Is Chris Gayle some sort of perverted misogynist or can everyone just settle down?

[Gnske]

i seriously do wonder what would have happened if this wasn't gayle doing it

like if it were a lesser player, say it was tom beaton, would there have been harder or lighter sanctions

Harder, smaller target to obliterate unlike Gayle.

 

[TNT]

No two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm bringing this up because the attitudes expressed by Gayle, which are being described here as misogyny, are the exact same attitudes which contributed to her hiring. How is that hard to understand?

And that's why people like you need to be educated, you have just looked at her and thought because she is attractive that's why they hired her, you had no idea what qualifications she had, what work she did prior but just made a judgement on her looks. Tell us what you know about her being employed apart from she is attractive.

 

[thierry henry]

There's nothing inherently wrong with this though, as long as being attractive and female makes her a better fit for the job and not just more likely to be hired.

As I said, Ten hires these presenters and interviewers because they believe it'll help them retain or in some cases gain viewership. If having a female presenter does a better job of retaining viewership because they can appeal to different demographics or provide eye-candy for certain people or whatever, then there's nothing wrong with hiring a female specifically. It's the same reason I'm pretty unlikely to be hired to model women's underwear even if I completely master walking up and down the catwalk.

I think it'd be a mistake to really view her job as something like "interview players, interact with the main commentators, ask team staff for inside info" because her job, like literally everyone else they hire for their Big Bash production, is really just "increase ratings". She's been given specific instructions in how they think she can best do that, but if she performs her specific tasks really well and their internal research suggests she's not having a positive effect on ratings despite that and is unlikely to moving forward, they won't renew her contract. It's silly to imagine that being female might give one an inherent advantage when it comes to interviewing players, but if you view the job for what it really is then it's entirely possible to imagine how having a female presenter might increase ratings more than having yet another male one, and there's nothing ***ist about her getting hired on that basis because it's merit-based.

Ok sure. So what you are saying is that her being a ***y female as well as (or perhaps moreso than) being a cricket analyst is part of her role. In which case, Chris Gayle, albeit in a totally inappropriate way, treated her as the type of person that she was partially hired to be.

Effectively what you are saying is that interacting with her as "hot babe" as opposed to "knowledgeable analyst" would make perfect sense because that is the role she has been given.

Personally I disagree that this is acceptable. I think it IS ***ist.

 

[Bahnz]

really doubt a lesser player would feel he would get away with it in the first place

Yeah, I think there are very few international cricketers out there who'd be dumb enough to try it on in the first place.

 

[thierry henry]

And that's why people like you need to educated, you have just looked at her and thought because she is attractive that's why they hired her, you had no idea what qualifications she had, what work she did prior but just made a judgement on her looks. Tell us what you know about her being employed apart from she is attractive.

I didn't just "look at her", I looked at the broader context of the BBL broadcast and who they hire for what role. I also don't pretend to know the exact reasons behind her hiring. You are trying to turn this into "TH thinks women can only get jobs based on their looks" which is total anathema to what I am saying.

 

[Gnske]

And that's why people like you need to be educated, you have just looked at her and thought because she is attractive that's why they hired her, you had no idea what qualifications she had, what work she did prior but just made a judgement on her looks. Tell us what you know about her being employed apart from she is attractive.

Can you tell us?

 

[Shady Slim]

And that's why people like you need to be educated, you have just looked at her and thought because she is attractive that's why they hired her, you had no idea what qualifications she had, what work she did prior but just made a judgement on her looks. Tell us what you know about her being employed apart from she is attractive.

just noting that telling someone they need to be educated then strawmanning their argument is a great way to make yourself seem like a huge ass

 

[Red]

And that's why people like you need to be educated, you have just looked at her and thought because she is attractive that's why they hired her, you had no idea what qualifications she had, what work she did prior but just made a judgement on her looks. Tell us what you know about her being employed apart from she is attractive.

Are you really that naive as to how commercial TV works?

 

[Teja.]

ffs, everybody in every gender in near every profession is hired with looks subconsciously taken into consideration.

Does anybody think a person who looks like a male model doesn't have a leg up among others with similar credentials in the hiring process of an investment bank/law firm?

It isn't a 'hot women being hired because they're hot' thing, it's a 'being hot regardless of gender makes all people, including recruiters respond significantly better to you subconsciously' thing.

 

[TNT]

Can you tell us?

Yes I can, Mel was a very successful presenter on Fox Sports with the A-League and wanted to move to cricket because it had more opportunities. She played a key role in enhancing the reputation of the A-League with her professionalism and was considered an attractive, smart, and insightful presenter on Fox Sports. She has covered and promoted a lot of Womens sports and the BBL are very keen to raise the profile of womens cricket and Mel is probably the best person in Australia qualified for that role.

 

[thierry henry]

I honestly can't recall ever coming into a conversation about something on CW which dealt with a single incident but OBVIOUSLY related to (a) a broader issue which is worth discussing, and (b) a much broader example of the exact same issue relating to the very people in question, only to be told that these related issues were in fact unrelated, irrelevant, somehow not appropriate for or worthy of discussion or that it was weird or suspicious of me to bring them up.

FWIW I have heard of feminism, I spend way too much time as it is reading about gender-related issues and I do not need any of the great feminist philosophers of CW to explain my pathologies to me or inform me of the agendas that I don't even know I have. I just want to have a rational discussion about the matter at hand and the related issues and themes and questions that spring from that matter. I think it's very unfortunate that can't or won't happen for whatever reason.

 

[Spark]

Yes I can, Mel was a very successful presenter on Fox Sports with the A-League and wanted to move to cricket because it had more opportunities. She played a key role in enhancing the reputation of the A-League with her professionalism and was considered an attractive, smart, and insightful presenter on Fox Sports. She has covered and promoted a lot of Womens sports and the BBL are very keen to raise the profile of womens cricket and Mel is probably the best person in Australia qualified for that role.

not strengthening your case here

 

[indiaholic]

ffs, everybody in every gender in near every profession is hired with looks subconsciously taken into consideration.

Does anybody think a person who looks like a male model doesn't have a leg up among others with similar credentials in the hiring process of an investment bank/law firm?

It isn't a 'hot women being hired because they're hot' thing, it's a 'being hot regardless of gender makes all people, including recruiters respond significantly better to you subconsciously' thing.

This. So this. And hiring TV interviewers based on their looks is about as bad as hiring radio presenters based on the quality of their voice. In both cases that can't be the only criteria but in visual and aural mediums, the visual and the aural matter.

 

[thierry henry]

ffs, everybody in every gender in near every profession is hired with looks subconsciously taken into consideration.

Does anybody think a person who looks like a male model doesn't have a leg up among others with similar credentials in the hiring process of an investment bank/law firm?

It isn't a 'hot women being hired because they're hot' thing, it's a 'being hot regardless of gender makes all people, including recruiters respond significantly better to you subconsciously' thing.

And IMO that is an example of an unreasonable or irrational bias. It's also something that relates differently to women and men and that can be ***ist or lead to ***ist outcomes.

Just because an unfair or irrational bias is pretty much innate in humans doesn't make it acceptable by definition.

 

[TNT]

Are you really that naive as to how commercial TV works?

No I'm not, I realise that they need to have smart presenters who know their sports so that smart people can find the commentary interesting and they also need to be attractive to appeal to the not so bright viewers.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ok sure. So what you are saying is that her being a ***y female as well as (or perhaps moreso than) being a cricket analyst is part of her role. In which case, Chris Gayle, albeit in a totally inappropriate way, treated her as the type of person that she was partially hired to be.

Effectively what you are saying is that interacting with her as "hot babe" as opposed to "knowledgeable analyst" would make perfect sense because that is the role she has been given.

Nah I just draw a big distinction between what her designated role is (interview players) and the true nature of the job (increase ratings). I have no idea what the criteria for her being hired was, but if (and, that's definitely an 'if' - I have no idea what the process actually was) Ten felt that having a female perform the role she's performing was an advantage in the end game of increasing ratings, it's not ***ist to consider that. If there's ***ism at play in this situation then it exists within the viewership preferences and not the hiring practices.

It's not up to Chris Gayle to speculate on what the criteria was when she was hired; he should have professionally participated in what was clearly an interview about cricket, regardless of who was giving it. But even if we play your game and imagine that there is a completely open token babe sent out to interview players -- lets even imagine that there's some sort of cheerleader/interviewer dual role -- I still absolutely would think what Gayle did was a dick move. Even if he knew for a fact that she was hired partially or even purely for eye candy when he was being interviewed, it still would have been entirely inappropriate for him to just ask her out on air. Given I don't believe for a second that he thought this was the best way to approach the situation if he did want to go out with her, it's clear to me that he did it to enhance/play up to his reputation as a bad-ass ladies' man at the expense of the dignity of interviewer. It showed a complete lack of respect. The role of even a token babe isn't to get hit on by the players.

 

[Spark]

I honestly can't recall ever coming into a conversation about something on CW which dealt with a single incident but OBVIOUSLY related to (a) a broader issue which is worth discussing, and (b) a much broader example of the exact same issue relating to the very people in question, only to be told that these related issues were in fact unrelated, irrelevant, somehow not appropriate for or worthy of discussion or that it was weird or suspicious of me to bring them up.

FWIW I have heard of feminism, I spend way too much time as it is reading about gender-related issues and I do not need any of the great feminist philosophers of CW to explain my pathologies to me or inform me of the agendas that I don't even know I have. I just want to have a rational discussion about the matter at hand and the related issues and themes and questions that spring from that matter. I think it's very unfortunate that can't or won't happen for whatever reason.

holy mother of god.

let me spell this out very very very very plainly.

you asked me, completely out of nowhere, why i thought mm was hired. i said (amongst other things), that i didn't especially care, because it did not provide any mitigating circumstances in the incident i was interested in discussing.

you went and called into question my moral integrity as a result, but ok, i was being overly concise. i explained that i still didn't care because to discuss why mel was employed in the context of gayle's actions would be whataboutery, trying to justify one action by pointing to another, larger wrong, and that the two issues had no relation outside of broader discussions of how women are treated by media/sport, which i said i don't have any interest in discussing right now. which is not to say it's not a worthwhile, valid and important discussion to have, just not one i was interested in having.

you then go off on some frankly unhinged rant, accusing me of having some hidden agenda and tone-policing and bringing up tumblr (what?), when you were the one who tried to drag me into this conversation in the first place, a conversation i had indicated at every opportunity i was not interested in having right now.

so. let me say this one more time and hopefully it will actually get through whatever paranoid lens you currently have on which makes you see hostile agendas in everything i post for some reason: yes, the way women are treated within sport and within society at large is a serious and broad issue, one that deserves serious attention in its own right. yes, you have made worthwhile and reasonable points in that regard. no, i am not interested in that discussion right now, that is way too vast a subject for me to tackle appropriately at this absurd hour of the night/morning.

seriously.

 

[Red]

No I'm not, I realise that they need to have smart presenters who know their sports so that smart people can find the commentary interesting and they also need to be attractive to appeal to the not so bright viewers.

lol

 

[social]

Have actually just read a few of Chris Rogers' comments on Gayle which are enlightening. Does seem a bit of a dick in the broader sense. But I still maintain that what happened last night really wasn't that big a deal.

Heard Rogers on the radio and its fair to say that he is not a fan of Gayle - basically said that he has lots of previous, that he advised the Thunder not to resign him, etc etc

Amazing how blunt he was and good on him as the easy thing would be to go the whole corporate route

 

[TNT]

not strengthening your case here

With some people you are right, but no matter what job she has be it a cleaner, bus driver, cook or scientist she will be an attractive one.