It is now being suggested, that this relationship may have been ongoing for 3-4 years, at a time when the participants were married, living together with their spouses and  all very close family friends, with the males, workmates as well.

I will leave it there.

20 minutes ago, 3Dee said:

tbh, it's a cheapshot calling Clementine vile, a new low for D/Land. 

I prefer the feminist killjoy myself.

2 hours ago, 3Dee said:

A mate was jokingly saying Lyon has been added as an assistant coach at Melbourne.

 

actually not a bad idea.

I disagree. I do not believe he has anything to offer the club as an assistant. Would be too big a fish in the pond.

2 hours ago, 3Dee said:

A mate was jokingly saying Lyon has been added as an assistant coach at Melbourne.

 

actually not a bad idea.

Lock up your ex-wives!

28 minutes ago, Redleg said:

 

It is now being suggested, that this relationship may have been ongoing for 3-4 years, at a time when the participants were married, living together with their spouses and  all very close family friends, with the males, workmates as well.

I will leave it there.

Again who gives a toss? Still gossip not news. The amount of media coverage of this is an embarrassment. Just shows how far journalism has fallen in Australia. 

Anyway i'll leave it there also.

35 minutes ago, Redleg said:

 

It is now being suggested, that this relationship may have been ongoing for 3-4 years, at a time when the participants were married, living together with their spouses and  all very close family friends, with the males, workmates as well.

I will leave it there.

 By Darren Cartwright, National Entertainment Writer
   BRISBANE, Feb 16 AAP - Craig Kelly, who manages both Garry Lyon and Billy Brownless,
says the fall-out between The AFL Footy Show personalities has deeply affected their
families.
   Kelly has confirmed that Lyon did start a relationship with Brownless' ex-wife Nicky,
but only after she had separated from the former Geelong star.
   Lyon has stepped down from his media duties as he battles depression. Brownless has
been tight-lipped since news broke over the weekend.

6 minutes ago, watchtheeyes said:

 By Darren Cartwright, National Entertainment Writer
   BRISBANE, Feb 16 AAP - Craig Kelly, who manages both Garry Lyon and Billy Brownless,
says the fall-out between The AFL Footy Show personalities has deeply affected their
families.
   Kelly has confirmed that Lyon did start a relationship with Brownless' ex-wife Nicky,
but only after she had separated from the former Geelong star.
   Lyon has stepped down from his media duties as he battles depression. Brownless has
been tight-lipped since news broke over the weekend.

Must be right if Craig said so. 

Men and woman are dragged screaming onto the rocks of their own desires...
 

Dunno who made the quote, but I saw it 20 odd years ago and it's been something I've seen proved time and time again.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

http://m.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/what-footys-outrage-double-standard-reveals-about-attitudes-to-women-20160215-gmuma2.html

I normally like Clementine's articles, her stuff on MRAs for example is fantastic, but I reckon this one misses the mark.

I think people are focusing on Garry and Bill because they're the media personalities, not because they're men. They're in the spotlight, they're household names. The stories are told with them in the centre because of their visibility.

She says in there that if they were female, would we be saying the same things? I think we would.

I can't remember reading anything that suggests that Billy is a victim because Garry 'cut his lunch', implying Billy has 'ownership' of Nicky. The articles I've read have stated that all parties were separated at the time. I don't think it's 'bloke culture' that condemns sleeping with your mate's wife, nor does it suggest ownership. I think people in general, men and women, wouldn't be pleased if a close friend of theirs slept with an ex.

I can however get behind what she says here:

" Whatever hurt is being felt by the parties involved here, it's nobody else's business and it's certainly not for anyone else to judge. "

Now here's where I'm going to stray into possibly dangerous territory. I think Clementine's view on this is coloured by her view of society. Yes, patriarchal society is unfair. Yes, there are many examples of it (especially in the football world). I just don't think that this particular issue is an example of it. I think she's overlaid the story of "two famous mates torn apart" with "example of how the media and society favour men and remove agency from women".

She's right in that this does happen. Society does do this and so does the media. I just don't think it has occurred in this instance.

Here's a quote that irks me:

" And it's interesting how sidelined Nicky Brownless and Melissa Lyon have been in all this. If mentioned at all, any distress felt by the latter has been dealt with as an afterthought to the real tragedy here of Lyon betraying his best mate. "

I just don't agree. Nicky and Melissa aren't sidelined because they're the women in this story. They're sidelined because the two males involved are in the media. If this story didn't involve visible media personalities, it wouldn't be a story at all. It'd be some random family issue that wouldn't be newsworthy. The story IS Lyan and Brownless because that's what's interesting to the public. It is the only thing that elevates this story from a private family issue to something publishable. And yes, again, if the roles were reversed and it was two famous sportswomen, I think the story would be exactly the same. The no-name male partners would be sidelined in favour of the story focusing on the more visible female media personalities. The Lyon equivalent female would be riled for betraying the trust of her mate, and accusations of the use of a mental health condition as a cover would fly around (just as it has here). It would still be a 'dog act'.

 

34 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Lock up your ex-wives!

is that allowed ?

Just now, nutbean said:

is that allowed ?

It's only illegal if you get caught.

3 hours ago, Chris said:

True to a degree. But;

• If the reports are true Billy has been betrayed by his wife and best mate, he has every right to be angry  
• If they wish to be together then that comes at the cost of their friendship with Billy, they can chose one but not both
• Billy being angry and cutting himself off from them is not controlling, it is Billy feeling rightly aggrieved and looking out for himself and his well being.
• Billy's comment about not seeing the end coming is not an uncommon one in marriage breakdowns, usually from men.

You are right in that it is no ones business if they are together but you can't claim people close to it have to be happy about it. 

Point 1 - I would agree but has Garry, Billy, Nicky or Melissa confirmed this to be true?

Point 2 - Only because of Billy's attitude.

Point 3 - Disagree, because the cutting himself off is a controlling action. Do what I want or else I will do this action, appears very controlling to me.

Point 4 - I have no knowledge about this statement being true or not. Are you able to provide any additional evidence to support this comment or is a personal opinion?

I never claimed everyone would be happy about the relationship. But all I am aware of is that two mature consenting single people want to have a relationship. 

34 minutes ago, Choke said:

I normally like Clementine's articles, her stuff on MRAs for example is fantastic, but I reckon this one misses the mark.

I think people are focusing on Garry and Bill because they're the media personalities, not because they're men. They're in the spotlight, they're household names. The stories are told with them in the centre because of their visibility.

She says in there that if they were female, would we be saying the same things? I think we would.

I can't remember reading anything that suggests that Billy is a victim because Garry 'cut his lunch', implying Billy has 'ownership' of Nicky. The articles I've read have stated that all parties were separated at the time. I don't think it's 'bloke culture' that condemns sleeping with your mate's wife, nor does it suggest ownership. I think people in general, men and women, wouldn't be pleased if a close friend of theirs slept with an ex.

I can however get behind what she says here:

" Whatever hurt is being felt by the parties involved here, it's nobody else's business and it's certainly not for anyone else to judge. "

Now here's where I'm going to stray into possibly dangerous territory. I think Clementine's view on this is coloured by her view of society. Yes, patriarchal society is unfair. Yes, there are many examples of it (especially in the football world). I just don't think that this particular issue is an example of it. I think she's overlaid the story of "two famous mates torn apart" with "example of how the media and society favour men and remove agency from women".

She's right in that this does happen. Society does do this and so does the media. I just don't think it has occurred in this instance.

Here's a quote that irks me:

" And it's interesting how sidelined Nicky Brownless and Melissa Lyon have been in all this. If mentioned at all, any distress felt by the latter has been dealt with as an afterthought to the real tragedy here of Lyon betraying his best mate. "

I just don't agree. Nicky and Melissa aren't sidelined because they're the women in this story. They're sidelined because the two males involved are in the media. If this story didn't involve visible media personalities, it wouldn't be a story at all. It'd be some random family issue that wouldn't be newsworthy. The story IS Lyan and Brownless because that's what's interesting to the public. It is the only thing that elevates this story from a private family issue to something publishable. And yes, again, if the roles were reversed and it was two famous sportswomen, I think the story would be exactly the same. The no-name male partners would be sidelined in favour of the story focusing on the more visible female media personalities. The Lyon equivalent female would be riled for betraying the trust of her mate, and accusations of the use of a mental health condition as a cover would fly around (just as it has here). It would still be a 'dog act'.

 

I have to say, Clementine does not do it for me. I've often wondered if my dislike of her writing is my own subconscious chauvinism coming through, however I'd like to think it isn't.

Her whole world is colored by sexism, she sees it everywhere. So much so that she is incapable of providing commentary on anything without her writing being drenched in spite.

She is using this family tragedy to make a point which not only do I not agree with, but also feel didn't need to be made. It's tragic all over. To him, to her, to the kids, to their whole circle of friends. That's the point.

1 hour ago, 3Dee said:

tbh, it's a cheapshot calling Clementine vile, a new low for D/Land. 

I wouldn't have thought so. Most of the stuff she writes would not get past the DLand filter. She is a hypocritical feminazi of the highest order.

18 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I wouldn't have thought so. Most of the stuff she writes would not get past the DLand filter. She is a hypocritical feminazi of the highest order.

I've never found her to be hypocritical.

Can you provide examples?

Similarly I don't find her writing to be spiteful at all. In fact I find her point of view interesting and a lot of what she says is valid. I don't agree with her on this particular issue, but on the whole I think she's an excellent writer.

2 minutes ago, Choke said:

I've never found her to be hypocritical.

Can you provide examples?

Similarly I don't find her writing to be spiteful at all. In fact I find her point of view interesting and a lot of what she says is valid. I don't agree with her on this particular issue, but on the whole I think she's an excellent writer.

I don't dispute the fact she can write, she definitely can. But I just find her too angry, and it drowns out her message.

If she wants to make a difference, she should make her writing accessible by all, not just her disciples. 

52 minutes ago, DemonFrog said:

Point 1 - I would agree but has Garry, Billy, Nicky or Melissa confirmed this to be true?

Point 2 - Only because of Billy's attitude.

Point 3 - Disagree, because the cutting himself off is a controlling action. Do what I want or else I will do this action, appears very controlling to me.

Point 4 - I have no knowledge about this statement being true or not. Are you able to provide any additional evidence to support this comment or is a personal opinion?

I never claimed everyone would be happy about the relationship. But all I am aware of is that two mature consenting single people want to have a relationship. 

Point 1 - No they haven't, that is why I said if it is true.

Point 2 - Billy is entitled to have an emotional response and to react to his feelings. He does not have to stay happy with the whole situation and stay good friends with people who betrayed him if he doesn't want to. 

Point 3 - It is not controlling at all. He is making a clear decision based on what is best for his own well being and happiness. Do you expect him to stay friends with them if they betrayed him? I certainly wouldn't.

Point 4 - I have read it many times in various articles from various sources. Basically what is found is that men are either detached from their marriage or detached from the emotions going on and don't realise what is happening in front of them. Another example is that apparently if men suspect their partner of cheating then they usually are as it has to be obvious for them to notice, where as if women suspect the husband usually isn't. Again I have read this in various places, the articles usually have references to studies etc. 

Just now, watchtheeyes said:

I don't dispute the fact she can write, she definitely can. But I just find her too angry, and it drowns out her message.

If she wants to make a difference, she should make her writing accessible by all, not just her disciples. 

I guess that's just a different of opinion then I guess. I find her writing accessabile enough and don't detect the undertones of hate or spite others seem to.

I think she would argue that altering her writing style to be more accessible by men is precisely the kind of action she shouldn't take, as it assumes their primacy.

She should keep doing what she does. If people read and understand, fine. If they don't, they can move on. There's no need to go calling her names (I acknowledge you didn't, but others have) or denigrating her because she presents a different view of society.

I remember reading an article she wrote about this a while back. I think she wrote something along the lines of her being interpreted as angry or spiteful often stems from her advocating for societal change that would negatively effect those who society benefits through privilege. I think she's right. Gender equality can't be achieved unless men give something up. Power, stature etc. If there is so be equal representation, then by necessity there will be less representation by men because we currently occupy more positions of power than women. That rubs a lot of readers the wrong way, because third wave feminism was very light on the removal of power of men. It was more about "bringing women up" than "bringing men down". But I think feminism has been around for long enough to now show that it's not going to work that way. Some of the power needs to actually be taken away from men in order to equalise society. It's not going to 'self-equalise' as third wave feminism advocated.

Clementine's fourth wave feminism makes a lot more sense to me, more so than second or third.

2 hours ago, 3Dee said:

tbh, it's a cheapshot calling Clementine vile, a new low for D/Land. 

If it is the same Clementine who is a Fairfax journalist and sold "[censored] Abbott" t-shirts, I'd say vile is an apt description.

12 minutes ago, Choke said:

I've never found her to be hypocritical.

Can you provide examples?

Similarly I don't find her writing to be spiteful at all. In fact I find her point of view interesting and a lot of what she says is valid. I don't agree with her on this particular issue, but on the whole I think she's an excellent writer.

I used to read her column a bit and found it quite interesting and informative. What I couldn't stand was the broad generalisations about men, and how she always paints men in a certain light. One of the most annoying bits is her responses to people who criticize her. Sure some go miles past the mark and deserve to be pulled up but most of the time if a man questions her then they are a misogynistic fool who needs a re-education. It is all to them and us to be at all constructive.

5 minutes ago, Choke said:

I guess that's just a different of opinion then I guess. I find her writing accessabile enough and don't detect the undertones of hate or spite others seem to.

I think she would argue that altering her writing style to be more accessible by men is precisely the kind of action she shouldn't take, as it assumes their primacy.

 

Would you say her "[censored] Abbott" t-shirst are full of hate or love? 

Just now, Chris said:

I used to read her column a bit and found it quite interesting and informative. What I couldn't stand was the broad generalisations about men, and how she always paints men in a certain light. One of the most annoying bits is her responses to people who criticize her. Sure some go miles past the mark and deserve to be pulled up but most of the time if a man questions her then they are a misogynistic fool who needs a re-education. It is all to them and us to be at all constructive.

I've never actually seen her engage in debate, only read her columns.

I have seen a lot of the comments on her pages though, and I would describe many of them as vile. As you say, they deserve to be pulled up.

I'll have to look for some more conversational stuff on her to see how she responds to more constructive criticism.

1 minute ago, Choke said:

I guess that's just a different of opinion then I guess. I find her writing accessabile enough and don't detect the undertones of hate or spite others seem to.

I think she would argue that altering her writing style to be more accessible by men is precisely the kind of action she shouldn't take, as it assumes their primacy.

She should keep doing what she does. If people read and understand, fine. If they don't, they can move on. There's no need to go calling her names (I acknowledge you didn't, but others have) or denigrating her because she presents a different view of society.

I remember reading an article she wrote about this a while back. I think she wrote something along the lines of her being interpreted as angry or spiteful often stems from her advocating for societal change that would negatively effect those who society benefits through privilege. I think she's right. Gender equality can't be achieved unless men give something up. Power, stature etc. If there is so be equal representation, then by necessity there will be less representation by men because we currently occupy more positions of power than women. That rubs a lot of readers the wrong way, because third wave feminism was very light on the removal of power of men. It was more about "bringing women up" than "bringing men down". But I think feminism has been around for long enough to now show that it's not going to work that way. Some of the power needs to actually be taken away from men in order to equalise society. It's not going to 'self-equalise' as third wave feminism advocated.

Clementine's fourth wave feminism makes a lot more sense to me, more so than second or third.

It's clear you're more read up on the topic than I, so I won't venture too far here. I recall that article you're referring to and I rejected it at the time. As I mentioned in my initial post, I have often wondered if my aversion to her writing is based in an inherent sexism. Not that I'm sexist, but rather a product of the society we live in. However I choose to believe that's not the case.

It's easier for her to make that claim. She can rail and rail about sexism under the guise of challenging societies perceptions but when someone calls her up on being a bit militant or aggressive she can hide behind her initial assertion.

I agree there is a problem in society, however the best way to address it in my opinion is to bring people along with her rather than make them uncomfortable. When it's the latter, people will revolt, call her a 'feminazi' and never read her again. Eventually all she'll have left are those already converted, thereby rendering her efforts redundant.

Just now, Wrecker45 said:

Would you say her "[censored] Abbott" t-shirst are full of hate or love? 

If the T-shirt said "[censored] men", then yeah I'd agree with you.

But Abbott made himself a target by being a horrible PM and self-appointed "minister for women". I really can't blame feminists for being angry at that.

2 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Would you say her "[censored] Abbott" t-shirst are full of hate or love? 

I would suggest full of insight ( ill take myself off to the non football board now)