Rumour Daisy Pearce to Geelong as an Assistant Coach

[Partridge]

It's not an even playing field, and all of you on here kicking up a stink about it, are completely glossing over that. Besides, she'd be ONE assistant coach. Even if she's sh*t, she's not the head coach - she's just one cog in the system. Give her a chance before you dismiss her...especially when we're only paying half price if we get her.

But nothing is an even playing field. Nothing.

For what it's worth I'd prefer the club paid the full amount. If it's a GFC employee they should pay for it I would have thought.

 

[Cataholic]

Agree.
Makes you wonder though, would Eddie Betts be at Geelong if we showed zero interest in his nephew?

Good question.

I have no idea, but family ties are often strong and influence decisions.

 

[Partridge]

Good question.

I have no idea, but family ties are often strong and influence decisions.

Especially at footy clubs. No shortage of untalented relatives (especially brothers) who got games (and sometimes careers) based on their family.

 

[goyoucatters]

So you're saying it's laughable to want someone to be qualified for their job?

So when you say "men have been the beneficiaries", do you mean all men, or just some? Does it include me? Am I risible and patronising?

I explained what I meant about how 'merit' is currently applied in the remainder of the post. No need to be obtuse in defence of your position. After all, most men still agree with you about this matter. It's just that I am not one of them.

And I definitely mean that men as a gender have been the beneficiaries of not applying real merit to many selection considerations where women are involved. It is self-evident that if women are wrongly overlooked in a number of these processes, men will triumph as a result.

And, to be clear, I definitely consider your viewpoint on this issue to be risible and patronising. And I fully accept that you would say the same about what I have posted as well.

Each to their own.

 

[Partridge]

I explained what I meant about how 'merit' is currently applied in the remainder of the post. No need to be obtuse in defence of your position. After all, most men still agree with you about this matter. It's just that I am not one of them.

And I definitely mean that men as a gender have been the beneficiaries of not applying real merit to many selection considerations where women are involved. It is self-evident that if women are wrongly overlooked in a number of these processes, men will triumph as a result.

And, to be clear, I definitely consider your viewpoint on this issue to be risible and patronising. And I fully accept that you would say the same about what I have posted as well.

Each to their own.

Absolutely. I want the best possible candidate. If that means we have 20 female coaches and 0 men, good. If it means the other way, good.

I don't know how I live with myself.

 

[feelinfeline]

I want the best possible candidate.

But you don't trust that our club will appoint them.

As someone else said, each to their own.

 

[goyoucatters]

Absolutely. I want the best possible candidate. If that means we have 20 female coaches and 0 men, good. If it means the other way, good.

I don't know how I live with myself.

In suggesting that these purported appointments (as things stand) would objectively be made entirely on merit, you again underline your blithe dismissal of the real issue.

 

[Shadow89]

But nothing is an even playing field. Nothing.

For what it's worth I'd prefer the club paid the full amount. If it's a GFC employee they should pay for it I would have thought.

Perhaps address the rest of the post, rather than picking and choosing what suits your agenda?

The whole point of the AFL paying 50% of the cost, is to encourage more clubs to take women on board as coaches - and in turn grow knowledge on both sides of the game. It's a scholarship of sorts, for a party within a certain field, that enables them to better compete.

I guess all those dictators and Russian oligarchs, along with LNP shills who give money en masse to all their 'connections' are so much more deserving...and we shouldn't try to fix that with sanctions, regulation or policy change...because ya know...nothing is an even playing field.

People from all aspects of society are afforded different opportunities - and those opportunities are almost always afforded to affluent white men from privileged backgrounds. But again, I guess none of that is worth changing, and women should never have marched, nor should slaves have revolted or gay people fought for acceptance - because ya know...nothing is an even playing field, hey?

I'm gonna leave it there, because with a comment like that and the single-minded attitude you've displayed, you're clearly someone that doesn't think it's even worth trying to level the playing field - in any aspect of society - and that's not someone I'm interested in continuing a discussion with.

 

[Partridge]

Perhaps address the rest of the post, rather than picking and choosing what suits your agenda?

The whole point of the AFL paying 50% of the cost, is to encourage more clubs to take women on board as coaches - and in turn grow knowledge on both sides of the game. It's a scholarship of sorts, for a party within a certain field, that enables them to better compete.

I guess all those dictators and Russian oligarchs, along with LNP shills who give money en masse to all their 'connections' are so much more deserving...and we shouldn't try to fix that with sanctions, regulation or policy change...because ya know...nothing is an even playing field.

People from all aspects of society are afforded different opportunities - and those opportunities are almost always afforded to affluent white men from privileged backgrounds. But again, I guess none of that is worth changing, and women should never have marched, nor should slaves have revolted or gay people fought for acceptance - because ya know...nothing is an even playing field, hey?

I'm gonna leave it there, because with a comment like that and the single-minded attitude you've displayed, you're clearly someone that doesn't think it's even worth trying to level the playing field - in any aspect of society - and that's not someone I'm interested in continuing a discussion with.

Couldn't be more wrong. I'd prefer the AFL wasn't involved.

Make it simpler. If the club wants her as an assistant coach, then make the same offer and pay her 100% from the club.

See, I'm pure evil.

 

[Partridge]

But you don't trust that our club will appoint them.

As someone else said, each to their own.

I think they've been too focused on revenue for a few years now. Hopefully it'll change with Hocking.

 

[goyoucatters]

Perhaps address the rest of the post, rather than picking and choosing what suits your agenda?

The whole point of the AFL paying 50% of the cost, is to encourage more clubs to take women on board as coaches - and in turn grow knowledge on both sides of the game. It's a scholarship of sorts, for a party within a certain field, that enables them to better compete.

I guess all those dictators and Russian oligarchs, along with LNP shills who give money en masse to all their 'connections' are so much more deserving...and we shouldn't try to fix that with sanctions, regulation or policy change...because ya know...nothing is an even playing field.

People from all aspects of society are afforded different opportunities - and those opportunities are almost always afforded to affluent white men from privileged backgrounds. But again, I guess none of that is worth changing, and women should never have marched, nor should slaves have revolted or gay people fought for acceptance - because ya know...nothing is an even playing field, hey?

I'm gonna leave it there, because with a comment like that and the single-minded attitude you've displayed, you're clearly someone that doesn't think it's even worth trying to level the playing field - in any aspect of society - and that's not someone I'm interested in continuing a discussion with.

But he really does. We just have to keep appointing people on merit. As we so often do these days.

After all, isn't it self-evident that white middle-aged (or elderly) males should run just about every aspect of our (somehow ironically diverse) world?

 

[Partridge]

But he really does. We just have to keep appointing people on merit. As we so often do these days.

After all, isn't it self-evident that white middle-aged (or elderly) males should run just about every aspect of our (somehow ironically diverse) world?

Find a line in the entire thread where anyone remotely came close to saying that.

Does that demographic apply to you as well by any chance? Or just those who dare to disagree?

 

[Micksy]

Headline at end of 2022 - Daisy succeeds Scott as coach of Cats

Worth a shot.

 

[Shadow89]

Couldn't be more wrong. I'd prefer the AFL wasn't involved.

Make it simpler. If the club wants her as an assistant coach, then make the same offer and pay her 100% from the club.

See, I'm pure evil.

That's not what you said at all. You said it should be based on merit. Why would any club take a chance on a woman that doesn't have the same connections as men, if they can just get a man for the same price who they'd be more confident in given their track record?

Just as scholarships are given to Indigenous Australians, and just as scholarships are provided to the underprivileged, so it is the same when it comes to a party like women who are significantly under-represented in the coaching fraternity within the sporting paradigm.

It's not an even playing field, so in order for it to be, an incentive has to be added for clubs to take a chance and walk away from that mentality of 'only hiring men, because only men can do the job.'

I floated the argument of equity vs equality, which explains how 'merit' or 'equality' is everyone starting from the same place...'equity' is others being given more of a leg up so they end up on the same level as others - especially if they don't have the same structural opportunities as others: e.g. minority, poor, under-educated, unhealthy, broken home etc. You don't get it though, so this is just a waste of time.

 

[Cataholic]

Absolutely. I want the best possible candidate. If that means we have 20 female coaches and 0 men, good. If it means the other way, good.

I don't know how I live with myself.

That's it..... 'the best possible candidate'.

Simple. No matter who they are.

 

[Turbocat]

Daisy Pearce to me represets all that the womans comp could be. The way she plays which is based around skills developed when younger, her story almost sounds like a version of Pollys handballs thru the car window , then she has been the face of the womens advancement into the main stream football template. Those who have dealt with her are loud in their praise of her knowledge, Leppitsch , Danger, Selwood and others... if the club land her, she will bring more to the club than just another ass coach. Just like Eddie, Id say that every one has something unique to our football dept. Everyone is an accumulation of attributes and I suspect DP's would be worth bringing in.

In the end we have had our fair share of ass coaches that saw some being great and others not so great, its hard to see a downside. If it works great, if its doest good try and move on.

 

[goyoucatters]

Find a line in the entire thread where anyone remotely came close to saying that.

Does that demographic apply to you as well by any chance? Or just those who dare to disagree?

You keep calling for people to be appointed on merit. I keep pointing out that this 'merit' you espouse is a farce, based on the clear evidence of how roles are lopsidedly awarded to the respective genders in our world today.

The demographic certainly applies to me. And, just like you, I'm permitted to dare to disagree. And I absolutely disagree with the archaic viewpoint that there is 'nothing to see here' on the issue of gender inequity when it comes to advancement opportunities in life.

Some facts that don't suit the 'merit' narrative that gets so much airtime in the world today...

Australian women retire on average with over 40% less superannuation than men.
Australia's full-time gender pay gap is still nearly 15%.
In 2019, just over 17% of CEO's globally were women.

Still, nothing to see here, of course. Let's just keep appointing people 'on merit'.

 

[catempire]

All the relentless banging on about 'merit' here is both predictable and laughable. You only have to spend five minutes considering the state of leadership in politics, corporations, sporting clubs and every other field of endeavour to find numerous examples of men who 'won' their roles purely on the basis of their gender, long before any considerations of real merit.

On the basis of the fifty years I've been alive, many, many women have been overlooked for roles, for no other reason than their gender. And men have been the beneficiaries of this inequity for just about forever. But as soon as someone starts talking about trying to right the clear inequity that exists, spurious claims about the primacy of merit emerge, to seek to kick the can a little further down the road. A vain attempt to prevent some measure of balance returning to the objective assessment of each candidate's 'merits' for any role you might care to consider.

The only reason that this form of specious argument still flies is because the concept of merit is actually inherently right, just and fair. Problem is, though, merit-based appointments between the two genders have run one way for so long that the prospect of redressing the imbalance simply by continuing the status quo is as risible and patronising as the men who perpetuate it.

I'd be all for 'merit', if it could actually be demonstrated that it is actually the objective basis for why we still live in a world where men basically run the show and women pretty much fill the gaps.

 

[Cataholic]

All the relentless banging on about 'merit' here is both predictable and laughable. You only have to spend five minutes considering the state of leadership in politics, corporations, sporting clubs and every other field of endeavour to find numerous examples of men who 'won' their roles purely on the basis of their gender, long before any considerations of real merit.

On the basis of the fifty years I've been alive, many, many women have been overlooked for roles, for no other reason than their gender. And men have been the beneficiaries of this inequity for just about forever. But as soon as someone starts talking about trying to right the clear inequity that exists, spurious claims about the primacy of merit emerge, to seek to kick the can a little further down the road. A vain attempt to prevent some measure of balance returning to the objective assessment of each candidate's 'merits' for any role you might care to consider.

The only reason that this form of specious argument still flies is because the concept of merit is actually inherently right, just and fair. Problem is, though, merit-based appointments between the two genders have run one way for so long that the prospect of redressing the imbalance simply by continuing the status quo is as risible and patronising as the men who perpetuate it.

I'd be all for 'merit', if it could actually be demonstrated that it is actually the objective basis for why we still live in a world where men basically run the show and women pretty much fill the gaps.

Good points.

In this particular instance, it depends on whether or not the GFC has the ability, willingness and honesty to lead the need for change by applying the 'concept of merit' in its purest form.

 

[goyoucatters]

Good points.

In this particular instance, it depends on whether or not the GFC has the ability, willingness and honesty to lead the need for change by applying the 'concept of merit' in its purest form.

As has been pointed out earlier, precisely because the concept of 'merit' has been so routinely misapplied between man and women over the years (without much sign of it changing at all), entities like the AFL are no longer leaving it to some idealistic notion of real merit to get more women involved in the game. If they did, I'm sure the first women's assistant coach in the AFL would still be a very long way off. After all, as has been pointed out, which woman can compete with '200 games of senior experience' or 'holding previous assistant coaching roles across the AFL'? It's not an objective benchmark to evaluate candidates; it's simply the easiest pathway to minimise and overlook the already estimable achievements of women in the sport they love.

So the only 'merit' analysis that Daisy needs to meet at this point is to be one of the six best women available to fill a role as an assistant coach in the AFL. A standard I believe she comfortably meets at this point.

 

[Partridge]

That's not what you said at all. You said it should be based on merit. Why would any club take a chance on a woman that doesn't have the same connections as men, if they can just get a man for the same price who they'd be more confident in given their track record?

Just as scholarships are given to Indigenous Australians, and just as scholarships are provided to the underprivileged, so it is the same when it comes to a party like women who are significantly under-represented in the coaching fraternity within the sporting paradigm.

It's not an even playing field, so in order for it to be, an incentive has to be added for clubs to take a chance and walk away from that mentality of 'only hiring men, because only men can do the job.'

I floated the argument of equity vs equality, which explains how 'merit' or 'equality' is everyone starting from the same place...'equity' is others being given more of a leg up so they end up on the same level as others - especially if they don't have the same structural opportunities as others: e.g. minority, poor, under-educated, unhealthy, broken home etc. You don't get it though, so this is just a waste of time.

There's the difference. I don't have the arrogance to tell you what you're thinking.

An interesting example of how to handle equity v equality was in the US Military. They recognised they had a race problem (this is decades ago), and they could have just hired based on quotas, or taken a different approach. What they said was "we're never lowering standards", but instead, made sure all candidates got trained up to be level at the starting line. It worked extremely well.

The book is called All That We Can Be. Point is they've got to be level at the starting line (or near enough, no one is ever level at anything, least of all in sport). But parachuting anyone in past that point without the needed ability doesn't help anyone (see Channel 7 commentary team).

 

[goyoucatters]

There's the difference. I don't have the arrogance to tell you what you're thinking.

An interesting example of how to handle equity v equality was in the US Military. They recognised they had a race problem (this is decades ago), and they could have just hired based on quotas, or taken a different approach. What they said was "we're never lowering standards", but instead, made sure all candidates got trained up to be level at the starting line. It worked extremely well.

The book is called All That We Can Be. Point is they've got to be level at the starting line (or near enough, no one is ever level at anything, least of all in sport). But parachuting anyone in past that point without the needed ability doesn't help anyone (see Channel 7 commentary team).

Somehow, though, you have the ability to supposedly quote me while quoting someone else entirely.

 

[Partridge]

Somehow, though, you have the ability to supposedly quote me while quoting someone else entirely.

You're right - got my replies mixed up.

100% my mistake. I apologise.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

That's it..... 'the best possible candidate'.

Simple. No matter who they are.

Yep. I'm not sure why some are choosing to go woke and ignoring this.

 

[My Tilly]

In the end we have had our fair share of ass coaches that saw some being great and others not so great, its hard to see a downside. If it works great, if its does good try and move on.

Couldn't do any worse than the coach we have right now

At least we may actually look somewhat competitive if we made finals.