Play Nice Eddie McGuire comments on holding Caro Wilson underwater

[rideclutch]

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.

Agree 100%

 

[Hawk_francais]

I agree with this. No doubt the two sets of remarks were different to each other in context, where one was more light-hearted and said directly to the person in question (CW), who could then respond immediately if she wished. I also believe that there was a bit more of a sinister edge to how Ed said it. That his comment was much more of a dig than a joke isn't much of a surprise though, given the bad blood between Ed and Caro for years now.

What I don't get is this- many have said that making comments about holding a female underwater in a casual way trivializes the issues of sexism and domestic violence, especially against women. So despite the fact that both sets of remarks would appear to be casually making reference to drowning a female, albeit at opposite ends of the 'context' scale, how can one be treated so lightly and one not when it's the very reference itself that is apparently the problem?

It's a good question. Context really is everything I'd say: one demonstrates power, the other doesn't.

Ultimately there are different issues here though, there is the belittling and bullying personal element, and then there is the 'promulgation' of violence against women element. Some people would say there is a relationship between the two though.

Side note - has anyone checked to see if promulgation is a real word?

 

[Sector 7G]

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

The hypocrisy is reaching Everest proportions.

EFA

 

[H2F]

No ... you're bang on!

Check your PM's

 

[Fadge]

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.

You've lost me. You started by comparing the incidents though failed to reference the 3AW 'banter' after the first 20% of your post.

In summary, do you agree that both incidents trivialise the violent act of holding a person's head under water? This was the primary theme of the post you were responding to.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

All those things apply to many other people in the footy industry but you don't see the same level of hatred, vitriol and downright bullying directed towards them.

I'd also dispute she's "inflammatory" - she's not a far-right nutter shock-jock like Jones, Bolt, O'Reilly, Limbaugh etc. She's just a footy journo who sometimes writes stories people don't like. They're not often wrong though.

Nah they really don't. At a stretch you could say Patrick Smith but he has moved to the Australian and his profile has diminished along with it over the years. Barrett is certainly on his way towards Caro level of hatred but he will need to keep going for a few years yet to get there.

Caro has been writing the way she has been writing from the most senior journalistic position in one of the two major newspapers in what is arguably the most sport-obsessed city on the planet. People love hearing gossip about players and personalities related to the game in Melbourne. It is such a unique city and Caro fills a role like no other journalistic. She is loved and loathed because of it.

 

[GTOA]

Of course you would think that. You're an arseh*le who probably should have been drowned at birth.






Now, in the context of this thread and the point being made, you may say that you weren't offended by that. However in reality, you would be entitled to. You don't know me. We have no cheeky byplay and tacit understanding of no harm meant. Hell, we should probably pretend that I have indicated my dislike for you previously for this to work.

Now I say this to my best mate, he calls me something else, probably less than PC, we have a chuckle and maybe another beer.

What reason have you got to assume I am saying it to you in the same vein I said it to my best mate, when you know I dislike you (for arguments sake).

Not saying Caro and Shaw are best mates, but they are colleagues who are more likely to have banter together than others who don't get along and actually actively try to avoid each other.

So, you are against Eddie saying that Caro should "stay under", and then you say that this person should have drowned at birth.

What's the difference?

Of course you would think that. You're an arseh*le who probably should have been drowned at birth.






Now, in the context of this thread and the point being made, you may say that you weren't offended by that. However in reality, you would be entitled to. You don't know me. We have no cheeky byplay and tacit understanding of no harm meant. Hell, we should probably pretend that I have indicated my dislike for you previously for this to work.

Now I say this to my best mate, he calls me something else, probably less than PC, we have a chuckle and maybe another beer.

What reason have you got to assume I am saying it to you in the same vein I said it to my best mate, when you know I dislike you (for arguments sake).

Not saying Caro and Shaw are best mates, but they are colleagues who are more likely to have banter together than others who don't get along and actually actively try to avoid each other.

So, on one hand, you bag Eddie for saying that Caro "should stay under", yet you tell this poster that they should have drowned at birth. What's the difference, hypocrite?

How do you know that the poster isn't female, so you are telling a female this, and it makes you no better than you accuse Eddie and co of being?

What's worse, you are a mod. You are supposed to stop bullying on this site, not incite it. Maybe time to hang things up if you can't conduct yourself properly. I am offended on behalf f this poster, so since I am offended, I am right and you are wrong.

But then, you will probably mod me for calling you out. I forgot, mods on this site are like umpires and women, completely unaccountable and immune from any criticism whatsoever. You would fit right in working for the AFL.

 

[TW Sherrin]

Caro is part of the Richmond family so it is not surprising the are making a stand for her.

Maybe if MMM management had the guts to come out and condemn what they put to air it wouldn't be necessary.

Sure the chopsticks woman wishes they stood up for her.

 

[Armchair Critic]

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.

Something else has moved to the front of the line now. Invasion Day is trending and will be tomorrows outrage

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-...en-willis-in-facebook-comments-gotcha/7531036

 

[Forever North]

We should expect more dignified comments from supposed leaders in the football community. They represent 000's of members and fans and should be beyond the type of toilet humour you would normally hear in old school pubs. Maguire for years has been using his role as a 'media commentator' to disguise comments/opinions that would normally get him in hot water if acting in his 'role' as Collingwood president. He simply can't have it both ways and that's why he and Brayshaw find themselves in the shit. They really don't know when to stop. Was explaining what happened to my daughter who is in high school and follows the footy. Basically told her that boofheads like Maguire, Brayshaw, Carey etc are like those protected jerks in high school that are good at football, soccer etc and strut around in the school yard teasing and bullying the 'nerds' and science geeks. She then understood that what the MMM clowns said was simply low rent.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Check your PM's

Nice. Have you got that in red?

 

[GTOA]

I detest what is happening to this country as much as the next person, but this isn't about PC.

When was it ever OK to joke on air about torturing women (to put a kind spin on it)?

How was that joke a comment on torturing women? Don't be overdramatic.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

What does this mean?

well, true, it's getting a bit historical re. the Blues, but we don't rort salary caps, never tanked despite massive motivation/opportunity and having to bear the heavy yoke of 'Ninthmond', never put our boys through experimental supplement routines, and have now had to step in and take a stand for Caro after Collingwood have gone the softly, softly approach on the boys club and their antics (and one of those in the dock is a 5 year Tiger coach who lead us to our last finals victory).

 

[H2F]

Nice. Have you got that in red?

Lol...

 

[TW Sherrin]

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?

Consider how Hird and his family felt. Wilson didn't hound and bully him? or is that was ok cause of what happened at efc?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You've lost me. You started by comparing the incidents though failed to reference the 3AW 'banter' after the first 20% of your post.

In summary, do you agree that both incidents trivialise the violent act of holding a person's head under water? This was the primary theme of the post you were responding to.

No I don't agree. I haven't even made the leap to a violent act. I've just speculated as to why some have gone there.

The difference is malice. The other stuff stems from that. It probably can't stem from a place of genuine banter whereby the recipient receives it as such. However, I fully understand that some may still go there even if I think that is overkill.

 

[Sector 7G]

Sure the chopsticks woman wishes they stood up for her.

No Doubt about that. As mentioned above Everest level hypocrisy.

Integrity is doing the right thing even when it comes at a personal cost, not just when it suits you.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Caro has written horrible things about others over the years. Now she is getting something back.

Oh, well, Caro, it's karma, and karma's a bitch!

....and so are you!

See, I just don't know why this topic won't die now that they have apologised. It's almost as though some pervasive attitudes require highlighting. I mean ... probably. It's not as though I have seen any myself.

 

[GTOA]

We should come up with the definitive list of things that we can say, that doesn't offend political correctness.

If anyone can think of something that is allowed to be said these days, where someone somewhere won't twist into an offence to suit their own agenda, then list it here. I would hate to say anything that ever offended someone, so I need to know from the PC crowd what we am allowed to say in society.

 

[TW Sherrin]

well, true, it's getting a bit historical re. the Blues, but we don't rort salary caps, never tanked despite massive motivation/opportunity and having to bear the heavy yoke of 'Ninthmond', never put our boys through experimental supplement routines, and have now had to step in and take a stand for Caro after Collingwood have gone the softly, softly approach on the boys club and their antics (and one of those in the dock is a 5 year Tiger coach who lead us to our last finals victory).

what did your club do when your best player abused and threatened a woman after too many cans?

Answer.... F All

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No Doubt about that. As mentioned above Everest level hypocrisy.

Integrity is doing the right thing even when it comes at a personal cost, not just when it suits you.

Agreed and it deserves pointing out. It does not cancel out this issue but she is fair game to be taken to task for her lack of professionalism and double standards over other issues.

 

[GTOA]

No I don't agree. I haven't even made the leap to a violent act. I've just speculated as to why some have gone there.

The difference is malice. The other stuff stems from that. It probably can't stem from a place of genuine banter whereby the recipient receives it as such. However, I fully understand that some may still go there even if I think that is overkill.

What about Caro's venom and malice that she writes as a journo?

Don't tell me that she isn't a man-hater.

 

[Fadge]

Something else has moved to the front of the line now. Invasion Day is trending and will be tomorrows outrage

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-...en-willis-in-facebook-comments-gotcha/7531036

Great, but instead of a six day delay in the outrage, it has been nearly six months!

 

[TW Sherrin]

No Doubt about that. As mentioned above Everest level hypocrisy.

Integrity is doing the right thing even when it comes at a personal cost, not just when it suits you.

Double standards and hypocrisy are 2 things I hate more than most.

 

[H2F]

We should come up with the definitive list of things that we can say, that doesn't offend political correctness.

If anyone can think of something that is allowed to be said these days, where someone somewhere won't twist into an offence to suit their own agenda, then list it here. I would hate to say anything that ever offended someone, so I need to know from the PC crowd what we am allowed to say in society.

Dude it's more complicated than that.

When you get older you have frames your life (typically) around what you like. The radio commentary of the games you listen to, the footy shows you watch etc.

Now you sit there and have to see it plagued by scandals and attacks and it frustrates you.

Well it's part of us growing. I'm the last 100 years we've advanced more than the 4 billion before it and if nothing else it's tiring at times.

If suggest when these things come up just turning away from media for a week ...