AFL Industry - Voice Against Gender-Based Violence

[Chief]

Male entitlement and privilege to be a wife beater and to kill women isn't a thing.

Hasn't always been this way.

 

[Blackhawk42]

I don't think the AFL stuff really did that.

And discussing "male privilege" is fine unless you have decided it doesn't exist.



How does it diminish it? It pretty much excludes it rather than glossing over it.

Given the absolute majority of cases are against women, and the damage done is more severe against women, it seems like a good way to direct efforts with limited resources to get the most benefit.

We can acknowledge it does happen to men while at the same time directing resources where we will save the most lives.

Note that, for instance, legal aid goes to where it is needed most: keeping men out of prison.

Considering we know males are more likely to commit suicide, are there stats available to indicate the major contributing factors to what drove the individual to that extreme measure?

I've always been intrigued by this, because as a husband and father, the only thing that I could imagine driving my mental health so far south would be losing access to my family.

Quoting your post to further the conversation with a question I don't have the answer to. I don't expect you personally to know either.


I don't believe there would be many males out there who aren't supportive of raising awareness, but personally I can see why people can get defensive or start with 'whataboutisms'. Personal experience plays a massive part in the immediate response.

I remain supportive, but can get a bit negative when the finger of blame is constantly waved at the entire male population. Having been physically hit by a female partner in my youth, while being told 'you can't do anything, I'm a girl and can get away with it' warps the world view a little.

Long story short, but I firmly believe the course of action lies with our justice system. The majority of men in society call out dangerous behaviour towards women. I genuinely don't know what else we can do.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Their question was comparing a homeless man v an economically privileged women.

The reference to a night out was to highlight that for some people, having people judge your outfit when out (which obviously is not ok) is not a problem, as the other needs like food and shelter are a more pressing concern.

It wasn’t comparing sexual violence v ‘being a bit broke until next paycheck so one can’t go get plastered this weekend’.

Whoever you are arguing with, take the best interpretation of their point and argue that. Do the opposite of a straw man.

If you want the opposite of a strawman, don't use a strawman to begin with. Do you (or the original respondent to my post) really think I meant the issue is being judged for their outfit?

The more responses there are in this thread, the clearer it is how much of an issue we have, and how little a lot of people want to actually do something about it.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Male entitlement and privilege to be a wife beater and to kill women isn't a thing. The nature of domestic violence seems to vary depending on demographics and cultural norms. In some cultures, men enjoy certain privileges, but that isn't in the discussion, and if we were seeing women being murdered in Toorak or Point Piper, then you could be right about male privilege contributing. However, what appears to be happening is a worsening problem in working class, lower educated and socially disadvantaged communities, and that is the problem with you putting it down to men enjoying some kind of privilege.

FFS, do you really think that I'm meaning financial privilege? There is a privilege in not fearing violence from your intimate partner, both directly and indirectly.

Perhaps entitlement is a better word, if people are going to be so blindly pedantic around the word privilege. That cuts across socio-economic classes, there is an entitlement that some men believe they have (#notallmen) to abuse, physically and emotionally, their intimate partners. In the vast majority of cases, those intimate partners are women.

 

[Erakor]

If you want the opposite of a strawman, don't use a strawman to begin with. Do you (or the original respondent to my post) really think I meant the issue is being judged for their outfit?

The more responses there are in this thread, the clearer it is how much of an issue we have, and how little a lot of people want to actually do something about it.

Constantly framing anyone who questions you as the ‘problem’ in regards to sexual and domestic violence is not doing something about it either.

The issue and its solutions are multifaceted and at times complex.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Constantly framing anyone who questions you as the ‘problem’ in regards to sexual and domestic violence is not doing something about it either.

The issue and its solutions are multifaceted and at times complex.

Of course the answers are complex, but the first step to addressing them is recognising where the issues are, and whether we like it or not the sense of entitlement/privilege that SOME men have, and their attitudes towards women are part of the problem.

Some people just don't like to hear it.

 

[PizzaPie]

I haven't read previous pages and only caught a few key words as I scrolled down this last one to reply with a guess that 25%+ of people are arguing some version of "reverse sexism, not all men, men are victims too, women are perpetrators too" etc.? Was I close? I might have underestimated how much attention has been diverted to expectations of perfection from the AFL and anything less being worse than doing nothing, so maybe that guess will be closer to the mark if filtering out those chains of conversation.

 

[Bombermania]

FFS, do you really think that I'm meaning financial privilege? There is a privilege in not fearing violence from your intimate partner, both directly and indirectly.

Perhaps entitlement is a better word, if people are going to be so blindly pedantic around the word privilege. That cuts across socio-economic classes, there is an entitlement that some men believe they have (#notallmen) to abuse, physically and emotionally, their intimate partners. In the vast majority of cases, those intimate partners are women.

This is the thing, to many men in socially disadvantage communities, they see privilege in terms of financial privilege.

 

[Erakor]

FFS, do you really think that I'm meaning financial privilege? There is a privilege in not fearing violence from your intimate partner, both directly and indirectly.

Perhaps entitlement is a better word, if people are going to be so blindly pedantic around the word privilege. That cuts across socio-economic classes, there is an entitlement that some men believe they have (#notallmen) to abuse, physically and emotionally, their intimate partners. In the vast majority of cases, those intimate partners are women.

Sexual violence and domestic violence does cut through all of society. It also cuts through both genders. But in both cases statistics show it affects certain groups more.

You can see one, but not the other.

I presume you have a pre-loaded view on all this, probably on political orientation and perhaps personal.

 

[Erakor]

Of course the answers are complex, but the first step to addressing them is recognising where the issues are, and whether we like it or not the sense of entitlement/privilege that SOME men have, and their attitudes towards women are part of the problem.

Some people just don't like to hear it.

Of course that is one of the core issues. Don’t think Iv ever read or heard anyone deny that.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Sexual violence and domestic violence does cut through all of society. It also cuts through both genders. But in both cases statistics show it affects certain groups more.

You can see one, but not the other.

I presume you have a pre-loaded view on all this, probably on political orientation and perhaps personal.

And what exactly makes you think that? We have enormous social issues in a number of areas, including those that affect men. You have absolutely no idea what I can and can't see.

This thread is about Gender Based violence. If you want my thoughts on any of the other topics that have been brought up here I'm more than happy to exchange provide them, in the appropriate forum (e.g. SRP board). If you head there you might also get an insight into my political orientation too, as it seems you have no idea about that

These other issues are being raised here as a whataboutism defence mechanism, hence I don't engage on the substance of them.

 

[Erakor]

This is the thing, to many men in socially disadvantage communities, they see privilege in terms of financial privilege.

And to many people who aren’t effected by issues of these communities, the focus shifts away poverty to other societal problems.

 

[Bombermania]

Of course the answers are complex, but the first step to addressing them is recognising where the issues are, and whether we like it or not the sense of entitlement/privilege that SOME men have, and their attitudes towards women are part of the problem.

Some people just don't like to hear it.

Many men that stalk and hurt women are insecure and immature, and they are quick to get defensive when challenged.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Many men that stalk and hurt women are insecure and immature, and they are quick to get defensive when challenged.

You do realise that what you're describing actually proves the point I'm trying to make? What you've described is a sense of entitlement that some men have, and when they get "insecure" they believe they have the right to take it out on women.

Thank you for providing an example of EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

 

[Erakor]

I think he was agreeing with your point and not rebutting it.

 

[HairyO]

I think he was agreeing with your point and not rebutting it.

I thought they were white knighting.

 

[danster168]

Here's an idea for the AFL, lifetime bans for any player/administrator /media accreditation holder found guilty of domestic violence/ gender based violence.

Do that and they can be taken seriously, otherwise it's just words which will be contradicted by actions when TT, or equivalent gets their 2nd, 3rd, 4th chance.

I think it's a slippery slope. Do we then give lifetime bans for a player if he smashes a beer bottle over a guys head in King St after a boozy night out? Or is that considered okay? What about a player going on a racist tirade or something like that? You can't take one crime seriously and not take the others seriously too.

 

[Tippett2Goal]

I think it's a slippery slope. Do we then give lifetime bans for a player if he smashes a beer bottle over a guys head in King St after a boozy night out? Or is that considered okay? What about a player going on a racist tirade or something like that? You can't take one crime seriously and not take the others seriously too.

Sure suits me just fine.

Make the policy that if convicted of any crime which carries a maximum sentence of >7 years then its lifetime ban from AFL level.

Job done.

Then they can be a "good bloke" as much as they like, they just don't get to be a "Good Bloke" in the AFL

 

[danster168]

Sure suits me just fine.

Make the policy that if convicted of any crime which carries a maximum sentence of >7 years then its lifetime ban from AFL level.

Job done.

Then they can be a "good bloke" as much as they like, they just don't get to be a "Good Bloke" in the AFL

sounds good to me.

I can't believe Brad Scott isn't held more accountable for his words.

But let's look at Dustin Martin, he threatened to kill a woman with chop sticks whilst drunk? So that's a life ban? There's a lot of people in the afl that aren't good blokes.

I'm okay with having a strong stance on things.

 

[Tippett2Goal]

sounds good to me.

I can't believe Brad Scott isn't held more accountable for his words.

But let's look at Dustin Martin, he threatened to kill a woman with chop sticks whilst drunk? So that's a life ban? There's a lot of people in the afl that aren't good blokes.

I'm okay with having a strong stance on things.

Whataboutism is the lowest form of argument that seems to get repeated throughout this thread like its some kind of "gotcha".

You are making disingenuous, bad faith arguments and pretending they are clever, Dusty making threats has no relation to what my proposed solution was as it was not a criminal conviction with >7 years maximum possible sentence.

 

[Chief]

Considering we know males are more likely to commit suicide, are there stats available to indicate the major contributing factors to what drove the individual to that extreme measure?

I've always been intrigued by this, because as a husband and father, the only thing that I could imagine driving my mental health so far south would be losing access to my family.

But this is a failure of imagination. The argument from incredulity.

I remain supportive, but can get a bit negative when the finger of blame is constantly waved at the entire male population.

The words "constantly" and "entire male population" seem to be key.

I don't see this.

The call for everyone to take on a bit of responsibility in calling this stuff out is reasonable, I think.

If you haven't seen it in other relationships, you already call it out when you have seen it, and you don't actually commit any DV, then they are not talking about you.

 

[Bombermania]

You do realise that what you're describing actually proves the point I'm trying to make? What you've described is a sense of entitlement that some men have, and when they get "insecure" they believe they have the right to take it out on women.

Thank you for providing an example of EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Insecurity reflects a lack of confidence or a lack of experience, this is made worse by the effects of social disadvantage and mental health issues. This is why AFL clubs like to recruit players from real privileged backgrounds.

 

[danster168]

Whataboutism is the lowest form of argument that seems to get repeated throughout this thread like its some kind of "gotcha".

You are making disingenuous, bad faith arguments and pretending they are clever, Dusty making threats has no relation to what my proposed solution was as it was not a criminal conviction with >7 years maximum possible sentence.

calm down. threats to kill is a maximum 10 year sentence.

you can't just give life bans for one crime and not others. you call it 'whataboutisms', I call it common-sense.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Literally days later

 

[kickazz]

Yeah wtf. Surely an explanation is in order. $$$$$ I suppose