Undeeterred

11 minutes ago, H_T said:

That's a GIF, by the way.

1 hour ago, olisik said:

How is black widow a sexist term? How does it differ to calling Hogan the Hulk or Stringer the Package?

Can't believe I'm taking time out of my day to explain this to such a simpleton.

'Black widow' is a very old, well known label to attach to a woman that is seen as spiteful or a range of other things. There is a huge negative stigma underlying calling someone that, which the person attaching the label doesn't need to repeat to get the message across.

Players nicknames are usually given in a positive way with an underlying tone of mateship and admiration. If not, it's just as much bullying as calling someone a black widow. 

For example, if you call a mate 'fatso', and attach that label in a negative way that makes the person uncomfortable, that's bullying. If you call him the Hulk, or the Beast (which have positive connotations in a male dominated environment, it's probably not.

Your ignorance is amazing.

9 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i knew someone just like that in 2004-5

the most deceitfulGold digger i will ever know. 

What a piece of work she was....

Maybe that's where your women issues come from.

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

I have to back pedal a bit here, because I hadn't heard the full version, which I now have.  

There was a pack mentality and there was sexism, which I originally disputed.  Once the term Black Widow was used (I hadn't been aware of that) it changed the tenet for me.  Up until then it wasn't gender specific and if it was a male journalist we wouldn't have heard a word.  Wilson is a senior journalist first and foremost in my mind, so in a professional context her gender is irrelevant.  It became relevant when particular words were used and she confirmed that she'd had similar references in the past.  The commentary is still over the top for me, but each their own and sometimes you have to push hard to enact change.  

That said, I wish those frothing at the mouth weren't so hypocritical about what they condemn and what they overlook and it's usually self-posturing lefties. 

In the Middle East gays are hanged from cranes, thrown off buildings, or (if they're lucky) imprisoned for years, but you won't hear a word from the Left.  Apostates and adulterers are murdered in the name of Islam, but not a word from the Left.  Women are subjugated, not allowed to be educated and cloaked in medieval prison outfits, but not a word from the Left (cultural relativism, you know).  Even in the West and here in Australia there are honour killings and female circumcisions, but not a word from the Left.

So spare me the sanctimonious vitriol when you remain silent on so many horrendous practices in Islam (a political ideology as mush as a religion) that permeates the West and our own country.

Yeah, yeah, I know it's a separate unrelated issue, but the hypocrisy of the Left knows no bounds.  I'm also fully aware that many posting in this thread would condemn both.

Have a great day, everyone

You've taken a secular, universal issue and turned it into a rant about the political Left and Islam.

Such a shame, because I was in real admiration up to the end of the second paragraph.

Then you went completely rogue.

Weird, because I think you'll find that people who don't care about the abuses of women in Islam are from both sides of politics - it's not a Left/Right issue. 

13 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

As jnrmac said, you could be fired, or worse SUED!

I think Chris' summary of iv'as word are how i feel.  It is great to bring awareness to such a terrible thing like violence against women but why do they get singled out?  There is such a thing as violence against men too, and children and animals.  Why do we feel the need to single women out again, I think that's what gets my goat when things like this come up.  It's always spoken that women are equal, so why in these matters do we single them out?  And sometimes it is women's groups that do it too. Why not have an ad campaign about all violence being a terrible thing that should never be condoned, no matter the colour, age, sex etc.  Women are stronger than they ever have been when it comes to physical & mental abuse, while creating awareness for the issue is great, and may get people thinking differently, i think it sometimes hinders other areas like equality.

 

So as a society, we'd prefer to fire someone when they question someone's professionalism, but not when we advocate violence against them. Excellent.

And to the second point - I think you're either being disingenous, or dumb as a brick, to suggest there is no press or publicity around violence against men, children and animals. Not seen any of the one-punch campaigning? Or cruelty to animals ads? 

The reason we are discussing violence against women in this instance is because there was a specific incident where violence against women was raised.

27 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You're right. Why aren't females castigating females who condone kiiling men? I present you one of The AGE's finest journalists. 

 

16 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

It was really to point out the double standards. Violence against anyone is bad. Threatening violence is bad. Eddie should know better and in my view should be censured by the AFL. But let's not be selective about who cops it. Let's not excuse/ignore others just because they happen to be female.

I agree with you on the point in bold.

But what you're effectively saying is that it's ok to refuse to censure this behaviour on the basis that other behaviour isn't being censured elsewhere in the universe.

30 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Because it takes a while for the female contingent of the confected outrage group to gather their forces.....

What they are saying is that its OK to joke about violence unless its about a female..

Let's face it Eddie, Frawley and Brayshaw are not people's favourites and what they said is stupid but its the womens lobby that has become outraged. And not becuase they are advocating violence- even in a joking fashion - but because a female is the brunt of the joke. So where is all the outrage when they are advocating violence (albeit jokingly) against males?? Or is that supposed to be OK and 'blokey'??

Wowee.

That's some issues, right there.

20 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I understand it was meant for SWYL, thanks Chris.  But unless I have missed something, I fail to see where he's condoned, provoked or supports violence against women.  Perhaps you could now give Stuie some counsel.

 

You must have missed the 5 or 6 posts in a row where he said exactly that.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

C'mon we all wanted to knock her down at the time

good old iron pants Wilson...

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Go back to 2013 when the Heat was really on

she copped a lot and deserved it

You might need a new screen name after you've been banned, as well as a holiday.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

C'mon we all wanted to knock her down at the time

good old iron pants Wilson...

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Go back to 2013 when the Heat was really on

she copped a lot and deserved it

You might need a new screen name after you've been banned, as well as a holiday.

2 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

OMFG PC at it's finest.  Don't say anything about anyone and you will be fine, might make for terrible listening but thats ok, just so long as no one gets offended.

What's wrong with 'Gee what a crap journalist with no integrity' (or something else relevant to their professional relationship) rather than 'wouldn't it be great to drown her'.

14 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I have just read the transcript of what was said. ( i am in Cambodia so not exactly Front Page news here)

If i had heard that on Radio i would have laughed. 

Let's be honest here 

in 2013 most of us here wanted to Smash Wilson to a pulp for what she wrote about Tanking

Absolute storm in a teacup...

But may Eddie not sleep for a few nights....

Hope you've got something to do over in SE Asia while you're enjoying your Demonland holiday!

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

I don't think the comments when taken in context are as bad as some are making out. My problem is that Eddie refuses to acknowledge it was a poor comment in the current climate and he's sorry for making it. He just makes excuses and uses the old "I'm sorry if you were offended" approach. Accepting how it has been received by some and apologizing to the person it was aimed at doesn't have to mean he thinks the same as them, it just means he understands that not everyone will think how he does, and that's where he fails as a broadcaster, repeatedly. My problem is more that he won't see it from someone else's view, cop it, make amends and move on. There's bigger issues in this country than his fragile stubborn ego.

 

Classic way of non-apologising (and I don't mean about this issue, just generally)

2 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

 

Yeah that was a blunt and uncalled for remark. But i just think Frawleys apology was right.  It was insensitive but it was not meant to support violence. I say that sort of thing as banter among my friends too and they do to me, water off a ducks back for us because we dont mean anything by it. I dont think they meant anything by it either. Actions speak louder than words for me and all of them do anything to support non-violence causes, which i think should be what rings through when it comes to these kinds of things. But sure we can crucify public figures for their words, I challenge you to spend that long in the public view and not slip up once in a while.

 

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'.

4 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Yes, I quoted your incorrect stats and then proceeded to note that they were incorrect.

The point being that if the were correct (they weren't) it wouldn't have mattered anyway.  1.4 to 1.2 would have been a non-issue if your stats were correct.  Which, of course, they weren't.

You are a blight on this site, but tolerated for some mystical reason.

Not be me anymore.

 

Oh, go on.

I'd have to do some actual work if I didn't have yours and Stuie's posts to read!

24 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Same could have been said about Barrett and nobody would have blinked. I think it is much ado about nothing, but they should appologise if it makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside

 

You have got to be joking.

31 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Maybe the AFL were trying to keep it quiet for a while (despite it being said on air) but couldn't any longer.

Most workplaces would give a warning at a minimum for those comments, possibly dismissal. 

This makes the most sense, I think.

30 minutes ago, stuie said:

Does it actually even matter?

 

From the king of arguing about things that don't matter.

14 minutes ago, stuie said:

I think because people were awaiting Eddie's reaction, and now that his "apology" is out there a lot of the reaction stems from that.

 

Nope. First stories, including opinion pieces, all appeared in a rush yesterday afternoon/evening. His 'apology' came in response to a number of stories, including an interview with Caroline Wilson.

Seems incredibly odd.

I have one question on Eddie's comments during the Freeze MND event.

For comments that were made on radio on Monday, why has this story just exploded yesterday and today, almost a week later?

I don't want to discuss the comments themselves - just genuinely wondering why on earth it has taken this long to become a story...

3 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Jack Trengove I mean.  We are all wrapt to see that he has made a successful comeback & we all wish him well because he is a great bloke & fantastic club man however on the basis of 2 games back is there a spot for him on the list next year ?

He still looks pretty slow and if he's only going to pick up 20 odd touches a week he is going to struggle.  Remember Brayshaw, Salem & probably HL and ANB will come into the team at some stage.  He looks too slow to play in defence or up forward 

No, we don't.

Yes, there will be a spot.

Do you really think they'd put all of this time and effort in and then cut him?

And 'only' 20 touches a week? Come on. Is that really a problem?

What I've seen so far is consistency, effort and fairly solid output.

7 hours ago, hemingway said:

Jack Watts had more than a baptism of fire. I cannot think of any player that has been the subject of so much criticism and ridicule from the football world and Melbourne supporters. His form this year tells us a lot about his talent and his character. We knew he had the talent but not the physical and mental toughness to make it. He proved me wrong and many others. It also shows good judgement by the club in sticking by him. I was as frustrated as many others with his game. So happy for him to see him emerge from the darkness.  In this dog eat dig world that craves immediate success, it is a lesson that patience and persistence can pay off. It shows that Jack despite being labelled as soft has a resilience and toughness that has sustained him.  He has succeeded when many would have failed under the weight of public opinion.

They have tried to trade him at least once, and possibly twice, in the last few years.

16 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Is there even such a thimg as a second world country??

Is that a serious question or are you being sarcastic?

Umpires killing another game.

Such a shame - Essendon deserved that win so much.

Lol that they let about 4 frees go, then give one to Jamar!! Be lucky to get a goal out of that one.

Essendon are getting rogered by the umpires too - still only 8 points down.

1 hour ago, Return to Glory said:

 I think we would have done better in drier conditions. We're horrible in the wet.

I reckon their pressure would have got them out the back far more. We would have tired anyway and I just think they would have schooled us even more.