Play Nice Eddie McGuire comments on holding Caro Wilson underwater

[Armchair Critic]

Better for them to make a late stand than no stand.

Good work Tigers.

They are not making a stand though. How can't you see that. If they were making a stand they would be boycotting Dustin Martin aswell

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

It feels like this has shifted somewhat. Before they were the same and there was hypocrisy involved for not seeing that, now they are not so vastly different so as to have reactions at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Are we now saying that yes, they are different, just not vastly different? Forget for a moment the calls for blood. Is there now a flicker there that the intent may have been different? The follow up comments to Barrett certainly show a difference even if nobody accepts the animosity between the Eddie and Caro does not take away from the joke.

i think we all understand the difference that one was a joke to someones face which implies friendship and the other was behind her back which implies...indifference shall we say. but i agree with poster above. if the basis for this being a sexist issue is the trivialization of a violent act of holding a womans head underwater until she drowns (presumably) then that is prevalent in both cases. the narrative we keep hearing is 'whether a joke or not, that kind of talk subconsciously affects those that hear it makes them more inclined to engage in violence and is therefore unacceptable'. i'm not sure how much scientific backing there is for that but surely if that's the case then both cases are similar enough to attract similar scrutiny. i don't think the difference between them is that one is sexist and one is not.

 

[Joey longshadow]

This has also been asked and answered.

If she was guilty of libel (print) or slander (television), then the recipient has an opportunity to take legal action against her. They are also able to take aim at her ethics, at her professionalism and call for her job given she has done her job poorly.

What she did to them was not necessarily bullying. You take somebody on in the capacity in which they are acting. Did they?

I can actually see what you are saying
But I don't agree with this at all
I guess we are at an impasse

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Richmond!

Absolutely hilarious

Bahahahahahaha

Good ol independent Caro

 

[Klem]

Totally a personal comment, not gender based. Same with Goodes getting booed.

Their both pains in the ass, end of story.

And Richmond taking a stand and maybe banning triple m on the weekend..............oh my giddy aunt thats funny.

 

[Joey longshadow]

Right so they probably both want to avoid pettiness and bullying behaviour since their motivation is clear.

That would be nice
Perhaps then we could get back to the purpose of this sport ..the actual game

 

[Blueboys11]

To be honest the game is losing me bit by bit each year
It's just a game of football or at least it should be ..all this growing mountain of shit around the edges is killing it
Take footy f@#kin classified for example it's now most weeks 3 shit raking journos sitting around the desk picking at scabs and muck raking with one ex footy player on the panel who occasionally gets a comment in on the actual game ..no wonder Tommo left

I'm just annoyed that the game I've loved all my life is being hijacked by this sort of rubbish. Much more, and I will just walk away. So many other sports worldwide that don't pander to this crap

 

[Sector 7G]

I am not saying it is one side, I am saying it's a PR war. Everyone s miking it. Like I said before, no-one actually cares about the victim only the agendas arguments they are trying to push.

It is only still going because Eddie made a Claytons apology and Gill did nothing. Gill was even satisfied with Eddies first apology.

If Eddie had apologised like Bradshaw and Gill had removed the media accreditation for 2 weeks it would be over. Both misread the greens on this one.

 

[Stopher]

Gee it'd be funny if MMM had to resort to using Shane-Warne-Cricket-type names for Richmond games.

Mustin Dartin
Jock Revolt
Went Fitchin'

etc.

 

[bananatigz]

They are not making a stand though. How can't you see that. If they were making a stand they would be boycotting Dustin Martin aswell

Care to explain?

 

[passmark]

They are not making a stand though. How can't you see that. If they were making a stand they would be boycotting Dustin Martin aswell

Martin is past.


MMM is available now .

Well done Tiges.

 

[Joey longshadow]

I am not saying it is one side, I am saying it's a PR war. Everyone s miking it. Like I said before, no-one actually cares about the victim only the agendas arguments they are trying to push.

Damn straight I don't care about the " victim"
She's a nasty shit raking journo and he's a boof head who can't keep his big trap shut and after the Goodes fiasco should know better but clearly doesn't ...both as bad as each other

 

[Armchair Critic]

Martin is past.


MMM is available now .

Well done Tiges.

Martin is not past, He is currently at the club. It is hypocrisy at it's finest

 

[Armchair Critic]

It is only still going because Eddie made a Claytons apology and Gill did nothing. Gill was even satisfied with Eddies first apology.

If Eddie had apologised like Bradshaw and Gill had removed the media accreditation for 2 weeks it would be over. Both misread the greens on this one.

It is not us who gets to decide when it is over, that is up to Caro and Caro only no matter how outraged you are. Caro accepted their apologies, that should have been the end of it.

 

[Joey longshadow]

I'm just annoyed that the game I've loved all my life is being hijacked by this sort of rubbish. Much more, and I will just walk away. So many other sports worldwide that don't pander to this crap

Just wish they would start up a roller ball league
Would love to see what they would do to make that politically correct

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

i think we all understand the difference that one was a joke to someones face which implies friendship and the other was behind her back which implies...indifference shall we say. but i agree with poster above. if the basis for this being a sexist issue is the trivialization of a violent act of holding a womans head underwater until she drowns (presumably) then that is prevalent in both cases. the narrative we keep hearing is 'whether a joke or not, that kind of talk subconsciously affects those that hear it makes them more inclined to engage in violence and is therefore unacceptable'. i'm not sure how much scientific backing there is for that but surely if that's the case then both cases are similar enough to attract similar scrutiny. i don't think the difference between them is that one is sexist and one is not.

We are branching out here though. It starts with the offense caused being different between the two. Then when you point out why one is offensive and the other not, then the narrative turns to those who say one is sexist and the other is not, or one is violent towards women and the other is not.

You say you think we all understand the difference initially, but that hasn't been the case for much of this discussion.

So one is a joke and one is a bit spiteful, perhaps bullying because of their contexts - glad to check that one off.

Sexism - I don't know. I've said on the surface that it probably wasn't. It has been received that way by Caro, apparently because of the history between them. I'm not sure any of us can argue this point on the same level as her as the recipient.

Violence towards women - probably convenient. Technically they are talking/joking about an act of violence towards a woman, but the fact she is a woman seems redundant in the context of the discussion. They could just as easily have been talking about a man.

Do we have to elementise this to reach somewhere near the violence against women sphere?

Malice - check? Possible sexist history between the two - Maybe. If you combine the two, can you stretch this out to something else .... how high must your feasibility scale reach to make that stick? I really don't know and doubt I have the understanding.

When Eddie made that King Kong joke in relation to Goodes, he wasn't actually reaffirming the ape jibe that young girl made. It was in fact making light of a serious issue without meaning to. The explanation received is that even casual talk like this is a form of racism which trivialises the problem.

I am assuming this is where the violence angle is coming from. He is not actually promoting violence against women, or violence against Caro because she is a woman, but using lazy language that possibly trivialises violence against women and reduces it to a joke. No doubt his history with her adds a layer to this.

 

[passmark]

Martin is not past, He is currently at the club. It is hypocrisy at it's finest

If you say so.

Well done Tiges.

 

[H2F]

100 percent bang on ODN.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It is not us who gets to decide when it is over, that is up to Caro and Caro only no matter how outraged you are. Caro accepted their apologies, that should have been the end of it.

It should be, but who needs to stop commenting. Those that are saying it is a beat up and Caro is playing the victim card or those intent on continuing the bigger picture conversation relating to domestic violence or sexism?

While both are adding fuel to this, I can't see any good coming from ceasing to talk about domestic violence so that those in disagreement can make their exits from the conversation. Far from it, many of those disagreeing on social media are only proving the issue needs to keep being discussed. Calls from people to stand on her head to keep her under for instance.

I'm not sure that any worthy cause promotes their cause by staying silent to stop the extreme opponents to their cause from commenting further.

The only way this stops is something else comes along to replace it.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

100 percent bang on ODN.

No ... you're bang on!

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Damn proud of the Tigers tonight, especially that this came from senior players.
'Riewoldt said he had spoken to his partner about the comments, which made his position clear...if it was her in that situation..'
-Right to the heart of the matter.

On-field the usual shenanigans, but off-field my god the Tigers look good stood next to the Pies/EFC/Carlton.

The moral high ground is reaching Everest proportions.

 

[Sector 7G]

It is not us who gets to decide when it is over, that is up to Caro and Caro only no matter how outraged you are. Caro accepted their apologies, that should have been the end of it.

Except that Eddies comments impacted on more than just Caro. It showed that the AFL wasn't serious about Women in the AFL. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Just wish they would start up a roller ball league
Would love to see what they would do to make that politically correct

Used to love watching the T-Birds as a kid. Sexism wasn't an issue back then, maybe because it was everywhere and accepted. You don't know these things as a kid.

 

[H2F]

The people who are mad at Caro for raging (especially when she laughed at Shaw) and complaining about the dozen women you've never heard of writing slanderous articles full of worse stuff, need to consider this.

When Eddie had a crack at her for spending years doing the AFL's work to slander North Melbourne because Demetrio was angry JB knocked back relocation, he did it stupidly.

He put himself in a position to cop all this and instead of apologising properly, he didn't do it until forced.

He can only blame himself and it's like the old saying goes ...

Play with fire, get burnt.

Now a guy who singlehanded turned a rabble into a financial powerhouse is being told to resign for being a 'has been.'

His fault.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

On-field the usual shenanigans, but off-field my god the Tigers look good stood next to the Pies/EFC/Carlton.

What does this mean?