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.