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.