Dustin Martin

[Siposstar#2]

Watch Ellen's acceptance speech when she wins her humanitarian award, she posts a picture of Chris hemsworth topless, she says "I'm here to make people happy"

Now imagine if a male presenter did the same with a picture of
Angelina Jolie in a bikini.
Feminists would burn down the world!
Double standards.

[sainters4eva]

Stay at home. Don't speak, and for God's sake don't have an opinion that differs slightly from the mainstream or you WILL be labeled one way or an other. Forget about having a laugh too. Someone, somewhere will get offended. The world we live in. What a place it's turned in to.

Chris Gale should be burnt at the stake along with all those who dislike Adam Goodes, or god forbid, tell Irishman jokes.

Throw that coke head Carlisle in as well, my kids can't sleep at night knowing he's out there.

Really typical OTT reaction of someone who doesn't understand that humiliating someone and sexual harassment in the workplace is not on.

You can have a laugh but when it is at someone elses expense and is also sexually harassing someone who is trying to do what they do for a living, is just totally out of order.

Who said burn him at the stake. No charges were laid, apology was accepted by the interviewer. CA and the BBL have the option not to invite Gayle back to their competition if they feel fit.

So your middle class white mans world isn't the same anymore? Tough. We live in an open and free democracy where all citizens regardless of sex should be treated in a fit and respectful way.

if you don't like that. well tough luck, its a changing world. Be part of it or you can stand with Sam Newman and the other dinosaurs. You choice.

Couldn't agree more BM. The world order is changing and the 'boys' don't like it.

[To the top]

This is a forum for the St Kilda FC supporters.

St Kilda FC compete in the AFL Competition, a competition where the 22 players are all male as is the remainder of the playing list.

This competition is a significantly physical contest played out exclusively by these young men.

The spectators are not gender based. And, indeed the administrations and the support staff are not gender based (altho they can, most obviously, not carry an entrenched vitriol toward males per se).

The question is, if certain posting on here are so driven by "your middle class, white man's world isn't the same anymore" (whatever that means but it appears vitriolic and hate driven on the basis of gender), why are individuals such as that posting on such a site as this and, you would also assess, attending AFL games and commenting on AFL games?

Simply, females can and do attain education and they can and do function in (and contribute to) society as do males.

As with males achieving, females can also achieve.

As with males underachieving, so can females underachieve.

But, as with males also, do not bring your under achievement to society, blaming your "middle class, white man's world".

Look at yourself and your entrenched, gender based and (obviously) all consuming vitriol.

Because that is what is holding you back - nothing else.

A very, very narrow view of society and a hateful and insecure (and maybe jealous) view of the normal interactions between females and males which are on view across normal society (thank goodness!) where females and males create opportunity both in business and in social settings (and there can be overlaps - how many have met their partners in a work place environment? And how many socialize after work with colleagues of either gender?).

[saynta]

A message to all those outraged by the Mel McLaughlin incident. There are many tragedies occurring in the world that are far more worthy of your angst. The horror of seeing an ignorant and Ill-educated sportsman make an inappropriate comment, during an ill-considered bit of flirting, ranks right up there with mass murders, crippling poverty and human rights abuses.

It's interesting that women on TV are allowed to flirt shamelessly with men, to the point of openly propositioning them. I'm looking at you, Julia Morris, Ita Buttrose, Denise Drysdale and so many more. The irony is that McLaughlin is the beneficiary of a system that values physical beauty over all else. Do you think she'd have gotten her start on camera if she wasn't easy on the eye? Btw, she's not a journalist; she's a broadcaster, or more accurately, a presenter. She used to read an autocue for a living. She now conducts "interviews" of players for a few seconds at a time during hit and giggle cricket. Her greatest career achievement is having been nominated as "TV Personality of the Year" for pay TV. No Walkleys, no peer recognition from journalists, no professional awards, etc.

She sits in the stylist's chair for hours a day before going on air. Her wardrobe is chosen and supplied by a professional. Why? Because beauty rates. Men are also discriminated against in this way. Name all the physically unattractive TV presenters. I think you'll struggle.
So get over yourselves, especially the 3rd wave, neo-feminist on the ABC who told the audience she was reduced to tears by the "horror" of Gayle's words. Please, that's right up there with the horror of "Reverse rape" (look it up. Proof the feminazis are mentally disturbed). What we have here folks, is a very stark and unfunny example of a first world problem.

There is more than a bit of truth in your post

[saynta]

His gender may be relevant, as may his position, but of what relevance is the guy's skin colour?

Right or wrong, and for whatever reason, he's defending a dark skinned person against a fair skinned person.

Seems a bit of a cheap shot; the type that's becoming more and more common on social media these days.

He's representative of the boys' club attitudes that dominate our mainstream sporting cuture. His skin colour is only relevant to me in that he's just another Cricket Australia apparatchik defending the party territory. Not too many in positions of power in Cricket Australia, or on air in Channel 9 and 10's cricket coverage, or in the AFL who aren't white, middle aged men and they all have a kind of boys' club banter and attitude.
So I mentioned his colour only because it's representative of the establishment stereotype.

Your comment still had racist overtones as does the one above.


What would you say if I said that the whole overblown sorry saga had racist overtones to me.

A whole bunch of uptight whities getting offended because a good looking rich talented black guy had the nerve to ask a pretty white girl to share a drink with him should his side be fortunate enough to win.

Because that is exactly what happened.

[ripplug66]

This is a forum for the St Kilda FC supporters.

St Kilda FC compete in the AFL Competition, a competition where the 22 players are all male as is the remainder of the playing list.

This competition is a significantly physical contest played out exclusively by these young men.

The spectators are not gender based. And, indeed the administrations and the support staff are not gender based (altho they can, most obviously, not carry an entrenched vitriol toward males per se).

The question is, if certain posting on here are so driven by "your middle class, white man's world isn't the same anymore" (whatever that means but it appears vitriolic and hate driven on the basis of gender), why are individuals such as that posting on such a site as this and, you would also assess, attending AFL games and commenting on AFL games?

Simply, females can and do attain education and they can and do function in (and contribute to) society as do males.

As with males achieving, females can also achieve.

As with males underachieving, so can females underachieve.

But, as with males also, do not bring your under achievement to society, blaming your "middle class, white man's world".

Look at yourself and your entrenched, gender based and (obviously) all consuming vitriol.

Because that is what is holding you back - nothing else.

A very, very narrow view of society and a hateful and insecure (and maybe jealous) view of the normal interactions between females and males which are on view across normal society (thank goodness!) where females and males create opportunity both in business and in social settings (and there can be overlaps - how many have met their partners in a work place environment? And how many socialize after work with colleagues of either gender?).

I have no idea what that has to do with anything. Anyway on the Gayle thing I reckon its quite simple. Gayle thought he was being funny the West Indians may treat women differently to us but once you could see Mel didn't like what he said which wasn't hard to see he should have stopped and said sorry. He either is silly or didn't read the interview and kept going. He then gave a weak apology which sounded very contrived. At no stage has Mel done anything wrong so shouldn't cop any s***. Gayle also doesn't need to be treated like a murderer for a pretty minor crime. Its gone way over the top but anyone blaming Mel simply has no idea. I doubt anyone on here treats girls like that in their workplace these days.

[markp]

[To the top]

To respond (for some unknown reason!!!)

"The question is ......."

Anyway, where I take issue with you is:-

In regards the comment that Gayle "thought he was being funny" and that "West Indians may treat women differently", on what exactly do you base those opinions of yours?

Simply, as is now in the public arena via Shane Watson, Gayle has a reputation (not that he is the only one to have a "reputation") so let's put the fact before the fiction and ask why then did Chanel 10 approach Gayle asking him for an interview after his dismissal?

Where was their care and responsibility (as with Channel 9 and Fevola)?

In terms of West Indians per se and "may treat their women differently", I have been fortunate enough to know West Indian (representative because there is no West Indies) cricketers since the early 1960's including because they played some of their (legendary) cricket at the time in Adelaide representing District Clubs and South Australia - so, from my associations and friendships which date from then, I would refute that West Indians "may treat their women differently".

[ripplug66]

To respond (for some unknown reason!!!)

"The question is ......."

Anyway, where I take issue with you is:-

In regards the comment that Gayle "thought he was being funny" and that "West Indians may treat women differently", on what exactly do you base those opinions of yours?

Simply, as is now in the public arena via Shane Watson, Gayle has a reputation (not that he is the only one to have a "reputation") so let's put the fact before the fiction and ask why then did Chanel 10 approach Gayle asking him for an interview after his dismissal?

Where was their care and responsibility (as with Channel 9 and Fevola)?

In terms of West Indians per se and "may treat their women differently", I have been fortunate enough to know West Indian (representative because there is no West Indies) cricketers since the early 1960's including because they played some of their (legendary) cricket at the time in Adelaide representing District Clubs and South Australia - so, from my associations and friendships which date from then, I would refute that West Indians "may treat their women differently".

I base my opinion on Gayle thinking he was being funny because he basically said that later on. I base my opinion on how West Indians treating women differently from years of seeing cricketers out and about and a Jamaican married to my sister in law and also people with knowledge who I heard on the radio later that week. And channel 10 have every right to interview who they want and the person interviewing should be expected to be treated like any other person would be. He made runs very quickly so would have been in a good mood. You will notice they don't interview people who fail because they use common sense. Can you explain your position and what your post meant in this situation.

[santazzi]

His gender may be relevant, as may his position, but of what relevance is the guy's skin colour?

Right or wrong, and for whatever reason, he's defending a dark skinned person against a fair skinned person.

Seems a bit of a cheap shot; the type that's becoming more and more common on social media these days.

He's representative of the boys' club attitudes that dominate our mainstream sporting cuture. His skin colour is only relevant to me in that he's just another Cricket Australia apparatchik defending the party territory. Not too many in positions of power in Cricket Australia, or on air in Channel 9 and 10's cricket coverage, or in the AFL who aren't white, middle aged men and they all have a kind of boys' club banter and attitude.
So I mentioned his colour only because it's representative of the establishment stereotype.

Your comment still had racist overtones as does the one above.


What would you say if I said that the whole overblown sorry saga had racist overtones to me.

A whole bunch of uptight whities getting offended because a good looking rich talented black guy had the nerve to ask a pretty white girl to share a drink with him should his side be fortunate enough to win.

Because that is exactly what happened.

Stop posting sensible stuff Saynta. You are spoiling my fun (I am looking at you too White Winmar !!!). I just love the hysteria........

[Bunk_Moreland]

This is a forum for the St Kilda FC supporters.

St Kilda FC compete in the AFL Competition, a competition where the 22 players are all male as is the remainder of the playing list.

This competition is a significantly physical contest played out exclusively by these young men.

The spectators are not gender based. And, indeed the administrations and the support staff are not gender based (altho they can, most obviously, not carry an entrenched vitriol toward males per se).

The question is, if certain posting on here are so driven by "your middle class, white man's world isn't the same anymore" (whatever that means but it appears vitriolic and hate driven on the basis of gender), why are individuals such as that posting on such a site as this and, you would also assess, attending AFL games and commenting on AFL games?

Simply, females can and do attain education and they can and do function in (and contribute to) society as do males.

As with males achieving, females can also achieve.

As with males underachieving, so can females underachieve.

But, as with males also, do not bring your under achievement to society, blaming your "middle class, white man's world".

Look at yourself and your entrenched, gender based and (obviously) all consuming vitriol.

Because that is what is holding you back - nothing else.

A very, very narrow view of society and a hateful and insecure (and maybe jealous) view of the normal interactions between females and males which are on view across normal society (thank goodness!) where females and males create opportunity both in business and in social settings (and there can be overlaps - how many have met their partners in a work place environment? And how many socialize after work with colleagues of either gender?).

Look another dinosaur justifying his opposition to equality and equal rights with assanine and fictitious strawman idiocies.

Too bad. Take your extreme doctriannaire chauvanist views and preach them to your brethren like Sam Newman or Tony Abbott.

Dont like the new world where people are treated with equal respect? Bad luck.

[To the top]

Just a couple of responses:-

" ... years of seeing cricketers out and about"

" ... a Jamaican married to my sister in law"

And so you conclude "West Indians may treat women differently".

Hmmm!!!

In regards the other poster and "your middle class, white man's world is not the same anymore".

Then you resort to the names and descriptions you resort to, concluding with "equal respect".


Hmmm!

And another incidental point, can I remind you that whatever your views, Tony Abbott is the ELECTED pm of Australia which means that over 50% of the Australian voting population voted for him - and I am male and I did not vote for him as did not a significant number of my very, very wide social circle.

So, did you vote for him to give him the majority of the floor of the House because, obviously, some females did?

Anyway having contributed on here whilst icing my knee pre my morning 5km run, I have now all but completed my after run icing so enjoy your life with all of your friends and acquaintances!

I am sure you have many - male and female!

[kosifantutti]

Only 32% voted for the liberal party in the last election. I don't know what that has to do with Dustin Martin.

[ripplug66]

Just a couple of responses:-

" ... years of seeing cricketers out and about"

" ... a Jamaican married to my sister in law"

And so you conclude "West Indians may treat women differently".

Hmmm!!!

In regards the other poster and "your middle class, white man's world is not the same anymore".

Then you resort to the names and descriptions you resort to, concluding with "equal respect".


Hmmm!

And another incidental point, can I remind you that whatever your views, Tony Abbott is the ELECTED pm of Australia which means that over 50% of the Australian voting population voted for him - and I am male and I did not vote for him as did not a significant number of my very, very wide social circle.

So, did you vote for him to give him the majority of the floor of the House because, obviously, some females did?

Anyway having contributed on here whilst icing my knee pre my morning 5km run, I have now all but completed my after run icing so enjoy your life with all of your friends and acquaintances!

I am sure you have many - male and female!

And I thought you said you based your opinion on a few you knew. Maybe I read it wrong. No read it right. Funny that you left out the bit about people with knowledge that I heard on the radio. Why was that? I could say Hmmm but have no interest in being like that. I will leave that for you.

Anyway this is completely off topic. Martin was in the wrong and so was Gayle. Neither girl had any fault initially. Martins crime is far worse than Gayle who should have apologised properly and than all should be forgiven. Martin will be suspended because an apology for what he did isn't good enough. Those blaming the girls at all for initial incident just don't get it.

[stevie]

Wouldn't surprise me if it was set up to supply more clickbait which has become the definition of modern media these days

[markp]

With all due respect exactly how did what Gayle said when he was asked to be interviewed on camera (and, significantly, accepted. So if his reputation as a "party guy" and a "flirt" is what it is, why was he asked in the first place? Bit the same as Fevola with a microphone at the Brownlow presentation - why? Who gave him the microphone?) after he had been dismissed in a 20/20 "cricket" game morph into "humiliating someone and sexual harassment in the work place" and "sexually harassing someone who is trying to do what they do for a living" and therefore "totally out of order"?

I struggle to accept that commenting on someone's eyes and suggesting that they have a drink after the game (noting that the players, the sponsors, the supporters and the media do congregate in proximity to a bar after a game - how do the media get their quotes otherwise? This happened in my day and from the invitations I receive today, still happens) is sexual harassment and a humiliation, noting the linking of these descriptions.

The lesson is that in today's society ANY guy has to be very, very, very careful in regards his actions - because he can be accused of anything by the other gender regardless of intent - or, indeed, fact.

And he is hung, drawn and quartered regardless - and more so if he defends himself.

Perhaps, at St Kilda matches (and all events) in the future we should have barricaded "Female Only" and "Male Only" sections at opposite ends of the venue for the viewing of a game or event - and patrons exiting the female section after the game/event have an hour's grace so they can clear the area and get home before the males are released.

And is it still appropriate for me to tell my wife (her in the kitchen preparing an evening meal) that her new hair style suits her?

Or is that now "sexual harassment in the work place"?

See how utterly stupid this becomes because someone reads into something what they read into it?

What is also troubling is that you sit next to some posting as they do on here at the footy - and engage in conversation with them - because they can read anything into anything.

And you are guilty as charged!

Having worked with victims of sexual harassment abuse quite extensively, it really doesn't feel right to put this in the same category... If is was to have happened say at a bar and the lady was a bartender, it wouldn't rate.
The fact that it happened on camera seems to be the defining factor RE how serious this is and that in it self doesn't fit into the sexual harassment stream.

Isn't it a fairly broad category though?

I'm sure this fits in somewhere, even if at the shallower end.

A couple of weeks ago I was walking down the street, and coming the other way was a young women, it was a really nice arvo and she looked like she was really pleased to be on her way home soaking up the sun and enjoying the moment, as we were about to pass one another a bunch of dudes in a car went past and honked her, yelling something inane and inaudible as they did, which caused her eyes and face to drop... her moment was visibly shattered.

Isn't that even somewhere in the category too?... Especially when you consider how constant stuff like that is.

[Moods]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/c ... m1tiy.html

A great article worth a read. Sums it up for me.

[markp]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/c ... m1tiy.html

A great article worth a read. Sums it up for me.

That's gold.

Yep, if Gayle wants to return to the paradigm of a bygone era then maybe the next time he's interviewed someone should offer him a banana, y'know, for a fun joke.

[skeptic]

I'm sure this fits in somewhere, even if at the shallower end.

A couple of weeks ago I was walking down the street, and coming the other way was a young women, it was a really nice arvo and she looked like she was really pleased to be on her way home soaking up the sun and enjoying the moment, as we were about to pass one another a bunch of dudes in a car went past and honked her, yelling something inane and inaudible as they did, which caused her eyes and face to drop... her moment was visibly shattered.

Isn't that even somewhere in the category too?... Especially when you consider how constant stuff like that is.

I guess you're pbly right. For some reason the public's response has really struck a cord for me... I think the key word that bothers me "harrassment". As someone that has quit a job due to pretty much being stalked by a colleague, with management saying it wasn't a work problem, it's bothered me but certainly the victim isn't at fault for the hysteria that followed

[samuraisaint]

I am a staunch believer in that consequences and penalties need to be applied in this instance as the reporter during her interview was not treated professionally or with due respect, but I found that article pretty offensive myself. The tone of it is like someone is being racist to someone else to teach them the importance of respecting others. I know that our media is not in the business of educating the masses, but this piece is really questionable.
And like Markp I recently witnessed an incident, while walking with two youngish female colleagues crossing the street in the evening going to a staff Xmas function, when they were abused by idiots in a car going passed, so I am firmly in the camp of people who are under no illusion as to the sexist behaviour women face in society.
But I didn't like the way that article went about addressing an extremely important issue.

[markp]

I am a staunch believer in that consequences and penalties need to be applied in this instance as the reporter during her interview was not treated professionally or with due respect, but I found that article pretty offensive myself. The tone of it is like someone is being racist to someone else to teach them the importance of respecting others. I know that our media is not in the business of educating the masses, but this piece is really questionable.
And like Markp I recently witnessed an incident, while walking with two youngish female colleagues crossing the street in the evening going to a staff Xmas function, when they were abused by idiots in a car going passed, so I am firmly in the camp of people who are under no illusion as to the sexist behaviour women face in society.
But I didn't like the way that article went about addressing an extremely important issue.

I reckon it was intended to seem initially like an appalling and offensive joke to make a very important point, which is that casual sexism is about as funny as casual racism... So I'd say it's a brave piece well done (though I was wincing at first!).

And he at least was only pretending.

[Moods]

I am a staunch believer in that consequences and penalties need to be applied in this instance as the reporter during her interview was not treated professionally or with due respect, but I found that article pretty offensive myself. The tone of it is like someone is being racist to someone else to teach them the importance of respecting others. I know that our media is not in the business of educating the masses, but this piece is really questionable.
And like Markp I recently witnessed an incident, while walking with two youngish female colleagues crossing the street in the evening going to a staff Xmas function, when they were abused by idiots in a car going passed, so I am firmly in the camp of people who are under no illusion as to the sexist behaviour women face in society.
But I didn't like the way that article went about addressing an extremely important issue.

I reckon it was intended to seem initially like an appalling and offensive joke to make a very important point, which is that casual sexism is about as funny as casual racism... So I'd say it's a brave piece well done (though I was wincing at first!).

And he at least was only pretending.

Sometimes ppl need it shoved in their face to understand the point I reckon. Racism was only one of the stereotypes in the article, most of it was making fun of dumb jock sportsmen. It was very confronting, but I like articles that make you really think about the issue, rather than just a writer expressing an opinion. I can understand ppl being offended by it, but in some respects that's the point. It IS offensive. We are more educated about racism (I believe) so better understand why it is offensive.

I'm sure we've all witnessed shocking sexist behaviour. Only very recently my 15 year old daughter had a friend over. She's a very attractive girl. As she was getting her things out of her mother's car in our driveway, a P plate car full of young blokes drove by, honked the horn, slowed down and yelled some pretty vulgar things at her. As she walked up the driveway I was in a state of disbelief. However the saddest thing is she just shrugged it off (which probably isn't sad, it's probably good) Now I consider myself a fairly knockabout sort of bloke, and when I told some ppl at work about it and how I appalled I was, they all laughed heartily at me saying 'You telling me you didn't do that as a young bloke Moods?' I probably did, but I guess that's the point. We need to change attitudes, or we all just stay the same. I have 2 daughters, and I want them to respect themselves and ensure that whatever guy they are with (either romantically or plutonically) respects them as well.

[st.byron]

Your comment still had racist overtones as does the one above.
What would you say if I said that the whole overblown sorry saga had racist overtones to me.

A whole bunch of uptight whities getting offended because a good looking rich talented black guy had the nerve to ask a pretty white girl to share a drink with him should his side be fortunate enough to win.

Because that is exactly what happened.

Disagree that there's any connection with Gayle being black in people condemning behaviour. Certainly not in my corner.
His behaviour was inappropriate. Not wildly so IMO, but inappropriate nevertheless. Maybe Chris, if you want to ask her out, do it off camera with some respect.

The subsequent allegation of Gayle exposing himself to a woman in the changing room, is just that. An allegation. Some on here, especially 'gosainters', have completely failed to see the difference between a woman walking into a change room and coming across a naked man and that man deliberately exposing himself to her with a lewd comment. It now turns out that West Indies management was aware of 'issues' during that tour connected with sexual harrassment of a woman in the change room. But the way that allegation was slapped down out of hand as 'opportunistic' by Gayle's franchise boss, speaks about the culture of entrenched closed ranks boys' club that dominates sporting culture. And it's a fact that that culture is dominated by middle aged white men who guard their establishment territory with their blokey banter and sexist culture.

[Goose is king]

So what's worse people?
What Gayle did or Hamish McLachlan?
I think Hamish was far worse

[Moods]

So what's worse people?
What Gayle did or Hamish McLachlan?
I think Hamish was far worse

Not even close. Hamish is mates with the woman and even so, offered a genuine apology to her on air. It (the hug) was also in context with what she was saying re not being able to escape him or something along those lines.

They were two colleagues horsing around. Not a reporter interviewing a guy she barely knows - who later offered the barest of apologies, ie I was joking but if anyone's offended I'm sorry.