I wonder what Mel McLaughlin does in other situations when she gets invited out for a drink? Surely she gets invitations and all she needs to say is yes or no. It is a simple request requiring a simple answer but Gayle has been fined $10000 for doing what men and some women do every day.

People seem horrified because it happened in the work place but what is wrong with that? If a man asks his workmate in the next cubicle would he like to go fishing on the weekend is that a crime? No workplace would stop that from happening. Women seem to want to be able to control what men will look at them, talk to them or invite them out. It seems it is a good thing if you like the other person but if you do not like him then he is ‘sleazy’ and it is harassment. Repeated asking when the woman says no is harassment.

The question is the same whoever puts it and the answer is always a simple yes or no. Trying to make it in to some gender bashing exercise shows how precious some women have become and how much they want to control men.

The question of his ‘reputation’ is dragged into the fight to put him down. If he has a reputation then why has nothing been done in the past? Obviously what he has done has not been sufficiently bad to warrant punishment and so should not be taken into account when dealing with this incident. What kind of justice system takes into account a person’s reputation before handing out penalties? The judgement should be on the facts as presented in a particular incident.

The cricket administration should be ashamed of themselves. They have shown themselves to be afraid of opinion and do not stand for justice and a person’s right to be treated according to genuine values.

Dear oh Dear, it is no wonder the Australian birth rate is falling.
Men are now afraid to ask a girl out for a drink.
Say that she is attractive and you accused of being creepy or worse.

Don't knock it ladies, or you might be left on the shelf.

What does Mel McLaughlin do in other situations?

I imagine she does what she did in this one.
Her job!

Mel McLaughlin did not make a fuss. She behaved
professionally. She did not stir, complain,
or make a big deal out of the incident.
That she left up to others to do.

Agreed Foxy. It was the rest of the media who blew this interview out of proportion.
This sportsman should have been more professional when being interviewed re his job, but I doubt he has the intellect to realize that.
It was obvious the journalist did not find him attractive in any way, but he didn't pick up on that at all.

Foxy:

I don’t think she was that professional. If she had been professional she would have not been affected at all. Clearly she was thrown and became self-conscious and when you are self-conscious then you are not conscious of your job. Many interviewers are met with responses they do not anticipate but maintain their composure. It was the fact that she became ill at ease that made everyone want to put their arms around her and crucify Gayle.

The cricket administration wanted to crucify him to the point of 10,000 dollars. What exactly did he do wrong? You can’t make someone feel ill at ease unless they already are. It is the protectiveness of the whole response that patronises women. Are they so frail that everyone comes to their defence simply because they feel awkward especially when such awkwardness comes from a lack of self-belief? Although other women journalists have hopped on the band wagon it only shows their lack of self confidence. If it happened to them then they should have dealt with it at the time. If they did not then why not? If you can’t deal with it then accept you can’t deal with it and not just speak up when you have someone else to hide behind.

Suzeonline:

Why do you doubt his intellect?

Why do you think he wanted her to feel attracted to him? She doesn’t have to feel attracted to have a drink with him nor does it mean he feels attracted to her. People do have drinks that are not attracted to each other. Maybe the conclusion that people jump to says more about them than the two people in question.

Dear phanto,

I feel this is all a storm in a teacup.

The people involved have moved on.

We should as well.

Foxy, if you think it is a storm in a teacup then you should simply move on. There is no need to tell us that is what you are doing or why – just do it. There is no need to presume to speak for ‘we’ – everyone else can make up their own mind without your help.

If you think issues of justice are simply storms in teacups then it does not say much about your values. It is not the question of the amount of money he was fined but the principle that an organisation like the cricket administrators can punish someone on the basis of some kind of outrage rather than on the basis of having done something that is illegal or wrong or against some contrived code of conduct. It is up to them to show good reason why he was fined.

It is also up to the media to treat him fairly and to show why they think he should be dealt with harshly. The media are too quick to condemn people without cause and our society is dragged down by such disregard for fair treatment.

The two people may have moved on but it is not simply about them it is about how authorities and the media punish people without fair hearing

Foxy, the whole reaction is not about this one event.
It is about the way in which such events get pumped up into nationwide
controversies. Everyone rushing around saying "Dreadful behaviour"
"an affront to women" etc etc.
It is just not when women are involved, it applies to politicians just as much.
It is however much fiercer if women are involved.
It seems to have only come about in the last five or ten years.
It is strongly related to political correctness.

Oh come on Phanto, you don't honestly think that Gayle was a bright boy when he tried to chat up the journalist who was asking perfectly reasonable questions and not flirting with him in any way? He was being an idiot.

If the journalist was a male interviewing a female basketball star on national TV, and the female said "Hey there big boy, I have been wanting to see your pecs up close, how about we hook up later baby?", you can bet your bottom dollar she would be flayed alive by the rest of the media, and all the usual good ol' boys, and called a slut at the very least.

I don't think he was that bad though Bazz, so it isn't 'everyone' who is upset about the incident at all. It was just a slow news day.

“Oh come on Phanto, you don't honestly think that Gayle was a bright boy when he tried to chat up the journalist who was asking perfectly reasonable questions and not flirting with him in any way? He was being an idiot.”

Maybe he was trying to get publicity for himself in which case he would seem quite smart.

Do you think he should have been fined 10 grand? Do you think such judgements should depend on the amount of outrage or should they depend on whether or not he has broken some law of the land or the sport and what might that law be?

“If the journalist was a male interviewing a female basketball star on national TV, and the female said "Hey there big boy, I have been wanting to see your pecs up close, how about we hook up later baby?", you can bet your bottom dollar she would be flayed alive by the rest of the media, and all the usual good ol' boys, and called a slut at the very least.”

So that makes it ok? It’s all about an eye for an eye then?

The sun tanned Chris Gayle could give up cricket and join the Misogynist Party, aka Liberal Party, if they would have him, and that's questionable. Then Gayle could do a Jamie Briggs, which is the right of every member of the born to rule party, harass women, and others from the lesser servant class.

There you are Foxy, Paul 1405 just gave a classic example of the
over reaction to which I referred.

Actually, no Phanto, I don't think he should have been charged $10,000, but I guess that would be up to his club officials.
Obviously they were sufficiently upset with him to fine him that much.
It isn't something that particularly upsets me though.

Suzeonline:

“Obviously they were sufficiently upset with him to fine him that much.”

What do you mean by ‘upset’? Do you mean they were angry? If they were angry then can you see any good reason why they should be? If there is none then why are you ‘hedging your bets’? Either he was treated unjustly or he wasn’t.

“It isn't something that particularly upsets me though.”

I didn’t ask how you felt – I asked what you thought. Four questions actually.

Gee Phanto, if you are looking for a fight this morning I can't be bothered.
You might need to ask his club officials why they fined him, as I don't know what their rules are!

You were bothered enough to respond.

Of course there is a double standard. Anyone who would argue otherwise is immediately and easily proved a jackass and a hypocrite by the daily events reported in the media.

Earlier I posted a link with a video of the Channel 7 Sunrise team chortling as a female interviewer makes a heavy pass at some fellow on the beach. Chris Gayle's flattery is minor compared with that. The link again,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2876994/Nuala-Hafner-chats-hunky-tattooed-beachgoer-mid-weather-report-gets-knocked-back.html

Just to prove the double standard exists where OLO's 'Progressive'(LOL) fembots are concerned, as if that is necessary, there is always their defence of the disgusting treatment of Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith by The Circle co-hosts including Yumi Stynes and journalist George Negus who jealously commented, "He'd be a dud root".

Later, Stynes had the gall to claim that she was the victim of her 'Asian looks and gender' instead. -One encounters similar remarkable, gob-smacking switches and spin from OLO's fembots.

Gayle
It is fun to watch the harridans of political correctness exchange fire with one another. Sexism and misogyny grenades being lobbed with racist and xenophobe shells in return. PC is rather complicated isn't it?

More on that double standard and not something that Broderick and feminists would want to hear,

<The girls lift their skirts up and put men’s hands underneath’: Jesinta dishes on the ‘footy chicks

The 23-year-old model was participating in a broad-ranging discussion with Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick and Australian Women’s Weekly editor Helen McCabe about domestic violence when she was asked if she was alarmed by the kind of behaviour she had seen from footballers interacting with female fans...>

http://tinyurl.com/zsns5he

' The sun tanned Chris Gayle could give up cricket and join the Misogynist Party, aka Liberal Party, if they would have him, and that's questionable. '

not as bad as a party promoting porn and homosexuality where you would not let your kids go near Paul.

runner, is that another reference to 'Hillsong', if it is I totally agree.
In the context of cricketers income , a $10k fine was only a days pay, like $200 to the average Joe, and it went to the Mcgrath Foundation a worthy org if ever there was one, who had missed out on a pay day in Sydney due to the rain. In that context I think all cricketers should do a line on camera on all reporters, male and female, if it means cash for such a good cause as the Mcgrath Foundation.

Does anyone really believe that all this isn't a storm in
a teacup?

Look at the facts. A cricket player, an unattractive one,
flirts with a female journalist and it becomes a big deal?
Really? It should be obvious to all that the journalist
was merely doing her job. This guy is not George Clooney
to make her blush - he needs to be a bit more realistic
about how attractive he really is to women. On a scale of
1 to 10 - the odds for him are not all that great. Frankly
I think he's over-reached in this case. She's simply not
interested and probably found the entire incident -
embarrassing. Besides, the guy already has a reputation.
he thinks he's God's gift to women.
Boring!

Foxy,
Why do you bother yourself so much by posting if the topic is indeed a storm in a teacup or boring?

Are you sure it is? You seem to be trying to convince yourself that it is not an important issue.

As I have said and so too has Bazz, it is not about what happened between the two of them but about the reaction of the media, the cricket authorities and women journalists who have come out of the woodwork.

They are all talking about the principles involved in the events that took place. No one gives a toss whether they had drinks or not but many people do care when someone else is treated unjustly.

I can see why many women would want to sweep this under the carpet because it has been an embarrassment to them. It makes a mockery of genuine issues that women might have in society when such an ordinary issue is used as an excuse to do some gender-bashing.

Maybe you are trying to sweep it under the carpet for the same reasons. If not then why do you want to keep posting about it?

There is a time and place for everything and that was deliberate and inappropriate, she was working, and to be viewed by millions. Besides that who was supposed to be asking the questions. It was not his position to take over the interview. The man is a pig and find apropiately.

Dear Phanto,

Just trying to inform, amend and enrich your
life old chap but you are wasting your time
with this discussion. This is a storm in a teacup.
Nothing more, nothing less - however you're
free to indulge.
Enjoy.

"Just trying to inform, amend and enrich your
life old chap"

There is no need to be so patronising.

"you are wasting your time
with this discussion."

I will decide what is a waste of my time and what is not.

"however you're
free to indulge. "

I don't need permissions from you.

You really get quite nasty when you don't get your way.

"A cricket player, an unattractive one".."This guy is not George Clooney".."he needs to be a bit more realistic
about how attractive he really is to women"

Sure makes sexual harassment complicated when one side gets to apply a broad, flexible definition of what is 'offensive' to them personally. Particularly where some women make a habit of flirting in work settings, while still reserving the right to be 'shocked' and 'outraged' when some average or less desirable dude makes a mistake.

Honestly though, what is the motivation for the director to put a young woman into a role where she is concentrating on men's sports and entering mens dressing rooms? Very few women have a consuming interest in male sports, that is apart from watching fit young male bodies in action. That is why the NRL went over to those lycra lookalike guernseys, to enhance the view of upper torsos, rippling masses of muscles on men engaging other men in physical contact.

The faux outrage directed at Gayle is a part of the generalised sledging and slandering of men and boys :( by feminists who make hay out of male hate. The hate campaign reaches a crescendo each year coinciding with the biggie of the feminist marketing campaign, DV, and men being scolded for being men. There are 'wonderful womyn', sugar and spice, fragile flowers who constantly need State, POLICE, protection. Then there is the other lot, men, who constantly fail as human beings. All men and boys are out to do them harm and to control them.

As for the media and the scolding talking heads on The Box, I have already given an example of their hypocrisy and here is another from the dozens to pick from,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_fMN9kFm14

Maybe some chortling about 'Dickie' next, eh Lisa et al?

NSW Labor pushed another self destruct button today; Party General Secretary Jamie Clements, has been forced to give a written undertaking to keep away from Labor staffer Stefanie Jones for 12 months. Jones accused Clements of pushing her against a wall and trying to kiss her. Labor leader Luke Foley, who no doubt owes Clements a few favors, Foley refused to call for Clements resignation, not a good look Luke, not a good look at all.

I agree Foxy, it is all just a little story on a slow news day.
Many of the male news and sports readers/writers were all just as quick to jump on the
'Let's bash Gayle' bandwagon as the females were.

Even Onthebeach is upset by it all. I'm thinking that all the usual good ol' boys whining about the response to Gayle's comments are just jealous that they can't play as well as Gayle, nor will ever be interviewed by good-looking young female journalists...

Suseonline:

“I agree Foxy, it is all just a little story on a slow news day.”

You already said that to both Foxy and the rest of us so why do you need to say it again? Are you just trying to support Foxy because you think she is too fragile to defend herself? That is a rather patronising opinion of Foxy.

“Many of the male news and sports readers/writers were all just as quick to jump on the
'Let's bash Gayle' bandwagon as the females were.”

Why is that relevant if it is a non-issue?

“Even Onthebeach is upset by it all. I'm thinking that all the usual good ol' boys whining about the response to Gayle's comments are just jealous that they can't play as well as Gayle, nor will ever be interviewed by good-looking young female journalists...”

OTB is not ‘upset’ he is angry(you seem afraid of that word) because someone has been treated unjustly and that is exactly what you said. You think he has been treated unjustly and yet you try to deride others who also think he has been treated unjustly. How can anyone take you seriously when you behave that way?

It seems the usual ol’ girls have no principles at all. Their main concern seems to be to huddle into a corner together where they can take refuge against the truth. None of them has the courage to disagree with the others

Phanto, still looking for a fight I see?
I don't need you to tell me what I can and can't say, nor how often I am allowed to say it.

I think you are also jealous of Gayle.
Sad really...

Dear Phanto,

I'm too busy being fabulous to take you
seriously.

Suseonline:

“Phanto, still looking for a fight I see?
I don't need you to tell me what I can and can't say, nor how often I am allowed to say it.”

If you think I am just looking for a fight then why are you so stupid as to indulge me?

I wasn’t telling you anything – I was simply asking why you said what you did and why you needed to say it twice. You have refused to answer any of those questions. Instead you have tried to describe my call for justice as sad and born of jealously. Could we say the same for you when you call for justice for refugees or women or any of the other causes you feel strongly about?

Foxy:
“I'm too busy being fabulous to take you
seriously.”

No one said you were not fabulous but even fabulous people can make totally irrelevant posts and be quite nasty when they do not get their own way. You may or may not be fabulous but you are not perfect.

It seems you do take me very seriously given the number of times you respond to me when it is quite illogical to do so. For example, why do you feel the need to tell me you do not take me seriously? All you need to do is to behave as though you do not take me seriously and ignore me. Any kind of response towards me is just stupid behaviour.

Footy players are not hired for their IQ, nor are they trained in how to behave in interviews, so slip ups in protocol are not unexpected. As there was no physical contact or intended harassment from Gayle and if Mel McLaughlin made no complaint, I agree that this is a storm in a tea cup and the punishment was extreme.

What everyone forgets that actions often have unintended consequences. I would imagine that male sportsmen might be wary about being interviewed by women, which would not help the career of any women keen to break in to sports media.

Thoughts?

Dear phanto,

I don't take you seriously at all.
And you should not have any fear of perfection.
As Salvador Dali once stated - "You'll never
reach it!"

But it is fun playing with you.

"But it is fun playing with you"

Well it is a perverse kind of fun when only one participant is enjoying it and I certainly do not enjoy your nastiness.

Shadow Minister:

“What everyone forgets that actions often have unintended consequences. I would imagine that male sportsmen might be wary about being interviewed by women, which would not help the career of any women keen to break in to sports media.”

This is a very good point and it is becoming widespread in many areas. Men are having to be wary of their relationships with women because of unreasonable uproars about behaviour which in itself should not be considered offensive or immoral. Such is the aggression of many women that they will do anything to try and hurt a man. They will lie and exaggerate and look for support from other women who also have a lot of free floating anger against men.

There is a serious movement building momentum where men have as little to do with women as possible because close relationships with them is simply not worth the risk of being treated unjustly. Many men will also refuse to work in jobs where women also work for fear of being treated unjustly.

Women who want to hurt men at every opportunity may end up being sorry for what they wish for. There are many things they cannot have without the co-operation of men and if they continue to alienate them it will limit their choices. If you want to work as a sports reporter then you have to demonstrate an ability to be able to relate on equal terms with men or you will simply not be able to get a job.

If men become totally alienated from women then where will the babies come from? Now that should make them stop and think.

Dear phanto,

I'm not trying to be nasty.

I'm merely disagreeing with your opinion.
And that - I am entitled to do in a discussion.
I've also been taught to be honest and kind,
especially to my elders.

Foxy:

"I'm not trying to be nasty."

Well we will let others decide what you are doing.

Dear phanto,

That is most kind and generous of you.

Foxy:

"Well we will let others decide what you are doing."

Sorry, I should not have presumed to speak for you.

What I should have said is that there is no need to defend yourself if you are not being nasty.

Dear phanto,

Nothing more needs to be said Sr.

Foxy:

"Nothing more needs to be said Sr."

Well, it is a bit late now since you have already tried to defend yourself. Anything else you say will only make you look even more defensive.

Dear phanto,

I can't argue with your logic.

It is indefencable.

Oh for goodness sake Phanto will you lighten up!
Foxy was just messing with you, as was I, and you are just too serious for your own good.
Now why not repeat my statement above and then dissect it to your advantage?

I have no doubt all this 'storm in a teacup' story is as a result of all the nasty educated, feminist women in the world who are out to upset all the men and take over this patriarchal world.
Yep, no doubt about it...

The NSW Labor grub Jamie Clements has resigned as General Secretary of the party. The failure of Mr 15% (that his support rating for Premier) Luke Folly (NSW Opposition Leader for those that don't know) has serious ramifications for the next election, Folly had next to no chance of winning before the Clements debacle, now that has sunk down to zero! Folly was shown to be completely indecisive and dismissive about the whole affair, now he will have to pay the price, handing Baird another four years as Primer.
A host of state Labor luminaries had been calling for Clements head for some time. Acting Party leader Linda Burney, Lukey boy is on holidays, was forthright in demanding Clements resignation. All I can say for Folly is, Luke if that's a half decent place where you are, I suggest you stay there, permanently! Your actions, or lack of, has shown you would make a very poor state leader indeed.

Suzeonline:

“Oh for goodness sake Phanto will you lighten up!”

It seems my exchange with Foxy has really gotten under your skin. Why would it bother you so much unless there was some truth in what I have said?

“Foxy was just messing with you”

Foxy herself has already said that so why do you need to tell me as well? Are you trying to support Foxy because you think she is too fragile to support herself? Are you patronising her again? I wonder why she has not taken you to task over such patronising behaviour towards her or is it a case of the good ol’ girls needing to bind together even if one of them feels the need to patronise the other?

“, as was I,”

So which part was ‘messing’? When I asked you whether Gayle had been treated unjustly you agreed that he was. Was that just messing? We are trying to have a discussion about that issue of injustice which in my opinion is a serious issue. So how will we know in the future when you are seriously responding or when you are just ‘messing’. Why would we bother to read your posts when you are so ambiguous about your intentions? Why come here to mess with people there are many more appropriate places to do that?

“ and you are just too serious for your own good.”

If I am too serious for my own good then why bother reading my posts at all? You are so hypocritical about this. So many times have you tried to criticise me for my personal traits and yet you seem completely unable to ignore my posts. If I am as bad as you make out then why do you bother with me at all? Every time you respond to me you look more and more of a hypocrite with seemingly no self-control.

“Now...then dissect it to your advantage?”

Why do I need an advantage? I come here to have a discussion on relevant topics – not to win anything. Is that why you come here?

You know what Phanto, you are absolutely right.
I will do as you suggest.
Have a fabulous day.

Suseonline:

No need to tell me - just do it.

Suseonline:

There is no need to be sarcastic either if you are truly at peace with your decision.

Seriously, phanto. The amateur psychoanalyses are becoming really tiresome. You have no idea why people do what they do and nor is a simple post enough information to be suggestive of any particular motivation.

It’s a win-win tactic for you. If someone leaves without a word, you get to look like you sent them packing. If they continue to post, then you get to make it look like they’re experiencing some sort of defensiveness or doubt with regards to their actions or their opinions.

A perfect example:

“...there is no need to defend yourself if you are not being nasty.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7136#218894)

Such a comment leaves someone with their hands tied. They’re damned if they do and they’re damned if they don’t. If they respond with nothing, then you get to look like you were onto something. If they reject your claim, then apparently they have a guilty conscience.

It’s win-win.

Let me guess. If I felt secure in my belief of this, then I wouldn’t have felt compelled to make the point?

AJ Philips

I am not psychoanalysing their behaviour I am just analysing it based on the facts that are there for all to see. Psychoanalysis is something different altogether.

“You have no idea why people do what they do”

You seem to have an idea why I do what I do so why wouldn’t I have an idea why others do what they do? Are you the only one with an opinion?

“nor is a simple post enough information to be suggestive of any particular motivation.” Of course it is. For example I have a fair idea why you have come out of the woodwork to make this particular post.

“It’s a win-win...them packing.”

What is to win? If I am here just to win then don’t engage with me and then I cannot win. Is that why you come here just to win?

“They’re damned if they do and they’re damned if they don’t.”

Who is doing all this damming? If it is me then why would anyone be afraid of me? I have no power over them? They can be as nasty as they like or defend themselves for hundreds of posts – there is nothing I can do about that.

“Let me guess. If I felt secure in my belief of this, then I wouldn’t have felt compelled to make the point?”

Or else you might have some unresolved grievance with me and you want to hide behind this thread as a way of trying to attack me.

AJ Phillips, I feel your pain !
Cheers,
Suse :)

Suseonline and Fox openly admit to trolling phanto. It is an offensive, exasperating ploy that both of these long-term posters who so often dominate threads employ often to divert threads that are not going down the way they want.

It is not unexpected nor unreasonable that another poster, phanto in this case, might expect better and take both to task for that. He sees the issue at hand and the comments made by himself and other posters as serious and deserving of proper discussion.

BTT

Sport at an elite level required tremendous dedication. Players train hard for a short earning life.

The punishment handed out to Gayle - the demand for a humiliating public apology and the fines - will have a lasting effect on his earning form sponsorships as well and his playing and representational future inside and outside of his sport.

It is likely for example that the shadow now over Gayle could even prevent him from volunteering to help troubled kids in schools, as many sportspeople do.

How can this great wrong to a player happen in the first place? I have already posted links showing that there is no similar reaction and obviously no call for apology or punishment where a reporter from Koch's Sunrise program rudely interrupted and made a heavy, unwelcome pass at a man on a beach.

It isn't just the double standard advantaging women and disadvantaging men that always applies. There is a dreadful, all-pervasive and systemic political correctness that limits free speech in Australia and YES, it is also apparent in the ABC as recent events show (NBN), although Ray Martin couldn't find any (and wasn't expected to).

I have no idea why you do what you do, phanto.

<<You seem to have an idea why I do what I do so why wouldn’t I have an idea why others do what they do?>>

I simply pointed out what it is that you are doing. Why do it, or if you’re even conscious of it, is another matter.

<<Of course [a simple post would be enough information to be suggestive of any particular motivation]. For example I have a fair idea why you have come out of the woodwork to make this particular post.>>

Please, do tell.

<<What is to win?>>

There doesn’t have to be a prize. It’s a figure of speech.

<<Is that why you come here just to win?>>

No, my main reason is to discredit nonsense and hold it up to the light for everyone else to see.

<<Who is doing all this damming?>>

No-one. You need to learn what a figure of speech is.

<<Or else you might have some unresolved grievance with me and you want to hide behind this thread as a way of trying to attack me.>>

I’m sorry if you feel attacked. I have no idea why I would have an unresolved grievance with you.

The amateur psychology does you no favours.

otb,

You're losing your grip. Come one - you left
out Fabians, Progressives, Greens, Laborites, Leftists,
Socialists, Multiculturalism, Immigration, Refugees,
Muslims, Emily Listers, the Handbag Hit Squad,
and many, many, more. And it's all their fault.
Those poor long-suffering men.

Feel the lurve, Feel the lurve!

Good on ya Foxy, you beat me to it. Beach almost always responds to any discussion thread I start with an attack on the Greens.Its a long list.

On the subject of Gayle, I agree it was a throwaway piece from the bloke, as I said the $10k went to a good cause, 'The Mcgrath Foundation', which is set up to fight breast cancer, no more worthy cause can there be. $10k is not going to hurt Gayle, given his earning capacity, and in fact it raises his profile, and may end up a positive for his career.

In a political context I was disappointed with Luke Foley's response to the Jamie Clements affair. Again it shows that there is still very much an underlying belief from many, men and women, that sexual harassment of women is "not all that serious a matter", and its really only a bit of harmless fun, particularly if nothing really happens. In Clements case the Labor Party was very slow to act, and that in itself reflects badly on its leadership.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your comments.

There are many cases where things could have been handled
better. Take the Jamie Briggs case. There's a big difference
between kissing a female staffer on the cheek and on the
neck, especially for a married man.

Each case should be taken on an individual basis.
There are individual differences.

There are ample state and federal legislation in place to
protect employees from discriminating or intimidating
behaviour.

Mel McLaughlin by all accounts is an experienced
journalist and as such according to "The Courier Mail,"
would have encountered all sort of situations in her line
of work. She should have stuck to talking about cricket
with Chris Gayle and brought the interview back into the
box, so to speak as Leigh Sales would have probably done.
I wonder what Mel McLaughlin thinks about being portrayed
as a victim? She accepted Mr Gayle's apology and has moved
on.

Mr Gayle on the other hand despite his apology has taken
to signing autographs for his fans with the words,
"Don't Blush Baby!" Which goes to show that his apology was
not sincere.

Paul1405:

“On the subject of Gayle, I agree it was a throwaway piece from the bloke, as I said the $10k went to a good cause, 'The Mcgrath Foundation', which is set up to fight breast cancer, no more worthy cause can there be. $10k is not going to hurt Gayle, given his earning capacity, and in fact it raises his profile, and may end up a positive for his career.”

Should someone be fined $10k for a throwaway piece? How many throwaway pieces are said throughout the country every day? Should they all be fined the same amount? Either he did something wrong according to some law or agreed code of conduct or he did not. If he did then he should be punished and if he did not then he should be left alone. What does it matter whether he is able to easily pay or not? That is not justice for all people as equals? Punishment is according to the crime not your bank balance.

Why are you trying to ease the punishment by saying it could be positive for his career? Either he is guilty or not guilty – there is no in between? Whatever else happens after the judgement is irrelevant. It is like saying we will charge this homeless person with murder and put him in jail because he will get a nice warm bed and three meals a day.

The McGrath Foundation have shown a complete lack of integrity by accepting this money. It is ‘blood money’ resulting from an unjust case judged by an unscrupulous administration who they need to appease for their own ends.

OTB:

"The punishment handed out to Gayle - the demand for a humiliating public apology and the fines - will have a lasting effect on his earning form sponsorships as well and his playing and representational future inside and outside of his sport."

One wonders what the cricketer's players union is doing. Why don't they stand up for their members when they are so blatantly mistreated?

This is not the first time Chris Gayle has
put female TV presenters in terribly difficult
situations. Hopefully he will be able to see
the error of his ways writes James Maasdorp.

By resorting to the cheap flirt time and time
again, Gayles cheapens not only himself but the
sport as well. He should instead focus on
what he does best.

As James Maaddorp writes - this is not the first
time Gayle's been called out for his sexist behaviour
but now he's gone and done it on free to air TV.
Where the evidence is more accessible and the
blow back more evident.

Maasdorp's article is worth a read:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-05/maasdorp-that's-just-chris-gayle-for-you-doesn't-cut-it/7067904

Foxy:

How could Gayle’s behaviour ever be described as sexist? Sexist behaviour by a man is when he discriminates in favour of men or against women. There can be no discrimination unless there are at least two options - one option to flirt with women and another to flirt with men. So are you saying that when people only flirt with one sex or the other that it is sexist behaviour? Is everyone obliged to flirt equally with both sexes for fear of being sexist?

No one has fined him for being sexist. They have fined him for what they consider to be inappropriate behaviour.

Do you think it is fair for someone to be fined $10k for flirting with a reporter on TV? That is the only relevant question in this discussion. Can you say yes or no without any qualification?

“Gayles cheapens not only himself but the sport as well.”

How does an inanimate thing like a sport get cheapened? People enjoy cricket because it is a great spectacle to watch. Cricket is enjoyable whether it is played by thorough gentlemen or complete rogues. People go to watch bat on ball, running between wickets, the skills of the players. Their enjoyment is for the game not what players do off the field. It’s like saying Van Gogh cheapened art by his drunkenness.

“He should instead focus on what he does best.”

He is probably as focused as he thinks he needs to be. Perhaps you could email him and give him your advice.

phanto, you could stretch your line of argument to cover sporting bodies that fine coaches etc for speaking out against referees etc. I am no legal expert, but what powers do sporting bodies have to levy private finds in the first place? Interesting one if it was to be tested in court.

Dear phanto,

Sexism is inappropriate behaviour.

And Chris Gayle was fined because of his behaviour
towards women. Even after his fine Mr Gayle still
continued signing autographs with the word, "Don't
Blush Baby!" which showed that he still persisted
in his put-downs. As Mel McLaughlin told him, "I'm not
blushing." Which amused him.

This was not the first time Chris Gayle has put
female TV presenters in difficult situations. The
Melbourne Renegades Big Bash League let him off easy
with the $10,000 fine - saying it was a "one of,"
situation. It wasn't. This was not the first time
he's been called out for his sexist behaviour - only
this time he went and gone and did it on free to air
where as I stated earlier the evidence is more accessible
and the blow back more evident.

Anyway, regardless of what you and I may think and how
much we may disagree on this topic the fact remains
that not only his team but in the court of public opinion
his behaviour was found to be inappropriate - and despite
the faux apology - Mr Gayle's behaviour did not change
one iota. He still retained the words "Don't Blush Baby!"
Who's he to tell a journalist with whom she should go out
or when to blush? Not a good role model.
Putting others down at their expense - for a few laughs.
And then persist with it.
Not a good look.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016/01/05/chris-gayle-fined-melbourne-renegades-bbl/7069194

A woman should be allowed to perform her job without
having to encounter unwanted sexual advances. It's as
simple as that. She wasn't his "baby."
And Chris Gayle did not respect the journalist as a
professional trying to do her job or the fact that she
may be in a relationship. He made her feel uncomfortable
as can be seen from the interview.
That sort of behaviour demeans us all and is inappropriate.

Foxy:

“Sexism is inappropriate behaviour.”

No one said it is not. What I said is that it is not sexism. Just because someone on the Drum says it is does not make it true.

Where is the discrimination in his behaviour?

Why can’t you answer my simple question? Do you – not anyone else, just you - think his behaviour on that particular occasion (not taking into account any other occasion) deserved a fine of that size.

“in the court of public opinion his behaviour was found to be inappropriate”

The court of public opinion does not issue fines. I am asking you do you think it is fair that those who had the power to fine him did so?

“Not a good look”

I am not asking you whether it was a good look or whether he is a good role model or anything else. I am simply asking that all things considered do you consider that the fine was warranted? A simple yes or no will suffice.

“unwanted sexual advances”

How do you know they were unwanted? Why wouldn’t she find him attractive? Are you in her head or yours? Where was the sexual advance? Is every invitation to have a drink an advance? People get asked to have drinks for a whole myriad of reasons.

“ Chris Gayle did not respect the journalist as a professional trying to do her job”

He does not have to play to her rules or anyone else’s. If he wants to ask her for a drink he has every right or don’t you believe in free speech?

“He made her feel uncomfortable”

Why should she feel uncomfortable? Did she feel under some pressure to go along with his behaviour? There is absolutely no reason why she should feel uncomfortable about being asked out for a drink even at work or on TV. She could have totally ignored what he said and focused back on the cricket. If she was confident in her rights as a person to ignore such questions then she would not have felt the slightest discomfort.

Dear phanto,

I have tried to explain my point of view to you.
I have nothing further to add.
You still don't get it - I have no control over
that.

Cheers.

Phanto "? Is every invitation to have a drink an advance? People get asked to have drinks for a whole myriad of reasons."

Lol!
Yes, it was so obvious that Gayle wanted a drink with her just to further discuss sport.
His contract obviously has a public behavior clause which he breached, so he was fined.
It was not the journalist or anyone else's fault but his.
Get over it and move on Phanto.

Dear Suse,

See you on another discussion.

This one has now run its course for me.

Suseonline:

“Get over it and move on Phanto.”

Haven’t you already done that several times? You keep coming back. How can anyone believe what you say?
Do you have some racist issues with Gayle?

Foxy:

“I have tried to explain my point of view to you.
I have nothing further to add.
You still don't get it - I have no control over
that.”

That is a pretty arrogant attitude. Anyone who does not agree with you simply does not get it? There’s no chance that perhaps you don’t get it?

You are the only one to have mentioned race Phanto, so you must have a problem with it? I can return to any discussion I want, I don't need your permission.

Yes, see you on another discussion Foxy.
We will leave Phanto to rant on his own...

Suseonline:

"You are the only one to have mentioned race Phanto, so you must have a problem with it? "

Hey Suse, I was just joking! Don't take yourself so seriously!

"I can return to any discussion I want, I don't need your permission."

Of course you can you just look really stupid when you keep saying one thing and doing another.

Dear Phanto,

You are the one mentioning things like -
us being nasty, now stupid, arrogant,
and you end up saying you're "just
joking," just as Mr Gayle does.
What a co-incidence eh?

And yes that does make you look stupid, I agree
when in your case you say one thing and do another.

It appears that from your posts on this discussion
that the one who's
having problems with people who disagree
with your point of view is yourself.

But enough said.

Dear Suse,

I agree - let the man rant by himself. Or joke -
if that's what he prefers.
You did tell him to "lighten up."
Yet he somehow manages to tell women they're
nasty, stupid, arrogant - and he's just joking mind!

Now Foxy, common I know you can do it. You really can leave this thread if you set your mind to it!

Take Suseonline's hand and the hand of the other resident bully AJ Philips and just turn your backs and walk away.

You can do it! C'mon!

" I am woman, hear me roar..."

Well I know you don't really mean that nasty bit of name calling, phanto.

<<...the other resident bully AJ Philips...>>

After all, if you felt so secure in that belief, then why would you feel the need to say it?

AJP:

It is just a figure of speech!

Dear phanto,

Well that's precisely why I've now decided to stay -
old chap.

Who would talk to you if I left?

And, I've been taught to be kind to those older and less
fortunate.

"Be kind to your dim-witted friends
'Cause they just may be somebody's brother!""

That would be a strange figure of speech, phanto. I don’t think it was. After all, if you were secure in your belief that it was a figure of speech, then why would you need to tell me? That fact that you have, suggests that you are experiencing doubts.

Foxy, Foxy, Foxy!

OK, here’s the thing. Several times you have said you were going to leave the thread and you have returned. Each time you do that your integrity takes a complete nosedive and your reputation on the forum as being honest and genuine suffers. I have tried to encourage you to leave off engaging with me because it is the only behaviour that would be consistent with you attitudes towards my behaviour and my opinions. It seems you do not have your own best interests at heart so I am going to have to administer some tough love.

Therefore I will leave the thread as it seems the only way to stop you from doing more self-harm.

I have done my best and this is the last card up my sleeve

Dear phanto,

That would certainly take care of the problem
you sweet man.

Then I wouldn't feel guilty if you were the one
who left.

See, as I stated earlier - you really are too,
too, generous and kind.

Bye. And Thank You - much appreciated.

Phanto has spat his dummy and left the house.
Thank goodness for small mercies!

The whole incident between Gayle and Mclaughlin shows how far many women have to go before they are truly liberated.

Had Mclaughlin just ignored the flirting of Chris Gayle and maintained her professional composure the whole incident would not have raised a whisper. She appeared hurt – her body language and the fact that she responded to Gayle’s comment about blushing shows that she was uncomfortable. It was this discomfort that galvanised everyone into a frenzy of condemnation of Gayle’s behaviour. The media instantly put their arms around her in an attempt to protect her from this uncouth villain. They brought up his past behaviour; they gave space to all those who also wanted to bring up his past behaviour as if to add weight to the guilt he should bear. Prominent cricketers also put their arms around her to comfort her and Cricket Australia hammered him with a fine of 10 thousand dollars.

They all made it clear that such behaviour would not be tolerated in this day and age when we should be showing more respect for women. We were left with no doubt that there was one who was attacked and another who was the victim.

Is it logical for her to react the way she did and how much is she to blame for her own reaction? If we accept the consensus opinion that he was flirting with her and had no other motive, good or bad, then why should she be taken aback by it? Why should any woman be taken aback by being asked out for a drink be it in a social setting, at work, on TV or anywhere else? It was a simple question and she reacted unreasonably. Had she simply said ‘no thanks’ or even ‘no’ or even totally ignored him and moved on to the next question then no more would have been said. She didn’t and there is no good reason why she could not have done so.

cont.

cont.

Another woman reporter in another time and place would have just ignored him and continued doing her job without missing a heartbeat. To react the way she did was immature and not the response of a person who knows their own rights in inter-personal relationships. Her reaction was due to her attitudes about men/women relationships and relationships in general.

The blame has also been laid at the feet of every organisation that should have protected her including her employer. How were they to know that she was so personally insecure and why should they be to blame for it?

After the exchange she was cloaked in a tidal wave of chivalry and sympathy. Men rushed to defend her honour and women said it was just another example of men’s lack of respect for women.

Women should have been horrified at the outrage and the attitudes that underlie them. It is just another re-enforcement of the ageless belittling of women who are deemed the weaker sex and unable to stand on their own two feet. They need possies of belligerents to stand up for them or worse still they need men to move in and slay the evil dragon who dares to invite them out for a drink.

Here was an opportunity for women to truly stand up for themselves and claim their own right to think and feel for themselves. No one needs to tell them how offended they are nor do they need anyone to patronisingly move in and take control of the situation.

For all their liberation and so-called freedom there are many women who have a long way to go before they can claim the freedom to which they aspire. Learning that it is their right to clearly and calmly ignore any question that they do not think appropriate for any reason would be a good start.

"[Mclaughlin] appeared hurt – her body language and the fact that she responded to Gayle’s comment about blushing shows that she was uncomfortable"

Of course it is necessary for the 'always shocked' brigade to have her off-foot and 'harmed' in some way, otherwise she cannot serve as a victim of a man (and 'men').

However, if the video is viewed dispassionately, all she is doing is giving the usual brush-off that any woman (make that most women) gives to a man she does not rate. It is this public signalling, sometimes over-emphasised and deliberately cruel, that many men find offensive. The unsuccessful who do not make 'the cut' are 'creeps' by definition. Men say a polite 'No thanks' is enough and no frowning or verbal rebuff and put-down (as the spurned, rejected man is meant to take it) is necessary.

One can easily imagine her doing the same in a social environment. For example, in a bar.

Obviously Gayle was not her Alpha choice that day and she showed it.

Fortunately more young women are saying 'No thanks' and politely these days. They should have fewer hang-ups than their 'Boomer' mothers.Imagine if men did that to women. Some do and it is unnecessary and offensive.

Public shaming is the province of the leftists who do it so well. Not credibly, but they arise as one in faux offence. Amusing to watch.

The aggressive re-buff is the reaction of insecure women. “As if I would go out with you – how desperate do you think I am?” It is a way of trying to convince themselves that they are attractive because they do not feel that they are. You should say no to an invitation for a drink with the same emotional detachment that you say no to anything else you are invited to do. Inviting people to do things is a normal part of relating but it seems many women need to take the opportunity to try and bolster their ego at the same time as they refuse an invitation to have a drink with a man.

So many women also see the invitation to drinks as an invitation to have sex. They want to see it that way because they are afraid it might not be the case. An invitation to have a drink might mean that a man is interested in your ideas rather than your body but that is not what many women want him to be interested in. Such attitudes by women re-enforce the stereotype that men are only after one thing. This stereotyping is disrespectful to men. Men are being called on to ‘respect’ women -well that goes both ways.

Even looking at a woman and admiring her beauty simply for what it is can often lead to the accusation that you are ‘perving’. If a man admires a beautiful sunset or captivating painting is that also considered ‘perving’? Women automatically presume he cannot be satisfied with that and of course he is just after sex. Then we get ridiculous accusations like being ‘objectified’ and being ‘mentally raped’ which leads to a ‘rape culture’.

Men should stand up to this abusive language. They are not perving but admiring and enjoying. They are not ‘sleazy’ when they ask someone for a drink but simply asking for the enjoyment of another person’s company. Whenever women display aggressive behaviour based on stereotypes they should be challenged and confronted.