20 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Sorry, but I don't see the double standards.  Firstly, DeGoey has had multiple incidents of disrespectful/abusive behaviour including a charge of sexual assault.  Steph Chiocci hasn't.  Secondly, De Goey pulled the top down and exposed the nipple of the woman in the nightclub, to which the video shows her clearly pushing it away.  Certainly did not look consentual.  Same with the changeroom incidents cited which again show there is not a lot of evidence of things being consentual. In this photo nothing is exposed.  Is it consentual?  Hard to say, as it's a photo.  But anyone arguing the De Goey incident was consentual is kidding themselves.  

Ethan probably doesn't have a problem with either incident. He is feigning moral outrage the way he thinks the "woke left" would act if the gender were reversed. Typical gaslighting from someone who thinks his lifetime of privilege is coming to an end.

1 hour ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Sorry, but I don't see the double standards.  Firstly, DeGoey has had multiple incidents of disrespectful/abusive behaviour including a charge of sexual assault.  Steph Chiocci hasn't.  Secondly, De Goey pulled the top down and exposed the nipple of the woman in the nightclub, to which the video shows her clearly pushing it away.  Certainly did not look consentual.  Same with the changeroom incidents cited which again show there is not a lot of evidence of things being consentual. In this photo nothing is exposed.  Is it consentual?  Hard to say, as it's a photo.  But anyone arguing the De Goey incident was consentual is kidding themselves.  

All excellent points.

There is another important element - sexual assault and harassment (and of course family violence) is overwhelmingly men perpetrating it against women.

And it occurs in the context of the fundamental drivers of sexual harassment and assault (and family violence) - gender inequality and the belief that a man is entitled to exercise power and control. 

Is there an issue with the power balance here? Maybe, as Steph is the captain. But it is not harassment if her teammate has no issue with Stpeh's behavior. 

I note that to hopefully avoid the silly whataboutisms that so often come up in such discussions - 'but, but women use violence and sexually harass too!'.

Whataboutisms that completely ignore the fact that gender inequality and the belief that a man is entitled to exercise power and control over women and children drive sexual harassment (and family violence).

De Goey sexually harassed/assaulted the woman because he felt entitled to

(and please, spare me the whataboutisms that the woman in the photo apparently said she was fine with his behaviour).

Edited February 28, 20232 yr by binman

On 2/25/2023 at 4:37 PM, Ethan Tremblay said:

 

Where have I referenced De Goey? I’ve posted further articles above which call out the unacceptable behaviour of unwelcome and/or inappropriate touching in the workplace. Justifying this type of behaviour by comparing it to another one, especially the De Goey incident, is baffling. 

I have very strong feelings towards treating everyone with respect, especially when it comes to the workplace. There is no justification whatsoever for this type of conduct. 

(I don’t get what my profile pic has to do with this; a hot chick, by herself, in a full bathing suit, having her photo taken, with consent, with no person/s being groped.)

You cited an article that solely referenced De Goey. 

My question to you, though, is that you have strong feelings towards treating everyone with respect, particularly in the workplace.   What is respectful about presenting yourself in this manner, or in fact referring to a female person as "chick"?  Both these acts can easily be interpretted as being disrespectful to women. Explain the context and the purpose if disrespect is not intended. Further, the image in question is quite clearly not in the workplace.

Further, it's taken you two weeks for you to find outrage in this?  I'd have thought this was old news.  The fact only Rita Pahani was the only media commentator (I dare not call her a journalist) that was outraged by this with nothing more than "whataboutism" is rather telling.

 

Edited February 28, 20232 yr by Katrina Dee Fan

37 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

referring to a female person as “chick”

This alone is infinitely more offensive than the pic in question. 

51 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

This alone is infinitely more offensive than the pic in question. 

You’re offended that a male, dressed in a ladies bathing costume, was referred to as a “hot chick”. That is honestly amazing, love it. 

If the media (and Collingwood) didn't have double standards they would have any at all....

It is not about offence for me, more about disapproval. I am not offended. 

Sexualization is fun, exciting, titillating, my problem is that, I'd prefer it's expression to be behind closed doors.

Who wants to see me or you, fondling or being fondled, not me? I guess I'm a bit of a sexual puritan.

Perhaps the times have changed, and public sexual expression is tolerated, and even enjoyed.

I know it is on the very low side of a sexual image, but it is still a sexualised, with fun and freedom.

Kissing or appropriate touching in public is usually an expression of care, love and sharing (I approve). Cupping someone in public, is an act of imposition, even with consent (I disapprove).

Edited February 28, 20232 yr by kev martin

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

You’re offended that a male, dressed in a ladies bathing costume, was referred to as a “hot chick”. That is honestly amazing, love it. 

Wasn’t referring to your former avi.

Was referring in general to the use of the word “chick” when talking about a female. 

Granted, some may be offended by “chick” in regards to your avi. And some may not. Same applies to the pic of the Collingwood girls. Therefore, it’s really not “honestly amazing,” right?

I'm more concerned that a secondary school teacher with a public profile, employed by a school with a history of poor behaviour towards male students, would allow herself to be photographed in a questionable pose. Her status as a Collingwood footballer is irrelevant to me, but I'm concerned about the message that is being sent to impressionable teenagers..

So the issue is basically…

18 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

You’re offended that a male, dressed in a ladies bathing costume, was referred to as a “hot chick”. That is honestly amazing, love it. 

....and to think you're the father of a 6 year old girl...... can't imagine the amount of gaslighting and mansplaining she's going to be enduring in her lifetime.

16 hours ago, poita said:

I'm more concerned that a secondary school teacher with a public profile, employed by a school with a history of poor behaviour towards male students, would allow herself to be photographed in a questionable pose. Her status as a Collingwood footballer is irrelevant to me, but I'm concerned about the message that is being sent to impressionable teenagers..

Okay there's manipulation of facts and then there's this.  Parkdale having a "history of poor behaviour towards male students" is a gross manipulation of what actually happened.  They had a guest speaker from the council who said an incredibly stupid thing and was condemned by the school and the Kingston City Council.  There, corrected it for you.

On 2/25/2023 at 3:28 PM, Bitter but optimistic said:

Thanks Ethan, a number of interesting and important issues here.

However, I shall make no comment because I cannot stand Rita Panahi - a sanctimonious, headline hunting, self righteous excuse for a journalist whose carping adds little to any serious debate and whose sole raison d'être appears to be promulgating the views of her political masters.

Well said BBO 

On 2/28/2023 at 12:58 PM, WalkingCivilWar said:

This alone is infinitely more offensive than the pic in question. 

I don't mind being called a "Rooster"

On 2/28/2023 at 3:24 PM, kev martin said:

It is not about offence for me, more about disapproval. I am not offended. 

Sexualization is fun, exciting, titillating, my problem is that, I'd prefer it's expression to be behind closed doors.

Who wants to see me or you, fondling or being fondled, not me? I guess I'm a bit of a sexual puritan.

Perhaps the times have changed, and public sexual expression is tolerated, and even enjoyed.

I know it is on the very low side of a sexual image, but it is still a sexualised, with fun and freedom.

Kissing or appropriate touching in public is usually an expression of care, love and sharing (I approve). Cupping someone in public, is an act of imposition, even with consent (I disapprove).

I tend to agree, but as far as things go, this is probably on the pretty low end of the scale of things posted on social media these days.  If it were most other people it would be - meh, yeah ok, so what.  But it's not necessarily the most tasteful message to share with the world either.

I guess it's something of a sign of the times in a good way that the AFLW players now actually have a public profile this would be noticed by someone and actually become 'newsworthy'. 

Perhaps the AFLW players need to be a bit more self aware about what they post to social media these days?   Perhaps the media need to get a life and stop picking small personal moments and blowing them up like the Sky is falling down too.

Edited March 1, 20232 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

Oh no! 🫣

According to s 35D of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), an activity may be sexual due to: The area of the body that is involved in the activity, including (but not limited to) the genital or [censored] region, the buttocks or, in the case of a female or a person who identifies as a female, the breasts.

The above is, NOT a sexual activity as it involves males. So cannot be sexting, unless you can observe some sexual gratification between them.

You can also see that the consent is obviously enthusiastic and those involved have a similar power base within their relationship. 

Edited March 4, 20232 yr by kev martin

On 2/25/2023 at 3:28 PM, Bitter but optimistic said:

Thanks Ethan, a number of interesting and important issues here.

However, I shall make no comment because I cannot stand Rita Panahi - a sanctimonious, headline hunting, self righteous excuse for a journalist whose carping adds little to any serious debate and whose sole raison d'être appears to be promulgating the views of her political masters.

That covers it perfectly Bbo. 

38 minutes ago, old dee said:

That covers it perfectly Bbo. 

Amen.