14 hours ago, stuie said:

Oh FFS.

Hmmmm double standards? Like how women weren't allowed to vote, were told what to wear, not allowed in certain establishments, how they're paid less, have less opportunities (especially in sports), whistled and yelled at every day, beaten and murdered by their partners over 4x more... Yep, there is a bit of a double standard I reckon...

This widely shared post sums it up for me:

"Okay, here's the deal for all the BLOKES sharing the footage of that one time a woman hit on a man on TV and asking where the outrage is (E.g. Sunrise weather presenter Nuala Hafner hitting on the dude on the beach):

Women are subjected to harassment and discrimination almost every day of their lives. From walking to the shops, using public transport, drinking at a bar... just being out in [censored] public around men.
Multiply that 'every day' scenario by an average of say, 20 years, and would you agree that it might wear a bit thin? You might even start to feel like a piece of meat, or that you're lesser in some way to men? Simply there to serve men's needs etc...
Then add the fact that they're underpaid when compared to men, beaten and killed weekly by men in domestic partnerships, and a plethora of other examples and scenarios on a daily basis where men exert their dominance over women. So when Chris Gayle is just 'having a bit of a muckaround with Mel', maybe think about the fact that Mel's been subjected to that [censored] her ENTIRE [censored] LIFE.

How do I know? Because I've objectified women as a young male, and so have you (you're [censored] lying if you say you haven't).

So you can shove that 'double-standards / selective outrage' [censored] right up your privileged male arses. Maybe try to add something constructive to the conversation and lead by example, especially if you're raising children. Add to the behavioral change all of us blokes need, rather than sharing this predictable [censored] male response, it's [censored] embarrassing."

I agree with post above - but I will not retract my comment on a double standard. There is a standard that needs to apply to everyone regardless of gender.

There is no justification for Gayle's action - end of story. There is no justification for Nuala's Hafner actions either - she was as inappropriate.

Undoubtedly discrimination and objectification has been pretty much been a one way street but don't shy away from seeing objectification just because it is a woman who does it.    

Stuie, I do have a problem as to the reason why the Nuala Hafner video was brought up by many - it was done purely to justify or downplay Gayles actions or lessen the offence by intimating that if it was humor by Hafner and there was no outrage, then there should be no outrage for Gayles actions.

As far as I am concerned, inappropriate is inappropriate, wrong is wrong. For every 1 Hafner incident there are probably 99 Gayle incidents. They all need to be condemned.       

1 minute ago, nutbean said:

I agree with post above - but I will not retract my comment on a double standard. There is a standard that needs to apply to everyone regardless of gender.

There is no justification for Gayle's action - end of story. There is no justification for Nuala's Hafner actions either - she was as inappropriate.

Undoubtedly discrimination and objectification has been pretty much been a one way street but don't shy away from seeing objectification just because it is a woman who does it.    

Stuie, I do have a problem as to the reason why the Nuala Hafner video was brought up by many - it was done purely to justify or downplay Gayles actions or lessen the offence by intimating that if it was humor by Hafner and there was no outrage, then there should be no outrage for Gayles actions.

As far as I am concerned, inappropriate is inappropriate, wrong is wrong. For every 1 Hafner incident there are probably 99 Gayle incidents. They all need to be condemned.       

Yeah good post mate. The Sunrise one was awkward at best and I'm not saying it was totally fine, just saying that to me it comes across as pretty weak to bring it up as some kind of double standard given the context of sexism towards both sexes. You're totally right it was brought up by people to try and downplay the Gayle incident. I think the Gayle one has been blown up bigger than it needed to be, but to me that was mainly due to the reactions to it and this whole "double standards" rubbish. It's highlighted how far we have to go in our attitudes towards sexism in this country.

Maybe if it ever gets to the stage that men have to put with as much every day sexism as women then we can start complaining about it, but right now I think all the blokes complaining need to suck it up and realize we don't have much of a leg to stand on when complaining about sexism.

 

9 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Because that's what happens with live TV

I am not saying it's right or wrong i just speak from experience working in a live TV environment ( before TV got boring)

i would have loved Mel to cane him on air with a quick reply...Front foot

pity it didn't happen. 

I think she was rather taken aback by his comments.

I know she is a professional but when he was ready to be interviewed I am sure, as most interviewers,  she had her questions and a dozen different scenario's in her mind as to what his responses would be and how she would respond. Not in her wildest dreams would she have expected the responses she got.

I won't say she handled it badly - I think, as you have suggested, if she had her time again she would have been a bit more on the front foot.

What gets my grits is his response - "it was a bit of a joke". Sleazing up to an interviewer on national TV who is trying to ask questions about cricket.. seriously.....

 

10 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Because that's what happens with live TV

I am not saying it's right or wrong i just speak from experience working in a live TV environment ( before TV got boring)

i would have loved Mel to cane him on air with a quick reply...Front foot

pity it didn't happen. 

She shouldn't have to handle sexism like that in a a professional environment in 2016. Don't put this on her at all, that's incredibly weak.

 

7 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I think she was rather taken aback by his comments.

I know she is a professional but when he was ready to be interviewed I am sure, as most interviewers,  she had her questions and a dozen different scenario's in her mind as to what his responses would be and how she would respond. Not in her wildest dreams would she have expected the responses she got.

I won't say she handled it badly - I think, as you have suggested, if she had her time again she would have been a bit more on the front foot.

What gets my grits is his response - "it was a bit of a joke". Sleazing up to an interviewer on national TV who is trying to ask questions about cricket.. seriously.....

 

The whole thing was pretty cheap

the way Team mates behind him were laughing i am sure the whole thing was set up so i don't think Gayle should be the only one to go down, but he will. 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

She shouldn't have to handle sexism like that in a a professional environment in 2016. Don't put this on her at all, that's incredibly weak.

 

Don't tell me what i should do Stuie. 

Have you ever worked in a live TV environment??

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Don't tell me what i should do Stuie. 

Have you ever worked in a live TV environment??

Yes, I have actually.

Not that that has anything to do with the actual topic, which is sexism.

 

11 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yes, I have actually.

Not that that has anything to do with the actual topic, which is sexism.

 

Ye who lives in a perfect little world and not reality

what were your live TV responsibilities out of interest?

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Ye who lives in a perfect little world and not reality

what were your live TV responsibilities out of interest?

Compared to ye who lives in the fifties.

 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Compared to ye who lives in the fifties.

 

No I am a person who has walked using canes all my life so i know a lot about standing your ground actually. Life is never perfect. Not meant to be

and Live TV even moreso....

21 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yes, I have actually.

Not that that has anything to do with the actual topic, which is sexism.

 

As an extra?

6 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No I am a person who has walked using canes all my life so i know a lot about standing your ground actually. Life is never perfect. Not meant to be

and Live TV even moreso....

Again, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, which, again, is sexism.

 

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

Again, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, which, again, is sexism.

 

Ok Flanders...

you are wrong actually. It is a related situation. 

I have had many comments thrown at me over the years and the best way to diffuse a situation is to throw a quick comment back. 

The alternative is to be walked over...

Edited January 7, 20169 yr by Sir Why You Little

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Ok Flanders...

Oh ok, it's cheap shot time now is it? How grown up of you.

 

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Ok Flanders...

Stupid sexy flanders

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

Oh ok, it's cheap shot time now is it? How grown up of you.

 

Stuie you live in a little world where everything is ordered and perfect. 

The real world is not like that....

Mel is a great Journo she will learn to be more aware of what might happen when the Red Light comes on...

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Stuie you live in a little world where everything is ordered and perfect. 

The real world is not like that....

Mel is a great Journo she will learn to be more aware of what might happen when the Red Light comes on...

Gotta disagree with you on this one...

I think most people were gobsmacked by his response. 

As a professional you expect a wide range of responses and know how to deal with them. 

There could not have been any expectation of what she received and I reckon most reporters would have been totally flummoxed.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Stuie you live in a little world where everything is ordered and perfect. 

The real world is not like that....

Mel is a great Journo she will learn to be more aware of what might happen when the Red Light comes on...

No I don't WYL. I live in a world that wants to get rid of sexism, you live in a world still stuck in the 1950s.

This is not the woman's fault, victim blaming will hopefully die out along with your generation.

 

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

No I don't WYL. I live in a world that wants to get rid of sexism, you live in a world still stuck in the 1950s.

This is not the woman's fault, victim blaming will hopefully die out along with your generation.

 

When did i say this is Mel's fault?

Do not put words in my mouth Stuie

you do it often

to diffuse the situation she should have returned a backhander

then Chris would have felt like a bag of shite on live TV

QED

46 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Ok Flanders...

you are wrong actually. It is a related situation. 

I have had many comments thrown at me over the years and the best way to diffuse a situation is to throw a quick comment back. 

The alternative is to be walked over...

Again, the topic is sexism, not TV.

 

13 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

When did i say this is Mel's fault?

Do not put words in my mouth Stuie

you do it often

to diffuse the situation she should have returned a backhander

then Chris would have felt like a bag of shite on live TV

QED

Really? Do you have any idea of this guys history with female reporters? I thought you were the expert in all things media? Maybe go look it up.

And again, it's not her job to put up with sexism or "return backhanders".

 

16 hours ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

It was only a matter of time. 

 

Are you part of every minority group in existence? 

You consider women a "minority group"? That would make sense.

 

24 minutes ago, stuie said:

Really? Do you have any idea of this guys history with female reporters? I thought you were the expert in all things media? Maybe go look it up.

And again, it's not her job to put up with sexism or "return backhanders".

 

With his History Channel 10 should not have given him access to a live Microphone...

27 minutes ago, stuie said:

Again, the topic is sexism, not TV.

 

Missed the point Completely....

16 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No it is not...But Life aint like The Brady Bunch...Live TV is just that...You have to be ready

I think Mel is great...But she could have Nailed Gayle so quickly...A Simple "I beg your pardon..." would have put a stop to it

I think Gayle was set up as you can hear Team Mates laughing in the background...so he is not the only guilty one...

 

Why should it be the victims job to have ago at the perpetrator?

They are both working, it is not appropriate. If he had waited until they were off air IMO it is not as bad. If his team mates egged him on that makes it worse for the victim. Kick the [censored] out. 

Stop blaming the victim.

PS: - I have been inappropriate and I am no angel but at least I know what is wrong and when and how to apologise. And its starts and ends with I am sorry. (No conditions)