Bluey's Dad

Funny isn't it. If it were me, I'd pick up the phone to Chubb before spending $750,000 on lawyers. You know, just in case. Hird's arrogance is astounding.

Very good. Very good indeed.

True. I guess what I'm trying to say is Carlton supporters suck and Dees supporters don't.

That's probably true, but it wasn't THAT long ago. This was around 1998/1999. I can still remember the big difference in between sitting the Carlton members and the Dees. They were both 'blokey', but one felt intimidatingly so. The rage the Carlton members displayed towards their own team was amazing, and it's the reason I stopped going with him. Although loud and sometimes angry, I can't remember the Dees fans being nearly so abusive.

I definitely agree with this. My uncle was a blues supporter and took me to a bunch of games when I was a kid. I really hated the atmosphere in the members section at Optus Oval. It felt unwelcoming, there was lots of swearing and yelling. It felt intimidating. Doesn't surprise me that their female members feel like that too.

I'm not sure what point you're making here Chris. Your wife earns more money, so if she takes the leave, this leaves you worse off? Is that correct? Why don't YOU just take the leave? The PPL is gender agnostic. Your wife will need recovery time, but after that you can look after the kids. Why assume she'll be the primary caregiver AND primary breadwinner? This was actually our (my wife and I) plan, as in the time leading up to the birth of our first child she was earning more than I was. Then I was promoted and the roles reversed, so she ended up with the leave and I stayed working. Edit: I have to go pick up the kids now, so can't reply further. Don't take my silence as an indication that I'm running away! I'll come back on tomorrow for more debate. I loves me some debates.

Sorry I don't get that reference. I assume someone looked at their watch while Gillard was talking or something?

I'll have to read the comments more then Chris.

Western societies have been trying this for 30 odd years. It doesn't work because our whole society is built upon benefiting men (when men in particular) more than others. Men will always have the subconscious societal advantage. My old boss even said to me "I'll never hire a woman under 40 again" after 2 of his employees took maternity leave. That's the sort of crap that keeps women down. Abbott's paid parental leave scheme was attacked because it favoured rich mothers over poor ones. It was a wealth issue, not a gender one. It worth noting that the current system doesn't discriminate between a dad or a mum - either can take or share the leave. I myself used a month of our PPL when our son was born, my wife used the other 5 months.

Fair enough.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Apparently a 'mystery benefactor' paid his $750,000 legal bill to ASADA: Mystery benefactor paid off James Hird's $750,000 legal debt

I would have thought it'd be tough for him to take to an AFL field again. The cries of "TUNNEL BALL" from the opposition would be relentless.

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'.

Ooooooooooh snap.

So.... Did you show him your unit?

Although that's pretty cool, I couldn't pick any players from those angles

Lol, you don't have the 'right to free speech' on an internet forum. Where the hell did you get that idea?

Wow. Gives Slobbo a run for his money. How does this crap even get published?

Very surprised to read this. Do you think his performance merits inclusion in round 1?

The AFL will make sure they're back into finals sooner rather than later. There'll be no further punishments, despite them only being punished by the AFL for 'governance breaches', plus priority picks and favourable draws. I have no faith that the club will reap what they have sewn. They'll be in finals within 5 years.

You're right, there was definitely a swing. Especially after the whole non-disclosure during ASADA testing came out. I just reckon people have short memories, and if the pro-EFC whiners keep raging in the media, it'll undermine the previous swing.