1 minute ago, Dante said:

I think the ABC trawl the internet looking for matters that they can get outraged over.

there wasn't any 'outrage' in the article

3 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

there wasn't any 'outrage' in the article

Not openly. 

But it is baiting such.  eg The title infers it is at a strip club, there is no attempt to provide info on the inclusion of females at the event, no attempt to mention the role of the coterie and its contribution and lastly the very ridiculous link of our club to violence against women.

So being 'outraged' depends on which oblique message is being taken in, if any are.  I think it is very poorly researched and written as if the writer had a particular 'slant' he/she wanted to create.

3 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not openly. 

But it is baiting such.  eg The title infers it is at a strip club, there is no attempt to provide info on the inclusion of females at the event, no attempt to mention the role of the coterie and its contribution and lastly the very ridiculous link of our club to violence against women.

So being 'outraged' depends on which oblique message is being taken in, if any are.  I think it is very poorly researched and written as if the writer had a particular 'slant' he/she wanted to create.

reckon yr drawing a long bow

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not openly. 

But it is baiting such.  eg The title infers it is at a strip club, there is no attempt to provide info on the inclusion of females at the event, no attempt to mention the role of the coterie and its contribution and lastly the very ridiculous link of our club to violence against women.

So being 'outraged' depends on which oblique message is being taken in, if any are.  I think it is very poorly researched and written as if the writer had a particular 'slant' he/she wanted to create.

No it doesn’t infer it is being held in a Strip Club. This is where stories can get right out of hand. 
Top End of Collins St Men Only Clubs are not Goldfingers/Spearmint Rhino

nothing in that article infers Strip Club

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

The club has multiple coteries including all women coteries, they hold dozens of events in dozens of locations all in order to try to raise money for the club from as many sources as possible. I personally have been to three so far this pre-season and there have been few women, not for lack of invite but I suspect the fact men donating to football clubs vs women is probably a ratio of 100 to 1.

This confected outrage is truly pathetic but what we have come to expect from theirABC.

So you prefer Murdoch media platforms Jnrmac for objective, non partisan and informed commentary? 

9 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No it doesn’t infer it is being held in a Strip Club. This is where stories can get right out of hand. 
Top End of Collins St Men Only Clubs are not Goldfingers/Spearmint Rhino

nothing in that article infers Strip Club

I was referring to the title.  I know the difference in the types of clubs you mention but many people seeing the title would not even be aware of the Collins st clubs. 

1 hour ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Stupid choice of a venue and completely idiotic of the club's leadership to accept the invitation.
We have enough problems without our leaders making such easily avoided mistakes.

 

 

Exactly. 

Leaving aside any discussion about the choice the venue by the coterie and whether criticism of the club is valid and/or fair, it is a stupid decision by pert and Bartlett to be involved.

Without their involvement its just a fund-raiser by some dees fans. At worst it is highlighted and some comments and jokes are made about typical establishment, rich mfc supporters and reinforcement of stereotypes. Maybe a codabeens song. Basically no blow back on the club at all. 

But having the CEO AND President means quite rightly the club are seen to endorse the event and venue. Now the club is exposed 

So again, leaving aside how fair this is, you have to question their thinking - particularly pert who is probably on 200k a year. And particularly in the current environment.

Where is the assessment of the reputation risk? 

They made some noise about 'listening to their female members', so they are seemingly at least alert to the issue (though to be honest those comments were cringe worthy - one they didn't need to say anything, two they ended up sounding paternalistic- l mean you change because you think it's the right thing to do, not coz you are listening to the little ladies).

And then they provide the media the opportunity to bring that change up in a negative context (by the by the critics of the abc here is ridiculous. They're not allowed to do what every other news outlet does -  write something that gets clicks  retweets, attention etc etc?).

There is every chance they had no idea of the venue. If so that is simply unprofessional. Again particularly by pert. 

And if they did know and the reputational risk didn't register then, Houston, we have a problem. 

A stupid own, goal.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I was referring to the title.  I know the difference in the types of clubs you mention but many people seeing the title would not even be aware of the Collins st clubs. 

The title of the Story accompanied by THIS Photograph does not infer a Strip Club. 

13DE9391-3E0B-4A4F-9B5C-80FFAB242487.webp

Edited March 6, 20214 yr by Sir Why You Little

18 minutes ago, hemingway said:

So you prefer Murdoch media platforms Jnrmac for objective, non partisan and informed commentary? 

stick to google, facebook and twitter, ernie

Naturally you can question the choice of venue. The common objections have been mentioned. Establishment, old boys club, wealth, privilege, private school, sexist.  Perhaps membership and attendance reflect some or all of these characteristics. 

However, these clubs have all seen better days. The movers and shakers have long deserted these places for more upmarket venues. They represent the past, not the current or the future. In the main, they are sparsely populated by old retired gentleman catching up with their peers. 

Having attended most of the clubs on the invitation of publishers and interested folk that still read books and descriptive fiction, my main complaint other than the absence of the fairer sex, is the quality of the food. In my experience, it reminds me of boarding school. Those present remind me of elderly gents at the funeral or wake of an old friend. 

Why anyone would want to spend a few thousand smackers each year to be a member is beyond me. After lunch and bucket loads of post lunch Port, I would want to kill myself. Although food poisoning may knock me off before my 303. 

However, I did enjoy stumbling down the steps one sunny afternoon with an ex AFL President who was loud and rambunctious. He enjoyed loudly telling a young man carrying a bike frame along William St, that the frame would need wheels to be rideable. Laughing loudly at his own joke as he stumbled away!  Now that’s class!

46 minutes ago, hemingway said:

So you prefer Murdoch media platforms Jnrmac for objective, non partisan and informed commentary? 

Spot on Ernest.

5 minutes ago, hemingway said:

Naturally you can question the choice of venue. The common objections have been mentioned. Establishment, old boys club, wealth, privilege, private school, sexist.  Perhaps membership and attendance reflect some or all of these characteristics. 

However, these clubs have all seen better days. The movers and shakers have long deserted these places for more upmarket venues. They represent the past, not the current or the future. In the main, they are sparsely populated by old retired gentleman catching up with their peers. 

Having attended most of the clubs on the invitation of publishers and interested folk that still read books and descriptive fiction, my main complaint other than the absence of the fairer sex, is the quality of the food. In my experience, it reminds me of boarding school. Those present remind me of elderly gents at the funeral or wake of an old friend. 

Why anyone would want to spend a few thousand smackers each year to be a member is beyond me. After lunch and bucket loads of post lunch Port, I would want to kill myself. Although food poisoning may knock me off before my 303. 

However, I did enjoy stumbling down the steps one sunny afternoon with an ex AFL President who was loud and rambunctious. He enjoyed loudly telling a young man carrying a bike frame along William St, that the frame would need wheels to be rideable. Laughing loudly at his own joke as he stumbled away!  Now that’s class!

I thought your weapon of choice was a shot gun Ernest ? 

12 minutes ago, old dee said:

I thought your weapon of choice was a shot gun Ernest ? 

Fake news old Dee. 

Green bananas would be my choice. 

22 minutes ago, old dee said:

I thought your weapon of choice was a shot gun Ernest ? 

Thought that was Hunter S Thompson

It could also be pointed out that Bartlett and Pert are also the President and CEO of the women's football department.

What if this was at a venue that didn't allow Indigenous people unless as a guest?

 

1 hour ago, binman said:

Exactly. 

Leaving aside any discussion about the choice the venue by the coterie and whether criticism of the club is valid and/or fair, it is a stupid decision by pert and Bartlett to be involved.

Without their involvement its just a fund-raiser by some dees fans. At worst it is highlighted and some comments and jokes are made about typical establishment, rich mfc supporters and reinforcement of stereotypes. Maybe a codabeens song. Basically no blow back on the club at all. 

But having the CEO AND President means quite rightly the club are seen to endorse the event and venue. Now the club is exposed 

So again, leaving aside how fair this is, you have to question their thinking - particularly pert who is probably on 200k a year. And particularly in the current environment.

Where is the assessment of the reputation risk? 

They made some noise about 'listening to their female members', so they are seemingly at least alert to the issue (though to be honest those comments were cringe worthy - one they didn't need to say anything, two they ended up sounding paternalistic- l mean you change because you think it's the right thing to do, not coz you are listening to the little ladies).

And then they provide the media the opportunity to bring that change up in a negative context (by the by the critics of the abc here is ridiculous. They're not allowed to do what every other news outlet does -  write something that gets clicks  retweets, attention etc etc?).

There is every chance they had no idea of the venue. If so that is simply unprofessional. Again particularly by pert. 

And if they did know and the reputational risk didn't register then, Houston, we have a problem. 

A stupid own, goal.

 

 

Spot on. The AGM comments about listening to female feedback were atrocious and this adds weight to the notion our board and executive are insulated from rank and file members. Yes it is the coterie, and yes they represent the elite of our supporter group, but we are a club that cannot attract young people and young families and this is just another reason why.      

Next they'll want the vote.

5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

It could also be pointed out that Bartlett and Pert are also the President and CEO of the women's football department.

 

Meaning they should know better.

We are trying to recover from an 18m drop off in football revenue off the back of COVID. If this decision, costs us even one female member (which it will), than that is too many. 

Edited March 6, 20214 yr by Gouga

5 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

The perpetually offended will be outraged. 

How dare you say that!

9 minutes ago, Gouga said:

Meaning they should know better.

That was my point mate. Also, imagine Daisy or Paxy wanting to show up to thank the coterie group and support the club but realizing they couldn't go unless a man said it was ok.

 

8 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

That was my point mate. Also, imagine Daisy or Paxy wanting to show up to thank the coterie group and support the club but realizing they couldn't go unless a man said it was ok.

 

I know it was your point and I agree with you! The Daisy / Karen example is the precise scenario Bartlett and Pert should have considered before agreeing to speak. 

Just thinking how this issue could have been avoided if we had a proper home base with a proper social club so that supporter groups can host their functions at the club... presuming the MFC plans to let female members into the social club of course.    

Edited March 6, 20214 yr by Gouga

so..... who do we cancel for this outrageous assault on our sensitivities?

2 hours ago, Dante said:

I think the ABC trawl the internet looking for matters that they can get outraged over.

I'm sure Fox do...

There business model is built on outrage.

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

The club has multiple coteries including all women coteries, they hold dozens of events in dozens of locations all in order to try to raise money for the club from as many sources as possible. I personally have been to three so far this pre-season and there have been few women, not for lack of invite but I suspect the fact men donating to football clubs vs women is probably a ratio of 100 to 1.

This confected outrage is truly pathetic but what we have come to expect from theirABC.

There's a subtle difference between a 'Coterie focused on x part of the community' and a supposedly 'all' event held at a place that specifically excludes women because they aren't considered proper parts of the business community.

I wonder, how many women will be encouraged to contribute more to the club by holding events at places where they are not permitted to be members? "Not for a lack of invite," you say, but something tells me it's a little more complex than that, hey?

But wait... women DO contribute a lot to the club.  Both as cash donors and in all manner of active contribution. In fact, I could've sworn that grassroots football was heavily volunteer reliant and that the various controversies aroud volunteering (the insurance costs debacle and then of course covid restrictions) have caused terrible problems for many clubs from the most basic Auskick right through to the AFL levels.

When you say 'probably 100 to 1' you're just making stuff up, right? Like, completely, wildly, no-connection-to-reality making stuff up?

The actual event planning by the club is just a silly out of date blunder that is not that big a deal provided it is (so very easily) corrected. If anything, it is the sheer ease with which this could be updated that is the reason the error is annoying.

But the confected outrage-outrage is not edifying. What's that?  You found offended people on Twitter? Congratulations.

3 hours ago, demonstone said:

Where is all the "outrage"?

From what I can tell, most of the outrage is coming from those here on Demonland who seem to be outraged over the outrage.