St Kilda condemns Frawley's joke about Caroline Wilson

[degruch]

Move on? Surely not! There is so much outrage...the same outrage over and over!

The defenders of the downtrodden comedic multi-millionaire football personalities keep coming in waves against the mighty social justice league, chanting 'just jokes maaaate' as they scale the ivory towers armed with intimidating commentary...I'm sure I saw this play out on Game of Thrones. Will they defeat the vast hoards of PC lefties, university students, academics, femmo's, White Ribbon campaigners, 'Chaser' fans, SBS viewers, tofu eaters, Prius drivers and live to tell a dark, non-sacrosanct, but in no way misogynistic gag at the next family BBQ without fear of public ridicule???

OUTRAGEOUS!!!

I reckon we ought to stick to football.

[Johnny Member]

So many people have missed the point on this.

Not surprised by that though.

[freely]

Stewart Lee's take... very funny... language warning...!

Priceless. I hope the Eddie-defenders are bothering to give this a look.

[samoht]

Alcohol is said to loosen the jaw and bring out the truth - but with Eddie it's his misguided sense of humour, as someone pointed out earlier.
The remark was not directed towards women in general. He was once again a victim of his on-air antics.

And for Eddie's info:
Banter is a friendly exchange, the teasing between friends - but that's not what happened here.

[saynta]

I think it's hilarious how many self appointed moral guardians have been shown up on this issue. So many have been so appalled at the "violence" of a joke implying that a disliked "woman" (not a person note, a woman) being drowned. The overwrought reactions because it is a woman reveal your lies - you care not for equality, you see it as a special "crime" because it's a woman, and thus deserving of a special new level of faux outrage. I just about guarantee that had the comment been aimed at Damian Barrett, most have you would have joined in on the "gag". If you were genuinely engaged in the pursuit of equality, as opposed to virtue signalling, the gender of the "victim" would be irrelevant.

For all the references to misogyny, sexism and "blokeness" etc, the majority of the outraged add up to little more than puffed up social justice warriors making sure that your friends notice your high moral fibre. The fact that you unquestioningly gobble up all of the myths and propaganda spewed out by third wave feminist militants without a word of question, and ask for more, makes me sick.

The facts are that in the western world there has never been a more privileged group than the modern middle-class female, they are ahead of males on every key measure you can name:
Homelessness - 80% males
Suicide - 80% males
Violence - 80% male victims
Murder - 70% male victims
Education - 60% of university entrants are female
Health - spending on females is 3 times that on males - more males die of gender specific illness than females
Industrial Accident deaths - 96% males

If any of the outraged bothered to do any of their own research and reading rather than hopping on the latest trendy social media bandwagon, then you might be able to have a proper discussion, rather than regurgitate media driven slogans....

You make a valid point, several in fact.

[saynta]

Another valid point of view.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio ... db7e01c6db


"VIOLENCE against women is too important an issue to be misused to score cheap points against media and football personalities. Football’s ugly underbelly and frequently backward attitude towards women is an issue I’ve written about extensively, which is why I find the current outrage absurd.

If you were to believe the Twitter-inspired lynch mob, AFL club presidents Eddie McGuire and James Brayshaw, and their accomplices across two radio stations, were plotting to drown journalist Caroline Wilson because she’s female. A less hysterical assessment is that a bunch of footy heavyweights maliciously joked about violence against women, but even that is, at best, a warped interpretation of what occurred.

Do those who are calling for sanctions, resignations and re-education programs really think that Wilson was targeted because she is female? There’s good reason why this particular maelstrom took six days to reach its zenith: it warrants a shake of the head, not a press conference starring AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan.

If you want to see abhorrent treatment of a victim of violence by the football media, then look no further than the nausea-inducing article The Age published on the day Nick Stevens was sentenced to prison for repeatedly beating his former partner. The piece was full of unnamed former teammates and officials singing Stevens’s praises and making excuses for his “tragic” downfall, with not one word of concern for the woman he terrorised.

The AFL proved that brand protection is a far greater priority than the treatment of women when it victimised a young woman who dared come forward after being verbally abused and threatened by a drunken footballer.

The Dustin Martin affair was twisted by the AFL to make the victim look like the malefactor.

Dustin Martin’s affair was twisted by the AFL to make the victim look like the malefactor.

Wilson herself played a not insignificant role in further traumatising “Tracy”. Not long after Martin called Tracy and offered an apology, Wilson all but identified the victim, which led to her receiving vile online abuse, including death threats. Today, an understandably upset Tracy called out the hypocrisy of those within the football world who failed her.

“I find it laughable that Caroline Wilson is so outraged by Eddie’s clearly tongue-in-cheek remark and claims that ‘a line needs to be drawn in the sand against violent comments against women’. This is the same woman who had no problem with identifying me as a victim on radio after one of her beloved Richmond players slammed a fist in to the wall next to my head,” she said.

“I can only wish the AFL showed me the same support publicly they have afforded to her.

“If the AFL are truly serious about curbing violence against women, why am I still yet to have been contacted by Kate Jenkins who is supposedly conducting a review of the AFL’s respect and responsibility to women policy?

“Wasn’t that review going to be concluded within weeks of the appalling behaviour I was subjected to by Dustin Martin, Richmond Football Club and the AFL?

“I think the public are absolutely sick of tripe they seem to trot out when it suits their cause.”

McGuire and co’s admittedly unfunny jokes weren’t at the expense of a victim of violence or a woman with no voice. Wilson is a powerful figure within the game and has been for decades; she is not a victim in any sense of the word.

One of the reasons Wilson is a compelling commentator is that she doesn’t hold back; whether she’s excoriating targets in print, radio or TV, Caro, as she is known, is a fearsome operator. She has succeeded in a male-dominated field not because of tokenism but because she’s great at her job.

If the jokes aimed at Wilson were in any way connected to her gender then I’d be the first to call out the sexism, but the same banter about “staying under” was aimed at other participants and prospective participants of the Big Freeze.

Is Wilson immune from criticism and mockery because she is female? That would be akin to me declaring anyone who doesn’t agree with every word I write is a sexist or racist.

It’s disappointing to see empowered Western women so keen to wrap themselves in the warm cloak of victimhood.

McLachlan claimed today that comments like McGuire’s were linked to a culture that encouraged violence against women.

The spurious links between jokes, language and violence are worthy of a column for another day. But, suffice to say, serious issues like domestic violence should not be conflated with trivial nonsense nor should we accept questionable research as fact.

Nor should we blithely allow totalitarian censors to dictate what can or can’t be joked about.

Comedian Ricky Gervais who jokes about everything from the holocaust to incest said it best: “Just because you’re offended, doesn’t mean you’re right.”

Rita Panahi is a Herald Sun columnist

[samoht]

The truth is in the mind of the perceiver. It's whatever you want to make of it... open to individual interpretation (including Caro's).

[magnifisaint]

So many people have missed the point on this.

Not surprised by that though.

What is it?

[To the top]

This is a very complex issue.

I am one who believes there is a reason behind everything - and you research the reason before arriving at opinion, opinion which can form the basis of meaningful remedy.

Unless you know "Why?" you can not address the issue at hand.

From my observations, no one goes to the "Why?" in the domestic violence conversation - and no doubt there are a raft of reasons including father's having paltry if any access to their children - and paying Child Support regardless.

For every action there is a reaction - and in instances that reaction is crass and illegal, making a fraught situations worse.

The default promoted in society today, without reserve, is the "Violence against women and THEIR children" model, which is selective in the extreme targeting gender exclusively.

What this does, and the presentation of Batty to the Family Court of Australia promoted yesterday, is that it all adds to the same default model, the model of "Violence against women and their children" and it entrenches that model, exclusively creating the climate for further acts of retribution.

No doubt the time (and expense) of having contested matters at The Family Court of Australia is debilitating, including in respect to maintaining employment - and that is before the permanence of majority parenting responsibilities courtesy of Court Orders is a fact for a parent in full time employment.

Don't ever believe that the work place is what it says it is in regards "flexible, family friendly" employment.

The time that contested matters are before that Court needs to be addressed. As does the recourse for children to be heard thru the Family Court of Australia Counseling services.

What Batty says, that if there is allegation of violence then the matters should be "fast tracked" at Court will lead to a further epidemic of false allegation.

The Court can play a timely part immediately, including because a parent denying an allegation can rely on the defense "X number of people lived in that home, so please ask because I have nothing to hide. The allegations are false and are made for a reason" can have that defense tested - so it is not exclusively a matter of someone's word against that of someone else.

What is this brief summary leading to?

That males have to be very, very careful in today's society because there is a presumption of guilt whenever an allegation is made against a father - the "Violence against women and their children" exclusive presentation has seen to that.

This is a gender issue, not an incident issue.

So Maguire and his uneducated side kicks have given opportunity for the "Violence against women and their children" lobby, which unfortunately has control of this issue for their own outcomes, to further cement that misrepresentation to the detriment of all males and to the detriment of their children, children they seek to protect.

For that they are guilty in today's society.

The end event is where does that place a father until some 2 years later and a Family Court of Australia Judge commences his summing up by referring to a Family Report prepared by the Court and noting "Because of our mum hitting us, we want to live with Dad", and then details the specifics of events included in that Family Report as further consideration in awarding the principal parenting to the father?

Maguire and his like "cronies" just make it so much harder - because they are uneducated fools of the first order.

They have absolutely no idea.

Anyone supporting Maguire and his cronies are similarly labeled.

[Dis Believer]

The default promoted in society today, without reserve, is the "Violence against women and THEIR children" model, which is selective in the extreme targeting gender exclusively.

Indeed a worthy contribution (to which we have become accustomed TOT), and this point is particularly salient - given that children are statistically twice as likely to suffer abuse at the hands of their biological mother as they are at the hands of their biological father!

Makes you realise how ideologically driven those who perpetuate the "Violence against women and THEIR children" narrative are.......and makes it apparent as simply the next incarnation of the old, de-bunked, Duluth model for domestic violence.

[White Winmar]

I think it's hilarious how many self appointed moral guardians have been shown up on this issue. So many have been so appalled at the "violence" of a joke implying that a disliked "woman" (not a person note, a woman) being drowned. The overwrought reactions because it is a woman reveal your lies - you care not for equality, you see it as a special "crime" because it's a woman, and thus deserving of a special new level of faux outrage. I just about guarantee that had the comment been aimed at Damian Barrett, most have you would have joined in on the "gag". If you were genuinely engaged in the pursuit of equality, as opposed to virtue signalling, the gender of the "victim" would be irrelevant.

For all the references to misogyny, sexism and "blokeness" etc, the majority of the outraged add up to little more than puffed up social justice warriors making sure that your friends notice your high moral fibre. The fact that you unquestioningly gobble up all of the myths and propaganda spewed out by third wave feminist militants without a word of question, and ask for more, makes me sick.

The facts are that in the western world there has never been a more privileged group than the modern middle-class female, they are ahead of males on every key measure you can name:
Homelessness - 80% males
Suicide - 80% males
Violence - 80% male victims
Murder - 70% male victims
Education - 60% of university entrants are female
Health - spending on females is 3 times that on males - more males die of gender specific illness than females
Industrial Accident deaths - 96% males

If any of the outraged bothered to do any of their own research and reading rather than hopping on the latest trendy social media bandwagon, then you might be able to have a proper discussion, rather than regurgitate media driven slogans....

Hear, hear, TB. The whole incident passed without notice for a week, before the "outraged and offended" industry made it an issue. Not a single one of the many hundreds of thousands of people who heard it live considered it serious enough to warrant phoning in a complaint on talk back, nor sending a complaint to the AFL nor Collingwood. I believe the "banter" was in poor taste and was a personal attack on Wilson, but to conclude it was misogynistic and would lead to violence against women is typical of the garbage espoused by the domestic violence industry.

Wilson copped it because she attacks others. Eddie, JB, Spud and Carey have all been subjected to her venom, some of it quite improper, but when it's a woman dishing it out to men, it's ok. She is controversial and on occasion just plain nasty. She also uses her position and power to run personal agendas. And she lies. St.Kilda "schoolgirl" anyone? When you operate in that space, you draw fire. I know Rita Panahi personally and you should see some of the nasty s*** that she receives on a daily basis, merely for expressing her opinion. All people in the "opinion industry" get it. An apology for the comments? Sure. A national issue, calls for sacking, the end of his career? Please. I noted with some bemusement, Tony Shaw said exactly the same thing and was defended. Why? Apparently, saying something offensive to someone's face makes it ok. And if you're not any enemy of Caroline Wilson, it's ok too. All the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork, kicking the corpse and cashing in on another gilt-edged opportunity to push their disingenuous agendas. Good grief!

[degruch]

Another valid point of view.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio ... db7e01c6db

I'm not sure I wouldn't term that a complete whitewash! From a centre-right, AFL friendly paper, not a surprise...they know who they're selling to.

I'm glad our club has come out and made a strong statement against bullying and misogynistic tinted language, stronger than the AFL in fact. It clearly reflects that at least the club (and a number here) believes such views aren't holier-than-thou PC mumbo jumbo, they're finally the social norm.

I completely empathise with Tracy's frustration, there should have been some serious action re: Martin, but 2 wrongs don't make a right...to get the point across you need to leverage every opportunity, otherwise you get the same result. Here's a cracker of an article (Eddie's biography quote is very appropriate) that covers her situation, as well as the bigger picture:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... l-football

"There’s a telling anecdote near the start of journalist Michael Bodey’s 2015 biography of Eddie McGuire, one that has gathered an added layer of pathos in the past two days. It describes a young McGuire trailing brother Frank – seven years senior – and a group of his friends to the local swimming pool in Broadmeadows.

Upon arrival, young Eddie is thrown into the deep end and cruelly “bombed” by each of the older boys. Rather than jump in and save his kid brother from the ordeal, Frank stands by and watches safe in the knowledge that Eddie, scrappy and undaunted, “wouldn’t cry and wouldn’t drown”. McGuire has always delighted in selling himself as an underdog and here was, you’d imagine, not only a formative experience but maybe also his resonant image of the bully – holding the weakling under water and outnumbering them.

It’s also more than a little pathetic to note how little evolved from this schoolyard mentality McGuire and his ilk are as grown men. Joking with his media mates last week about holding Age football writer Caroline Wilson under water, McGuire also disproved his brother’s theory about the crying – all it apparently takes is a woman with a strong enough opinion to challenge the blokey Boy’s Own cocoon he’s lived in for his entire professional life.

Eddie McGuire speaks on Triple M radio on 13 June and jokes that he would pay money to see the Age sports journalist Caroline Wilson slide into an ice bath – and even more if she were to ‘stay under’
Startling here – as with McGuire’s disgraceful King Kong “joke” about Adam Goodes – is not so much that a high profile football figure could say something offensive, because god knows that laundry list needs a few staples, but that such horrendous clangers should so regularly come from the mouth of a man whose stepping stone to power was broadcast media. By this point McGuire knows, or certainly should know, the power of words. For years it was he who would turn up on the doorstep of sporting identities who’d done or said something stupid. Now he can’t stop doing it himself.

McGuire’s defence of himself so far would be a little more laughable if it didn’t take the entire world outside his bubble for rubes. His claim that his comments were just “banter” might work OK if he’d, say, accidentally shared a Lad Bible post on his Facebook page, but it doesn’t quite cut the mustard when you’re joking about drowning a woman as you’re in the process of launching not one but two women’s professional sporting teams under your football club’s banner.

Lily-livered and worthy of scorn too are the initial statement of the AFL and the indecision of its chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, who also dropped the ball unforgivably in the early stages of the Goodes saga. The league has again proved itself incapable of an immediate and decisive solution to a problem unless it involves throwing vast wads of cash around. Of McGuire’s disgraceful “banter”, the league’s first statement added this highly problematic qualifier: “although seeking to be light-hearted, the language and tenor of the wording could be seen to be seen to be supporting violent attitudes or actions against women...” That is the sound of institutional gutlessness.

If you extend your gaze of contempt beyond McGuire and the league, there’s plenty else about this affair that highlights the priorities of football and those who cover it. McGuire has and will continue to draw ire from multiple media outlets who currently employ former AFL star Wayne Carey (his paid opinions have been available on the league website too, remember), who laughed along to McGuire’s joke and who you may also know from interactions with the public including but not limited to the time he groped a woman on the street and told her to “get a bigger pair of tits.”

Having served the penance of a nominal few years out of the spotlight following even more serious indiscretions, Carey is back grinning away from broadcast panels during the league’s official women’s round. No prominent Australian organisation bakes a cognitive dissonance cake quite as sweet as the AFL’s. It’s probably those extra sprinklings of audacity that achieve the flavour. But this is the milieu in which McGuire operates – a land of zero consequence in which the behavioural bar is something the lads might trip over on the way to pie night. Also complicit in McGuire’s “banter” was North Melbourne chairman James Brayshaw and All-Australian selector Danny Frawley, the latter of whom currently works in the coaching ranks at St Kilda alongside the league’s first full-time female coach, Peta Searle. Frawley issued apologies on Sunday and Monday morning, and Brayshaw was expected to follow suit in his radio show on Monday afternoon.

Used by this stage to encountering comments as unsavoury as McGuire’s, Wilson nevertheless described them as “really vicious language” and concluded, “I don’t accept them as playful banter, I’ve got to say.” Having just been described by a senior football figure and a prominent player in the new women’s league as “the black widow”, you can hardly blame her.

But the problem here is that there’s far too much precedent for us to believe that McGuire will face any lasting punishment. In that sense, his blasé response to the controversy shows how well he knows the game. This is the real embarrassment for football – not that it’s incapable of involving women, because it now does so in performative and often crowd-pleasing ways, but that its cult of personality and craven worship of bullies makes rank hypocrisy like this its default philosophical setting".

[samoht]

and the irony is (re: Goodes) ..... Maguire (English pronunciation: /məˈɡwʌɪə/, also spelled "Mac Guire" or "McGuire") is an Irish surname from the Gaelic Mac Uidhir, which is "son of Odhar" or "son of the dun or dark colored one".

[saintly]

I'd have laughed it off as a bit of banter, but Caro apparently took great offence.

Spudder apparently rang her and apologised before this all blew up. Move along

Caro apparently did take offence. However they did the exact same schtick on 3AW with Caro, and it was apparently a great laugh.

Totally different from what was happening on MMM. Caro wasn't there. She said that herself

[saintly]

Alcohol is said to loosen the jaw and bring out the truth - but with Eddie it's his misguided sense of humour, as someone pointed out earlier.
The remark was not directed towards women in general. He was once again a victim of his on-air antics.

And for Eddie's info:
Banter is a friendly exchange, the teasing between friends - but that's not what happened here.

Banter is also when the friends are in the room talking. Thats not what happened

Personally, if someone had said that about me, i would not have taken it jokingly. I would be rightfully upset and would want an apology.

[The OtherThommo]

Ok. This is a decisive issue. So can I put it aside for a moment.

Genuine question.

What is the point of Eddie McGuire? Yes he made money and is President of Collingwood. But what is his actual point? Why does he still hold any clout in Melbourne? Why is he even still a 'thing'? Why is he a public figure? What does he actually do? Just a talking head? I am unsure what role he serves.

Are you serious Congo? McGuire would be one of the most networked guys in Australia. He's a major power broker in the Australian sporting and business communities. President of Collingwood the biggest sporting club in Australia. WAsn't he like president of the Australian Athletics board or something? He's involved with the booming 20-20 cricket. He was head of Nine network at one point and would have tentacles all through tv and radio networks. He's very close with the Packer clan. Wasn't there talk he would be our President under a republic? He is seriously tapped into the ALP and may well run for Parliament at some point. He would be on many company boards both private and charitable. He is ubiquitous on tv and radio reaching millions across the country and writes newspaper columns. His proposals (such as selling Etihad) go straight to Victorian and Australian ministers for serious consideration. He would have connections with many wealthy people and families in Australia. And he's managed to keep his everyman Eddie from Broadie persona in tact despite being rich and powerful. He's a player basically with a lot of power.

And, he's a mate of Gatto's.

Your point?

[The OtherThommo]

How anyone can read that 'banter' and not regard it as ugly and offensive I don't know.

The very epitome of jock boys locker room ignorance for all to see. "The Footy Show' culture.

Not surprising to find people defending it. I notice they're mostly blokes. Yeah it's all just PC crap. She should man up and take it.
I wonder if that kind of 'banter' might in any way reflect a culture that doesn't want to know about domestic violence and abuse. The essence of unhealthy masculinity.

Hilarious to publicly talk about drowning a woman. Bloody Caro. She should just stop challenging the Boys' Club and let their misogyny run free.

do you honestly believe their banter in any way makes you view women as somehow deserving of violence? do you in any way think they had violent intent? of course not. no one sane would. humour takes things to ridiculous extremes. that what it is - ridiculous. of course it offends some, but here's the thing - everything offends some. the sydney mardi gra offends many. tough. live with it. they have a right to express themselves. yes they promote a lifestyle many feel abhorrent. deal with it. and deal with this. you don't pick and choose. you don't assume others are not so moral or as smart as you and hence we need to protect society from influencing those people - the ones that aren't you.

Even Gill the Dill referenced the established link b/w 'casual' statements of violence, and demonstrated outcomes of violence as a result.

It's actually a 'thing'.

[The OtherThommo]

From she who did blaze the trail;

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/e ... pnjt3.html

And, I still love the irony of people blathering on about "political correctness' taking over every facet of modern society, just to stifle any and all debate.

Seems to me that's now the politically correct thing to do.

And, Bluthy, in reference to the 'lefties' becoming 'fascist' (which would be a monumental achievement, in itself), here's another point of view;

https://overland.org.au/2016/06/politic ... ight-wing/

If one is to use 'political', it surely references the prevailing politics of the time. And, so it has;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

"The previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[5][45] Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as "politically correct".[17] In May 1991, at a commencement ceremony for a graduating class of the University of Michigan, then U.S. President George H.W. Bush used the term in his speech: "The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits."

"After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US.[5] It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in culture and political debate more broadly, as well as in academia."

In essence, it became just another form of propaganda co-opted by idealogues.

I'm no fan of Wilson - I reckon she's a lazy insider. But, she didn't react based on gender. She reacted because a sook (one who is perceived as culturally powerful) couldn't cop argued criticism, and resorted to his common routine when challenged - lead the groupthink in casual statements riddled with references to violence.

And, I reckon Spud got the rounds of the kitchen when he got home (daughters, no sons, IIRC). Gerard Healy stated he didn't appreciate the perception until he spoke to his eldest daughter.

Funny what happens when you consider how the 'other' might feel.

[The OtherThommo]

and the irony is (re: Goodes) ..... Maguire (English pronunciation: /məˈɡwʌɪə/, also spelled "Mac Guire" or "McGuire") is an Irish surname from the Gaelic Mac Uidhir, which is "son of Odhar" or "son of the dun or dark colored one".

Now that's excellent.

[desertsaint]

How anyone can read that 'banter' and not regard it as ugly and offensive I don't know.

The very epitome of jock boys locker room ignorance for all to see. "The Footy Show' culture.

Not surprising to find people defending it. I notice they're mostly blokes. Yeah it's all just PC crap. She should man up and take it.
I wonder if that kind of 'banter' might in any way reflect a culture that doesn't want to know about domestic violence and abuse. The essence of unhealthy masculinity.

Hilarious to publicly talk about drowning a woman. Bloody Caro. She should just stop challenging the Boys' Club and let their misogyny run free.

do you honestly believe their banter in any way makes you view women as somehow deserving of violence? do you in any way think they had violent intent? of course not. no one sane would. humour takes things to ridiculous extremes. that what it is - ridiculous. of course it offends some, but here's the thing - everything offends some. the sydney mardi gra offends many. tough. live with it. they have a right to express themselves. yes they promote a lifestyle many feel abhorrent. deal with it. and deal with this. you don't pick and choose. you don't assume others are not so moral or as smart as you and hence we need to protect society from influencing those people - the ones that aren't you.

Even Gill the Dill referenced the established link b/w 'casual' statements of violence, and demonstrated outcomes of violence as a result.

It's actually a 'thing'.

no it's not - there is no 'casual' evidence* it's a 'thang' that some think. so many variables, so many ingredients. it's certainly more a 'thang' that humour promotes longer life - but no one is silly enough to claim eddie's saving lives.

*Based on the empirical evidence, exposure to disparagement is not likely to create or reinforce negative stereotypes or prejudiced atitudes. http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamli ... uences.pdf

"Contrary to intuition and speculation by laypeople, humor theorists, and other social scientists, recent empirical studies have not found evidence that exposure to disparagement humor affects either the accessibility or evaluative content of the recipient's stereotypes or attitudes toward the targetedg roup. It does not appear that exposure to disparagement humor reinforces negative images of the targeted group"(Fordetal.,2001;Olsonet.al.,1999)

And you know why that is? It is because we recognise it as a joke. Those that are mysoginistic will remain so regardless. Those that are capable of violence against certain groups will remain so. There's the rub - social engineers would rather they not remain so, and will curb freedoms to make it so - even freedoms that are simply caught up in the wash.

[freely]

You're being a bit selective, desertsaint - that article also says:

" Exposure to disparagement humor does, however, have a negative social consequence: It increases tolerance of discriminatory events for people high in prejudice toward the disparaged group ... Our theory delineates the processes by which disparagement humor creates a normative climate of tolerance of discrimination - the social conditions that encourage the expression of prejudice."

It's not really something you want to encourage, eh?

[satchmo]

I'd have laughed it off as a bit of banter, but Caro apparently took great offence.

Spudder apparently rang her and apologised before this all blew up. Move along

Caro apparently did take offence. However they did the exact same schtick on 3AW with Caro, and it was apparently a great laugh.

Totally different from what was happening on MMM. Caro wasn't there. She said that herself

... but exactly the same joke. Almost the same script.

[suss]

I think it's hilarious how many self appointed moral guardians have been shown up on this issue. So many have been so appalled at the "violence" of a joke implying that a disliked "woman" (not a person note, a woman) being drowned. The overwrought reactions because it is a woman reveal your lies - you care not for equality, you see it as a special "crime" because it's a woman, and thus deserving of a special new level of faux outrage. I just about guarantee that had the comment been aimed at Damian Barrett, most have you would have joined in on the "gag". If you were genuinely engaged in the pursuit of equality, as opposed to virtue signalling, the gender of the "victim" would be irrelevant.

For all the references to misogyny, sexism and "blokeness" etc, the majority of the outraged add up to little more than puffed up social justice warriors making sure that your friends notice your high moral fibre. The fact that you unquestioningly gobble up all of the myths and propaganda spewed out by third wave feminist militants without a word of question, and ask for more, makes me sick.

The facts are that in the western world there has never been a more privileged group than the modern middle-class female, they are ahead of males on every key measure you can name:
Homelessness - 80% males
Suicide - 80% males
Violence - 80% male victims
Murder - 70% male victims
Education - 60% of university entrants are female
Health - spending on females is 3 times that on males - more males die of gender specific illness than females
Industrial Accident deaths - 96% males

If any of the outraged bothered to do any of their own research and reading rather than hopping on the latest trendy social media bandwagon, then you might be able to have a proper discussion, rather than regurgitate media driven slogans....

You make a valid point, several in fact.

No he doesn't. Most of it's crap.

[Con Gorozidis]

Ok. This is a decisive issue. So can I put it aside for a moment.

Genuine question.

What is the point of Eddie McGuire? Yes he made money and is President of Collingwood. But what is his actual point? Why does he still hold any clout in Melbourne? Why is he even still a 'thing'? Why is he a public figure? What does he actually do? Just a talking head? I am unsure what role he serves.

Are you serious Congo? McGuire would be one of the most networked guys in Australia. He's a major power broker in the Australian sporting and business communities. President of Collingwood the biggest sporting club in Australia. WAsn't he like president of the Australian Athletics board or something? He's involved with the booming 20-20 cricket. He was head of Nine network at one point and would have tentacles all through tv and radio networks. He's very close with the Packer clan. Wasn't there talk he would be our President under a republic? He is seriously tapped into the ALP and may well run for Parliament at some point. He would be on many company boards both private and charitable. He is ubiquitous on tv and radio reaching millions across the country and writes newspaper columns. His proposals (such as selling Etihad) go straight to Victorian and Australian ministers for serious consideration. He would have connections with many wealthy people and families in Australia. And he's managed to keep his everyman Eddie from Broadie persona in tact despite being rich and powerful. He's a player basically with a lot of power.

And, he's a mate of Gatto's.

Your point?

I know he is well connected. I am just still not entirely sure what public function he serves. He is just ubiquitous. But you have answered my question with a circular answer.

Question: Why is Eddie everywhere?

Answer: Because he is everywhere!

I guess he must have just networked like crazy in the 90s and used his C grade celebrity to climb up the social ladder. I guess I just struggle to understand how that all works. I think maybe you nail it when you say he is linked to the Packer clan. I dont think AA president means anything these days. I think that was just a con so he could grab land for Collingwood.

[Con Gorozidis]

Well Eddie will really be sorry now.
A boycott from Richmond players!
What a tragedy. No more great insightful interviews with 'Cotch'. How will they survive without 9thmond?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-06-21/t ... wning-jibe