Analysis The Small Things

[Andre]

I hadn't ventured into that thread prior to now, can see where you are coming from Portia

Change comes slowly to some and the internet has provided a great platform for people to regress. It is particularly concerning to me when I see / hear younger man behaving in a sexist way, it shows that their role models are failing them and that we still have a long way to go to rid society of overt sexism, let alone the casual type. I recall a couple of years ago taking umbrage at the use of the term "rape" on here in relation to umpiring decisions or a team's dominance over another. Such an aggressive term that I know upsets many women when it is used to describe something as trivial as a sporting contest and yet there were many defending their right to continue its use on here.

On the flip side of that, is it any different to how it's considered acceptable (by and large) to say we hope to slaughter the opposition / murder them or see them decimated. I doubt even the most literalist is thinking that means we are going to pick out every tenth member of their team and coaching staff and put to the sword. Which by and large I'd rank as worse then rape (neither of which I condone or think is acceptable BTW!).

 

[Portia]

Andre, what are you even arguing for at this point?

Its also odd that you claim using the word 'rape' is clearly a huge difference to the act itself, yet can't see that being expected not to be sexist, racist, etc is not the same as a jackbooted army of fascists oppressing your civil rights.

Your ability to see proportionality is somehow only working sometimes?

 

[SgtSchulz]

What is a successful team? What drives that success? What inspires people to participate fully and give their best?

Every successful team has one thing in common. Respect. The people in that team respect each other, and they show that not just with the big things they do for each other, but for the little things too.

Fos Williams said in the Creed that each member of the team will suffer personal sacrifices for the common end. Sacrifice. Because you respect the club, and the team, and each other. You make sacrifices for each other.

Do you remember when Port were shit a few years ago? We had divisions among the players and the coaches and the board, because they were all talking shit about each other behind their backs. Because they didn't play for each other. Because no one felt they could rely on the club to have their back and give them a genuinely fair go. And they fell apart because they weren't willing to make sacrifices for each other - they were OK at the big ones, but not the little ones..

If you won't help your mates off the ground, if you won't block or shepherd for them, if you won't check in on them when they're under the pump, if you won't stick up for them when they're copping attention...if you won't do the small things, then how is anyone going to think they can count on you for the big ones? How are they going to feel respected when no one looks out for them when doing so is easy?

Refusing to take on responsibility for the welfare of others in the team is anathema to football clubs. A champion team beats a team of champions. Its a lesson as old as football itself.

The reason we know this is absolutely true is that its just like that for any community.

If you won't do the small things for other people, if you won't consider them or stick up for them when it costs you virtually nothing, then how is anyone going to think that you have their back for anything that matters?

The cost of showing respect is nothing. Nothing.

So now, on a very related note, lets talk about the sexist remarks that get thrown around here all the time.

Do any other long time posters remember when we used to have multiple women posting on this board? I do. Where have they all gone? What caused that? You know exactly why...its the small things. The constant shit that comes up any time women are mentioned in pretty much every capacity - their looks, or their sexuality, or femininity is mocked or used to shame men. Its misogyny, and its all over the place, and who here is saying that behaviour is not good enough for this community?

In any community, if you won't accept tiny, insignificant impositions on yourself to look out for other people, then how can you ever expect someone to count on your when they need help?

Now, I know one of the first thing some people will want to do is hang shit on me personally, and here you go, take your shot, this is where I'm going to reveal my worst post on Bigfooty...or I would if I could find it, but I know what it was - what they were.

My worst posts on Bigfooty were every time I chucked a fruity about being moderated/censored for having used the word `******ed' (ie. the derogatory term for someone with a developmental disability if this is being filtered) about something.

I was annoyed because I had been using the word since primary school, and I don't like modifying my behaviour. Who does? So I acted like I was on some kind of a righteous crusade for free speech or some shit, and that is one of the most pathetic moments in my life, because at the end of the day, what is the real cost to me? How much effort does it take for me to show the smallest respect to people already being shat on by the world?

I haven't used the word in years, and my life has not been measurably impacted by thinking about what I was saying. I don't even have to self-censor any more, the word just doesn't come to mind any more due to lack of use.

Here's another: when Adam Goodes was getting crazy booed earlier this year, I had the same reaction to calls to modify behavious. I didn't want to give up my right to boo people, but you know what? I reckon I've booed someone at the football maybe 5 times in my life, and I reckon those were all umpires in any case. So to keep a champion of the game around, what is the real cost to me personally? What is the cost to me to not disrespect Aboriginal people by proxy, and Goodes specifically?

What shit decisions they were. I didn't consider at all how little it cost me to show a bit of community spirit; its shameful to me, and I'm trying to be more conscious about when I might be adding to the shit of other people for no reason, for no benefit, when not doing so costs nothing. I hope you will try too.

So from right now, when you want to make a joke at the expense of women, think about what it would cost you if you didn't. When you want to discuss women doing anything, think about it when your first response is to talk about them like objects. When you think a chick is hot, maybe just give it a rest rather than start an ogling crew in a thread.

And if you flat out refuse to consider modifying your behaviour in any way, even in a way that costs you virtually nothing, take a good hard look at yourself.

POTY

 

[PatientMental]

Andre, what are you even arguing for at this point?

Its also odd that you claim using the word 'rape' is clearly a huge difference to the act itself, yet can't see that being expected not to be sexist, racist, etc is not the same as a jackbooted army of fascists oppressing your civil rights.

Your ability to see proportionality is somehow only working sometimes?

Some people legitimately need a rule book of what is and is not appropriate to say.

 

[HaroldOliver]

Like everyone here, I'm a flawed human being and there are quite a few of my BF posts that I'm ashamed of, one or two of a sexist nature (probably more that I'm not even aware of). I'm not one of those people that never have regrets.

In light of the OP I can see no harm in trying to be a better person so I hereby resolve to try and be so. In writing this though, going on my past experience, I can't promise that I wont still be a dickhead on occasions.

 

[Grave Danger]

The Enlightenment has always been contested territory. Its supporters hail it as the source of everything that is progressive about the modern world. For them, it stands for freedom of thought, rational inquiry, critical thinking, religious tolerance, political liberty, scientific achievement, the pursuit of happiness, and hope for the future. However, its detractors accuse it of 'shallow' rationalism, naive optimism, unrealistic universalism, and moral darkness. From the start there was a Counter Enlightenment in which conservative and clerical defenders of traditional religion attacked materialism and skepticism as evil forces that encouraged immorality. By 1794, they pointed to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution as confirmation of their predictions. As the Enlightenment was ending, Romantic philosophers argued that excessive dependence on reason was a mistake perpetuated by the Enlightenment, because it disregarded the bonds of history, myth, faith and tradition that were necessary to hold society together.

 

[raman]

The Enlightenment has always been contested territory. Its supporters hail it as the source of everything that is progressive about the modern world. For them, it stands for freedom of thought, rational inquiry, critical thinking, religious tolerance, political liberty, scientific achievement, the pursuit of happiness, and hope for the future. However, its detractors accuse it of 'shallow' rationalism, naive optimism, unrealistic universalism, and moral darkness. From the start there was a Counter Enlightenment in which conservative and clerical defenders of traditional religion attacked materialism and skepticism as evil forces that encouraged immorality. By 1794, they pointed to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution as confirmation of their predictions. As the Enlightenment was ending, Romantic philosophers argued that excessive dependence on reason was a mistake perpetuated by the Enlightenment, because it disregarded the bonds of history, myth, faith and tradition that were necessary to hold society together.

 

[SgtSchulz]

We should call out people when they are crossing the line here. Some people are probably naive, others having a brain fade...and others simply need to join 2015.

 

[Andre]

Andre, what are you even arguing for at this point?

Its also odd that you claim using the word 'rape' is clearly a huge difference to the act itself, yet can't see that being expected not to be sexist, racist, etc is not the same as a jackbooted army of fascists oppressing your civil rights.

Your ability to see proportionality is somehow only working sometimes?

I've said already that my POV is no comments should be made that are of a derogatory nature based on sex (or race). However those that praise are fine. Otherwise the mods should be pulling up every person who posts that indigenous players have an X-factor or electric pace. For simplicity - praising by males or females of males or females based on mind, body or soul = fine, deriding of males or females by males or females based on mind, body or soul = not acceptable. For the particular case you are most pushing then I consider it fine for supporters here to both praise / drool over our players, their Tatts etc.,(or of males in general) but also then equally be able to do the same about females. And neither sex to be able to disparage either gender based on looks. I don't want two standards for different genders.

 

[Hong-Kong Phooey]

Women don't go to the footy to look at men.

Some do. I know my sister does

 

[FallingLiefs]

We should call out people when they are crossing the line here. Some people are probably naive, others having a brain fade...and others simply need to join 2015.

Don't forget poor attempts of humour.

 

[SgtSchulz]

Don't forget poor attempts of humour.

That cross the line?

 

[FallingLiefs]

That cross the line?

no that was a genuine response. I find a lot is the result of looking for a higher like to post ratio. at least it seems that way.

 

[Portia]

For simplicity - praising by males or females of males or females based on mind, body or soul = fine, deriding of males or females by males or females based on mind, body or soul = not acceptable. For the particular case you are most pushing then I consider it fine for supporters here to both praise / drool over our players, their Tatts etc.,(or of males in general) but also then equally be able to do the same about females. And neither sex to be able to disparage either gender based on looks. I don't want two standards for different genders.

Except that you're allowing two standards for different genders because your arbitrary system is ignoring the distribution of `positive' comments.

Consider:

- How often are women mentioned on this forum
- How often is it for their personality
- How often is it for their intelligence
- How often is it for their personal appearance
- How often is it to do with something they do well
- How often is it even from a position where the poster knows the woman's name.

The distribution of those, when compared to stuff about guys on this thread, is completely out of whack. When the primary mention of women is based on appearance, and when that mention is not only occuring independently of anything else, but then also is ALWAYS be side by side with a legitimate comment, then that is creating a hostile environment for women.

When the proportions are out of whack like that, it is an objectification and dehumanisation of women. It adds to the idea of women as things and not people, because you exclude everything except the physical. It creates a consensus on the value of women by default, that supports people in thinking of women as less than human. This leads to pretty much every bad thing that happens to women disproportionately to men.

Your `fair' system is only fair in a perfect world. Its a model created with no frame of reference, no acknowledgement of the actual statistical distributions that it purports to refer to. It is a theory fundamentally ungrounded in anything real.

It is a shield of wilful ignorance.

 

[Dylan8]

Are people still making the reverse sexism argument sheesh.

Great post Portia I gotta say I would have thought differently just last year but it's become obvious to me how much of a twat one looks when standing up for their "freedom of speech" instead of just taking a step back and thinking "is this really necessary to say if someone might be driven away by it"

While to some blokes casual sexism might just be banter I imagine that shit is really old by now for women. Telling someone to lighten up over it is bullshit especially if they've been surrounded by a culture of objectification their whole lives. We're here for Port how about just conceding a little of your "freedom of speech" to make it a nicer place for everyone.

 

[edgie]

Tbh I think, unless some of us here are more affluent than we let on, or permanent students, we would encounter much more racism, sexism, and homophobia, in person than on bigfooty. To suggest that people don't say those things in life as often as they might on the internet is ludicrous.

Out of curiosity, does it make me sexist if I don't care at all for womens football and have never even opened that thread?

 

[Jonts]

I don't wanna be "that guy"

Start off good point about female posters leaving not something i noticed until you said it
I disagree about people that are racist/sexist here aren't racist/sexist in public, I'd say they're one and the same. People probably push their own line %10 online due to the anonymous of it all but they're racist/sexist online they're probably racist/sexist in real life.I'd also like to defend the 25's and under as being better in this way than the older than 25's


If you don't like what's been said, report it.
If you feel like whats been said is what you don't want the Port bigfooty to look like then report to the moderators and trust them to sort the shit out. How many of you reported the posts you found unacceptable in the Port Adelaide Womens AFL team thread?

 

[Portia]

Out of curiosity, does it make me sexist if I don't care at all for womens football and have never even opened that thread?

In the head, sure a bit, but you're not expressing it in a way that is going to turn Port fans away from a board designed for discussing Port. Small steps.

 

[edgie]

In the head, sure a bit, but you're not expressing it in a way that is going to turn Port fans away from a board designed for discussing Port. Small steps.

At a local level I volunteer time to womens football, but as a Port Adelaide issue, I'd rather worry about what our main team is up to. I support any of our initiatives to move forward socially and involve minorities, provided they don't go overboard in a way that disadvantages the perceived majority (definitely a long way from happening), be it aboriginal academies or womens teams. I just don't care to read 10 pages of poster speculation about it, at least not in the same way I can sift though and take part in 200 pages of speculation about John Butcher.

I also don't care to read any of the soccer, gridiron, of basketball threads on bigfooty either.

 

[Andre]

The distribution of those, when compared to stuff about guys on this thread, is completely out of whack. When the primary mention of women is based on appearance, and when that mention is not only occuring independently of anything else, but then also is ALWAYS be side by side with a legitimate comment, then that is creating a hostile environment for women.

Of course it's out of whack. This is a forum about AFL, which all 600 odd players are male, the majority of coaches, as ex-players are male and a majority (again as a large ex-player portion) are male. Therefore there's going to be a lot more talk about men then women on this board and forum. And as there's a clearly defined main topic (football), then most of the talk around them is going to be based on that. There aren't a lot of females crossing the main topic (an argument for another day) to come close to balancing that. When they do intersect I must be seeing something different, as the comments seem to then be more based around merit. E.g. Caroline Wilson is a right favourite of many posters here, for people in the footy media, whilst Rebecca Wilson is considered not much better then the likes of Rowe or G. Cornes for lack of knowledge.

 

[Portia]

And as there's a clearly defined main topic (football), then most of the talk around them is going to be based on that. There aren't a lot of females crossing the main topic (an argument for another day)

But that is exactly the discussion we're having, its not for another day, its right now. When half of Port's members are women, yet the representation of women here is virtually nil, we know what is contributing heavily to that.

And even with your comment that most people discussed here are men, I wasn't talking about volume, but percentage of comment within each gender segment when they are discussed. There clearly isn't any volume of discussion of women in any area that exceeds similar discussion of men in the same areas, but when women are discussed it is dispropriationately about appearance (good or bad).

 

[finbarr]

Are people still making the reverse sexism argument sheesh.

Great post Portia I gotta say I would have thought differently just last year but it's become obvious to me how much of a twat one looks when standing up for their "freedom of speech" instead of just taking a step back and thinking "is this really necessary to say if someone might be driven away by it"

While to some blokes casual sexism might just be banter I imagine that shit is really old by now for women. Telling someone to lighten up over it is bullshit especially if they've been surrounded by a culture of objectification their whole lives. We're here for Port how about just conceding a little of your "freedom of speech" to make it a nicer place for everyone.

Yeah, if patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, then "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" is the last refuge of the bigot. The reality is that unless what you're saying fits within certain parameters and follows a particular mainstream agenda your "freedom of speech" rights don't really count for jack shit.
I don't really recall many in mainstream Australia rolling out this hackneyed quote recently when the Grand Mufti expressed his belief that Islamic terrorism is an inevitable consequence of decades of Western intervention in the Middle East. In fact, all I recall hearing was outrage, and people calling for public apologies and retractions. Lol the "freedom of speech" argument.

 

[Lagooner]

Are people still making the reverse sexism argument sheesh.

Great post Portia I gotta say I would have thought differently just last year but it's become obvious to me how much of a twat one looks when standing up for their "freedom of speech" instead of just taking a step back and thinking "is this really necessary to say if someone might be driven away by it"

While to some blokes casual sexism might just be banter I imagine that shit is really old by now for women. Telling someone to lighten up over it is bullshit especially if they've been surrounded by a culture of objectification their whole lives. We're here for Port how about just conceding a little of your "freedom of speech" to make it a nicer place for everyone.

I think this recent exchange between my fiance and I highlights the ridiculousness of the "reverse sexism" argument quite nicely.

A few weeks back my sister, who gives me relentless shit in a loving sibling sort of way, teamed up with my fiance to give me grief about looking like one of the cast members of Magic Mike. I was refuting this claim whilst they had a nice little chuckle about it between themselves.

Fast forward a few days and my fiance and I are going to the movies, where low and behold she's picked out a Magic Mike poster from 1000 paces and proceeds to laugh and point at it like a lunatic. Of course, once again, I state that I don't look anything like the guy. She responds by covering up his naked torso with her hands and says "well obviously not the body, just look at the face!"

Now. Try to think of the reverse situation, where I'm covering up the body of a bikini-clad Adriana Lima and yelling "just the face" in front of her and 20-odd passersby. I did, in the moment, and I pissed myself laughing. When I explained why I was laughing her demeanor changed instantly and she replied with an embarrassed "I'm sorry, that was actually really mean", followed by a pre-emptively furious "I would've killed you if you said that to me!"

So here is the difference. In general, we do not raise men with their self-worth tied to their appearance. We practically build women this way.

Hence why my laughter would've been her tears.

Hence why "reverse sexism" is complete bullshit.

 

[edgie]

Large statistics (membership totals) are never going to be accurately represented in niche communities (internet forums), but that doesn't make Portia's views any less poignant.

 

[Jumbo]

Someone please play a game of bloody footy