On 16/12/2013 at 08:52, Moonshadow said:

Also, "latte sipping, green voting, wowsers"

My god... 3 pages of crap not related to the thread topic. Must be the off season.

No Moon its just you are missing BBO way too much!

  On 16/12/2013 at 11:35, binman said:

Sexism is defined as:

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.

2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

The LLF is an an event that involves women dressed in lingerie (note not sporting attire but clothes that are designed to specifically sexually titillate) performing for the gratification of men (in an event owned and promoted by a man) that promotes the stereotype of women as sexual objects (objectifying women in the process and making a mockery of serious women's sports)

Perhaps you are thinking of definition 1 but surely any right thinking person would concede that such a scenario meets the definition of sexism.

Perhaps you don't think it meets this definition, that's up to you. I won't bother to try and convince you further.

But as Choke notes above this drivel exists because of the demand for it. It seems to be we are going backwards and some of the posts in this thread merely reinforce that view.

  On 16/12/2013 at 11:35, binman said:

Sexism is defined as:

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.

2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

The LLF is an an event that involves women dressed in lingerie (note not sporting attire but clothes that are designed to specifically sexually titillate) performing for the gratification of men (in an event owned and promoted by a man) that promotes the stereotype of women as sexual objects (objectifying women in the process and making a mockery of serious women's sports)

Perhaps you are thinking of definition 1 but surely any right thinking person would concede that such a scenario meets the definition of sexism.

Perhaps you don't think it meets this definition, that's up to you. I won't bother to try and convince you further.

But as Choke notes above this drivel exists because of the demand for it. It seems to be we are going backwards and some of the posts in this thread merely reinforce that view.

LFL is not my cup of tea but my visual senses are accosted by pretty women every time I walk down a busy street and my olfactory senses also if I get too close. If only they dressed in unwashed tracky daks, potato sacks or a Burka I might be spared these distractions.

  On 15/12/2013 at 20:41, Sydney Pennski said:

How are they going to deal with this given that Caroline Wilson's on leave and not available to publicly advise them in her newspaper?

Richmond footballer Jake King snubs club bikie ban on Toby Mitchell

Wow... the physical similarities bertween the two are more like father and son . Check out the hair line and particularly the shared distinctive upper lip .

  On 16/12/2013 at 11:35, binman said:

Sexism is defined as:

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.

2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

The LLF is an an event that involves women dressed in lingerie (note not sporting attire but clothes that are designed to specifically sexually titillate) performing for the gratification of men (in an event owned and promoted by a man) that promotes the stereotype of women as sexual objects (objectifying women in the process and making a mockery of serious women's sports)

Perhaps you are thinking of definition 1 but surely any right thinking person would concede that such a scenario meets the definition of sexism.

Perhaps you don't think it meets this definition, that's up to you. I won't bother to try and convince you further.

But as Choke notes above this drivel exists because of the demand for it. It seems to be we are going backwards and some of the posts in this thread merely reinforce that view.

Well I certainly don't see it as breaking part 1 which is what I truly see as sexism. I understand how objectification and stereotyping can be sexist but I don't see LFL alone doing that. I suppose mainly I have a problem with part 2 of that definition being used too liberally. I mean so some women are sex objects therefore means it disadvantages other women because when they are the apply for jobs the men awarding the position will think they are sexual objects? Really?

I have a problem with the idea of stereotyping women. That means stereotyping 50% of the population. I understand how you can stereotype a subgroup of the communtiy ie. Collingwood cheer squad member, drives a holden, lives in Epping, predominantly wears track suits maybe = unlikely to contain full set of teeth. But I can't stereotype half the population because 100 aussie girls have decided to play american football in skimpy outfits.

Again I think you should watch a game. The girls aren't wearing lingerie in the sense of what you might by your partner for valentines day. They are wearing heavy duty sports bras really, then topped with sizeable shoulder pads and bather bottoms. They bare plenty of cleavage, midriff and leg but it's not nearly as blatantly sexual as you think. I imagine the appeal for long time watchers comes from the mix of attractive girls who then go out and play hard. Which again was what struck me watching the game is that they may dress seductively but they hit hard.

Sure they are flaunting it but they are displaying that fit, athletic girls are sexual objects. Just like footballers are sexual objects to many female footy fans who go and watch.

Some women feel they are demeaning other female sports. I see it as them making an opportunity for themselves to play what they consider serious sport. The simple fact is that men have a genetic advantage that makes them better athletically and therefore mens sport will always dominate womens. Women have an advantage in the ability to draw male attention. If women want to use that advantage to allow them to be commercially viable as athletes then I don't see the problem.

  On 16/12/2013 at 06:12, RobbieF said:

Where does it say that?

Maybe you've got it confused with one of your old videos.

Seriously? That's what it screams from the rooftops. Otherwise it would be called the WNFL.

  On 16/12/2013 at 02:52, the master said:

Very serious. Women have the right to be upset by the LFL, but I can't see how it's sexist. They aren't playing in those uniforms because men forced them to.

Do you know what's sexist. Men and women tennis players getting paid the same when men offer a far superior product. That's sexism.

Ah, I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum that if you dug around and found out who the producers of this were, they'd be blokes. Ugly, sexist, blokes. And exploiting people in this way isn't excused by saying 'nobody forced them'. It is like saying prostitution isn't exploitative, because the women have a choice.

Basically, if these women want to play football, they need to wear stupid outfits to get a TV audience. Providing the outfits and producing a show, to make money, is essentially exploitative.

It isn't an accident that the people attending this stuff are bikies and idiot AFL players.

  On 16/12/2013 at 14:14, Undeeterred said:

Seriously? That's what it screams from the rooftops. Otherwise it would be called the WNFL.

I guess it depends on how vivid your imagination is.

  On 16/12/2013 at 14:19, Undeeterred said:

Ah, I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum that if you dug around and found out who the producers of this were, they'd be blokes. Ugly, sexist, blokes. And exploiting people in this way isn't excused by saying 'nobody forced them'. It is like saying prostitution isn't exploitative, because the women have a choice.

Basically, if these women want to play football, they need to wear stupid outfits to get a TV audience. Providing the outfits and producing a show, to make money, is essentially exploitative.

It isn't an accident that the people attending this stuff are bikies and [censored] AFL players.

I would suggest you never visit this place. Oh! and keep away from shopping centres that have lingerie stores.

http://www.moulinrouge.fr/?lang=en

  On 16/12/2013 at 20:21, RobbieF said:

I would suggest you never visit this place. Oh! and keep away from shopping centres that have lingerie stores.

http://www.moulinrouge.fr/?lang=en

LOL to equating lingerie stores with the Lingerie Football League.

Give me strength.

  On 17/12/2013 at 07:28, Undeeterred said:

LOL to equating lingerie stores with the Lingerie Football League.

Give me strength.

And the other?

I think the Moulin Rouge is pretty sleazy and, at heart, designed with exactly the same aim in mind as the LFL.

And if you're suggesting I'm prudish, which I think you are, you're completely missing the point.

Let's agree to disagree, shall we, or we'll go around in circles for weeks.

  On 17/12/2013 at 09:12, Undeeterred said:

I think the Moulin Rouge is pretty sleazy and, at heart, designed with exactly the same aim in mind as the LFL.

And if you're suggesting I'm prudish, which I think you are, you're completely missing the point.

Let's agree to disagree, shall we, or we'll go around in circles for weeks.

I think I've got the picture.

its his last season, they must have decided its not worth paying him out. they may need his pushups @ Punt rd.

  On 15/12/2013 at 22:59, old dee said:

I assume you mean a "Rhodes" scholar DF.

I doubt Jake would make the cut however he might make a road scholar.

If you are a road sköler you are a bloody [censored]!

OMG - this site is becoming so damn politically correct.

It is OK for the TAC to put posters everywhere, and for them to put their ads on the MCG big screen, but the precious moderators here won't let me use the word [censored] !! What is the world coming to?

  On 17/12/2013 at 10:57, monoccular said:

If you are a road sköler you are a bloody [censored]!

OMG - this site is becoming so damn politically correct.

It is OK for the TAC to put posters everywhere, and for them to put their ads on the MCG big screen, but the precious moderators here won't let me use the word [censored] !! What is the world coming to?

It [censored] looks like some sort of [censored] malfunction in the [censored] system.

We're [censored] looking into it.

Thanks for [censored] us know. [censored]

Over to you Caro.

Reports: King spotted with Mitchell

  Quote

DWAYNE RUSSEL'S TAKE: I wouldn't like it if Jake went into, say, jail to meet with people, that would be wrong, but these people aren't in jail, they haven't committed a crime to the extent that they're people you shouldn't be able to go near. I don't see that big a problem with it. Richmond can't stand on this principle. Some of these bikies are probably bloody good blokes.

Haha.

Listen I think King is a fool to be hanging out with Mitchell. And defying Richmond isn't smart. But at the end of the day it's his decision and largely his reputation at stake if something goes wrong. The club has warned him. And in a free society it means King can go hang out with him.

But how stupid is Dwayne Russel. Does he not understand what outlaw bikie gangs do? It doesn't matter how good a bloke you are if you are a smart bloke you don't hang out with outlaw bikies. Dwanye Russel makes Jake King look smart.

  On 12/09/2013 at 23:36, hogans_heroes said:

chances of Caro doing an expose` on the Richmond bikie/criminal connection = 500 billion to 1

A true professional journalist would delve fearlessly into this: Caro will not

  On 13/09/2013 at 03:14, Dees2014 said:

Actually, she is by far the best investigative journalist in the game. Some of us might not like what she writes sometimes, but she is always first to break the big stories, and usually she is right.

She also talks loads of complete bollocks. Witness the tanking saga and her reporting on that. Absolute bollocks, most of it.

Dead set ridiculous. If Brendan Gale had a great mate who hated Aboriginals, he wouldn't put a ban on himself. Where do we draw the line? Anti-homosexuals, what about priests.. They've been known to touch boys.. What about Tony Abbott, he hates foreigners. Pull the other one Richmond, you're a bunch of flogs.

  On 16/12/2013 at 00:52, Jarka said:

In what way is it demeaning?

Lingerie football is demeaning to women in that it identifies their sex appeal as their principal value.

Consider this simple fact - a lot of women much better at football than any of those taking the LFL field have no prospect of playing to a TV audience or on a major 'stage'.

Same as it would be demeaning if turning up to work in nothing but designer lingerie was the only way to be a woman lawyer, doctor, brickie's labourer, salesperson, journalist, pilot, police officer, teacher, politician, morning TV show host, weather reporter, assembly line worker... and so on.

There it is, that's the 'objectification' issue in a nutshell. Not hard to understand and surely irrefutable.

Also, yes, of course it is time to sack the Richmond Board. It is ALWAYS time to sack the Richmond board.

  On 23/01/2014 at 15:25, Little Goffy said:

Lingerie football is demeaning to women in that it identifies their sex appeal as their principal value.

You know, people say that. But what makes sex appeal inherently less valuable than other attributes? Is it because it is largely genetic? Or is there some other factor at play? Is there a perception that looks do not need to be worked at in order to maintain, and are therefore not a respectible metric of worth?

A successful businesswoman would (you would think) have achieved her success by some combination of brains, cunning, social skills, and so on. But surely these qualities have some genetic basis as well, and are therefore theoretically just as out of that woman's control as her looks. It's a complicated issue, but at times I think it's a little unfair on good-looking women that one of their prime strengths as individuals is seen by the politically correct (or feminists, or what-have-you) as not worthy of the same respect given to more "gender-neutral" characteristics.

As far as lingerie football goes, it's called LINGERIE football because the main point of it is not only footballing ability. There is an extra component that does not otherwise exist in the game of football. Is this component inherently of less value? I would argue that it is not. If there were a WNFL, I imagine footballing ability would be far more highly valued than looks. But there isn't, so the criteria for selection are different. Looks play a more important part in selection. Is that so wrong?

  On 16/12/2013 at 11:35, binman said:

Sexism is defined as:

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.

  On 16/12/2013 at 11:35, binman said:

1. Discrimination based on gender

  On 16/12/2013 at 11:35, binman said:

especially discrimination against women.

  On 23/01/2014 at 15:25, Little Goffy said:

Lingerie football is demeaning to women in that it identifies their sex appeal as their principal value.

The feminists whinge that Lingerie football objectifies women, but if women weren't allowed to play this sport - then the feminists would find something else to whinge about.

No matter what, they'll always find something to whinge about, if Lingerie football was banned, they'd whinge football is a male dominated sport and all women want is equal opportunity.

I think we need to worry about the MFC instead of jake "[censored]" king.