Play Nice Eddie McGuire comments on holding Caro Wilson underwater

[barmy44]

Women:

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/p...ail-for-sex-with-student-20150219-13jrc1.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-for-student-sex/story-e6frg6nf-1226709010211


Men:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...s/news-story/a80712f87ab17d370378fae708ec9899

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-31/adelaide-school-teacher-jailed-for-sexual-offences/6662472

that is news reporting of criminal sentencing, and this is often inaccurate and journalists never have access to a judges deliberations and often miss the full range of mitigating/aggravating factors which may be presented to the court.

in your examples, one woman had her sentence suspended for a single incident. another was jailed for one year for aggravated sexual intercourse with a 15 yr old boy. the male got 1 year 4 months for 'persistent sexual exploitation' of 2 girls which is a separate charge, and carries different penalty ranges. the latter two are very close in sentence, despite the males crimes being, on the limited information available, objectively far more serious (edit: aggravated sexual intercourse with a 15 yr old in NSW (the females charge: maximum 12 years); persistent sexual exploitation in SA (the males charges: maximum life imprisonment); the end results? 4 months difference in sentence).

the final male got 10 years head sentence, 6 non-parole for offences continuing over 3 years with a single girl.

the guy with the harshest sentence denied culpability, the other three pleaded guilty. this is a big factor in sentencing, can reduce a sentence by up to 40% in SA.

there is no mention in these brief articles of any of the material the court may have considered in mitigation of each penalty, or the circumstances of each individual case. there is no real mention of contrition.

were these sentences appealed? were they upheld as correct? reduced as manifestly excessive?

news reports cannot be supportive of the claims you are making, and in these 4 instances happen to directly counter your claim in any event.

 

[Chief]

So everybody should be educated, culture change should apply to all, friends and rivals include? It's not a culture change if it's ok to do it with friends in a private setting, it becomes point scoring to point out a rival needs to change.

If it is amongst friends then it has a different context. But maybe friends need to say "hey look lets not go there even in private". I know over the last decade or two the "gay" and "re ****" insults have all but dried up even on our boys camping trips.

 

[The 747]

It's called human rights.

Oh please

 

[The 747]

If it is amongst friends then it has a different context. But maybe friends need to say "hey look lets not go there even in private". I know over the last decade or two the "gay" and "re ****" insults have all but dried up even on our boys camping trips.

I have noticed 'gay' is making a comeback, although in a somewhat ironic way - it's been almost reclaimed. 'Re ****' is not acceptable anywhere I go.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I think the thread title needs to be changed. Eddie made no comments about holding her under water. Eddie's comments were ambiguous. Spud gave them the violent context.

 

[Fire]

Without reading a thousand pages; is this sexist simply because Wilson is a woman?

Because I can see the exact same thing being said about a man.

Shouldn't feminists be happy with such equality?

 

[Feerits Elf]

Without reading a thousand pages; is this sexist simply because Wilson is a woman?

Because I can see the exact same thing being said about a man.

Shouldn't feminists be happy with such equality?

Lazy

 

[Chief]

Without reading a thousand pages;

Yeah but nobody really wants to summarise all the arguments for you

 

[Fire]

Hi, as a white male, who has never experienced racism or sexism, I feel like I'm the perfect person to explain exactly what constitutes these things.

So wait, some people derided for participating in a discussion, based not on the legitimacy of their contribution, but solely on the base of their race and gender?

Sounds like you are the definition of both a racist and a sexist to me.

 

[hawks787]

If it is amongst friends then it has a different context. But maybe friends need to say "hey look lets not go there even in private". I know over the last decade or two the "gay" and "re ****" insults have all but dried up even on our boys camping trips.

Exactly and I agree as they have in my friends circle too. Maybe I didn't write as clear as I should. Alot of talk about culture change, public perception and influence on the public. I understand the whole context argument of " being with friends " but if it's only about making a stand and changing culture, I think Caro and her friends have a responsibility to not do that in public either and alot of this comes back to a long history of dislike and point scoring between 2 people/groups.

 

[Joey longshadow]

If it is amongst friends then it has a different context. But maybe friends need to say "hey look lets not go there even in private". I know over the last decade or two the "gay" and "re ****" insults have all but dried up even on our boys camping trips.

What a sad place we have come to when even conversations between friends in private have to be censored
In 8 years I will have enough money to retire and I look forward to leaving this country far behind me

 

[Ochre]

So wait, some people derided for participating in a discussion, based not on the legitimacy of their contribution, but solely on the base of their race and gender?

Sounds like you are the definition of both a racist and a sexist to me.

Read my later posts if you want a response to this.

Nice hot take at the end too

 

[Fire]

Yeah but nobody really wants to summarise all the arguments for you

So i take it that means it's only because she's a woman.

I mean, its not like my post contained the question in isolation with no additional content. You bothered to respond but didn't address anything I said or asked, so what else am I meant to take from this?

 

[demondavey]

There was absolutely nothing sexist made within the comment by McGuire nor did it in any way promote domestic violence towards women. Let's take it for what it is.

1. Eddie, JB, and Caroline Wilson do not share the same views within the AFL industry. It's a known fact. They've been at each other for years.
2. The comments were made about her as a journalist, in no way did it reflect domestic violence or sexism.
3. The timing was bad. White ribbon week, the introduction of a female competition.
4. The comments were not even made an issue until the following week - white ribbon week! So if it was such an issue when it occurred, why didn't it get raised immediately?
5. If MM had made those comments about Mark Stevens it would have been laughed off. Would the white ribbon organisation or the media condemn MM for promoting violence towards another man?

The whole incident is reflective of the media strategies. Sell as many papers as possible, create as much debate as you can. This is not sexism, this is not promoting domestic violence. This is a strategic ploy by the AFL and the media to raise an issue in conjunction with WRW and lambast and public burn Eddie.

The football community loves nothing more than sacrificing a big fish. We thrive off the media hype that the media machine feeds us, and more journalists can get a slice off the pie being the overpopulated witch hunters they are.

The AFL has used this as their way of support to the anti domestic violence groups, perpetuating the message that we will negatively reinforce those who speak against you and women. They haven't got the balls to say it was a comment about another journalist, aggressive yes, but that's all.

I'd like to hear from a spokesperson from the WRF on WHY this was raised the very week it was and NOT when it happened.

 

[Fire]

Read my later posts if you want a response to this.

Cheers, perhaps you misspoke and your clarification will put it in a better context.

Nice hot take at the end too

What would meet the definition of racist and sexist if not the dismissal of a voice based solely on the person's gender and race?

 

[asanque]

Caroline Wilson is not a journalist.

She is a gossip columnist that has spent her career taking potshots at other people including calling for them to be fired.

Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in her having a lot of enemies.

However, whenever any criticism is directed at her, it suddenly becomes a gender issue

There are plenty of reputable female journalists (e.g. Emma Quayle) who discuss football issues and have a good reputation for doing so.

There are also plenty who are terrible (e.g. Erin Riley).

I'm amazed how Ed's comments have sparked a domestic violence debate when it was clearly in jest and directed towards one individual.

#firstworldproblems

 

[sherb]

What a sad place we have come to when even conversations between friends in private have to be censored
In 8 years I will have enough money to retire and I look forward to leaving this country far behind me

I don't think it's censorship. Times change and so do attitudes and what is acceptable.

If you had a black friend in the US would you drop the "n" word with him in conversation for instance?

 

[footyfan1978]

Yeah but you see, the thing is, we have to actually IMAGINE that they made these comments about a male. Because they didn't. They made it about a female, who had a been of sexist bullying on the footy show years earlier (and Eddie & Brayshaw were/are involved).

That's why it's been drawn as a sexism issue...

I can see you actually believe that.
I have little doubt when the poor thought out joke was casually started the fact the Caroline Wilson is a female had nothing to do with why it started. It started because as a journo Caroline Wilson is unpopular in a lot of circles so the idea of her going down ice bath would appeal to a lot of people that do not like her journalistic agendas.
The reality is they easily could have made similar joke about Patrick Smith who is not as well known but also not exactly popular by the style in which he offers his opinions. If they had, and Spud said he would hold him under, the silly joke would not have raised an eyebrow by some of the people up in arms about it a week later.

In any case it is amusing the furore it has created for stupid Eddie McGuire. His follow up comments deserve to be highlighted what a snake in the grass type he is. Spud rightly apologised for the joke in poor taste. Even JB that rightly cannot stand Caroline Wilson apologised afterwards.
Eddie though, typical weasel, try to wiggle himself out of the fallout and not just outright apologise.

Fascinating to see the grandstanding by so many different groups of people on their various crusades and the pr exercises by companies and a few clus that really only care about how it affects the bottom line, sponsorship and how they appear in the media. So much superficial stuff.

I feel for the people that genuinely cared about what some human really felt from start that really were genuinely appalled by what they heard at the time. The opportunistic types writing or talking about it for some moral grandstanding for their own crusades or simply to get their names noticed is incredible in how superficial it is to see.

 

[damochandler]

Yes, that was a pretty stupid comment.
Interesting though, that only Eddie seems to be taking the heat from it then

As I Said something like that is not funny especially in this country where we have a drowning death a day if not more

 

[jerry springer]

Good media witchhunt. What a fickle industry, the way the journos in football love stabbing each other in the back is quite amusing.

 

[Feerits Elf]

Caroline Wilson is not a journalist.

She is a gossip columnist

The two aren't mutually exclusive

 

[Ochre]

Cheers, perhaps you misspoke and your clarification will put it in a better context.



What would meet the definition of racist and sexist if not the dismissal of a voice based solely on the person's gender and race?

My point was due to not having experienced as much racism and/or sexism as others, white males are generally less knowledgeable on the subject purely for this reason, and people who are more knowledgeable are generally correct more often than those that aren't.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Cheers, perhaps you misspoke and your clarification will put it in a better context.



What would meet the definition of racist and sexist if not the dismissal of a voice based solely on the person's gender and race?

He has a point though. It's like a rich person declaring that poverty is no big deal, and poor people just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps

 

[Chief]

So i take it that means it's only because she's a woman.

I mean, its not like my post contained the question in isolation with no additional content. You bothered to respond but didn't address anything I said or asked, so what else am I meant to take from this?

No, I was suggesting you read the thread and catch up with the discussion.

 

[Joey longshadow]

I don't think it's censorship. Times change and so do attitudes and what is acceptable.

If you had a black friend in the US would you drop the "n" word with him in conversation for instance?

How about we let the particular groups of friends decide that
I lived up Nth in the territory a few years ago had alot of dealings with traditional owners up there ,formed some good friendships .one of the guys used to call me cracker ( that's a derogatory term used by African Americans to describe white people ) and I used to call him whited out because he was a lighter shade of colour than his contemporaries. We were both fine with that as we were coming from a place of friendship and mutual trust
Do you think it would be your place from outside our friendship to tell us that is unacceptable ?