocre. I would say about as mediocre as our best womens team. The higher the impact of the sport, the more these young guys would simply decimate the women. You’re a fool. Women are nurturers, lovers, carers, teachers, intellects, growers, business gurus, and just downright aesthetically more beautiful than men. I don’t have a problem with women, you do. You’re asking for women who have unequal skill sets in cricket, to get equal exposure, equal advertising, equal publicity and promotion, unequal competition and unequal audience reception. You’re all over the place.~
Jm: “The networks want money right? Advertising and playing popular sports is in their best interest. If they aren’t showing it, it’s because most people don’t want to watch it.” And again how do they know people don’t want to watch it if they haven’t ever tried it? Crystal ball?
~ Uhhhh statistics? Why do you think the Australian public was doubtful when SBS was going to show soccer but SBS did it anyway? Because they had a crystal ball? No, they have access to statistics.~
Jm: “This meme is evidence of women attempting to equalise in an area at which they are not equal. ” So a meme pointing out that we do not acknowledge successes amongst our female sportswomen was translated to you as “Women are trying to be equal in areas they are not equal” which lead to “Feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender!” – I think this says more about you, how you see feminism, how you see your own gender and feel about your masculinity than it says about feminism, this meme or anything else.
~ Getting all the way to “Feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender” just from the meme alone was a little crude. The implications it makes and certainly the actions you are suggesting are actually doing just that. equal exposure requires equal audience reception to be maintained. but there are a few reasons why women will never get equal audience reception. The audience is mostly male, and many of them only want to watch the best teams play. We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best. We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. I personally think that if you recognise the top female cricketer alongside the top male cricketer, even though the competition is so different, you are actually being sexist against men.~
Jm: “Just one example, the meme that I am referring to at the top of this page. ”
Wait, you are claiming that feminists want to remove men’s difference as a gender based on one, just one, meme which doesn’t even say what you want it to say!
There’s jumping to conclusions. Then there’s catapulting to conclusions.
~ What? You only asked me to give an example and I did. Just copy/paste this same argument for any impact sports. I can’t give any more examples because therein lies our biggest difference. Women are already taking over construction and the army and the rest and I’m totally cool with that because I don’t see any physical difference that would make men significantly better at those things. But if I can’t give you any examples other than impact sports, then doesn’t that help my argument as to why women should just leave this one area alone? And why this one area truly does mean something to so many men. We are better in impact sports, there’s really nothing else. So stop pleading for equality in the one area where it’s not there.~
Jm: “I don’t think it’s sexist, just our natural desire to want to watch better teams play.” Again, your belief that people watching sports only want the best teams tends to overlook how Australians competing tend to be more popular in Australia than non-Australians.
~Most Australians would still prefer to watch the best team we can muster. International A grade sporting events have consistently been the most popular. Statistics are fun 😀 ~
Jm: “My understanding of feminism throughout history has little impact on the argument I am making in relation to women in sports. ” Yes it does. Your understanding of feminism has lead to a persecution complex where you see any attempt at improving representation of women in sport as a threat to your masculinity. You have seen a request that women get more exposure in sport as an attempt to eradicate differences in the male gender. Your understanding feminism has completely written your understanding of this issue, and your fear that if women have more exposure as sportswomen, you will somehow lose your gender, have women’s sport crammed down your throat (Your words, not mine), and that you will be forced to all watch women’s sport.
~ You didn’t actually make any arguments here. You just disagreed with me using an incredible long-winded passage that really just reads “Yes it does”. You’ve got to answer ‘how?’ How has my understanding of feminist movement throughout history and the impacts it’s made on society changed anything I believe about this particular subject? I don’t believe it has because this particular areas is unique, because it’s based on physique, strength, body mass etc. and these things make large and significant differences to the way it is executed. No other feminist movement has pushed women for equality where those things matter so obviously. As I previously stated, in the end those things don’t really matter in construction or the army. So how? What other feminist movements am I claiming as illegitimate? None.~
Jm:“Yes, restricting the league to only Australians is not conducive of competition. If we opened AFL up to an international platform, I would be very, very happy with this.” So giving more opportunities for women’s sport to be shown on tv is not possible (As you said earlier today, before completely contradicting yourself tonight), but incorporating every country in the world into local games is something we do have channel space for.
~ Again, I didn’t ever claim that there was no room on tv for women’s sports to be aired. One last time – I was referring to ‘equal coverage’ there. I never made these claims so the question you’re asking is totally redundant.~
Jm: “Firstly, psychologists have recently concluded that the ‘cheer-for-our-team’ emotion is the only useless emotion that human brains create. ” Happiness in your teams’ success is a useless emotion? What more so than anger? Regret? I’d like to read that study. I would love to know how they even measured what is a useful compared ot useless emotion. I believe you made it up. And just so we’re clear here, you’re now saying that people cheering for their team are doing sport wrong. All those fans in their team colours, all those spectators with the green and gold-they’re the ones that are at fault. Is that right? They’re developing useless emotions?
~
~ Those other emotions you listed definitely have their uses. This one is, in a scientific sense, devoid of any rational reason for it’s existence. No, I think sports are very lucky that this emotion exists, maybe sports are the sole reason for it. If these sports are fulfilling these peoples desires to see someone who is not actually themselves win, then kudos. It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy.~
Jm: You know, for a guy who likes sport, it seems you have little relation to Australian sports fans. “I am simply communicating my personal preferences.”
Here’s the interesting thing about your personal preferecnes. When it comes to women’s sport, it’s not enough for you to switch off, as is your preference that no one can deny. You want it on a sub channel where it won’t be pushed down your throat at all. That’s your preference: “I don’t mind it being on. But I don’t want to know it’s on, or have any chance of seeing it by accident”
It kind of infringes on other people’s preferences, doens’t it?
~ I don’t want any mediocre leagues on a prime viewing station at all. I’m not sexist, I’m including men’s mediocre leagues in that. But couldn’t I just rebut with this: If you want to put a relatively unpopular sporting league on a prime viewing station then – ‘It kind of infringes on other people’s preferences, doesn’t it?’~
Jm: “Yet you are pleading for women to be recognised as equal in areas where they clearly aren’t.” Still making stuff up? I asked for equal opportunity for women to receive recognition for their sporting success. You have interpreted it as meaning “Women and men must have thier success viewed equally” which admittedly is easier to argue, but not what I was saying. “You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though the majority of cricket fans in Australia are male.” Again, never said that. Keep on being imaginative there! In your next response, no doubt, you’ll claim I said “Red is blue! Up is down!” which is even easier to argue. Again, I want equal opportunity for women to have their sporting achievement recognised. That includes being shown on a channel most Australians can access, at a time advertised and publicised to a similar degree as male’s sports are. If no one watches, fine. But give people a chance.
~ LOL Ok There’s two problems here. Firstly, having equal opportunity isn’t really the same as equal coverage, women have had thousands of years of equal opportunity to display their sporting vigor and entertainment value. More importantly, you are actually asking for equal audience reception when you ask for equal exposure. There is no way they would get the same exposure that the men’s NRL league gets and expect to maintain a stagnant audience reception. It would either have to become pretty much equal audience reception or it would have to be relegated back to having less exposure. Again, when you publicise something, who are you publicising it to? An audience. So no, I didn’t make anything up, another lie and another appeal to emotion.
Jm: Incidentally, isn’t it possible that if we paid more attention to women’s cricket, more women may get interested in cricket? Isn’t it even slightly possible?
“You want an equal audience reception of women’s cricket even though their fastest bowlers average the same speeds as the men’s average bowlers. ”
Again, never said that. Just as you never said “Feminism wants to castrate me!” though it is easier to argue.
~ Uhh.. Statistics. Also, yes, you did say that, you just don’t know it because you’re not smart enough to understand simple cause and effect. LOL and then you go on to apparently quote me when I actually, truly, didn’t say ‘Feminism wants to castrate me!’~
Jm: “It may not be the denial of gender, ” So you admit you were deep into crazy town with that statement?
~ WRONG. I’m only contrasting against the absolute statements that you seem to be ‘summarising’ me with.~
Jm: “but you’re certainly denying something and I would say that is a fault in your argument” Fault in what I’m saying? Or fault in what you’re imagining I’m saying? They’re quite different.
~ Faults in what you don’t know that you’re saying.~
Jm:”Then why do they do it? It’s not for fame. It’s not for recognition, nor monetary gain. It’s for the love of the sport and the enjoyment of playing.”
So, women play sport for the love of the game and enjoyment of playing, which are pretty good reasons to playing. Therefore we should not recognise their achievements because they don’t want them.
You previously stated you don’t work for money, you work for your love of teaching. Naturally then, if they cut your salary to nothing, you get no positive feedback from students, that’s okay, because you don’t need that. Is that right? I mean, you don’t need money, or positive feedback, or any positive response whatsoever, so you don’t want any of it either, right?
~ Again, not a valid argument in the slightest. I happily receive any perk that comes with my job. My job doesn’t come with the ‘fame’ perk and I don’t care. I’m surprised you care so much about someone else’s fame. You’re so adamant they deserve more fame, probably more adamant then they are. But the true fans don’t care about how famous their hero is, they still copy their batting technique. These women still get paid, still wear sponsor clothing, still play the game they love, still get fans. What are you complaining about? Oh they need more? Sounds an aweful lot like you think they deserve to be rich. You’re shallow and money loving.~
Jm: “I submit to you that the men aren’t playing for this reason either. Sportspeople play because it is their calling and they love what they do.” What is your point here? Women play sport because they love sport, so we shouldn’t recognise their achievements or give them opportunities to reward that love with financial independence, fame and success. Meanwhile men also play sport becuase they love sport, and isn’t it great that we do recognise their achievements and given them opportunities to reward their love with financial independence, fame and success. No idea what you’re getting at here. None at all.
~ I have no idea what you’re getting at either because these women certainly have financial independence. They also have some fame. My definition of success is a little more worldly than yours (which is monetarily based), and I think that if they love what they do then they have succeeded. My point was that it shouldn’t matter which gender is more famous for their deeds because that’s not what they are in it for. You do what you love, whatever perks you gain along the way are yours. That’s how you succeed. Your arguments are not only invalid at a gender level, but also at a human and spiritual level.~
“~ You see this here? Where did you get this from? What is this in response to?~”
Your constant contradictions. Oh I’m sorry, I forgot. You don’t contradict yourself. When I suggested more women’s sport on tv you said that wouldn’t be possible, while thinking it was. Which isn’t a contradiction apparently.
” I don’t think you should try pushing said league onto prime-time television for reasons unknown. ”
I never said prime time, I said reasonable time. And having women’s sport on a channel that is hard to find, and is not advertised, is not a fair representation.
I ‘ve repeated this multiple times and you’ve ignored it every single time. I’m getting tired of repeating it, do you want me to pay for you to get a tattoo instead?
” But seriously, how did you get that, from that.~”
Again, I’m referring your persecution complex which underlies most of the beliefs you are expousing here. Also, reflecting that you see having women’s sport at an easily accessible channel and a reasonable time is terribly wrong, when if you don’t like it, all you’ll need to do is switch off. But rather than hampering you with switching off, you’d prefer if women’s sport is hid away and has to be searched for.
“~ I hereby would like announce that I want to see the chess masters games to be running alongside every Rugby game that’s on television because I want to go for my fav. player, and I want everyone else to as well. ”
You’re allowed to ask for that. Get people on side, call for it. Demanding everyone else watches it is something you want me to think, but as I’ve stated multiple times now (Another tattoo you might want to get), I am not demanding anyone watches it. I want people to have the opportunity for it.
” asking for equal opportunity and representation can only lead to equal audience reception, and if it doesn’t get that reception, it gets pulled.~ ”
That’s fine! Again, I am not demanding equal audience reception, just opportunity to get that reception, including publicity, accesibility, and promotion. It has not been tried. If it is tried and fails, absolutely move it to a poorer time slot.
Why is this so terrifying to you?
“or all you know, women’s sports have had equal opportunity to prove their entertainment value to the masses over the decades. It failed. ”
When? When did they try? What sports? What channels? How were they advertised? Let’s be honest, if there had been a serious attempt to publicise and advertise women’s sports-you and I would know about it. That’s the point of advertising.
The fact that neither of us can name an attempt by women’s sports to prove their entertainment value suggests to me that perhaps we have given it a go.
“Also, there is just no such thing as ‘hard to find’. Google it. Find it. Watch it. Done.~”
Yes there is such a thing as hard to find. If you have to search for something, it means only the truly committed and devoted fans watch-it doesn’t pick up new interest. Easy to find sports easily pick up new interest because everyone knows they are on, when they are on, what channels they are on, and then can choose to watch it.
Do you not see the difference here?
” I’ll say it again, having more games accessible to watch would surely diminish the medias ability to produce ‘equal coverage’. ”
As I’ve said before, I know we aren’t going to have completely equal coverage. But improved coverage between the two genders is enough for now.
“You want every league in every sport to have the same coverage as the NRL? ”
No I don’t. But keep on imagining stuff. IT sounds like it’s fun.
I’m am asking, again, for women’s sports, the sports they play which are popular, to be shown at an easily accesible time, on an easily accesible channel, with publicity and promotion to a comparable rate of male sport.
You have taken this to the extreme of “You want all the psorts all the time always! Impossible”-which again is easier to argue against, but it’s not what I’m saying.
“~ By advertising, duhhhh…”
So, let’s be clear. Men’s sport advertising is going to be shown to everyone whether they like it or not, but you demand that women’s sport advertising doesn’t get crammed down your throat? You only want to see the sport you want to see, and even a glimpse of it in advertising will make you angry, is that right?
Tell me, do you like every other ad you’ve ever seen in the world, and it’s just women’s sports you object to seeing ads for, or do you hate other ads too but only the prospect of women’s sport causes you to complain about the possibility of it being “crammed down your throat”?
“in that case, the following questions are moot because I was talking about all leagues. I said ‘cramming down my throat’ as expressive of how much advertising time sports would then take up.~”
Nice back pedal there. Going so fast! It’s incredible!
“I agree, most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their own team, I never said otherwise. ”
You did call that feeling useless, though. I imagine you’ll be telling rugby fans “You have useless emotions though!”
But thanks for agreeing with me. So as you have pointed out, most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their own team (Which would either contradict you when earlier you said the majority of Australians wnat the best of the best sport on tv, not just their favourite team playing, or require you to tell me that the majority of Australians aren’t fans of any football or NRL team, and only watch sport on tv to see the best of the best like you do. Which is it? The contradiction, or the total twister), giving opportunities for womens sports to be shown at better times on accesible channels may be succesful, as viewers will watch to cheer on their team, just as they do for NRL, right?
“Please, this time, if you claim that I have said otherwise, please find a direct quote and explain how it contradicts”
Certainly. You said earlier:
“Please, this time, if you claim that I have said otherwise, please find a direct quote and explain how it contradicts”
Which means you think the majority of Australians (Which is a bit of a big call, but not too surprising) watch sport to watch the best of the best, just like you do.
You have just said however:
“I agree, most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their own team, I never said otherwise. ”
Which states most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their team, regardless as to whether or not they are the best of the best.
So, I earlier suggested this was either a contradiction, or alternatively, you were going to tell me the majority of Australians are not fans of any NRL (And, let’s be honest, AFL, and A-league are the same) teams. It’s not neccessarily a contradiction, true, but to have it not be a contradiction, it would mean that fans of sports are the exception, not the rule.
“None”
Glad you could agree to me. Women’s sport attempting to have equal exposure will not harm you in anyway, so there’s no reason to challenge it. Bit of a turn around, but I’m glad we could come to an agreement.
“But the very essence of your argument is wrong.”
Oh, and we were going so well.
” The majority of Australians simply don’t want the women’s league covering the same amount of television time as our top-tier leagues.”
You’ve used the phrase “Majority of Australians” a lot in our discussion. So I’m going to call you up on it.
On what basis can you say you talk for the majority of Australians? On what basis can you be sure that the majority of Australians would reject women’s sport having the same amount of coverage as male sport? Do you have a science test that you made up? Have you looked into their hearts?
“Or, shows that are unpopular get relegated to non-invasive times on television and other areas. ”
Again, equal representation will be nice, but anything approximating that, any attempt to get closer to that will be an improvement. You see it as a threat.
” If women’s sports are on prime-time television, then something else is simultaneously being taken off to accommodate for that time taken. ”
I’ve never said prime time tv, I’ve said a good time slot. There’s a difference there. I’m not asking for prime time, just a time slot where you can be reasonably confident people would not have work.
“Or, shows that are unpopular get relegated to non-invasive times on television and other areas. ”
Again, seriously get a tattoo. I am fine with women’s sport if proven unpopular when given a fair chance, being moved to a different time slot. You have imagined I thought differently, because you want to argue a different point. May I suggest to make an imaginary friend to argue such points to.
“I don’t know and I don’t care because you can just go to the web like most people do if they love something that the majority of people don’t care about. ”
Again, you’re claiming to be talking on behalf a majority. On what basis do you say that?
“Secondly, I have seen an amount of women’s sports on television, I’m not sure if the amount shown is totally fair or not. That’s what I meant, ”
What channels? What sports? What times?
“If you are having difficulty following any teams you love with all this technology around, then maybe my assumptions about your illiteracy are true.~”
Personal attacks for the win. So classy!
“Under 21s aren’t teenagers, they are mostly grown fit young men and they’re pretty mediocre. ”
Legally, teenagehood in Australian family law runs up until 25 now.
“You’re a fool.”
And you’re a sexist. Let’s find out how the exact next sentence proves that.
“Women are nurturers, lovers, carers, teachers, intellects, growers, business gurus, and just downright aesthetically more beautiful than men. ”
Wow, what sexist gender roles. Let me guess, you thought about saying “Women can be whatever they want to be” but then realised you don’t think that at all. Men can be whatever they want to be, women can be the 8 things you listed here, and that’s it.
And remember how you said women aren’t judged as sexual objects-one of your 8 roles women can have is “beautiful”
Good on you. As soon as you can end up in the 1950’s you’re jumping off there, away from those evil feminists with their free drinks!
“I don’t have a problem with women, you do. You’re asking for women who have unequal skill sets in cricket, to get equal exposure, equal advertising, equal publicity and promotion, unequal competition and unequal audience reception. ”
So to be clear, me wanting better recognition for women who want to pursue sport to be recognised and celebrated for their success shows a problem with women. You on the other hand, when challenged for your sexism pull out 8 gender roles you see women as having, and not acknowledging anything else, showing you have no problem with women whatsoever, right?
“~ Uhhhh statistics? ”
What statistics? Show them.
“Why do you think the Australian public was doubtful when SBS was going to show soccer but SBS did it anyway? ”
Wait, so you’re saying the Australian public can be doubtful about whether a sport will be popular, and be wrong. Yet you still don’t want to give women’s sport a chance, because this time the majority of Australians (Which probably is entirely comprised by you and the three people you asked) are sure it won’t be popular.
“~ Getting all the way to “Feminists are trying to remove men’s difference as a gender” just from the meme alone was a little crude. ”
Yes, it was crude. And crazy. Glad you’re admitting it. First step to sanity.
“The implications it makes and certainly the actions you are suggesting are actually doing just that. ”
Wait, now I’m trying to eradicate differences in the male gender?
“equal exposure requires equal audience reception to be maintained.”
And who said anything about forcing it to be maintained? I’ve said repeatedly (Get the tattoo) I want women’s sport to have a chance. If it fails, then it loses equal exposure, and goes back to the places you never need to see it and get scared.
“The audience is mostly male,”
Depending on the sport. NRL is mostly male. AFL is largely 50/50. Tennis also has a high percentage of female supporters.
“many of them only want to watch the best teams play. ”
Earlier it was the majority. Then it was “Most fans just wangt their team to win” and now it’s “many”
I can’t wait until it drops down to “some” “a few” and then “Me”
“We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best. ”
Wait, so now you’re defending men’s sport on behalf of guys who don’t like cricket?
Seriously you just get into arguments for fun, right? If women’s cricket was shown, you and the “majority” you imagine to have wouldn’t watch it, because you don’t like cricket anyway. What about all the people who do like cricket? Or do they not exist, and the majority of Australians have been tricked into thinking they do like cricket enough to watch it?
“We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. ”
What clubs? Not sporting clubs, because you’ve already said you’re not a fan, and apparently neither is anyone else in Australia. You’re telling me there’s an underground statistics ring, where the majority of Australian guys, and only guys, share notes about sports in general, not focusing on any one team as a fan.
Is it next door to Narnia, this club?
“I personally think that if you recognise the top female cricketer alongside the top male cricketer, even though the competition is so different, you are actually being sexist against men.~”
Okay, well you can think that. And in your magical club which appears to exist 60 years ago, you can discuss this, to your heart’s content.
“~ What? You only asked me to give an example and I did.”
It’s a huge leap to make to go from a meme that doesn’t say anything about erasing men’s difference as a gender to saying “Feminists are trying to erase men’s difference as a gender”
“I can’t give any more examples because therein lies our biggest difference. ”
Because they don’t exist.
“Women are already taking over construction and the army and the rest and I’m totally cool with that ”
Yep, because nothing says “I’m totally cool” like the phrase “Women are taking over….”
Seriously, I think you might not be as cool as you want to be with that. I’m sure you were the one very dissapointed to see women in the army (Because they’re meant to be beautiful nurturers and lovers).
“But if I can’t give you any examples other than impact sports, then doesn’t that help my argument as to why women should just leave this one area alone?”
Why? Why do we men need special places just for us? Women don’t have special places just for them-why do we get a “No women girls hating club” stamp on some of our areas?
And to be clear, you made an extreme statement about feminists trying to remove the difference in the male gender, without clarification, and are now saying that you only meant for contact sports.
“We are better in impact sports, there’s really nothing else. ”
We also rule the world. When you’re crying yourself to sleep about “Women are playing cricket-but that’s our thing, which I don’t even like, but women aren’t allowed to play”, remember that. We rule the entire world.
“~International A grade sporting events have consistently been the most popular. ”
International A grade sporting events are very popular. Like the Olympics (Male and female atheletes compete, both are given plenty of attention), Commonwealth games (Male and female atheletes compete, both are given plenty of attention), and most tennis tournaments (Male and female atheletes compete, both are given plenty of attention).
Whereas soccer is generally very popular, when Australia is doing well. The early matches of Australia competing get great ratings, but when Australia drops out, the ratings drop too. It almost seems like Australians like cheering for Australia more than they like to watch the best of the best perform. Which would suggest Australians may also like to cheer on female Australian athletes too.
But that would go against your belief that feminists are trying to get rid of differences in the male gender. So it must be wrong.
“Statistics are fun 😀 ”
You know, you can’t just say statistics over and over again without providing them. They don’t just suddenly appear, you know.
“How has my understanding of feminist movement throughout history and the impacts it’s made on society changed anything I believe about this particular subject?”
Because you have a persecution complex. You see women as invading “your” territory as a man (Using phrases like “women are taking over” is an example of that), and therefore see women getting the opportunity for more attention as a threat to you as a man.
This is the underlying belief behind everything you’ve written here. You have an idea of what a woman should be, and while you have reluctantly extended that to allow some areas such as military and construction (With great reluctance), you will fight tooth and claw to prevent women from occupying any other of your man’s space. You even described contact sports as a special thing for men that you see women taking away from you by being involved.
That’s your underlying belief. This isn’t about women’s sport, it’s not about feminism. It’s about you and your view of women which belongs in the 1950’s.
“~ Again, I didn’t ever claim that there was no room on tv for women’s sports to be aired.”
No, you said that we couldn’t show everything, but secretly thouht “I am okay with women’s sports being on television, but I won’t say so yet!’
Got it. No need to repeat.
“~ Those other emotions you listed definitely have their uses. ”
What benefit is regret? Please, describe how regret is helpful.
“This one is, in a scientific sense, devoid of any rational reason for it’s existence. ”
Except, you know, making people happy. Happiness leading to positive reactions all over the body. Sounds pretty useful to me.
I’m still waiting on that study by the way. I don’t think it exists. I think you made it up. Along with the study that found rape is caused by evil in the hearts of men.
“It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. ”
You mean it’s something you made up. But to be clear, you’re now saying that not only do the majority of Australians like sport, but do not support any particular team, but those that do have low IQ’s.
You have no evidence of this, because it’s not true. But it raises a bigger point here. You keep on saying you are talking about a majority of Australians, but who is this majority?
It’s not for people who like women in sport (Obviously)
It’s not people who like cricket-because you claim the majority of Australians barely like cricket.
It’s not for people who cheer on thier own side, because you consider them idiots.
Instead, you are telling me that the majority of Australians, who you are talking on behalf of, like sport without following any team (Including team Australia), hate cricket but watch it anyway (Yet are supremely intelligent), and only watch sport so they can discuss strategy and statistics with other similar people who love sport without supporting any particular team.
I want proof. I want proof that you are speaking on behalf of the majority of all Australians here. Because I think you are speaking on behalf of many 10 Australians, all of whom you know first hand, and meet at your special club, and have generalised those ten people to the entirety of Australia.
“~ I don’t want any mediocre leagues on a prime viewing station at all. I’m not sexist, I’m including men’s mediocre leagues in that. ”
So you’re not a sexist, because you want some men’s teams not to be on at a decent time, and ALL women’s teams to not be on at a different times.
Next you’ll be telling me “I’m not a sexist, I hate some men, and every single woman in the world!”
” If you want to put a relatively unpopular sporting league on a prime viewing station then – ‘It kind of infringes on other people’s preferences, doesn’t it?’~”
No, they can switch off. No one is forcing anyone to watch anything. They can choose not to.
” women have had thousands of years of equal opportunity to display their sporting vigor and entertainment value. ”
THOUSANDS OF YEARS! Are you shitting me? Are you honestly telling me that during the middle ages, when women didn’t have the freakin’ vote, nor the right to study, and were married off and impregnated at an early age, they had equal opportunity to show off their sporting skills? Are you seriously telling me this?
I seriously am starting to think you’re just shitting with me at this stage.
“More importantly, you are actually asking for equal audience reception when you ask for equal exposure.”
No am I not. You’re making that up again. I am asking for an opportunity to have improved audience reception through equal exposure. Like I said, get it tattooed, I’m tired of telling you this over and over again.
“It would either have to become pretty much equal audience reception or it would have to be relegated back to having less exposure.”
For the millionth time now, that’s okay. I’m not demanding it’s on at an easy time for all of eternity. I’m asking for it to be trialed, publicised, and given a chance. Your response is “Why weren’t there women practising sport during Viking incursions? They had their chance!”
“Again, when you publicise something, who are you publicising it to? An audience.”
Yes, to the audience. I don’t see what your complaint is here. I do think women’s sport should be advertised to a public. The public can choose to watch or not watch it. I don’t watch everytihng that’s advertised to me, do you?
“So no, I didn’t make anything up, another lie and another appeal to emotion.”
You did make it up. You are again annoyed that I am not saying what you want me to say, so you change what I say, and argue against that.
“~ Uhh.. Statistics. ”
You keep on saying that like you expect them to appear. They’re not hear. I can say stuff too and follow it up with statistics-doesn’t mean it’s true or making sense at all.
“Also, yes, you did say that, you just don’t know it because you’re not smart enough to understand simple cause and effect. ”
So, let’s be clear, you’re directly saying that I’m saying things that are different from what I mean, but only you can understand that, because you are the wise one, terrified that women are going to take sport away from you. Is that right? Because it sounds like you’ve come right out and said “I want to change what you say so I can argue against it better. Cool bro?”
Again, get it tattooed. I want an equal opportunity for women’s sport to increase their audience share. If that results in an equal audience share, of course I’ll be happy, but what I would like is just the opportunity. You seem to have problems understanding. Are you illiterate? I don’t think you should be teaching english if you are illiterate?
“LOL and then you go on to apparently quote me when I actually, truly, didn’t say ‘Feminism wants to castrate me!’~”
Well, to quote you, you did say that, you just didn’t know that, because you’re not smart enough to understand simple cause and effect, apparently.
What? If you can change what I say, and say I’m not smart enough to realise it, I can change what you say and so you’re not smart enough to realise it.
“~ WRONG. I’m only contrasting against the absolute statements that you seem to be ‘summarising’ me with.~”
So when you said your only example of denial of gender may not be a denial of gender, you weren’t contradicting yourself at all?
“~ Faults in what you don’t know that you’re saying.~”
Talks about faults, doesn’t present them. That would be hard. Much easier just to say the faults exist, right?
“I happily receive any perk that comes with my job. ”
Not what I was asking. I repeat- You previously stated you don’t work for money, you work for your love of teaching. Naturally then, if they cut your salary to nothing, you get no positive feedback from students, that’s okay, because you don’t need that. Is that right? I mean, you don’t need money, or positive feedback, or any positive response whatsoever, so you don’t want any of it either, right?
Or to put it simply, would you work for nothing?
“But the true fans don’t care about how famous their hero is, ”
I thought true fans were stupid? Didn’t you say that earlier? Now apparently you’re using them as an example.
And also, how does a person gets fans without any fame whatsoever?
“What are you complaining about? Oh they need more?”
Yes, especially as you seem to suggest the amount of fame female athletes deserve is a picture meme.
“Sounds an aweful lot like you think they deserve to be rich.”
No, I don’t. I think they deserve more attention. More money may come with this, but positive recognition is the main point.
“You’re shallow and money loving.~”
So classy. You’re a sexist who offers nothing to those in need by hollow statements. You have been born into a priveleged life where money was never in doubt, grown up into an adulthood where money was never in doubt, and so have the luxury of thinking it doesn’t matter to you.
Then you have the nerve to call other people, who see how poverty actually effects people, to see how people who have little money scrape to get by, who helps these people, with so called Christians like yourself doing nothing to help, be more financially secure, shallow amd money loving.
I’m a Christian, so I hope you never have to experience poverty. Never have to make a choice betwen food and rent. But I’d like you to get a chance to see it. Then you might just might realise you live in a bubble, a bubble of privelege where you simply don’t understand that hoping for the best, and doing nothing, doesn’t change anything.
” They also have some fame. ”
Honesty time-had you heard of any female cricketer before you read this article?
“My definition of success is a little more worldly than yours (which is monetarily based), ”
Oh fuck off. My definition of success is happiness more times than not. Yes, money comes into play with that because if you are able to afford rent, food, and to care for your family, happiness occurs much more easily.
Your definition of success is monetarily based also, but because you have always lived in luxury you don’t have to acknowledge it. For example, if you lost your house, your income, everything you owned, had your job changed to unpaid volunteer, and had to live on the streets-how succesful would you feel? Be honest.
“My point was that it shouldn’t matter which gender is more famous for their deeds because that’s not what they are in it for. ”
If it shouldn’t matter, why shouldn’t it be women? I agree, it shouldn’t matter which gender is more famous-so let’s give women athletes a shot and see how famous they become by showing them off and being proud of them, through promotion, advertising and easily found reception.
“You do what you love, whatever perks you gain along the way are yours. That’s how you succeed. ”
There’s a guy I know about, he’s a teacher in Melbourne. Loves teaching, can’t find a job so has to do volunteer work teaching english. Is currently on a newstart allowance and is wondering how he will make rent when it is cut, as is expected.
He still loves teaching though. So, by your definition, he should be thinking of himself as succesful, as he goes to sleep under a bridge?
“Your arguments are not only invalid at a gender level, but also at a human and spiritual level.~”
Listen, logic, you need to make a choice. You can either sound like a robot, saying things like “Your argument is invalid” and “You are being emotional-error, error”, or you can sound like a human being and complaing about poor examples of spirtualism and humanism. You can’t be a spiritualist robot.
And, please, define humanism for me. Tell me how humanist you are as you tell people who’ve lost their homes “You don’t need a home-you just need to do something you love, then everything else will sort itself out. Let’s find you something you can love while you’re homeless”
I’d love to know!
Jm: “I have explained before why I want equal exposure, but do not demand equal audience reception.”
Jm: “I believe I did say that women’s sports should have the same exposure, with the same level of publicity as male sport.”
Jm: “And who said anything about forcing it to be maintained?”
Jm: “I am not demanding equal audience reception”
Jm: “I never said prime time, I said reasonable time.”
Jm: “As I’ve said before, I know we aren’t going to have completely equal coverage.”
~ So.. you want equal exposure, but not prime-time viewing, which one would think is inclusive in ‘equal exposure’.
Oh, I get it, you want the opportunity for equal audience reception using equal exposure, but only for a little while because in the end you ‘know we aren’t going to have completely equal coverage’.
No no, you think there should be maintained equal exposure but equal audience reception doesn’t matter (but it does). Oh, it’s only maintained IF they get equal audience reception? Then why do you say that you ‘know we aren’t going to have completely equal coverage’?
Ok, so you want a group of people who have unequal skill sets to get equal exposure, equal advertising, equal publicity, equal promotion, unequal viewing slots, unequal levels of competition, and inevitably unequal audience reception because you know you can only get unequal coverage.~
WAIT. NOW I get it. I’m being trolled.
Funny. I’m being accused of being a troll by a guy who claims to speak on behalf othe majority of Australia-a majority who hate cricket but watch it anyway, support no particular sports teams (Because fans are idiots-imaginary science says so!), and only watch sport to compare notes they make at a club afterwards….a club which, by the way, totally exists and isn’t something logic just made up after reading too many 19th century novels. I’m being accused of being a troll by a guy who says women have had thousands of years to prove themselves in sports, while most sports are lress than a thousand years old, and women until recently were treated as property without the right to work, or be independant in any way.
Logic, you’ve written all these things. You’ve made these crazy claims. If the person you are arguing against is making reasonable claims which you have to turn into extremes in order to disagree with them, maybe you’re not as logical as you thought.
Anyway, what’s so hard to understand? I would like equal coverage, but I am aware this is not going to happen. So instead I ask for a reasonable time, a time people can watch without skipping work, on a time that’s advertised.
I would like a chance for equal audience numbers, but I know that won’t happen immediatly, so instead I would be happy to give them a fair chance (Including advertising and promotion and easy accesibility) to increae their ratings and gain an audience.
It’s called asking for a small realistic change, instead of demanding a huge unrealistic one. You don’t understand that because, to be honest, you like leaping to extremes. Hence “Women are trying to eradicate differences in the male gender” and translating “Women don’t need men” as meaning “Women are going to make babies with test tubes”
I admit, it is easier to argue against extremes, but that’s not what I’ve been saying. You have chosen to misinterpret what I’m saying so it’s easier to argue, and in the hope I’ll overlook you’re quite frankly ignorant and crazy statements.
No such luck though. Here we go again:
1. “Also, if I’m “agreeing to crazy things” then that implies the person I’m responding to is suggesting crazy things. ”
So the only reason you’re saying “Feminists are trying to destroy masculinity” is because I’m sayign crazy stuff like “I’d like women to have equal opportunity for recognition in sport” ?
2. “~ I will say this once more for your obviously inferior mind.”
Didn’t you just start by complaining my arguments were at a personal level? Hypocrisy much?
3. “Sexist remarks don’t lead to rape, every study confirms this. ”
You said earleir that there was a relationship between sexual objectification and rape. Now you say that every study, every single study doesn’t show this. I await your source.
4. “~ But that doesn’t matter because you’re taking what I’ve said out of context. ”
You said that cannibalism by feminists wwas less common than rape because it was less extreme. I again put it to you that there have been 0 cases of cannibalism by feminists, and plenty of examples of rape. I asked you to prove me wrong. You can’t.
5. Tell me, do you honestly think that slaves think to themselves “Well, at least I’m not being eaten alive” or do they not feel grateful for this.
6. Let me break this down to you. We both think a rapist should go to prison.
What about the people who support the rapist? The ones who told him “She really wants it, and ignore it when she says no” the one who says “Don’t take no for an answer, a no is just a yes in disguise”-are these perfectly fine people who have nothing to answer for? What about the people saying of the victim “Well, she did wear revealing clothes” or “What was she doing at night on her own” or “She went back to his place, what did she think was going to happen?”-these are people who have no responsibility when rape occurs?
7. There’s logic for you. Rape is called by the evil that lives in the heart of man. So, in other words, rapists are born with evil in them.
Or are you saying all men have evil rape inside them, but some have it better under control? I don’t know which is worse-evil babies, or everyone’s potentially evil.
8. Please, tell me about all the studies that have found evil lives in the hearts of man. How did they research the existence of evil? Does it count as criminology, psychology, or theology?
9. “All these people are sick (whether criminally or mentally) and need to be put in jail.”
But they’re not, logic. Rape conviction rates are incredibly low. So how can that be? How can police and juries not see the “evil that lives in the heart of man”-do they not have “evil detection” machines in court now?
Or, could it be, that society supports the rapist, by asking victims “How many sexual partners did you have?” “What were you wearing?” “Why did you go back to the accused’s house on your own?”
10. “because you would understand that I was hypothetically following the ideologies and actions behind the remark ‘all men are pigs’.~”
So you look into the hypothetical actions of someone thinking of men as a pig, which have never happened, and somehow think it’s worth comparing to the actual actions of someone who thinks women are sex objects. Totally fair!
11. “That stuff happens here, but we are talking about women being treated first and foremost as sex objects. ”
So women are treated as sex objects, but they are treated as human beings. But human beings who are judged on the way they look in a way that men aren’t.
Or are you telling me that when women in your town are told they need to look better, those making those comments to women are quick to preface it with “Not that I’m judging you on your looks or anything, but….”
12. “If any suffering occurs, the individual can learn from it. If she places her faith in God, everything will work out in the end. ”
Great. So I’m going to see a parent tomorrow who is unable to afford for her child’s medication. Should I work with her to investigate financial counselling, learning to make a budget, contacting those she owes money in order to delay payments, look into charity support, or tell her “If you trust God, everything will be okay”? Let me know which you recommend.
13. ” Some suffering is necessary for learning. ”
You would honestly tell a woman who is about to be evicted from her home with her six kids and has no place to live that she should think of it as a learning experience? Isn’t that a little heartless?
14. “Maybe the children will find their calling in life so they may be successful. ”
And how will they do that if they’re living on the streets? How will they do that as they move from school to school as their parents chase the hope of a job somehwere?
15. “Maybe the mother will realise that she has other callings in life that she must accomplish. ”
And how is a woman with no money, being evicted, going to be able to access those callings? She has no money for training, no time to train, no capital to start up a business-how is she going to do that?
16. “Also, if I could say these things to this hypothetical family, I would also help them out in any way I can. ”
With money or with God’s love? Which? Again, God’s love is great, but we do not live in a theocracy. You cannot get those families out of a burden by hope alone. Action is required, and in many cases, action requires money.
I mean, look at the multiple christian charity groups operating in Australia. They do great stuff, and the reason they are able to do great stuff isn’t because they are deeply religious people, but because they are able to manage finances, get donations, and use that money in productive ways. It sounds like if you were running them, you’d want all fundraising to stop and be replaced by a prayer-in.
17. “With the money that God has provided because of His love. ”
So money then?
18. ” So when you claimed that the saucepan is less symbolic of success than the hammer, you just showed your true colours as just another one of the sheeple. ”
Sheeple? What are you-a christian ayn rand devotee? How does seeing most people as sheep negatively fit with Christ’s love? Love one another as I have loved you-don’t remember that including “Including those annoying sheeple”
19. Again, I live in a capitlaist society. Who is rewarded in this society, congratulated by government and has an easier life? Those who have an income, or those who do not? I look forward to your continual insistance that apparently people are rewarded in this world by religious devotion alone (Unlike what I was raised up as a Anglican to bleieve that we are rewarded in our next life, and sufferring exists in this world so that good Christians can try to alleviate it).
20. “Everyone has their own talents and don’t you dare diminish that.~”
Where have I ever tried to deiminish it? I’m not the one calling people “sheeple” and telling the poor to just “Believe in God and everything will work out. Enjoy your homelessness!”
21. ““most murders are not caused by sub human remarks”. No murders are caused by these remarks.”
Again, sub human remarks are an example of a culture where some people are considered sub human, which has lead to the holocaust, lynchings. Let me guess-the holocaust was caused by evil in the hearts of men, not the German people being taught through non stop propoganda that Jews were evil, right?
22. “~ “Women don’t need men”. I’ve heard that said a few times. ”
It’s true. Men don’t need women either. Both can be perfectly happy separated, but it they chose to join it should be cause they want to be togethner-not because they “need”
23. ” I think it’s in reference to test-tube babies and how the human race could continue without men because of this technology.
Catapulting to conclusions there a little. Again, a statement encouraging independance of womne, encouraging women to succeed on their own, without being reliant on men is translated to “Women want test tube babies! What about the menzzzzz!”
24. How exactly are women allowed to be independent of men without you seeing it as a threat to you?
25. “But if she is still much slower than most of the male runners, then I personally wouldn’t celebrate her ‘greatness’ because, in my opinion, she is racing in a non-competitive league.~”
So you object, naturally, to female atheletes in track and swimming events in the olympics getting equal attention as male atheletes? Right?
26. “~ Why does it? I have fans of my chess prowess, does that justify me to have the same representation as our best teams of our favourite games? ”
So, t obe clear, you’re comparign chess, which is not popular in Australia for either gender, to women’s sport, which is popular among women who like sport. Right?
27. ” Trust me, that’s not because of a lack of representation, that’s because of a lack of caring.”
Trust you? Why would I want to do that? Do you have a scientific study telling me that not trusting you isn’t useless?
28. “If it’s available to watch at all, that should be enough.”
It’s not easily available to watch, so we agree it’s not enough then.
29. “If they got the same glory and pay as men, but were significantly worse at cricket, isn’t that sexist against men?”
They’re not going to have the same amount as glory as men, we all know that. But to have even a comparable level of glory, to be in the same range, that would be a start, wouldn’t it?
30. “If the mediocre team or league is accessible to those who want to watch it, that is enough.~ ”
So, to be clear, you want women’s sport to be accessible to those who want to watch it, while men’s sport is easily accessible to anyone, whether they want to watch it or not?
31. “Feminist activists aren’t trying to eradicate all the differences of course, they still love the perks of men buying them drinks, and women practically always getting custody of children during a break-up.~”
Men’s right activist, anyone? Let me guess, things were so much simpler in the 50′s, before all these new fangled divorces, and women’s rights. Telling a woman that she should stay in the kitchen is a reward, right?
32. And you’re not providing any examples of feminists trying to eradicate difference in the male gender. You just say “The sport-the sport is proof” and ignore possibility that women want women’s sport to be supported to some degree, not replacing men at all.
33. So when I first mentioned allowing more women’s sports, you said it was impossible because there are too many sports, but you still secretly thoguht that more sports on tv, including women’s sports was good. Is that right?
34. “I saw a game of women’s cricket on TV last year. ”
What channel? Where was it advertised? How did people find out about it?
35. “They don’t advertise them or have them on at prime-time because they won’t hit their viewer targets. ”
So they don’t advertise because they won’t get veiwing figures. But they don’t get viewing figures because they don’t advertise.
Nice little circular logic loop you got going there.
36. “Buddy, listen to me, if you have women’s cricket on channel 7 at 7pm a LOT of people are going to change the channel.~”
Again, when have we ever tried to advertise women’s sport to a comparable degree as we do men’s sports?
37. ” Having top-skilled, top-tier games on at the same time isn’t a condition I’ve demanded, it’s just very likely. ”
How is it likely? We already space out less popular sports to avoid conflict, why not do that also with women’s source?
38. You’re spending a lot of time building a wall to block out women’s sport, then saying “Look-it would be nice if we had women’s sport, but there’s no way they could get through this wall” What is your real problem with women’s sport being on tv? Is it your male persecution complex?
39. “~Why would you want equal exposure without equal reception? ”
So I say something, you choose to argue a different point, and whe nI point out that’s not my point, you respond with “Why isn’t it your point?”
40. You’re setting up conditions that guarantee failure for women’s sport to justify your own crusade againast thme. What is your real problem with women, logic? You seem to have a huge persecution complex about them, and feminists in particular.
41. “I know the only reason most men would watch it, and it’s got nothing to do with stopping sexism in sports.~”
They can watch it because they want to cheer on their side, or see great sports people do greatthings perhaps?
Or are you going to come out and say what you’re alluding to here.
42. “~ Yes, they have. And no, it won’t get the same audience reception. ”
Who has tried it, and when. What sports? Or is this another one of your science studies that probably doesn’t exist?
43. “Oh yeah the soccer, you mean our A league? You mean how they started showing the best soccer games Australia has to offer without going international? Yeah, funny how that got popular hey.~”
So an unfair test of skill then, right? I mean, the best soccer Austrlaia has is nowhere near the best in the world.
But somehow it’s gone well, making a lot on pay tv ratings, heading over to free to air tv now. I’ts almost like people like cheering for a team or something. You better tell them how science says that’s useless!
44. Now you call me a liar. where have I lied? Tell me specifically where I have lied.
45. “or all you know, women’s sports have had equal opportunity to prove their entertainment value to the masses over the decades. It failed. ”
When? When did they try? What sports? What channels? How were they advertised? Let’s be honest, if there had been a serious attempt to publicise and advertise women’s sports-you and I would know about it. That’s the point of advertising.
The fact that neither of us can name an attempt by women’s sports to prove their entertainment value suggests to me that perhaps we have given it a go.
46. “Also, there is just no such thing as ‘hard to find’. Google it. Find it. Watch it. Done.~”
Yes there is such a thing as hard to find. If you have to search for something, it means only the truly committed and devoted fans watch-it doesn’t pick up new interest. Easy to find sports easily pick up new interest because everyone knows they are on, when they are on, what channels they are on, and then can choose to watch it.
Do you not see the difference here?
47. So, let’s be clear. Men’s sport advertising is going to be shown to everyone whether they like it or not, but you demand that women’s sport advertising doesn’t get crammed down your throat? You only want to see the sport you want to see, and even a glimpse of it in advertising will make you angry, is that right?
Tell me, do you like every other ad you’ve ever seen in the world, and it’s just women’s sports you object to seeing ads for, or do you hate other ads too but only the prospect of women’s sport causes you to complain about the possibility of it being “crammed down your throat”?
48. So as you have pointed out, most fans watch NRL because they are cheering for their own team (Which would either contradict you when earlier you said the majority of Australians wnat the best of the best sport on tv, not just their favourite team playing, or require you to tell me that the majority of Australians aren’t fans of any football or NRL team, and only watch sport on tv to see the best of the best like you do. Which is it? The contradiction, or the total twister), giving opportunities for womens sports to be shown at better times on accesible channels may be succesful, as viewers will watch to cheer on their team, just as they do for NRL, right?
49. ” The majority of Australians simply don’t want the women’s league covering the same amount of television time as our top-tier leagues.”
You’ve used the phrase “Majority of Australians” a lot in our discussion. So I’m going to call you up on it.
On what basis can you say you talk for the majority of Australians? On what basis can you be sure that the majority of Australians would reject women’s sport having the same amount of coverage as male sport? Do you have a science test that you made up? Have you looked into their hearts?
50. “I don’t know and I don’t care because you can just go to the web like most people do if they love something that the majority of people don’t care about. ”
Again, you’re claiming to be talking on behalf a majority. On what basis do you say that?
51. “Women are nurturers, lovers, carers, teachers, intellects, growers, business gurus, and just downright aesthetically more beautiful than men. ”
Wow, what sexist gender roles. Let me guess, you thought about saying “Women can be whatever they want to be” but then realised you don’t think that at all. Men can be whatever they want to be, women can be the 8 things you listed here, and that’s it, right?
And remember how you said women aren’t judged as sexual objects-one of your 8 roles women can have is “beautiful”
52. So to be clear, me wanting better recognition for women who want to pursue sport to be recognised and celebrated for their success shows a problem with women. You on the other hand, when challenged for your sexism pull out 8 gender roles you see women as having, and not acknowledging anything else, showing you have no problem with women whatsoever, right?
53. So to be clear, me wanting better recognition for women who want to pursue sport to be recognised and celebrated for their success shows a problem with women. You on the other hand, when challenged for your sexism pull out 8 gender roles you see women as having, and not acknowledging anything else, showing you have no problem with women whatsoever, right?
54. Wait, so you’re saying the Australian public can be doubtful about whether a sport will be popular, and be wrong, right? Yet you still don’t want to give women’s sport a chance, because this time the majority of Australians (Which probably is entirely comprised by you and the three people you asked) are sure it won’t be popular.
55. “The implications it makes and certainly the actions you are suggesting are actually doing just that. ”
Wait, now I’m trying to eradicate differences in the male gender?
56. “We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best. ”
Wait, so now you’re defending men’s sport on behalf of guys who don’t like cricket?
Seriously you just get into arguments for fun, right? If women’s cricket was shown, you and the “majority” you imagine to have wouldn’t watch it, because you don’t like cricket anyway. What about all the people who do like cricket? Or do they not exist, and the majority of Australians have been tricked into thinking they do like cricket enough to watch it?
57. “We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. ”
What clubs? Not sporting clubs, because you’ve already said you’re not a fan, and apparently neither is anyone else in Australia. You’re telling me there’s an underground statistics ring, where the majority of Australian guys, and only guys, share notes about sports in general, not focusing on any one team as a fan.
58. “Women are already taking over construction and the army and the rest and I’m totally cool with that ”
Yep, because nothing says “I’m totally cool” like the phrase “Women are taking over….”
59. “But if I can’t give you any examples other than impact sports, then doesn’t that help my argument as to why women should just leave this one area alone?”
Why? Why do we men need special places just for us? Women don’t have special places just for them-why do we get a “No women girls hating club” stamp on some of our areas?
And to be clear, you made an extreme statement about feminists trying to remove the difference in the male gender, without clarification, and are now saying that you only meant for contact sports. Right?
60. “But if I can’t give you any examples other than impact sports, then doesn’t that help my argument as to why women should just leave this one area alone?”
Why? Why do we men need special places just for us? Women don’t have special places just for them-why do we get a “No women girls hating club” stamp on some of our areas?
And to be clear, you made an extreme statement about feminists trying to remove the difference in the male gender, without clarification, and are now saying that you only meant for contact sports.
61. “Statistics are fun 😀 ”
You know, you can’t just say statistics over and over again without providing them. They don’t just suddenly appear, you know.
62. “~ Those other emotions you listed definitely have their uses. ”
What benefit is regret? Please, describe how regret is helpful.
63. “This one is, in a scientific sense, devoid of any rational reason for it’s existence. ”
Except, you know, making people happy. Happiness leading to positive reactions all over the body. Sounds pretty useful to me.
I’m still waiting on that study by the way. I don’t think it exists. I think you made it up. Along with the study that found rape is caused by evil in the hearts of men.
64. “It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. ”
You mean it’s something you made up.
65. But to be clear, you’re now saying that not only do the majority of Australians like sport, but do not support any particular team, but those that do have low IQ’s.
You have no evidence of this, because it’s not true. But it raises a bigger point here. You keep on saying you are talking about a majority of Australians, but who is this majority?
It’s not for people who like women in sport (Obviously)
It’s not people who like cricket-because you claim the majority of Australians barely like cricket.
It’s not for people who cheer on thier own side, because you consider them idiots.
Instead, you are telling me that the majority of Australians, who you are talking on behalf of, like sport without following any team (Including team Australia), hate cricket but watch it anyway (Yet are supremely intelligent), and only watch sport so they can discuss strategy and statistics with other similar people who love sport without supporting any particular team.
I want proof. I want proof that you are speaking on behalf of the majority of all Australians here. Because I think you are speaking on behalf of many 10 Australians, all of whom you know first hand, and meet at your special club, and have generalised those ten people to the entirety of Australia.
66. “~ I don’t want any mediocre leagues on a prime viewing station at all. I’m not sexist, I’m including men’s mediocre leagues in that. ”
So you’re not a sexist, because you want some men’s teams not to be on at a decent time, and ALL women’s teams to not be on at a different times.
Next you’ll be telling me “I’m not a sexist, I hate some men, and every single woman in the world!”
67. ” If you want to put a relatively unpopular sporting league on a prime viewing station then – ‘It kind of infringes on other people’s preferences, doesn’t it?’~”
No, they can switch off. No one is forcing anyone to watch anything. They can choose not to.
68. ” women have had thousands of years of equal opportunity to display their sporting vigor and entertainment value. ”
THOUSANDS OF YEARS! Are you shitting me? Are you honestly telling me that during the middle ages, when women didn’t have the freakin’ vote, nor the right to study, and were married off and impregnated at an early age, they had equal opportunity to show off their sporting skills? Are you seriously telling me this?
I seriously am starting to think you’re just shitting with me at this stage.
69. “Again, when you publicise something, who are you publicising it to? An audience.”
Yes, to the audience. I don’t see what your complaint is here. I do think women’s sport should be advertised to a public. The public can choose to watch or not watch it. I don’t watch everytihng that’s advertised to me, do you?
70. “~ WRONG. I’m only contrasting against the absolute statements that you seem to be ‘summarising’ me with.~”
So when you said your only example of denial of gender may not be a denial of gender, you weren’t contradicting yourself at all?
71. “~ Faults in what you don’t know that you’re saying.~”
Talks about faults, doesn’t present them. That would be hard. Much easier just to say the faults exist, right?
72. You previously stated you don’t work for money, you work for your love of teaching. Naturally then, if they cut your salary to nothing, you get no positive feedback from students, that’s okay, because you don’t need that. Is that right? I mean, you don’t need money, or positive feedback, or any positive response whatsoever, so you don’t want any of it either, right?
Or to put it simply, would you work for nothing?
73. “But the true fans don’t care about how famous their hero is, ”
I thought true fans were stupid? Didn’t you say that earlier? Now apparently you’re using them as an example.
And also, how does a person gets fans without any fame whatsoever?
74. ” They also have some fame. ”
Honesty time-had you heard of any female cricketer before you read this article?
75. “My definition of success is a little more worldly than yours (which is monetarily based), ”
Oh fuck off. My definition of success is happiness more times than not. Yes, money comes into play with that because if you are able to afford rent, food, and to care for your family, happiness occurs much more easily.
Your definition of success is monetarily based also, but because you have always lived in luxury you don’t have to acknowledge it. For example, if you lost your house, your income, everything you owned, had your job changed to unpaid volunteer, and had to live on the streets-how succesful would you feel? Be honest.
76. “My point was that it shouldn’t matter which gender is more famous for their deeds because that’s not what they are in it for. ”
If it shouldn’t matter, why shouldn’t it be women? I agree, it shouldn’t matter which gender is more famous-so let’s give women athletes a shot and see how famous they become by showing them off and being proud of them, through promotion, advertising and easily found reception.
77. “You do what you love, whatever perks you gain along the way are yours. That’s how you succeed. ”
There’s a guy I know about, he’s a teacher in Melbourne. Loves teaching, can’t find a job so has to do volunteer work teaching english. Is currently on a newstart allowance and is wondering how he will make rent when it is cut, as is expected.
He still loves teaching though. So, by your definition, he should be thinking of himself as succesful, as he goes to sleep under a bridge?
78. And, please, define humanism for me. Tell me how humanist you are as you tell people who’ve lost their homes “You don’t need a home-you just need to do something you love, then everything else will sort itself out. Let’s find you something you can love while you’re homeless”
“Funny. I’m being accused of being a troll by a guy who claims to speak on behalf othe majority of Australia-a majority who hate cricket but watch it anyway, support no particular sports teams (Because fans are idiots-imaginary science says so!), and only watch sport to compare notes they make at a club afterwards”
~I stopped reading here. I never said this. I said I am in the majority of cricket viewers because I only watch our top league. I also said that, unlike the majority, I watch to analyse strategies and techniques, whereas most people watch to cheer for their team. When did I say that the majority of cricket viewers also do that? You just misinterpret the text, pretend to directly quote me, add your own twist, and call it ‘summarising’. This is not the first time you’ve done this, most of your arguments are against points I’m not even making. I’m not reading this dribble if your very first point is just slandering lies. We’re going in circles because every answer just involves repeating what I’ve already said in a way that is accessible to someone with the comprehension skills of a 5th grader.~
“I said I am in the majority of cricket viewers because I only watch our top league. ”
Here is your exact quote:
“but there are a few reasons why women will never get equal audience reception. The audience is mostly male, and many of them only want to watch the best teams play. We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best. ”
Where did you say you are only speaking on behalf of the majority of cricket viewers? Because I do see you saying the majority of Australians don’t like cricket, but watch it anyway right here.
And before you start telling me: “Well obviously I meant only cricket viewers”, that doesn’t make sense either. Are you trying to tell me that when you wrote “We don’t like cricket all that much” you were referring to the majority of cricket viewers? You were saying “The majority of cricket viewers don’t like cricket”?
This is you backpedalling yet again. Not enough changing what I wrote, you now have to change what you wrote too. Just admit, you said something stupid, decided that the majority of Australians had your mind, and didn’t think it through.
“I also said that, unlike the majority, I watch to analyse strategies and techniques, whereas most people watch to cheer for their team. ”
Again, you didn’t. Here’s your exact line:
“We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. ”
Where did you say “Unlike the majority”-where did you say “This action applies to me and not a lot of other people”
Hell, where did you even use the word “I”? You were talking in in the plural. And what makes it even more damning is that that sentence occurs right after you talk on behalf of the majority of Australains (Or even the majority of cricket viewers as you have since claimed you met).
So you either have said something you now regret, or you went from talking about the majority of Australian cricket viewers (Which you are claiming don’t actually like cricket), to talking about what the majority don’t do in the space of two sentences, without any change in language being used at all, which suggests English language probably shouldn’t be a class you’re teaching.
Let me break down what’s actually happened, or at least what I think has happened. You said some crazy stuff here, and in order to give it some weight (Of which it had little), you claimed to be talking on behalf of the entire country, when really you are just talking on behalf of you. Nothing wrong with that-I’m talking on my behalf as well, I don’t pretend the majority care what I think.
However, when I call you out on your claims to be talking on behalf of the majority, you quickly realised that you had no idea if you talked on behalf of the majority, and in a few cases were sure you didn’t, so instead of saying “Yeah, fair enough. I guess I’m just talking on my own behalf” (Which again is fine, your argument would have just as much weight as my own)- you claim that I’ve lied, rewriting your sentences and hope I won’t bother to do a qucik search for what you actually did write.
I don’t think it worked, do you?
“When did I say that the majority of cricket viewers also do that? ”
Now that I’ve pointed it out to you, do you see it now? Or are you going to tell me these two sentences “The majority of cricket fans don’t like cricket. And we like to compare stats with our friends at the club” are actually meaning “The majority of cricket fans prefer the best games. And I like comparing stats with friends, definitely not the majority I was referring to in the first sentence”?
Good luck with that.
“This is not the first time you’ve done this, most of your arguments are against points I’m not even making. ”
What arguments am I making that are against points you haven’t made? And didn’t you complain earlier that all I was doing was arguing against your points?
“I’m not reading this dribble if your very first point is just slandering lies. ”
If that makes you feel better, fine. You have tried to lie about what you have wrote because it’s embarrassing, and worse, you have been unsuccesful. If you want to blame me for it, go ahead. It’s your life.
But you know you wrote stupid stuff here. No matter what you try and tell yourself, you know it. I know it. And any poor fool who reads through this mass of text will know it too.
“We’re going in circles because every answer just involves repeating what I’ve already said in a way that is accessible to someone with the comprehension skills of a 5th grader.~”
Hell, when have you repeated anything? Meanwhile I have to explain my belief to the point I am willing to pay for you to have it tattood because you’re annoyed that I’m not asking for an extreme result, which you’d find easy to argue.
Now, you’re a teacher, so you tell me-and what year level would you classify a student who repeatedly receives information, but denies it because they don’t like it?
Anyway, good night logic. If this is the last I hear from you, I wish you all the best in life, and hope you can manage to break your fear that women are going to steal all your special places, eradicate the differences in the male gender, and force you to watch women’s sports. Feminists are actually very nice people-you should try meeting some, instead of being terrified of them all the time.
Lets all abuse men in their entirety and alienate the men who would be on our side by holding them to the very same type of sexist stereotyping that we are complaining about. Such as the idea that men are mentally tough and should “get over it” , that they are “sooky pants” when they are offended by misandry! The reason why a lot of men react so badly to being lumped in with these guys isn’t because they are defending their team or whatever, its because they find these comments as revolting as YOU DO and they take it personally when accused of being one of these pieces of shit.
I get where you’re coming from, but as a male the reason we get lumped into this negative comments is that we are part of a society that allows these arguments exist, and encourages them to be thought, if not said.
We may not want that to be the case, but we still benefit from living in this society, and are the gender keeping this society being run as a patriarchy. Which explains why some feminists (Definitely only some) can express global complaints about men. To be honest, it isn’t helpful, but I do think it’s understandable.
Here is my exact quote:
“but there are a few reasons why women will never get equal audience reception. The audience is mostly male, and many of them only want to watch the best teams play. We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best.” (an actual quote)
~ This is your interpretation – “a majority who hate cricket but watch it anyway, support no particular sports teams (Because fans are idiots-imaginary science says so!), and only watch sport to compare notes they make at a club afterwards”. Compare these two quotes. How does my quote say that? It doesn’t. My quote gave no reasons for viewing. So again, you’re wrong. Secondly, when I say the majority of viewers don’t like it that much, I mean as much as crazy die hard fans. Most cricket viewers watch CASUALLY (still not reasons for viewing, or has anything to do with “comparing notes”). Here is a more appropriate quote, I’ll give it to you for free, “If these sports are fulfilling these peoples desires to see someone who is not actually themselves win, then kudos. It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy.” Ohhh waiit… that disproves your lies about what I said because I’m not asserting my reasons for viewing onto the majority. 😦 ~
Jm: Where did you say you are only speaking on behalf of the majority of cricket viewers? Because I do see you saying the majority of Australians don’t like cricket, but watch it anyway right here.
~Again, I agree with this non-argument. I was only speaking on behalf of the majority that watches top-tier cricket, on-season, casually (not a majority who watches for a particular reason, because I am not in the majority in that sense). I said that I only watch the best league, and the majority does also. I also described the majority of cricket viewers as casual or that they ‘dont like cricket that much’. Which in my experience and to my knowledge, is true. It’s a seasonal game. I’m not speaking on their behalf in terms of reasons for watching. I watch for personal reasons and I’m guessing I’m in the minority in that regard (‘I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy’).~
Jm: And before you start telling me: “Well obviously I meant only cricket viewers”, that doesn’t make sense either. Are you trying to tell me that when you wrote “We don’t like cricket all that much” you were referring to the majority of cricket viewers? You were saying “The majority of cricket viewers don’t like cricket”?
~ hmm… notice how I actually answer everything you say instead of picking and choosing?? anyway.. I was in-fact referring to the majority of cricket viewers as being casual viewers. Which in my experience and to my knowledge, is true.~
Jm: This is you backpedalling yet again. Not enough changing what I wrote, you now have to change what you wrote too. Just admit, you said something stupid, decided that the majority of Australians had your mind, and didn’t think it through.
~This is an emotional appeal again and is also a lie because I have never backpedaled on anything I’ve said. Please, please prove me wrong. You just glance at my arguments, assume I’ve said something else, quote the unread and misinterpreted statement, then either A. Make emotional appeal, or B. Argue against a point that I didn’t make. I can’t answer this because the premise is false.~
Jm: “I also said that, unlike the majority, I watch to analyse strategies and techniques, whereas most people watch to cheer for their team. ”Again, you didn’t. Here’s your exact line: “We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs.” Where did you say “Unlike the majority”-where did you say “This action applies to me and not a lot of other people”
~ Initially, I did not say ‘unlike the majority’ on purpose because I can’t speak for the reasoning behind why (the reasons) the majority of cricket viewers view cricket. They may in-fact be watching for the same reasons I watch. I may be in the majority in that sense too, I don’t know. On later thought, I heavily doubt that I am, but I never said that the majority watches for the same reasons as me. I prefer my initial line actually, before you pushed me to revise it.~
Jm: Hell, where did you even use the word “I”? You were talking in in the plural. And what makes it even more damning is that that sentence occurs right after you talk on behalf of the majority of Australains (Or even the majority of cricket viewers as you have since claimed you met).
~ To my understanding, I am in the majority in that I view top-tier cricket casually and when it’s in season (note: nothing to do with reason for watching). Notice ‘OR’ in this sentence “We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs.” “We” is referring to a majority, but then I have split the majority into the reasons for watching. So why would you assume the initial reference to majority in ‘we’ is in regards to reasons for watching? That doesn’t make sense. Someone may be in the majority and watch for both reasons, it doesn’t matter because in a binary statement such as this, ‘or’ is inclusive of ‘and’. Most likely, the majority OF the majority of casual viewers, view for reasons separate to mine. It really sucks that I have to explain such things to you as an argument. This has nothing to do with the derogatory comments or sexism in sport, but instead is turning into an English lesson. I hope you present a valid argument soon.~
Jm: So you either have said something you now regret, or you went from talking about the majority of Australian cricket viewers (Which you are claiming don’t actually like cricket), to talking about what the majority don’t do in the space of two sentences, without any change in language being used at all, which suggests English language probably shouldn’t be a class you’re teaching.
~ When reading over what I’ve written, I can see no fault in my argument grammatically. I can only see faults in your comprehension. If I’m splitting up a majority (“we”, casual, on seasons, top league viewers) into reasons for watching, then why would you assume that the initial majority that I’m splitting is based on reasons for watching? “We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs”. Oh nice, a personal attack right at the end there. My students aren’t allowed to that in their debates.~
Jm: Let me break down what’s actually happened, or at least what I think has happened. You said some crazy stuff here, and in order to give it some weight (Of which it had little), you claimed to be talking on behalf of the entire country, when really you are just talking on behalf of you. Nothing wrong with that-I’m talking on my behalf as well, I don’t pretend the majority care what I think.
~ After the first line, this paragraph stops making sense because of the false premise. Let me break down what really happened here, I said some things that sound ‘crazy’ to you because that’s what intelligence sounds like to people who can’t comprehend it.~
Jm: However, when I call you out on your claims to be talking on behalf of the majority, you quickly realised that you had no idea if you talked on behalf of the majority, and in a few cases were sure you didn’t, so instead of saying “Yeah, fair enough. I guess I’m just talking on my own behalf” (Which again is fine, your argument would have just as much weight as my own)- you claim that I’ve lied, rewriting your sentences and hope I won’t bother to do a qucik search for what you actually did write.
I don’t think it worked, do you?
~ You know, the problem with rehashing the exact same premise over and over as the foundation of every argument you make is that if the premise is wrong (that I backpedaled) then the entire argument becomes irrelevant. I noticed you wrote so much so I decided to answer your arguments as best I could. THAT is what I regret. These aren’t arguments, it’s all just complete nonsense. Do you really want me to answer that nonsensical question at the end? umm… no… you quoted me twice, the first wasn’t even referenced, with the argument being about something totally off-topic. The second one was TOTALLY misinterpreted. My students would never make that rookie error in their debates.~
Jm: “When did I say that the majority of cricket viewers also do that? ”
Now that I’ve pointed it out to you, do you see it now? Or are you going to tell me these two sentences “The majority of cricket fans don’t like cricket. And we like to compare stats with our friends at the club” are actually meaning “The majority of cricket fans prefer the best games. And I like comparing stats with friends, definitely not the majority I was referring to in the first sentence”?
Good luck with that.
~ To my knowledge, the majority of cricket viewers are casual, on-season viewers, who only watch the top league/players (they aren’t die hard fans OK). More specifically, the first statement you’ve given would be incorrect because it assumes that all of the majority viewers have the same reason for viewing. The second statement is correct, in that I like discussing strategies with friends, and that definitely has nothing to do with the majority of cricket viewers who all have different reasons for watching.~
Jm: “This is not the first time you’ve done this, most of your arguments are against points I’m not even making. ”
What arguments am I making that are against points you haven’t made? And didn’t you complain earlier that all I was doing was arguing against your points?
“I’m not reading this dribble if your very first point is just slandering lies. ”
If that makes you feel better, fine. You have tried to lie about what you have wrote because it’s embarrassing, and worse, you have been unsuccessful. If you want to blame me for it, go ahead. It’s your life.
~ You said I didn’t want any women’s sports on TV. I never said that. You used that as a premise for half a post. You think I asserted my reasons for viewing onto the majority of viewers, which I’m apart of. I did no such thing. Look – “I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy”. How about this “quote” you made up – “Moreover, while comments made about me are abusive, evil and must be stopped, comments made about people who aren’t me are just jokes, not abuse, and an is completely understandable,so no one has the right to be offended”. Nicely ‘summarised’, too bad this is completely devoid of any truthfulness to what I said. Here’s another ridiculous ‘summary’ of my words – “It’s okay, I didn’t find it funny. But it was a joke, so it’s okay. Whereas a joke about men being pgis-totally evil!” Do you realise that pretending to quote someone like that is illegal? Or “I’m not sexist, I’m treating everyone equally, while caring more for men than I do women! Because soceity is equal!” Not only are these false direct quotes, but I never even came close to alluding to such stupidity. How about this – Jm: “I presume you’ll want AFL to no longer be shown. I mean, it’s not a true test of skill at all.” Why would I not want it to be shown? What does a noncompetitive atmosphere in a sport have to do with pulling it off the air? You just added that arbitrarily.~
Jm: But you know you wrote stupid stuff here. No matter what you try and tell yourself, you know it. I know it. And any poor fool who reads through this mass of text will know it too.
“We’re going in circles because every answer just involves repeating what I’ve already said in a way that is accessible to someone with the comprehension skills of a 5th grader.~”
Hell, when have you repeated anything? Meanwhile I have to explain my belief to the point I am willing to pay for you to have it tattood because you’re annoyed that I’m not asking for an extreme result, which you’d find easy to argue.
~ Dribble. Same premise. More emotional appeal. No actual content.~
Jm: Now, you’re a teacher, so you tell me-and what year level would you classify a student who repeatedly receives information, but denies it because they don’t like it?
~ If you deny something just because you don’t like it, then probably around year 9 or 10. Meta-cognitive questioning regarding one’s own ideas usually don’t kick in until around then. In reality, you should never deny anything just because ‘you don’t like it’.~
Jm: Anyway, good night logic. If this is the last I hear from you, I wish you all the best in life, and hope you can manage to break your fear that women are going to steal all your special places, eradicate the differences in the male gender, and force you to watch women’s sports. Feminists are actually very nice people-you should try meeting some, instead of being terrified of them all the time.
~ More personal slander. Thanks. By the way, I gathered some references regarding the consequences of team identification on aggression, social inadequacies and anxiety causing team identification, all the research on sexist remarks (ALL of them conclude that it cannot ever be called a ’cause’), and even some women’s cricket online sites with videos on demand and tv schedules. I was going to post them for you, but you just don’t deserve any more of my time.~
“How does my quote say that? It doesn’t. My quote gave no reasons for viewing.”
Your exact next sentence did.
“The audience is mostly male, and many of them only want to watch the best teams play. We don’t like cricket all that much, so when we watch it, we want to watch the best. We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. ”
This is the full quote. Not your hastily edited one. Look at the last sentence.
As for calling people who support their clubs stupid, true you didn’t say it at that time. You said it later:
“It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. ”
Are you denying your wrote that now?
“Secondly, when I say the majority of viewers don’t like it that much, I mean as much as crazy die hard fans.”
Wow-that’s totally not what you said. You’re ading stuff now. You wrote the majority of viewers who wrote cricket don’t particularly like cricket.
Now you’re saying “We like cricket, but not as much as crazy fans”
That is a change. That is you adding information to make an unreasonable statement into something reasonable.
“If these sports are fulfilling these peoples desires to see someone who is not actually themselves win, then kudos. It’s a fairly well known, though unwritten, belief that die-hard sports fans usually sit on the lower end of the IQ scales. I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy.”
This is a quote you made, insutling anyone who follows any sports team. However, it is not the quote I was referring to.
“I was only speaking on behalf of the majority that watches top-tier cricket, on-season, casually”
And you agree you didn’t say that originally. Your original statement said to be speaking on behalf of the majority of people who watch cricket at all.
“I said that I only watch the best league, and the majority does also. ”
No, you said the majority don’t like cricket that much, and when they do they only want to watch the best. This is you trying to again turn an unreasonable statement into something reasonable.
“I’m guessing I’m in the minority in that regard (‘I personally only watch anything to absorb information and strategy’).~”
And that’s fine, to talk on behalf of a minority, even a minority of one. So you’ll be agreeing that when you also said to speak on behalf of the majority in this sentence:
“We want to say this is the best Australia has to offer, or we want to study and make notes for our local clubs. “”
You were not actually speaking on behalf of the majority. Just on behalf of yourself, right?
“notice how I actually answer everything you say instead of picking and choosing??”
Really? Where’s those studies that prove rape is caused by evil at the heart of man, or that prove supporting your own team is the most useless emotion, or that shows people who support a team have lower IQ’s? Where is that proof I’ve asked for repeatedly?
“anyway.. I was in-fact referring to the majority of cricket viewers as being casual viewers. ”
Where did you say the word “majority”? Where did you even say the word “casual”?
No, you’re backpedaling now. It’s okay. We can all see it.
“I have never backpedaled on anything I’ve said. ”
So going from “A majority of australians don’t like cricket” to “A majority of cricket viewers don’t like cricket” to “A majority of cricket viewers are casual and do not like cricket as much as die hard fans” is not changing the meaning whatsoever in your sentences?
Let’s make this clear-are you saying that the majority of people who watch cricket don’t like cricket? If you say yes to that, you are being ridiculous. If you say no to that, you are contradicting what you said earlier. Which is fine, what you said earlier is incorrect.
“Please, please prove me wrong. ”
I’ve done that now. You’re rewriting your own comments to try and challenge what I’ve written. But those original comments are still there.
” On later thought, I heavily doubt that I am, but I never said that the majority watches for the same reasons as me. ”
No, you said the majority of people don’t particularly like cricket, then in the next sentence said “We” watch to see best of the best or compare notes at our clubs.
Again, you’re trying to tell me that going from speaking on behalf of a majority in one sentence, to speaking in a minority in the next sentence without referring to a change at all is good english there?
“I prefer my initial line actually, before you pushed me to revise it.~”
So you admit you’re revising stuff when you’ve found that the original is unsupportable?
“I am in the majority in that I view top-tier cricket casually and when it’s in season ”
Not what you said. You said the majority don’t like cricket.
“So why would you assume the initial reference to majority in ‘we’ is in regards to reasons for watching? That doesn’t make sense. ”
Ah, so when you presented the reasons for people watching cricket as expressly being the reasons for the the majority of viewers, you only meant that majority in the first half of the sentence, before losing it in the second half.
Okay, so if I said “The majority of Australians eat food because it provides them with sustenance, or to prevent the evil feminists from getting free drinks”-that would be a perfectly fine sentence, which clearly says to you that while the word “minority” is never used, the second half of the sentence was clearly referring to a minority?
“Most likely, the majority OF the majority of casual viewers, view for reasons separate to mine.”
This is you backpedaling again. You never admit you made a mistake ever, do you? You did not use the word casual originally. You are adding that now because it makes things slighlty easier to argue.
“This has nothing to do with the derogatory comments or sexism in sport, ”
Well yes it does. You are presenting your views as being on behlaf of a majority, but when pressed to provide evidence of a majority you either deny ever speaking on behalf of a majority, reclassify a minority as a majority, or rewrite whole sentences so you don’t have to prove a majority.
If you had spent all this time speaking just on your own behalf, things would be different. Instead you are speaking on bhealf of all Australians, because you think that adds weight to your argument. That’s how this is relevent.
“Oh nice, a personal attack right at the end there. ”
Well, I was getting a bit tired of all the personal attacks from you. I thought you could get as good as you give.
“My students aren’t allowed to that in their debates.~”
Have you told your debating students that apparently they can include this argument in every debate: “The majority of Australians talk freely. They do that to express their free speech rights, or to oppose the debate topic!” – and apparently everyone will know as they hear it that the debater was referring to a majority in the first half of the sentence, but only a minority in the second?
” said some things that sound ‘crazy’ to you because that’s what intelligence sounds like to people who can’t comprehend it.~”
Isn’t that exactly what a crazy person would say?
“My students would never make that rookie error in their debates.~”
But apparently in their debates they should be referring to a majority and minority in the same sentence, without using the word minority at all, and everyone will understand, right?
“~ To my knowledge, the majority of cricket viewers are casual, on-season viewers, who only watch the top league/players (they aren’t die hard fans OK). ”
You never used the word die hard fan. Or, like minority, is that something that’s just implied in general conversation?
“~ You said I didn’t want any women’s sports on TV. I never said that. ”
You asked for it not to be crammed down your throat, and when I suggested allowing more sport on tv to include women;’s sport you went to a long post saying “That’s not possible because”-while apparently meaning “I agree, we should have more womens sport on tv”
You also said you only want to watch a true test of skill, and that women’s sports are not a true test of skill.
“Why would I not want it to be shown? What does a noncompetitive atmosphere in a sport have to do with pulling it off the air? ”
Again, you have said you only want to watch sport as a true test of skill. Having a noncompetitive atmosphere would make it not be a true test of skill.
” By the way, I gathered some references regarding the consequences of team identification on aggression, social inadequacies and anxiety causing team identification, all the research on sexist remarks (ALL of them conclude that it cannot ever be called a ’cause’), and even some women’s cricket online sites with videos on demand and tv schedules. I was going to post them for you, but you just don’t deserve any more of my time.~”
Oh, you have all the proof in the world, but you won’t show it? Funny that. And I was so looking forward to the study showing that supporting a team is the most “useless emotion” (Particularly how psychologists would measure usefulness of emotions), and how all the science confirms that rape is caused by evil at the hearts of men (I mean, proving evil exists would be amazing-why aren’t these studies which you are totally sure exist, more popularly discussed around the world?). Oh well, I’ll have to live with the great likelihood you were talking crap.
Tell me, in your debating class, do you tell the students it’s okay to claim to have evidence, and when asked for it, refuse to show it because the opposition doesn’t deserve it?
Pingback: Disruption, Subversion, Perversion and Abjection | Russell and Russell
men need to wake up to the fact that a large majority of us never really grow up we just become bigger boys. It is threatening to think that we are all lumped into one and we often want to hide behind comments like ” not all men are sexist ” . The reality is this if the majority of men were not sexists then sexism in the main would not exist. The best thing men can do is acknowledge that sexism exists and we all play a part in it. Many men try whenever possible to remain non sexist but for most of us years of conditioning and the fact we hang around other men often leads us off the just path. Men cannot fight women’s causes and should never think that they understand what its like to be a woman in what is essentially still a mans world. Any sense of injustice we men might feel from perceived sexism directed at us is a drop in an ocean. Anyone man or woman with any sense can clearly see that these comment were sexist and inappropriate. Men should simply acknowledge that and challenge other men that make such comments. Engaging in futile semantic debate beyond that simply confirms what women already know men don’t grow up they just become bigger boys.
Pingback: Tharunka - Strong play by Aussie Women’s Cricket Team, but where's the fanfare?
If she was ugly no one would care.
Well that’s to be expected when you consider how shallow some men are.
If sportsmen were judged and chosen on looks Australia would have about as much sporting presence in the world as Iceland.
Pingback: Giving the finger online - Champagne Cartel
It’s really sad that womens’ sport isn’t taken as seriously as mens’ sport.
I agree the comments are out of league, but really why should one care. Social media is anonymous and has been regarded as grafitti even by the PM Tony Abbott. No one is spared on social media, whether Obama, Abbott, Muslims or even Ellyse perry. So why should we care about what such goons say. They perhaps have nothing better to do. By the time Ellyse retires she will be placed along the likes of Bradman for her contribution. That’s all that really counts.