I've waited on purpose to see if the originator of this topic will produce anything to back up his claim. If he could adequately do that, it would immediately close down all opposition to him, and all those who believe they can see through him would not have a leg to stand on. I'm still waiting.

Let's consider the premise on which this entire topic was started:

"The real reason for the NRL group sex scandal was to get women into unassailable positions of power within NRL clubs."

The writer has produced not one shred of "fact" to back up his ludicrous "opinion" as stated in his quote.

Nothing.

Not one word.

He needs to answer the following questions immediately, if he desires to possess even a modicum of credibility:

1) Who are the "actual" people involved in this conspiracy? Name them.

2) "Precisely" how did you come across the information that a sex scandal was orchestrated in order to get women into "unassailable positions of power within NRL clubs"?

3) Have you reported that the scandal was orchestrated, along with the evidence, to the police? If not, why not?

4) Have the current female CEO's of Cronulla and Manly (as mentioned by you) been complicit in the sex conspiracy to get women into "unassailable positions of power" within Cronulla and Manly? If the answer is yes, how do you know this is so? What is the evidence? Have you gone to the police regarding these two women, or their accomplices? If not, why not?

Ok, now here's your chance to back up your claim.

Antiseptic: You've chosen to ignore what I explained to you about advocacy. Determined ignorance suits your purposes so much more.

Pancho: That was a brilliant analysis. As an interesting aside, it's usual for arguments put by women to be discounted as based in emotion and subjectivity. Antiseptic's arguments are swamped in emotions born of his disenchantment with his ex wife and the divorce experience (and maybe some mummy issues); but somehow that passes muster unquestioned by his few like-minded proteges.

SJF: Your last post - absolutely resonates with cases that I've witnesed as well. I have seen the system used by embittered men to harrass and control their ex-wives; including lies about not being given access and so on. A study in Canada found that a majority of the ex hubbies going through courts that they studied wanted authority over decision making in the families that had left; not the day to day actual care of the children.

Anyway I too get fed up with lies perpetrated by the MRAs - they tell a lie that sets up a false argument then claim to fight 'it' which has nothing to do with feminists.

As Pancho pointed out, all that's different is that feminism has made it possible for women and chidren to leave an untenable situation; not that all get out unscathed or even alive. No woman would be leaving a bloke because a feminist told her to (no feminist would tell anyone to leave anyway - what a bizarre notion). Maybe the blokes who are being left need to reflect on why they lost the woman's devotion. I think most people out of an unhappy marriage (or worse) do think about such things; Antiseptic is clearly not one of them.

I am so grateful every day for the good blokes (some of whom post on here). It's a terrifying thought for a woman/women to have to exist under the domination of men like Antiseptic and his ilk.

Another 3 dreary posts from the obsessed and still nothing to contradict my original claim. Nice to know you all either agree with me or can't actually find anything to disagree about.

Pynchme, I'd not put too much stock in what SJF claims if I were you, she does have such difficulty in stopping herself "telling lies for Feminism", but you already know that, don't you, hon? After all, all men are bastards and all women are poor, helpless victims under male "dominance". And then you wake up...

The bottom line in this "scandal" was that it was a carefully-orchestrated beat-up of a long-dead incident that the police had already checked and found to be unexceptionable. The question then becomes "why". I've heard the "ratings" theory , the "community outrage" theory, the "journalistic justice crusader" theory and a host of others, but they all ignore the incredibly swift response of the NRL and Channel 9 management. That response was planned well ahead of the story being released, as was the hatchet-job on Matt Johns. When Gallop faced the cameras the morning after the story, he had a fully-polished press release ready and a sacrifice already lined up. He also had a series of interviews already teed up. Normally that would take several days, so how was it done so swiftly?

Grimshaw was also completely prepared to play her part in the sacrifice of Johns and his family the very next day.

Miranda Devine pointed out that "everyone" knew that Matt Johns was going to be done over some weeks before the story aired.

Just over a month down the track we have 2 clubs managing to find women to be CEO for the first time ever.

I think my conclusion that this story was a deliberate ploy to achieve that or similar is soundly based.

I await the usual cries of "stop making me think, you bully, antiseptic hates women" from the grrrls brigade and their apron-clingers. After all, they've nothing else to say.

so Matty Johns sits on the bench
for a few months
while his colleagues clean up their act,
and the girly boys squeal.

if this is a conspiracy
it is one put together by men
aware of their own failings,
with the interests of the game
at the forefront of their actions.

the real issue here is the contention that:
"surely the point of football is that it is a MASCULINE endeavour - archetypally so".

there are thousands of women
playing Rugby League across NSW and Queensland
who would beg to differ.

Let me make myself clear, for those of you who don’t seem to understand what I’ve been saying.
I disagree mostly with Antiseptic, but I do agree with some of what he says, to a degree. I have been a “victim” of the bias, but put it behind me. I agree with most of what the feminist movement has achieved, and in the principle of equality. As a single-parent I raised my daughter to be strong and independent, and instilled in her much of what the feminists think, because I believe it to be true. But I also taught her to think for herself, and make her own decisions. It was she who pointed out to me how irrelevant a lot of the Feminist rhetoric was to her generation, and how poorly they were regarded by most young women today. She is no fool, she is an accountant and also volunteers at a women’s shelter, a habit of service that she also picked up from me. I have spent years dealing with horrible situations for the Salvo’s, both as an employee and a volunteer.
I believe the pendulum has swung too far, and despite there still being problems for women, we are on the right track, and the pendulum has started its return swing, hopefully one day soon we will achieve equilibrium, in that field anyway

Whistler, I’ve been generaly ignoring your fixation, but you have me stumped with that one, how the heck did you get from..” "Feminism has only one rule: Women are right, no matter what they say or do", to..” complaining that women do not have a right
to advocacy of their own kind,
regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation.” “this insinuation, that Australian women
should be subject to the suspension of the rule of law, “ ?
That’s a leap I just can’t see! It’s bizarre, even for you!

SJF: I just don’t know where to start. Your tales of men’s groups and their antics I know to be true, yet you totally ignore the fact that women’s groups have been doing exactly the same thing since the 60’s, men’s groups only really started in the 80’s, as a direct result of adopting feminist tactics. Men don’t normally form support groups for perceived weaknesses, it’s genetic, but have now done so as a consequence of the bias of the Family Ct, and seeing how successful the Feminists were through their confrontational activities.
What’s good for the goose..etc.
Men’s groups should be stopped? Then in the interests of equality you are also advocating the stopping of women’s groups too?
The only difference I can see between men’s and women’s groups is the gender concerned, they both use the same tactics, women just started sooner, and are further along the path of achieving their aims.
As for the media coverage, barely a week has gone by in the last 50years and more when we haven’t been treated to the spoutings of the women’s lobby on some subject or other, by one or other of the many branches thereof. Men’s group voices have only appeared relatively recently, and have to struggle to be heard, and it’s mostly when women complain that they get it, without that they don’t often get a look in.