2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Wilson goes hard at people in her writing because she knows she will get away with it...

Does she threaten violence SWYL? That is where the line is. Go her all you like about her work but DO NOT threaten violence or demean her due to being female. It is really a very simple concept.

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Wilson goes hard at people in her writing because she knows she will get away with it...

So that makes it okay to "smash her to a pulp"? How are you still not getting this?

 

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

Speak for yourself SWYL. 

I am but i was not alone during the Tanking Saga. 

Short Memories....

SWYL, even if some Demonland posters made similar comments and even if they were not banned by the mods at the time, that is not the same as a public figure like McGuire making such remarks on a radio station. An anonymous poster  behaving badly on this forum is no excuse for Eddy who as a public figure has a tad more responsibility to act properly.  Don't you agree?

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

So that makes it okay to "smash her to a pulp"? How are you still not getting this?

 

I get why the comment was made in the first place. 

She goes hard at the man all the time, but when a bit comes back she doesn't like it. 

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

I get why the comment was made in the first place. 

She goes hard at the man all the time, but when a bit comes back she doesn't like it. 

With every post you're making yourself look worse on this.

 

4 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I am but i was not alone during the Tanking Saga. 

Short Memories....

Then why use the word ALL?

And are you standing by the comment that you wanted to physically harm her?

49 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

See, this is exactly the point with domestic violence.

'Mates' just 'joke' with each other about it and 'don't mean anything by it'.

Except that this is exactly what fuels the attitude that it's ok.

And I'd argue it's a hell of a lot easier to attend some stupid event and give lip service to a cause (any cause, that is) than it is actually back it up with consistent words. What you call a 'slip up' I call 'their real attitude'.

I completely disagree. 

The idea that there is some kind of spectrum with violence against women at one end and off-colour jokes at the other is absolute rubbish. They are two very different things and to argue that there is a relationship between them is to misdiagnose the problem and to unjustly accuse virtually all men of contributing to domestic violence.

I understand this is the view of many anti-domestic violence activists and is an idea put forward by the government's own advertising on the issue, but it just does not stand up to any scrutiny. Clearly, the act of actually committing violence against a woman requires a series of immensely warped internal behavioural mechanisms most often promulgated by the behaviour of close male role models in the perpetrator's life. Violence against women is not 'permitted' by off-colour jokes like McGuire's. How else do we explain the fact that all men have heard jokes like McGuire's yet only a small percentage of men engage in domestic violence? Clearly there are other factors at play apart from jokes/banter etc.     

The idea that it does misdiagnoses the problem and makes virtually every woman a victim of domestic violence and virtually every man a perpetrator. Not only is this completely unjust, but more importantly, means we are no closer to actually stopping violence against women.   

Realistically, the fact that Caro (who I greatly respect by the way) is a combative investigative journalist by choice means that she is more than fair game for crude jokes like McGuire's and Frawley's.  

17 minutes ago, Chris said:

The point Stuie is making is did she cop threats of violence (smashed to a pulp)? Nothing wrong with questioning her writing or integrity, heaps wrong with threats of violence. 

I would suggest that this goes without saying.  Violence in these - and most - circumstances, is simply unacceptable, but that should not make a journo immune from rigorous criticism.

While I hate to say it, I agree with Nathan Buckley on much of the way footy is reported by journos theses days.  Too often, the journo becomes the news themselves. Let's not forget, much of what Caro writes and that neanderthal Robinson, is comment, dressed up as news.  In the case of Caro, when the veracity of her comment pieces is questioned her response is all too often, don't shoot the messenger.  She can't have it both ways.

 

But again, with all that said, she should not be the target of blokey banter, which Eddie considers is justified. 

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I get why the comment was made in the first place. 

She goes hard at the man all the time, but when a bit comes back she doesn't like it. 

She doesn't like it when it comes back with comments based on her sex or threatening violence. Can you quote one time she has gone gone at the man hard based on them being a man or threatened violence towards them? Didn't think so. 

Wilson is not popular with many ... it seems most clubs supporters feel she has singled them out over the years. Whether she has or hasn't doesn't matter.

But she is a prominent AFL personality.

And two club presidents have said they would pay money to have her drowned. (And one of their cronies said he would personally hold her under.)

If that in itself does not ring alarm bells, then to cap it off, it's right on the heels of the "white ribbon" thing AND the announcement of a women's team playing for one of the two clubs.

Imagine if the tables were slightly turned. If there had been a recent campaign to raise awareness of and prevent one-punch king hits. And then Eddie says on air "while we're on the subject of king hits, you know what, that Robbo, I would pay good money to see someone king-hit him from behind."

(Or imagine the outrage if anyone had dared make a similar level of threat against McGuire himself.)

The crassness and lack of awareness would be something to marvel at. If Eddie hadn't repeatedly shown it all before.

Fact is, he has low impulse control and is a classic example of "engage brain before putting mouth in gear".

But he is "too big to fail".  I think the AFL *are* scared of him and his influence on his sizey radio audience.

So of course Gil says Eddie's "apology" is enough. Hey Gil. He didn't apologist for making the comments. He didn't say he was wrong for making them. He said he was sorry if anyone took them the wrong way.

Was there a *right* way to take them?

"There was no malice involved" says Eddie. After suggesting he would pay to have a journalist drowned.

Actually I think there was no malice. It's Eddie doing what he always does, which is belittle his perceived enemies in public. That's part one: tear strips off them in public in a jokey fashion. But part two, which is always to say "ah, but we're all mates here, no one's taking offence, it's all in good spirits" and deny his victims right of reply, has failed him again. As it did in the Goodes affair. When will he learn?

5 minutes ago, Chris said:

She doesn't like it when it comes back with comments based on her sex or threatening violence. Can you quote one time she has gone gone at the man hard based on them being a man or threatened violence towards them? Didn't think so. 

She had a personal Vendetta against Schwab at the time. I know that. 

And she led the charge to take down the MFC because of it make no mistake...

3 minutes ago, Ricky P said:

I completely disagree. 

The idea that there is some kind of spectrum with violence against women at one end and off-colour jokes at the other is absolute rubbish. They are two very different things and to argue that there is a relationship between them is to misdiagnose the problem and to unjustly accuse virtually all men of contributing to domestic violence.

I understand this is the view of many anti-domestic violence activists and is an idea put forward by the government's own advertising on the issue, but it just does not stand up to any scrutiny. Clearly, the act of actually committing violence against a woman requires a series of immensely warped internal behavioural mechanisms most often promulgated by the behaviour of close male role models in the perpetrator's life. Violence against women is not 'permitted' by off-colour jokes like MacGuire's. How else do we explain the fact that all men have heard jokes like MacGuire's yet only a small percentage of men engage in domestic violence? Clearly there are other factors at play apart from jokes/banter etc.     

The idea that it does misdiagnoses the problem and makes virtually every woman a victim of domestic violence and virtually every man a perpetrator. Not only is this completely unjust, but more importantly, means we are no closer to actually stopping violence against women.   

Realistically, the fact that Caro (who I greatly respect by the way) is a combative investigative journalist by choice means that she is more than fair game for crude jokes like MacGuire's and Frawley's.  

I think you're missing the cultural element to this. Sure, making a joke doesn't mean you then go home and beat your wife, but all these elements add together to add an accepting culture. Do you know how "normal" and common this is now? Seen the actual stats? To me and you it might seem like it takes someone with "warped internal behavioral mechanisms" but the numbers say otherwise. It's not bi-polar, drunk, angry men who are the only ones who do this, it's the seemingly quiet, normal, family types as well, and to not challenge the culture that has let this become such a massive issue, is to let it continue to get worse.

And as for your "fair game" comment, I think you're not getting the context at all. The joke wasn't about her being a poor journo or about her being "combative" it was about a physical reaction. Yes, some reactions have been overboard, but some like yourself who think it's not an issue at all obviously don't realize that they are part of an accepting culture that continues to let such things go unchallenged, and THAT is what will go towards stopping violence against women.

 

9 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I would suggest that this goes without saying.  Violence in these - and most - circumstances, is simply unacceptable, but that should not make a journo immune from rigorous criticism.

While I hate to say it, I agree with Nathan Buckley on much of the way footy is reported by journos theses days.  Too often, the journo becomes the news themselves. Let's not forget, much of what Caro writes and that neanderthal Robinson, is comment, dressed up as news.  In the case of Caro, when the veracity of her comment pieces is questioned her response is all too often, don't shoot the messenger.  She can't have it both ways.

 

But again, with all that said, she should not be the target of blokey banter, which Eddie considers is justified. 

How Wilson acts or writes is completely irrelevant.

 

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

She had a personal Vendetta against Schwab at the time. I know that. 

And she led the charge to take down the MFC because of it make no mistake...

No one is arguing that.

We're saying you're by yourself in wanting to "smash her".

You can't be this thick surely?

 

Eddie is just a bully and obviously has an IQ equivalent of his shoe size. When will he ever learn? You just cannot say things like this and pass it off as "boy club" banter. He disgusts me and I just refuse to listen to him and his cronies on Triple M.

I am no great fan of Caroline Wilson but she is a wife and mother to young children and does not deserve this sort of treatment.

Shame on Gil McLachlan and the AFL for brushing this under the carpet with their weak response.

Just now, stuie said:

How Wilson acts or writes is completely irrelevant.

 

Really????? So all care no responsibility?  Yep, makes sense to me.  I will repeat, violence, threats of violence, behaviour from men that nurtures violent attitudes, should not be tolerated under any circumstances.  However, journos need to be held to far more account than they are at the present time.  The damage they can cause people, by what they write, can often be life changing for the person who is the target of the 'comment"

 

 

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

No one is arguing that.

We're saying you're by yourself in wanting to "smash her".

You can't be this thick surely?

 

Hey Stuie, back off the personal epithets.  You seem like an angry man to me.

5 minutes ago, stuie said:

I think you're missing the cultural element to this. Sure, making a joke doesn't mean you then go home and beat your wife, but all these elements add together to add an accepting culture. Do you know how "normal" and common this is now? Seen the actual stats? To me and you it might seem like it takes someone with "warped internal behavioral mechanisms" but the numbers say otherwise. It's not bi-polar, drunk, angry men who are the only ones who do this, it's the seemingly quiet, normal, family types as well, and to not challenge the culture that has let this become such a massive issue, is to let it continue to get worse.

And as for your "fair game" comment, I think you're not getting the context at all. The joke wasn't about her being a poor journo or about her being "combative" it was about a physical reaction. Yes, some reactions have been overboard, but some like yourself who think it's not an issue at all obviously don't realize that they are part of an accepting culture that continues to let such things go unchallenged, and THAT is what will go towards stopping violence against women.

 

Firstly, rates of domestic violence are declining. 

Secondly, to blame "culture" is to completely let the individual off the hook for their reprehensible behaviour.

Thirdly, I simply cannot agree that there is an "accepting culture" of domestic violence in Australia. Does anyone seriously know anyone that thinks it's okay to physically attack a woman?

2 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Really????? So all care no responsibility?  Yep, makes sense to me.  I will repeat, violence, threats of violence, behaviour from men that nurtures violent attitudes, should not be tolerated under any circumstances.  However, journos need to be held to far more account than they are at the present time.  The damage they can cause people, by what they write, can often be life changing for the person who is the target of the 'comment"

 

 

Victim blaming now. Was only a matter of time.

Oh, they shouldn't have done it, BUT she asked for it...

Great attitude.

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

No one is arguing that.

We're saying you're by yourself in wanting to "smash her".

You can't be this thick surely?

 

You just like to Labour a point Stuie

in 2013 Wilson was absolute dirt on this very webpage and if there was a Big Freeze back then Eddie's comments would have been taken as the joke he intended. 

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

Victim blaming now. Was only a matter of time.

Oh, they shouldn't have done it, BUT she asked for it...

Great attitude.

Geez, what a quantum leap in logic.  Do you read posts thoroughly, or do you cherry pick to suit your own agendas?  Anyway ...................................

[edit] by the way Stuie, I chair a committee on Domestic Violence against women.  You do understand I purposely differentiated in my posts between violence against women and responsible journalism.  Do you? 

4 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Really????? So all care no responsibility?  Yep, makes sense to me.  I will repeat, violence, threats of violence, behaviour from men that nurtures violent attitudes, should not be tolerated under any circumstances.  However, journos need to be held to far more account than they are at the present time.  The damage they can cause people, by what they write, can often be life changing for the person who is the target of the 'comment"

 

 

Correct, but when someone returns a bit of fire...

can't have that...

5 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Hey Stuie, back off the personal epithets.  You seem like an angry man to me.

He loves it. It's his very purpose in life. 

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

He loves it. It's his very purpose in life. 

I'd rather be someone who comes across as angry on an internet forum than someone who wants to smash a woman to a pulp for writing some articles that upset them.