- Joined
- Sep 20, 2015
- Posts
- 2,026
- Likes
- 3,722
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
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?
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?
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?

