Heaven forbid but the chief football writer for The Age newspaper is gutted by a 'vile', 'sexist' joke by Eddie McGuire. There is an immediate outpouring of shock and outrage. Predictably, the ABC is all over it like a fat kid with a packet of Smarties. (Whoops, better watch it there!)

Meanwhile, in First World countries..

Have the Offenderati finally jumped the shark on this one?

Typical school boy humour by Eddie.

Women with no humor.

the fact that this was even news worthy shows we have far to many overpaid whingers on the public purse who obviously have no productive work to do. The afl is turning into a disgrace.

Totally agree, otb. McGuire should be free to demonstrate his puerile antics on the airwaves. Footy boys bantering about drowning a journo should probably be in the school curriculum.

Eddie letting us know precisely the kind of prat he is while entertaining his dodo mates is priceless.

He'd fit in well around here.

Heartening to see you still scrounging around for a thread topic to bop the feminists - way to go!

I've been out of touch from what passes for news for you few days. Arrived home last night to headlines that McGuire had committed some heinous, unimaginable sin. Turned out that he would't mind if someone drowned a journalist! Wow! 100% of the rest of us probably think we'd like to see 80% of journalists drowned. I think Eddy is a tool, but his often loose mouth is nowhere as embarrassing the pathetic screeching of po faced whingers with nothing better to think about.

What a storm in a teacup !
What are they putting in the water in Melbourne ?
They seem to lost their perception of balance.
A slight puff of wind and they fall over.

Has it reached the stage that such nonsense is cheap journalism ?
I know that newspapers are have a tough financial time and perhaps TV
is now in the same boat and they can get days and days of pages of
print for no expenditure.
Surely in the middle of an election there was something better to spend their time on.

Amazing how quickly the feminist elite in the media, public bureaucracy and academia can organise to protect and extend the everlasting victimhood. Everlasting victimhood that their affirmative action entitlements and sources of income depend on of course.

Tracey Spicer for instance, a very well paid journalist with a sinecure at the ABC and her own media company - proof one would assume that she like the others complaining are doing very well thank you (no thanks given, never, just kidding) - damned McGuire with the by now familiar words and apparently well-rehearsed rhetoric from the feminist echochamber.

Spicer,
"ABC TV presenter Tracey Spicer told news.com.au the AFL’s response to the McGuire incident was “pathetic”...

“The media — in this case, Triple M — should impose a sanction or penalty on Eddie McGuire. Frankly, he should be taken off air. As the national convenor of Women in Media, I find it reprehensible that a female journalist is referred to in this way. It’s no wonder women only make up nine per cent of sports reporters in this country.

“As consumers, we can vote with our feet, ears, eyes, purses and wallets. Don’t go to Collingwood games. Don’t listen to Triple M. Turn off the Millionaire Hot Seat. Boycott anything to do with him.
“Our steering committee at Women in Media plans on approaching board members of both the AFL and Triple M, to take this matter further".
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/these-guys-live-in-a-bubble-the-afls-big-blokey-problem/news-story/3926b9c7f71a6cacfc289b1191ae6236

Censorship. Thought control. Forget freedom of speech where there are careers and $$ to protect.

The language chosen by Spicer and others proves how essential the highly political DV campaign was and is, to so many very well off white, educated, middle class feminists who are determined to retain and increase the advantages and privilege they inherited and have always enjoyed.

As with Gillard and her prepared misogyny speech, it is apparent the guns were already loaded and primed for a suitable male celebrity target. That they fired the salvos as one over such a trivial jibe says volumes about feminism and the elite who direct and benefit from it.

Strangely enough the feminist hatred response to Eddie is far more vile than the actual joke. Somehow they think they have a right to spit out venom and scream victimhood when someone tells a joke. Many of them cheered when our tax payer funded propganda depicted Abbott having sex with a dog. Such outrage over a joke. Oh well I suppose it confirms their victimhood.

Watch this advertisement for a salad-dressing where the lady gets electrocuted every time she tells a lie (that she added this-or-that ingredient herself rather than that it was already part of the dressing): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDdeY-1lr_c

How would that go in Australia...?

Here is the sensitive, easily offended Tracey Spicer talking about men and men's bits on 'that' site,

http://www.mamamia.com.au/tracey-spicer-confessions/

Spicer's vulgarity and jibes, her freedom of speech is not for men to enjoy though. That is the double standard of the educated, white, middle class elite who ARE feminism and use it to protect, maintain and extend their already extensive privileges.

All other women are lesser beings, 'useful idiots' for the white middle class elite to ride on the shoulders of and scoff at at their leftist Emily's List soirees. Hey, its 'networking', don't call it for what it is, left elitists playing favourites.

Feminists' care factor for elderly women or (say) women in those 'Struggle Streets'? NIL.

Maguire is a bully but it was the men around him that were the real victims.

Not content to ridicule another person whom he disagrees with he then tried to co-opt his ‘mates’ in order to make the attempt to humiliate even more aggressive. Some backed him up and some declined to both during the event and in the ensuing comments afterward.

Some of these men would have been afraid of the consequences for themselves if they did not support him because he wields power over many people. Some may have lost their jobs if they did not support him.

Wilson was ridiculed but ridicule never killed anyone. It does not mean that it is OK to ridicule either men or women but it has to be put into perspective. Being ridiculed is one thing – losing your job is far more serious.

If women like Spicer had any credibility they would have pointed this out and shamed Maguire for the bully he is but they do not have that kind of human perspective. They only have opportunistic eyes for women ‘victims’. They do not care what happens to people only what happens to women.

I do not see Eddie's speech any worse than some of the posts I've read here, like, "Abbot should be shot". etc unless it is taken seriously by a psychopath.

phanto, I'm no fan of McGuire, but your attempt to blame McGuire for the comments of the men around him (whose comments were far worse) is pathetic.

runner,

"...Somehow they think they have a right to spit out venom and scream victimhood when someone tells a joke...."

Strangely enough, runner, you habitually spit out venom with no provocation at all...

What's your excuse?

'It's just a joke' and 'Women/feminists have no sense of humour'.

1. Women - and this woman - have heard 'it's just a joke' so many times that when we hear 'it's just a joke', the only possible reaction is 'here we go again, again, again, again, again...' We would be truly delighted if men came up with something new - both the jokes, and the excuses.

2. We have no sense of humour .. well, yes we do. But if you're a woman, why should you still find the thousandth plus 'joke' that involves killing, raping, demeaning women funny? Especially when there's always the possibility lurking in the back of your mind, that no matter how old, confident, balanced, polite, unconfronting you are, it just might happen to you, totally out of the blue, when you're walking in your local park, or down the street, or watching tele in your own home.

I can see that such banter - jokes that put down women - acts as bonding between boys and men. But why should women find them humorous? Indeed, I'd suggest that if women did find them funny (entertaining) then they would have failed their male-bonding purpose. Of course women do finds them funny (peculiar) in one respect - that men seem to have a need to put down women to feel like one of the boys!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/when-youre-part-of-the-club-the-club-forgives/news-story/ee55cc749f3dde38acd977146fbedd15

Josephus: 'I do not see Eddie's speech any worse than some of the posts I've read here, like, "Abbot should be shot". etc unless it is taken seriously by a psychopath.'

Many of the posts here are no worse - yes, they are just as bad. And this forum is nowhere near as bad as other internet sites.

When you out your opinion on line, presumably you want others to read it and take it seriously and maybe you hope to influence others to agree with your view. But if I read something that makes a personal attack, 'Abbott should be shot' or 'Juliar', or a general attack 'nazis' - whether referring to feminists or conservatives, it instantly devalues what you say. You may have a legitimate argument against Abbott, Gillard, feminists, conservatives etc. but you instantly lose, if can't state your case without resorting to invective. (Please don't use Trump as an example of the success of invective; it will come back to bite him, and America).

I am constantly amazed that so many people don't seem to realise this. Of course, you may just want to let off steam, but can I suggest you join a boxing club and take it out on a punching bag. Just not a woman, or a cat. Or join a volunteer group and help people less fortunate than yourself.

'Unless it is taken seriously by a psychopath'. Well, that happens. Do you want to be the one who triggers a psychopath? Or will you say 'it was only a joke'.

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2011/01/did-sarah-palin-s-target-map-play-role-in-giffords-shooting/21575/

Aidan:

I wasn’t blaming Maguire for the comments made by the others. They have to take full responsibility for what they say. I am blaming him for being a bully. They would have known he was a bully and that if they did not go along with him there could be consequences for them. They are victims of his bullying because they do not feel free to challenge him and he knows that and it is why he asked them to join in – he knew he could control them and they would not have had the courage to stand up to him. What would you have done? Risk the ire of a journalist or run the risk of losing your job?

Cossomby:

You talk of the thousands of put downs and insults that get hurled at women every day. No one woman has to bear the brunt of all that. Each woman may have to endure it at most a couple of times in a year. That is a couple too many but let’s not dramatise what any one person has to put up with. Such exaggeration does your integrity no good.

Yes there is a possibility of you being attacked on the street but you are just as likely to be hit by a bus. Should we take buses off the street? Stop exaggerating the issue it just looks desperate. Men are no more dangerous to women than buses.

If you are really worried about being hit by a bus then move to the country. Take some affirmative action and avoid men as much as you possibly can. Set up women only societies where you can almost guarantee you will not be insulted by men. There are lots of things you can do.

Constantly complaining about the behaviour of men whilst doing nothing to change your situation is just nagging and nags are cowards. They are too frightened to stand up for their convictions and take control of their own lives.

'Germaine Greer once wrote that women have no idea how much men hate them. Thanks to the internet, now we do.' @ccriadoperez.

Now that made me laugh (to myself, how true).

Phanto: I did NOT say 'every day'. To each woman personally it may may only be a couple of times a year. But, I meant over my whole teenage / adult whole life! I would have heard this in the 1960, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s: 55 years @ two per year is 110 minimum, but of course there were many more when I was younger, and you heard it directed at other women. Now via the internet etc. you hear this stuff regularly even if it is not directed to you personally.

My point was that it's repetitive and really boring - even if it's not thousands, it certainly feels like it - yes I was mildly exaggerating to express the feeling of never-ending persistence of the same old, same old...

And that alone is a good reason why we don't find it funny.

Cossomby, "I can see that such banter - jokes that put down women - acts as bonding between boys and men"

Do you imagine that when Tracey Spicer makes references to (say) 'donkey dick' or 'banana dick' that is just an aberration? See here,

http://www.mamamia.com.au/tracey-spicer-confessions/

[Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 12:59:28 PM]

Switch the genders, "Can you see how banter - jokes that put down men - acts as bonding between girls and women"

What about the comparisons women make between the penis and the neck of a dressed turkey? Was the man killed first before his penis was flayed?

Cossomby, "Of course women do finds them funny (peculiar) in one respect - that men seem to have a need to put down women to feel like one of the boys!"

What about women who put down men to feel like one of the girls (or is that Grrls)?

It is the double standard again.

Cossomby, "Germaine Greer once wrote that women have no idea how much men hate them"

Could anything compare with Greer's patronising hatred of women?

As for men hating women, most women know that to be absolute bollocks!

There are some damaged men and damaged women who stand in need of good counselling though.

Cossomby:

Well if it is just repetitive and boring then it is not a big problem really is it? Lots of things in life are repetitive and boring.

If it was painful to hear those things then you might have something to complain about but it seems it is just repetitive and boring. It is not even painful. Words cannot hurt anyone. If Wilson is hurt by what Maguire said then she must have a brittle sense of self which is her responsibility. Maguire may have intended to hurt but whether or not he suceeds is really up to her.

The problem is that women want to make this about violence towards women but there was no violence here. Women risk not being taken seriously about violence toward women when they complain about insults that cannot hurt them. Wilson herself said that she certainly did not see the two things as equally grave but nevertheless she still reacted to Maguire's insults when the appropriate response would have been to ignore him and let others deal with his intent to hurt.

"And that alone is a good reason why we don't find it funny."

It was never meant to be funny - it was meant to hurt. The rationalisation of calling it a joke only came because he was exposed. It should be responded to for what it was - an insult intended to hurt but in the bigger scheme of things it should never have achieved its aim and as far as aggression towards a woman goes it is pretty small fare.

Phanto:

1. It's easy to avoid buses. Don't step in their way, you're usually safe. When buses start telling negative jokes about women, and attacking woman walking past shops (Jill Meagher) or visiting their grandmother's grave (Mersina Halvagis) then I will be more wary. Then they will be as dangerous as men.

2. Rationally I don't expect to be attacked by men. The point I was making is that it's always in the back of women's minds that It could happen to them. (Writing this, I realised I did not have to check Jill's and Mersina's names or their murders, I just knew).

3. I moved to the country: three buses a day to nearest regional centre; more to fear from B-doubles on the highway. I reckon men are men everywhere.

4. 'Take some affirmative action and avoid men as much as you possibly can' - why? I have many great male friends and colleagues, who are as unamused at the demeaning 'banter' as I am. Affirmative action to me means showing men that they can have positive relationships with women - not just sex/marriage but as mothers, sisters, colleagues, friends, mentors - so they do not need to 'hate' them. (Even so, the subconscious nervousness still lurks).

5. 'Set up women only societies where you can almost guarantee you will not be insulted by men'. Why? Wouldn't we all, male, female, adult and especially children, be better of off if men didn't feel the need to insult women so much?

6. 'Constantly complaining about the behaviour of men whilst doing nothing to change your situation is just nagging and nags are cowards. They are too frightened to stand up for their convictions and take control of their own lives.' Wow! What an odd reaction.

I was just attempting to explain why woman might not see the funny side of such 'banter', given the number of times I have heard, or read, that woman can't take a joke or have no sense of humour.

You should ask yourself why you overreacted so much.

On the beach: I don't condone Tracey Spicer. And I have never experienced insults to men as bonding between women.

Phanto: 'It was never meant to be funny - it was meant to hurt.' Thank you for stating the truth.

'Well if it is just repetitive and boring then it is not a big problem really is it? Lots of things in life are repetitive and boring.'

My apologies for being repetitive and boring myself, by stating for the third time, that I was trying to explain why women don't seem to have a sense of humour about such 'jokes'/'insults'. Regardless of the size of the problem, the nature of the joke, or insult, and even if it is actually funny, WE HAVE HEARD IT BEFORE. It has to be a really great joke to be funny on multiple repetition, and yes there are some of those. Perhaps we could have a theme on really good jokes!

In my posts, I did not attack anyone or use any insults - I even tried to be a bit humorous (thousands of times). I really was trying to explain why we don't find these jokes/insults funny (in reaction to comments like 579: women with no humor): because we've heard it before, and because there's always that subconscious nervousness in women. I have been taken aback by your responses.

No more tonight, I'm getting close to the limit of posts.

Cossomby,

Thank you for your civil reply. I don't condone Spicer either. There are many hypocrites like her.

My concern is freedom of speech and I hope we might agree on that.

Not that I care in the least about what Eddie Maguire thinks or says but I heard no reference to "women" specifically or generally in what he said.

To me it was a careless comment about a certain Fairfax journalist - not a woman or women in general.

However Alan Jones' remark about throwing Julia Gillard into the sea in a chaff bag was more reprehensible because it was part of a personal campaign against an individual amid other allegations specifically directed at her gender.

Maguire's comment seems different to me and not worth all the fuss.

It seems that some people have just got to hate and many love to be outraged.

Cossomby:

You are being deliberately evasive. My point simply put is that you have as much chance of being hit by a bus as being hit by a man but you want to exaggerate and dramatise the level of violence that any one woman is likely to experience at the hands of a man. It is in fact about the same level of violence that a man would expect to be a victim of so I am not sure why you are talking about only the violence experienced by women. What does it matter that Wilson is a woman? She is a person. She was not attacked by Maguire because she was a woman but because she was a journalist. Male journalists also get attacked so why is this incident being linked to men’s violence toward women?

“Rationally I don't expect to be attacked by men. The point I was making is that it's always in the back of women's minds that It could happen to them.”

If it is not rational then why point it out? You don’t expect it but it is always in the back of your mind. Why is it always there if you don’t expect it? That is illogical.

“Affirmative action to me means showing men that they can have positive relationships with women”

Men already know this - they do not need your input. Affirmative action is when you stop waiting for someone else to change and take control of a situation to guarantee your own safety.

cont.

cont.

If you don’t take such action we can only presume that it is not a big issue for you so why bring it up? It is simply a case of put up or shut up.

“Wouldn't we all, male, female, adult and especially children, be better of off if men didn't feel the need to insult women so much?”

Why wait for men to change when you can make things a lot safer for yourself right now?

“Wow! What an odd reaction.”

It is perfectly logical. Either you do something about your situation which you have described or stop complaining about it because it is obviously not important enough to you to move. It takes courage to act upon your convictions. You have to make a choice. Doing nothing and yet still complaining is cowardice. You neither have the courage to shut up or to put up.

“I was just attempting to explain why woman might not see the funny side of such 'banter',”

Why would you feel the need to do this if you did not think it was meant to be a joke?

“You should ask yourself why you overreacted so much.”

Thanks for telling me what I should do. Is that being patronising or just banter?

“that I was trying to explain why women don't seem to have a sense of humour about such 'jokes'/'insults'.”

No you were trying to link such insults to violence. There is no need to explain why anybody does not like insults.

No, I saw no problems at all in Big Ed's funtime comments with the other big, important men on TV.
In fact, what I would really have liked to see is Eddie drowning in that icy pool he plopped into 'for charity' the other day.
Now THAT really would have been humerous and newsworthy!

Jurnos have gone from reporting the news, to making the news, 60 minutes being a classic example.

Another example was a story run on ACA a few weeks back about the enormous amount of water in bacon.

I was actually interviewed about this and advised that the maximum water you could get into bacon was about 35%, maybe 40% but unlikely.

Well, they didn't like that, so off they went and concocted some great story with a chemist suggesting there was more like 75%. What a load.

Of cause meat is made up of about 75% liquid, so perhaps that's where they were coming from, but if it was, then that is very deceiving.

They simply don't like to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Spineless Eddie McGuire had set himself up as an obvious and easy target with his cringing PC apology on a previous occasion, where he also set himself up on a pedestal as a PC warrior, having made the pledge.

More or less the same nest of PC vipers came back to bite him again on the behind, in the assurance from his previous performance that he would immediately roll over, capitulate and grovel as he was trained to do.

So yes, he deserves a cold water dunking, regularly.

As rehctub says, the media make the news. However it should be added that political correctness is so widespread, deep and systemic in Australia that many people might only pick up on extreme examples of PC and never realise that they themselves are self-censoring 24/7.

rache:

"Maguire's comment seems different to me and not worth all the fuss."

That's true but it becomes an issue when people try to make a connection between a small matter and a big matter like violence towards women.

Suseonline:

"No, I saw no problems at all in Big Ed's funtime comments with the other big, important men on TV.
In fact, what I would really have liked to see is Eddie drowning in that icy pool he plopped into 'for charity' the other day.
Now THAT really would have been humerous and newsworthy!"

You did see a problem with it otherwise you wouldn't need to make a comment about it - you would just ignore it.

hopefully at the next afl game someone will hold up a sign saying 'drwon eddie in an ice bath'. Watch the outrage. I think not.

Violence against women is a widespread, severe
problem which as we can see from the recent barrage of
TV adds - needs to be addressed. It would help
Mr McGuire's image if he instead would donate the $50,000 he
offered for the demise of Caroline Wilson -
to help address the problem
of "violence against women."
Now that would not be paying lip-service to the problem, or
a joke, but meaningful action of "putting
his money where his mouth is."

Foxy:

Why should he donate money to the cause of violence towards women more than any other cause?

Are you suggesting that he should do it to show he is against violence towards women? Why wouldn't he be against violence toward women? What has he done to suggest that he is not against it?

He has ridiculed a journalist who just happens to be a woman. Should she be given special care simply because she is a woman? Had he ridiculed a male journalist would you suggest that he donate money to a violence towards men cause?

When women try and make a connection between a ridicule of a journalist who happens to be female and violence towards women then they undermine the integrity of the whole movement which is seeking to stop men's violence toward women. You can cry wolf once too often and when real violence takes place the woman will unlikely be believed. If you think he should pay that kind of money as 'punishment' for a ridicule then you have a warped sense of values.

Dear Phanto,

You ask -

Why should Mr McGuire donate money to the cause of violence
towards women more than any other cause?

Because he did speak about drowning a woman (and allowing others to
join in).

You also ask -

Are you suggesting that he should do it to show he is
against violence towards women.

No, I'm not. However that would probably help
his image and add credibility to his insistence
that he didn't actually mean for someone to hold
Caroline Wilson under water until she drowned.

No, I do not think Mr McGuire should pay that kind of money as a
"punishment." Instead it would show people that he is more
than willing to take a stand against the issue of violence
against women with a $50,000 pledge to one of the most
worthwhile causes in the country

“Because he did speak about drowning a woman (and allowing others to
join in). “

He spoke about drowning a journalist because he does not agree with her opinion as a journalist. Why should women journalists be treated differently than men journalists. He was not ridiculing her for being a woman but because he disagreed with her views as a journalist. Any real journalist would be horrified to be treated differently just because of their gender. They dish it out and so they they have to be prepared for what they receive in return. I have seen Caro Wilson ridicule Eddie Maguire on national television so does that constitute violence towards men?

Do you really think he would drown her? There is a world of difference between saying something and doing something. Have you never said that you would like to harm someone? I have seen you ridicule people on this forum does that mean you are a violent person?

“No, I'm not. However that would probably help
his image and add credibility to his insistence
that he didn't actually mean for someone to hold
Caroline Wilson under water until she drowned.”

Why should he or anyone else care about their image? Why would he need to add credibility to his insistence? You would have to be extremely gullible to think he meant what he said.

“No, I do not think Mr McGuire should pay that kind of money as a
"punishment." Instead it would show people that he is more
than willing to take a stand against the issue of violence
against women with a $50,000 pledge to one of the most
worthwhile causes in the country”

Why should he have to take a stand? He is under no obligation to champion any cause at all. What evidence do you have that he has not already taken that stance? I have seen you ridicule men does that mean that you agree with violence towards men?

The feminist thought police have always had difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality. Without the fiction of sloppy science and unsupported narrative they would have nothing to go on.

It is all a monstrous lie, a bluff of the thought police from Emily's List. The mateship of the leftist Grrls who play favourites. In this case, to coordinate a nasty take-down to demonstrate their power and warn others off. That is the power of the political correctness they are buffing up for even bigger outrages.

Any wonder that young women run screaming from the bagging, negging feminists. The dinosaurs of the previous Millenium and last century.

Why So Many People are against Feminism
http://hubpages.com/politics/Why-So-Many-People-Are-Against-Feminism

Love your standards, otb...

This from sports writer, Erin Riley on twitter this morning:

"Apparently Sam Newman called me a piece of sh..t on the Footy Show tonight. Nice to see lessons being learned in footy."

Do all the lads on this thread approve of our airwaves being employed for such jollity?

Those footy blokes are less cultured than a bunch of ten year-olds behind a bike shed.

Poirot:

Why do you feel the need to tell us that? A man verbally abused a woman. This is newsworthy?

He used the airwaves to abuse her. She too is on the airwaves is she not? It seems she has the same power as him. A bit like Caroline Wilson really. It is a spat between two media personalities.

If we do not like what is happening on the airwaves we do not have to tune in. If we do not like the fact that two equally matched human beings abuse the airwaves for their personal grievances then we do not have to put up with it. The power belongs to us.

So far you have no good reason to report the event.

Or do you need to tell us that a man has been aggressive toward a woman and that it somehow is evidence that men are more violent to women than vice versa. Men are more violent than women – we already know that – but are they more aggressive? Women are as equally aggressive and you are a perfect example of that. Your posts are littered with put downs, sarcasm, taunts, belittlements, patronising and insults. The very things you accuse Maguire and Newman of. It just proves that some women are as aggressive as some men.

Let us talk about aggression. There is no need to argue as to which gender is the most violent because the statistics speak for themselves. The behaviour of Maguire and Newman is aggressive but no more aggressive than women demonstrate.

Why did you ask the ‘lads’ for their opinion? Why not ask the ‘girls’ as well? Are you afraid some of them may disagree with you?

phanto,

"He used the airwaves to abuse her. She too is on the airwaves is she not? It seems she has the same power as him. A bit like Caroline Wilson really..."

So she's on the airwaves too!

That absolves childish men using their positions in the media to undertake blokey conversations on air - musing about drowning journos, referring to them as excrement, etc...

You appear to be suggesting that these women should dish out the same immature sledging to these fellas...just like a playground slanging match.

I don't really give a toss what these puerile wingnuts do when they're bonding in their clubhouse soirees - that's their mentality and I accept that.

"... The behaviour of Maguire and Newman is aggressive but no more aggressive than women demonstrate."

Righto - I'm sure you can provide an example of professional women in the media using their positions to do the same to male sporting personalities.

Off you go....

and of course the regressives were silent when one of their own spoke if Pauline Hanson being hung from Sydney Harbour. Another one of the abc heroes with complete double standards.

btw I would of though Bill Shorten dehumanising women by watching them strip would have the feminist in an outrage. No chance as long as their 'cause 'is advanced. Feminism usually just means selfishness and fake outrage.

Poirot:

“That absolves childish men using their positions in the media to undertake blokey conversations on air - musing about drowning journos, referring to them as excrement, etc...”

No they should take full responsibility for their behaviour but not all aggressive behaviour is a hanging offence. Exaggerating and dramatising what happened is cowardice because women who make a big issue out of it do so to try and obtain leverage in their campaign against men’s violence. If they have a genuine issue in regard to men’s violence then they should argue their cause in the forum about men’s violence. They are afraid that their arguments may not be logical so they try and attack men for behaviour which has nothing to do with violence.

“You appear to be suggesting that these women should dish out the same immature sledging to these fellas...just like a playground slanging match.”

What is wrong with that? Wouldn’t it be just self-defence? Why would a woman not make use of the weapons available to her to defend herself? If it works for men why wouldn’t it work for women?

“puerile wingnuts”

Is that aggressive? Is it like what Newman said to Riley.

cont.

cont.

“Righto - I'm sure you can provide an example of professional women in the media using their positions to do the same to male sporting personalities.”

I am confused as to what your problem is. Is it about people abusing the media or is it about men’s aggression towards women?

No one should abuse the media regardless of their gender but plenty of people do. There are structures put in place to censure this when it happens and those censures should be applied irrespective of gender. Anything else is discrimination. If there are no women abusing the media that is fine but what difference would it make if they were not? What would your point be other than to say that men abuse the media more than women?

If your problem is about men’s aggression towards women then surely it is irrelevant whether they are in the media or not. Is it OK for men to be aggressive to women outside the media then? If you do not like the fact that men are aggressive toward women then you would not like it in any situation so whatever argument you are trying to make about men’s aggression towards women would make their presence in the media irrelevant

Violence? What violence might that be? There isn't any, just inane jokes from the amateur comedians of sports commentary. Honestly, who watches that cr@p anyhow? It is imagined by the media to provide 'colour' and extra time to put in advertisements. No serious appreciator of sports wants it, seeing it as useless and irritating and a complete waste of time.

The Emily's Listers have got a taste of the millions in grants liberated from the taxpayer by the previous DV push. Now they want to extend the definition of DV to prop up the stats they didn't have in the first place, and secondly, to add to the millions already flowing from the taxpayer.

Anyhow, when will the educated, middle class white elite who are feminists and are siphoning off the guvvy money for their own benefit, careers and lifestyle, going to admit that DV is concentrated in those 'Struggle Streets' they don't acknowledge and indigenous, which they also want to cover up?

Perhaps that senior sports writer for The Age newspaper might take a chauffeured limo ride to inspect some indigenous women and children. Didn't an indigenous academic recently describe DV in indigenous communities as a ‘national crisis’? These words were used, "Indigenous women are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of domestic violence than their non-Indigenous counterparts".

It is a fair wager that DV is those cases wasn't an inane jibe from one senior political talking head to another.

Unfair is those millions of taxpayer dollars being diverted into the wallets of educated middle class white women calling themselves 'feminists' and NEVER reaching the abused women and children in indigenous communities out there.

For all of the many millions spent, where are the practical outcomes on the ground?

BTW, by comparison, football codes like the AFL can easily show actual results for their efforts and expenditure on indigenous boys and girls.

otb,

You do bang on...

"Perhaps that senior sports writer for The Age newspaper might take a chauffeured limo ride to inspect some indigenous women and children..."

Oh yes, I recall it was you, otb, who for once defended a female when she was taken to task for calling an indigenous player an "ape".

Remember the poor teenage who had been trained by the folks who surrounded her to pepper indigenous players with that sort of rhetoric.

Now you are trying to make out you care about the AFL putting time into indigenous kids - when those kids saw what their colour attracts from certain sections of Oz society.

And you defended the girl, her mentors, and the mentality that delivers it.

"Victoria Police has warned its officers Eddie McGuire's disparaging comments about journalist Caroline Wilson ' are not to be taken lightly', pointing to the organisation's own issues with sexism in an internal memo.

Deputy Commissioner Wendy Steendam's note, provided to AAP, highlights the parallels between the incident and the issues raised in a December 2015 Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission report.

The report found a high prevalence and tolerance of sexual harassment and sexist practices targeting women within Victoria Police.

'Given our own challenges identified through the VEOHRC review, some within our organisation won't see a problem with the comments,' Ms Steendam wrote.

'So let's be very clear.

'Here we have an example of where humiliation and a lack of respect are played out in public. Where a group of men laughing about drowning a female colleague, along with other name calling is somehow framed as a 'joke'.'"

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2016/06/23/police--don-t-take-mcguire-s-comments-lightly.html#sthash.aJHQnfii.ON9zKqLV.dpuf

One more on the bandwagon. That is not unexpected. As for the ethics of using the Eddie 'incident' (a strong word for it!), others may judge.

However there has been NO violence, NO DV, just a silly jibe. A joke that made no reference to the senior footy reporter as a woman anyhow.

Maybe that top cop and you yourself Poirot could have a chat with someone with some skills in isolating fact, evidence, from emotion, gossip and speculation, for example a judge.

Words are words. They are NOT violence. However there are already laws that cover making threats, for instance. Quite obviously though what Eddie said did not constitute a real, believable threat. Or else the Sisterhood would be baying for his arrest.

It is all about guvvy money (taxpayers' money) as per usual. What is going on here is that the educated, already entitled, middle class white women who are the big swinging knobs of feminism have an interest in extending the definition of DV. The leftist Emily's Listers are the thought police of the new totalitarian order. Their target is freedom of speech. But why? What do they get out of it?

BTW when will some of that money, a trickle perhaps after the middle class professionals and bureaucrats have bled the grants, ever find its way to the sharp end, which is indigenous women and children and those 'Struggle Streets'?

At a guess, that will be never. Right?

“pointing to the organisation's own issues with sexism in an internal memo.”

How can Maguire’s or Newman’s comments be in anyway called sexism? Here is just another cowardly attempt to dramatise and manipulate the issue in order to garner sympathy for another cause altogether. If you have a problem with men’s violence then say what your problem is in the appropriate place at the appropriate time. No way can this be construed as sexist behaviour. Just because one person is of a different gender to another does not mean their behaviour is sexist. Sexism is about discrimination. It is about denying someone something to which they have a right simply because of their gender. What right is being denied the women in these two instances? No one has a right to not be insulted – neither men nor women. It is called free speech and if you do not like free speech then live somewhere else.

“The report found a high prevalence and tolerance of sexual harassment and sexist practices targeting women within Victoria Police.”

Where is the harassment in these incidents? Aggression is not harassment nor is it a sexist practice. If the police think that what these two have done is harassment or sexist then they need to go and buy a dictionary.

The police are also acting as cowards as well. If they have a problem with sexism and sexual harassment then they should take action to stamp it out within their ranks. That is their problem and their responsibility it is not society’s problem. Jumping on the same bandwagon as those who want to manipulate the debate in regard to violence against women is gutless. They should not be commenting on relationships between two people in the media that has nothing to do with them.

If they truly thought that Maguire was a threat to Wilson then why did they not charge him with threatening to murder and incitement to murder? They should put up or shut up.

OTB "However there has been NO violence, NO DV, just a silly jibe. A joke that made no reference to the senior footy reporter as a woman anyhow."

Oh well then, no one knew that the reporter they were making plans to drown was a woman then? And the act of drowning someone, and the offering of money to see that happen, is most definitely violence.

In a society where some Neanderthals still think it is ok to knock the little woman around a bit at home if she is annoying them, laughing along with supposedly manly, blokey blokes like those football commentators in full view on their TVs, would only add to these dropkicks sense of entitlement....and you know it.

Suseonline:

“And the act of drowning someone, and the offering of money to see that happen, is most definitely violence.”

What do you think is the likelihood of this actually happening? That is the real question. When someone says they would like to see someone drowned do they really mean that is what they want? Is that what Maguire wanted? Are you really saying that you think he intends to murder someone? If he was intent on murder would he make known his intentions on radio? He is not just saying he wants to be violent – he is saying he wants to commit murder. Where are the police? Threatening murder is a very serious business.

The appalling dishonesty in your argument is there for all to see. Would you be prepared to say under oath that you believed he would carry out such a crime?

If he has no intention of committing a crime then what exactly is the point of his statement? Who really cares? If he is just saying something which no one truly believes he will carry out then what does it matter? Why not just ignore him because he says he would like to do something which he has absolutely no intention of doing and so is not worth listening to. If he has a problem with Wilson then he should sort it out but he has no intention of sorting it out by murder since he would not think it was that important.

The only appropriate response would have been to ignore him because he says he is going to do something which he is not going to do.

When you equate this to violence you become the enemy of the very women whom you pretend to care about. Exaggerating what is really happening is extremely destructive of the efforts made by people to really combat the problem of domestic violence.

cont.

cont.

A woman comes rushing into the police station and proclaims “my husband said he wanted to drown me. Please help me I am afraid to go back home.” She is in real danger and fears for her life. The police officer who has been reading the media says “Oh he is just having a joke with you like Eddie Maguire was. Go home and stop wasting my time.” The next day she is found in the bottom of her swimming pool.

This is the kind of atmosphere that women are creating by their dishonesty. Why are they being dishonest? Why are they putting their own needs before the safety of women in real situations? Simply because they want to hurt men. They want to point out that men are all violent creatures and a stupid comment by one or two men is proof of that. They need to convince themselves that all men are violent and here is the proof. Nearly all men are blokey so therefore all men are violent.

If such blokeiness leads to violence then why does not women’s bitchiness lead to violence? Women insult and ridicule men and other women just as much as men do. Why does it not lead them to become violent? It is about the behaviour and not the gender.

Any woman who joins in on this man-bashing agenda just shows their own insecurity as a woman. There is no cause for even responding to Maguire or Newman unless of course your real agenda is to try and make yourself feel secure in your own gender.

Dear Suse,

Rebecca Madden summed things up rather well when she
stated:

"I think in the media, we have to be reminded that we
are in a very privileged position.
We have a voice. That voice is listened to by many people,
and people absorb what we say. And in turn, because of
that, we have a power to change the conversation and
shape the public perception about certain issues. The first
step towards that is actually about language because the
spoken word really is very, very, powerful."

See you on another discussion.

"We have a voice. That voice is listened to by many people,
and people absorb what we say."

Most people have critical facilities and do not go along with drama queens and those who exaggerate the facts except of course for women who are insecure about their gender.

"the spoken word really is very, very, powerful."

Especially when it is used dishonestly by women who are insecure about their gender.

cont'd ...

Dear Suse,

BTW: -

Mr McGuire did refer to Caroline Wilson by name (the name
"Caroline" should have been a give-away to her gender -
don't you think?). There were also mentions of "She"
during the comments made, so people knew exactly who was
being referenced here.


Those who claim that McGuire attacked her simply
for being a journalist? For what? Doing her job? She's
never wanted to drown anybody. He offered $50,000 for
it to happen to her. But, Just as a joke of course.

In any case, Mr McGuire has apologised. Hopefully in the
future perhaps he shall look more closely at what he says.
Especially picking a better time for his "jokes" - than a week-end
when there was a campaign against violence on women being run

So much hypocrisy and so many nagging, negging, white middle class feminists with noses in the trough of taxpayers money. Any wonder that so very, very few of the millions of taxpayers dollars allocated annually to improve the lot of indigenous women and children find their way to the sharp end.

That is what it is all about, maintaining and extending the privilege and power of a noisy, well-positioned and secure interest group, Emily's Listers favouritism and self advancement crew, who are adept at feeding controversial, highly contested misinformation to a tabloid media that thrives on sensationalism and rarely checks its sources.

Papers like The Age, once a broadsheet with some pretensions to credibility at least for its news, that is being hollowed out and shrinking because it has been overtaken by technology. It caters to a dumbed-down readership who allow others to do their thinking for them and are so limited in their own expectations that they crave the stimulation of shock, horror and (apparently) best of all, the humiliation of daily victims. The new axiom? Never let the facts get in the road of a good story.

The vulgar humour of Eddie McGuire is no different from that of the highly paid women who like Eddie are touted as 'media personalities' and even as 'experts' whenever an expert is needed - which is often because the media makes the news, especially on The Box.
tbc..

continued..

Here is the very well off and very white-privileged-educated middle class-womyn Ms Tracey Spicer, ABC media personality and expert on sexism, misogyny and 'DV' holding forth on Eddie McGuire and ripping him apart,

Spicer,
<"ABC TV presenter Tracey Spicer told news.com.au the AFL’s response to the McGuire incident was “pathetic”...

“The media — in this case, Triple M — should impose a sanction or penalty on Eddie McGuire. Frankly, he should be taken off air. As the national convenor of Women in Media, I find it reprehensible that a female journalist is referred to in this way. It’s no wonder women only make up nine per cent of sports reporters in this country.

“As consumers, we can vote with our feet, ears, eyes, purses and wallets. Don’t go to Collingwood games. Don’t listen to Triple M. Turn off the Millionaire Hot Seat. Boycott anything to do with him.
“Our steering committee at Women in Media plans on approaching board members of both the AFL and Triple M, to take this matter further".>
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/these-guys-live-in-a-bubble-the-afls-big-blokey-problem/news-story/3926b9c7f71a6cacfc289b1191ae6236

[onthebeach, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 12:16:07 PM]

Here is Spicer on that 'that' site, letting it all hang out for the confirmation and applause of other Oz feminist mates and talking about men's parts and revealing her stereotypical feminist views of men. Men judged by their cock size and shape.
http://www.mamamia.com.au/tracey-spicer-confessions/

[Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 12:59:28 PM]

Spicer's vulgarity and jibes, her freedom of speech is not for men to enjoy though. That is the double standard.

Feminists' care factor for elderly women or (say) women in those 'Struggle Streets'? NIL.

What complete gall and what better evidence that the media spin stories to comply with and buff up the prevailing political correctness.

OTB "The vulgar humour of Eddie McGuire is no different from that of the highly paid women who like Eddie are touted as 'media personalities' and even as 'experts' whenever an expert is needed...".

I doubt there are any women in the Australian media paid more than the supposedly great Eddie McGuire, do you?
Can you give me any actual examples of Australian female journalists being as vulgar as slimy Ed?
Can you give me any examples of them joking nastily about wishing or betting on violence happening to male journalists?

And I am certain it wasn't just your hated feminists who were upset by his comments, as I am sure you are well aware of...

Dear Phanto,

Not all people use their critical facilities - especially regarding
issues whose subject matter often involves deep human and moral
concerns and ones that disagree with their viewpoint.
Also, insecurities and dishonesty do not belong to just one
gender.

Finally, as we see often especially on this forum, people in
different walks of life interpret the same phenomenon - whether
it is a political party's policies, the treatment of asylum
seekers, gun-control laws, gender issues, same sex marriage,
abortion, religious fundamentalists, multi-culturalism,
et cetera, in very different ways. In other words, people often
tend to see the world from a viewpoint of subjectivity -
an interpretation based on personal values and
experiences.

If the world consisted simply of some self-evident reality that
everyone perceived in exactly the same way, there might be no
disagreement among observers. But the truth of the matter is
that what we see in the world is not determined by what exists
"out there." It is shaped by what our past experience has
prepared us to see and by what we consciously or unconsciously
want to see. Knowledge and belief about the world do not
exist in a vacuum; they are social products whose content
depends on the context in which they are produced.

I've written on this subject so many times. For example -
a fundamentalist preacher will tend to view pornography in one
way; the owner of a strip-tease establishment, in another way.
Each is inclined to perceive facts selectively and to interpret
them accordingly.

Inevitably we are all guilty of some measure of bias -
the tendency, often unconscious, to interpret
facts according to one's own values.

Foxy:

So what is your point? How does all that apply to the discussion we are having right here and now about this incident.

Everyone would agree with what you said. You are not saying anything but stating the obvious. What do you thinks about this issue? What are you arguments for or against the topic. Why are you hiding behind such philosophical generalisations?

Why not join in the argument or are you afraid you do not have an argument?

Dear Phanto,

I was responding to the statements that you made
in your previous post.

I tried to address your statements
Hence my generalisation.

We all have different perspectives on
this issue. I find that interesting, especially as to
why that is so.

cont'd ...

Dear Phanto,

My arguments on this issue are:

It is irrelevant that Mr McGuire may not have intended any harm.
The fact of the matter is that it was said and with the serious
problem of domestic violence in this country that exists any
on-air comments by either Mr McGuire, North Melbourne Chairman -
James Bradshaw and fellow commentator Danny Frawley should not
be taken lightly given the fact that their words carry weight.
They are powerful men in positions of influence. The language
used on this occasion by those involved as many other
commentators have agreed - was insensitive, inappropriate,
and disrespectful.

The normalisation of language like this in our society only
contributes to the problem.

Rebecca Madden reminded us:

"I think in the media, we have to be reminded that we are in a
very privileged position. We have a voice. That voice is
listened to by many people, and people absorb what we say.
And, in turn, because of that, we have a power to change the
conversation and shape the public perception about certain
issues. The best step towards that is actually about language.
Because the spoken word is very, very powerful."

That's why words like - "Nig*er," "Wog," "Dago," "Coon,"
and many others are considered outmoded by many people in our
society today and are no longer used.

Foxy:

Do you think that Maguire actuallly intended to drown Wilson? That is what matters doesn't it? If he had no intention of murdering her then why did you decide to comment on it? People make silly statements every day and we have to decide whether they mean what they say or not. If we think that they do not mean it we ignore it. If we think they do mean it then we respond appropriately. You must have decided that he actually meant he was going to harm her or else why would you bother to comment at all?

If it is irrational to respond to such a silly comment then you must have some other agenda such as you do not like him or you do not like men in general. If you have a problem with him you should deal with that issue and not take advantage of joining the posse who have formed around this incident and are out are out to lynch him. The same if you do not like men - you should address that problem with the men you do not like and not take it out on someone else.

The fact that they are in the media is irrelevant. People should examine their opinions and not who or what they are. Anyone who lets themselves be influenced by anything other than logical argument is a fool.

They are not powerful people nor do thy have any influence unless each of us gives it to them.

Foxy, I agree that most people reacted unfavorably to Ed's comments because he was making jokes about drowning a woman and was willing to put up money, thus not only laughing about drowning someone, but also big-noting himself and his financial worth.
A truly odious character.

Even the Collingwood football players/coach distanced themselves from Ed's remarks, and they usually worship at his throne.
So anyone that does not find exception with his words, and those of his laughing hyaena cohorts, is condoning what he said....

Trust the educated, middle class womyn that form the feminist elite, the big knobs of Emily's List, to pretend that they are horrified by the low humour of the common herd that is featured on The Footy Show.

The Footy Show must draw and appeal to the dumbed-down audience, the prospective buyers of the fodder being advertised on the show. Those are not the designer clothes and accessories (nor the advertisers) that those rather well off, pretentious, white middle class feminists find and discuss over their expensive lattes in Double Bay.

Trust the middle class feminists to look down on the very basic, often bawdy and rude humour of the working class and unemployed. The blunt jibes, even against the audience to be found in workers' clubs and pubs.

It was always that way and if any of those feminists actually read books, rather than just flipping pages in their glossy posh magazines (all photos and while their hair is being done), they might find that literature and drama abound with examples of the low disrespectful humour of the common people that they find so shocking and reprehensible.

But of course the educated, middle class womyn, materialistic careerists all, who are Oz feminism see comedy, literature and plays as a way to demonstrate their superiority over the ordinary 'common' woman (and her male partner), whom they look down and despise. Just as they select their clothing, car, residence and whatever to assert their superiority.

It is all about class isn't it Grrls?

Knee men in the gonads and indulge yourselves in a little reverse envy directed at the lower class at the same time. Trashing Eddie serves a number of purposes, eh what?

Lol!....we can always depend on otb for his usual descriptors...

"womyn".... "big knobs"...."Grrls"?....etc...

Always the same old same old....he could recycle his posts from years gone by on this subject and nobody would notice.

I just congratulated one of Australia's best cartoonists on an excellent toon of McGuire for a weekend paper - saying to him "Brilliant! - How do you do it ?"

He replied, "with disgust"

Suseonline:

“Foxy, I agree that most people reacted unfavorably to Ed's comments because he was making jokes about drowning a woman and was willing to put up money, thus not only laughing about drowning someone, but also big-noting himself and his financial worth.
A truly odious character.”

It just sounds like you are bitter that he has more money than you. Sour grapes. You want to see him suffer because he has money. What relevance is there in the fact that he has money? Don’t you have a genuine argument without resorting to cheap shots about his bank account?

If he is such an odious character then why do you help draw attention to his existence by joining in the chorus of those attacking him? Don’t you have the courage of your convictions and act like he is truly odious in which case you would ignore him?

By jumping on the bandwagon you are just contributing to the ‘dumbing down’ of the issue of men’s violence toward women. Your own selfish need to make someone else suffer just contributes to trivialising real issues of violence toward women. This is not a real issue. No one was ever going to be hurt but let that not get in the way of a good lynching!

“So anyone that does not find exception with his words, and those of his laughing hyaena cohorts, is condoning what he said....”

Anyone who draws attention to his words at all is jeopardising proper perspective in the true battle to protect women from real violence. Why aren’t women outraged about that or don’t they really care?

Dear Suse,

As I said earlier, it is irrelevant that Mr McGuire may not have
intended any harm. The fact of the matter is that it was said.
With the severe problem of domestic violence that exists in this
country any on-air comments by Mr McGuire, North Melbourne chairman
James Bradshaw and fellow Commentator Danny Frawley should not
be taken lightly given the fact that their words carry weight and
they're powerful men in positions of influence. The language used on
this occasion by those involved was insensitive, inappropriate, and
disrespectful. The normalisation of language like this in our
society only contributes to the problem.

See you on another discussion.

Dear Poirot,

I don't take any notice of otb's rants simply because he does
not argue in a logical manner with sound reasoning. He uses
unreasonable generalisations and argues on an emotional level not
a mature intelligent one. The art of reasoned intelligent
argument is a skill not easily acquired. And as I've stated in
the past, no one likes or supports an abusive, illogical debater.

See you and Suse on another discussion.

"most people reacted unfavorably to Ed's comments"

Most people did nothing of the sort. It was a beat-up from the start, with all of the noise coming from social network stirrers who did the usual knee jerk reaction. Confected hysteria in the leftist echochamber.

Same as on OLO, very little reaction at all and all of it entirely predictable. - From fembot dinosaurs left over from the previous Millenium and last century. Frothing at the mouth or they might be except for the dry mouths of old age and false chompers.

No-one seriously believes there was any believable intention to murder. That is preposterous. Eddie's was just a throwaway line, a poor joke.

What is significant though is the organised, skillful manipulation of the media in response to what was a trivial event. That shows the leftist Emily's Listers and pre-thought in action. Although it is also clear that they cannot hold a front. Their feminist elitism ensures they have SFA grassroots support.

It is typical tactics for the organised Left, to quickly beat up confected outrage and faux rage. A big noise in the echo chamber and hope that the *bleep*storm gathers more broadly before any real probing questions are asked. If no storm gathers, it withers away and they try something else on another occasion.

Typically too, the main *bleep*stirrers on this occasion are asking for everyone to 'suck it up and move on'. No way they would want any rational examination of the claimed 'incident' and the politically correct over-kill.

Otb,

Judging by this thread, it's the likes of you who are foaming at the mouth over the issue.

You've unleashed a tsunami of invective targeting anything female and left....while the rest of us are looking on in mild amusement.

McGuire's folly isn't really that mind-boggling to the rest of us.

We realize it emanates from an immature and crass individual who gets his jollies from impressing his less than discerning mates.

Boy's club stuff.

You'll give yourself a hernia if you keep up the hysterics on this thread.

Perhaps you should find an alternative hobby?

Well said Poirot. Myn like OTB and Phanto would argue that black was white if it furthered their extreme paranoia about feminists and women in general.

I think they really secretly want to be like good ol' boy Ed, and be on TV and make all his money, because they feel that Ed is a manly myn who has 'done good', and wish a pox on all others who dare to question his masterful words and incredibly clever humour.
I mean really, how dare we?

Dear Poirot and Suse,

Many people condemned Mr McGuire's comments - judging
from the reader's posts on social media. Including
Victoria's acting top cop ( Acting Chief Commissioner -Shane Patton)
who joined the condemnation of Mr McGuire. This information is
on the web and easily available. Hence my earlier post about
the problem of objectivity.

If senior Victorian police believe that McGuire has done anything wrong why aren't they arresting him and allowing him the right to defend himself in court?

Otherwise, why the hell are two senior police, an acting Commissioner and acting Deputy Commissioner commenting in the first place and on such a trivial issue as a childish spat between TV 'personalities'?

It is not as though there is a shortage of real crime that a police force or police 'service' :( in Victoria should be interested in,

<Deep anger at core of Apex gang causing havoc on Melbourne's streets
MAY 24, 2016

SOUTH central Melbourne became more like South Central Los Angeles on Saturday as rioters swept through the CBD terrifying locals and tourists alike.

Havoc descended on Federation Square with metal chairs from the city’s famous Brunetti's cafe used as weapons on nearby Swanston St, as gang members fought with both the police and among themselves.>
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/deep-anger-at-core-of-apex-gang-causing-havoc-on-melbournes-streets/news-story/f4e886da66594d4ea38cb323ea069612

Eddie McGuire didn't threaten anyone. He was employing the common language, images and humour of the working class. Or as those snobbish, superior, educated, middle class feminists see them, the LOWER CLASS.

Of course it is entirely possible that administrators might be elevated to the higher echelons of the Victoria Police 'Service' without much exposure to the bulk of the population they should be SERVING as well, which is ordinary working families, blue collar workers and those on set incomes, including welfare. However if they ever do come across ordinary working men and women they would certainly encounter the more 'basic' humour and satire used by the common folk that the well-off, always privileged educated middle class fembots are so scandalised by and wilfully misinterpret.

However, the middle and upper classes always had pretentious elements who needed to demonstrate their status and moral superiority over those lower class blue collar working families.

That is the way of the censorious, educated middle class feminists of Oz. The self-entitled, judgemental, ever-complaining snobs who unashamedly swing from the taxpayer's teats and are resolved to continue doing the same.

Well Onthebeach, I think those feminist top police officers were just adding their obviously common views on the pathetic behaviour of a man that many men and boys look up to, in a time where we as a society are trying to stop violence and disrespect towards women in our society.

If we all have female friends and family members we care about then we should agree with their efforts to prevent crime against women. And don't start going on about all the male on male violence also happening in our society, which is every bit as serious, because in this case it is very much about women.

You are well in the minority in your old-fashioned views on this subject OTB, and you know it.

“because in this case it is very much about women.”

It is not very much about women it is about one woman. It is an exchange between Maguire and Wilson. One person in relation to another person. One is a man and the other is a woman. Why does their gender matter? Is disrespect towards a man less disrespectful than to a woman? This is an issue between two adults. The fact that their spat is played out in the media is totally irrelevant.

If people are influenced by the opinions of media personalities then that is their particular problem. People should never be influenced by anyone else. They might agree or disagree with personalities but that does not imply that they have been influenced. Everyone has to take responsibility for their own opinions and not blame someone else for them.

Maguire was not expressing any opinions – he was telling us what he would like to do to Wilson. He is entitled to say that and because he is given a microphone by his employers he is entitled to say that on the radio. If you do not like that then get him sacked or turn off the radio. Everyone has a right to say what they would like to do because free speech is a right afforded to everyone. They do not have a right to drown anyone but they do have a right to say that they would like to. Once you try and take away a person’s right to free speech then where does it stop?

This not about protecting violence toward women at all. It is simply about a mob trying to deny someone free speech. What Maguire said is not going to contribute anything to the level of violence at all. No one can be ‘influenced’ to act violently. If a man hears Maguire’s comments and then goes home and murders his wife can he then claim it was all Maguire’s fault for influencing him?

I wonder how many feminazis would like Trump to have a heart attack?

runner,

"I wonder how many feminazis would like Trump to have a heart attack?"

What a weird little run-by post.

You're truly of astounding intellect, aren't you....

Suseonline, "I think those feminist top police officers were just adding their obviously common views.."

You admit they were being political.

Would they, their masters and you accept the ordinary officer using his position and the Victoria police letterhead to promote his/her political views? Or much more likely, would the ordinary constable be carpeted, smacked around the ears with the Police Manual and the Professional and Ethical Standards therein and given a punishment transfer with a black mark forever, or spat out of the system for it?

Suseonline, "the pathetic behaviour of a man that many men and boys look up to"

What manure.

Eddie and sports commentators are there as explained previously to add colour and entertain. The role as developed by the media directors was to be controversial, to sensationalise and to act the idiot.

It is the sort of low-brow entertainment that an educated, middle class, self-entitled white fembot would splutter about and scoff at over her monkey excreted coffee among people of her choosing, Double Bay. Far away from the fish'n'chip shop frequented by the football loving lower classes.

Eddie and ors, women jocks too, are stereotypes created and managed by producers. Contrary to the bovine behaviour expected of the despised working class by the superior-acting feminists, workers are very practical even where they are letting their hair down and can easily discriminate between fantasy and reality. Between the over-the-top show-biz act for a quid of Eddie and women Jocks too, and what is real life.

What the educated, middle class white feminist elite have done again is to deliberately and wilfully misinterpret and misconstrue the low brow language, images, humour and satire of the working class as real threats. That is unprincipled and ludicrous.

Now the fembots are rushing to have it all filed away for next time, 'Suck it up and move on'.

The hem of Oz feminism has been lifted and it is not a pretty sight.

One question Onthebeach.
Why on earth would you think feminists only exist among white, well educated, upper class women, and not among women from other ethnic groups, or the often equally well educated working class women? Is it because you are frightened of upperclass women?

And I have no doubt there are plenty of myn who just love Big Ed and the other TV footy boys, who are from all groups in our society. Men like other manly men after all.
What a load of excrement you exude at times...

Every time we have this kind of outrage it really only serves to show how far women have to go in order to be liberated.

A couple of men attacked a woman journalist. Why they did it is not really relevant. It was never a joke and always meant to hurt. It was not an attack on ‘women’ it was an attack on one woman who was perceived to have opinions which the men did not like. The men used words because they know that words can hurt.

The same weapon which they used is also available to the women journalist. She could have fought back and ridiculed the men in the same way in which they ridiculed her. It would have been a fair fight. She didn’t fight back. Instead she played the victim and stood by while others were not attacked whipped up a storm of public outrage. It was no longer a fair fight but a few men against a seething mob.

Women who act like Wilson are weak individuals and cowards. They have exactly the same power as men but want to make out that they are helpless victims. They try and engender sympathy rather than take their issue to the men themselves. They want to look powerless because they are too cowardly to fight back. Every other woman who joins in the lynch mob just confirms how weak and powerless they think women are. They believe that women are too weak to fight back unless as a part of some kind of lynch mob.

Women are not powerless. Individual women can stand up to individual men or even to a couple of men. How much longer are they going to keep up this charade of being defenceless and desperate for help? Fight back but fight fair and stop hiding behind your gender.

Phanto,

It's interesting that you advocate the woman journalist to sledge back at the chappies who sledged her.

You perhaps should take into account the fact that she's a grown woman - and therefore mature of thought and action.

Why you would think she'd entertain the thought of squabbling with these puerile buffoons is beyond me.

She does not have to 'sledge' back at them. The pen is mightier than the sword and if she really wanted to respond I'm sure she good do so in such a way that they would think twice about doing it again.

She should do something - either put up or shut up. Everyone else should also shut up since it does not concern them. They jump on a bandwagon instead of confronting their own issues with the men in their own life.

phanto,

So your suggestion is that she play kiddie games with the wee man boys?

Lol!...

Poirot:

What's your suggestion?

Phanto,

She's not required to do anything.

They are a pack of immature buffoons with a schoolyard mentality.

She's not required to anything but if she can do something and chooses not to then it is obviously not very important to her. If that is the case then why is everyone else so outraged?