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

[GIMH]

Gayle was in the wrong

Look how easy this is

 

[Stapel]

Look how easy this is

Indeed! The complete and utter final argument that locks the whole discussion! We needed that!

 

[Captain_Cook]

Gayle was being gross and crass. He made an interview that should have been pleasant, awkward. I don't see this as a big deal as the underlying assumptions are flawed.

From the article posted by watson:

When a man player makes a ***ual comment to a reporter, he is not just harmlessly flirting. He is reminding her - and the audience - that her looks are part of her value.

This is a statement that attempts to undermine millennia of evolutionary imperative. How a woman looks has always been intrinsic of her value, from the complexion to distinguish youth and fertility to wider hips that indicate better success in childbirth. I don't deny these have been hijacked by marketing and fashion industries to twist what is attractive in 2016. Beautiful women are simply the winners of a genetic lottery inheriting a legacy that has huge value in the West and other women want them to feel guilty about it.

By centring the conversation on her physical attractiveness, it belittles the rest of what she does. It also places the "right" of the man to make a ***ual advance over the woman's right to be comfortable in her workplace. It re-enforces the idea that we are only here on men's terms.

Attractiveness doesn't belittle the woman it's a bonus. Like a six-pack is a bonus for a man. You can still live your life how you want, its just the mountain may be slightly steeper.

Then this talk of "rights". Neither of the examples are rights: the only rights that are important are the right to free speech (excluding hate speech). If a woman is offended by a man asking her out (which would be very strange) she should reject him and if he continues to bother her, get management involved. If the reporter had put Gayle in his place then this situation would have been avoided.

It was belittling-women's-experiences BINGO.

God forbid your experience be belittled. Your ideas and feelings have no rights. If you are offended, vote with your feet. My right to belittle your experience if you think that the Moon landing were a hoax isn't trumped by your right to have your experiences protected. Some people's "experiences" are wrong in objective ways.

Gayle was being lewd and there is a difference. I'm don't want Jack Nicholson to be fined or banned from film because he creeps me out.

 

[Dan]

MUH RIGHTS!

No.

 

[harsh.ag]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-FIfVfvOMo

Yes I was wrong about using the word "never". Well done to focus on that. Yes, I should have said "almost never".

And you are perfectly entitled to air your opinion on how women should not feel things. I think when we say you are wrong and make fun of you, you should laugh it off.

 

[sledger]

Gayle was being gross and crass. He made an interview that should have been pleasant, awkward. I don't see this as a big deal as the underlying assumptions are flawed.

From the article posted by watson:

This is a statement that attempts to undermine millennia of evolutionary imperative. How a woman looks has always been intrinsic of her value, from the complexion to distinguish youth and fertility to wider hips that indicate better success in childbirth. I don't deny these have been hijacked by marketing and fashion industries to twist what is attractive in 2016. Beautiful women are simply the winners of a genetic lottery inheriting a legacy that has huge value in the West and other women want them to feel guilty about it.


Attractiveness doesn't belittle the woman it's a bonus. Like a six-pack is a bonus for a man. You can still live your life how you want, its just the mountain may be slightly steeper.

Then this talk of "rights". Neither of the examples are rights: the only rights that are important are the right to free speech (excluding hate speech). If a woman is offended by a man asking her out (which would be very strange) she should reject him and if he continues to bother her, get management involved. If the reporter had put Gayle in his place then this situation would have been avoided.


God forbid your experience be belittled. Your ideas and feelings have no rights. If you are offended, vote with your feet. My right to belittle your experience if you think that the Moon landing were a hoax isn't trumped by your right to have your experiences protected. Some people's "experiences" are wrong in objective ways.

Gayle was being lewd and there is a difference. I'm don't want Jack Nicholson to be fined or banned from film because he creeps me out.

It might be, actually. Strictly speaking.

 

[Prince EWS]

No.

Yeah no-one is saying Gayle has violated anyone's rights here. Having a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean you should, though.

 

[Captain_Cook]

No.

The SJWs have taught you very well, right out of the textbook. Of course, rational debate and argument isn't on the agenda.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Gayle was being gross and crass. He made an interview that should have been pleasant, awkward. I don't see this as a big deal as the underlying assumptions are flawed.

From the article posted by watson:

This is a statement that attempts to undermine millennia of evolutionary imperative. How a woman looks has always been intrinsic of her value, from the complexion to distinguish youth and fertility to wider hips that indicate better success in childbirth. I don't deny these have been hijacked by marketing and fashion industries to twist what is attractive in 2016. Beautiful women are simply the winners of a genetic lottery inheriting a legacy that has huge value in the West and other women want them to feel guilty about it.


Attractiveness doesn't belittle the woman it's a bonus. Like a six-pack is a bonus for a man. You can still live your life how you want, its just the mountain may be slightly steeper.

Then this talk of "rights". Neither of the examples are rights: the only rights that are important are the right to free speech (excluding hate speech). If a woman is offended by a man asking her out (which would be very strange) she should reject him and if he continues to bother her, get management involved. If the reporter had put Gayle in his place then this situation would have been avoided.


God forbid your experience be belittled. Your ideas and feelings have no rights. If you are offended, vote with your feet. My right to belittle your experience if you think that the Moon landing were a hoax isn't trumped by your right to have your experiences protected. Some people's "experiences" are wrong in objective ways.

Gayle was being lewd and there is a difference. I'm don't want Jack Nicholson to be fined or banned from film because he creeps me out.

Congrats, the worst post in a thread full of them.

 

[sledger]

Yeah no-one is saying Gayle has violated anyone's rights here. Having a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean you should, though.

I think what Dan was getting at was the implication that people have an unqualified right to free speech, the targets of said speech be damned. Which in literal terms is incorrect, in most commonwealth nations anyway.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

The SJWs

Haha, yesssssssss.

 

[harsh.ag]

@Captain_Cook - Yes, Gayle has the legal right to say these things. And the rest of us have the legal right to put popular pressure on him to not do so, and to put popular pressure on his employer, who then has a legal right to invoke the morality clause in Gayle's contract, which Gayle signed voluntarily, and fine him and ask him to not repeat this.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think what Dan was getting at was the implication that people have an unqualified right to free speech, the targets of said speech be damned. Which in literal terms is incorrect, in most commonwealth nations anyway.

I thought what Dan was getting at was that Captain_Cook was debating against an argument that no-one had made in the thread. Yeah Chris Gayle had the right to say what he did, but no-one was actually saying otherwise; just that he was wrong to do so. Free speech entitles you to say what you wish without forceful censorship; not without criticism.

In terms of the point you're making, I'd very much argue that a government or some other body declaring something a right doesn't actually make it so, but I won't bother elaborating on it in this thread because I don't want to derail it.

 

[sledger]

Ah yes, that would make more sense actually. Carry on.

Edit: Though I, myself, would continue to dispute the claim that the only rights at issue here are ones pertaining to free speech. There are a variety of others that could also be invoked, the potential dubious basis of those rights that you allude to notwithstanding.

 

[Dan]

]Gayle was being gross and crass. [/B]He made an interview that should have been pleasant, awkward. I don't see this as a big deal as the underlying assumptions are flawed.

The bolded is pretty much the only thing in this post that I agree with. So hey, coulda been worse I suppose.

][/B]
This is a statement that attempts to undermine millennia of evolutionary imperative. How a woman looks has always been intrinsic of her value, from the complexion to distinguish youth and fertility to wider hips that indicate better success in childbirth. I don't deny these have been hijacked by marketing and fashion industries to twist what is attractive in 2016. Beautiful women are simply the winners of a genetic lottery inheriting a legacy that has huge value in the West and other women want them to feel guilty about it.

Right, so you're genuinely suggesting that evolutionary biology is a justification for ongoing ***ism in modern society? Yeah, no. And while this opinion is, in itself, a serious issue in society when discussing women in sport, even if we accept that looks presently are an intrinsic component of a woman's 'value', insofar as such a nebulous conceptualisation exists (**** talking about women like amorphous economic abstractions, ftr), that does not make Gayle's comments any less wrong; it is not a mitigating factor in judging the moral dimension of his actions, though obviously there's the structure-agency discussion in terms of causes of those actions.

][/B]
Attractiveness doesn't belittle the woman it's a bonus. Like a six-pack is a bonus for a man. You can still live your life how you want, its just the mountain may be slightly steeper.

And you don't take issue with 'unattractive women' (again, insofar as we can actually quantify a completely nebulous classification) experiencing worse outcomes because they didn't hit the 'genetic lottery'?[/quote]

][/B]
Then this talk of "rights". Neither of the examples are rights: the only rights that are important are the right to free speech (excluding hate speech). If a woman is offended by a man asking her out (which would be very strange) she should reject him and if he continues to bother her, get management involved. If the reporter had put Gayle in his place then this situation would have been avoided.

My god, you are so white. If, by some chance, you are not white, I suppose I applaud your community for so well-and-truly ascribing the perks of white-ness to you. Dat privilege.

Gnske to rage, but I think even he would recognise that Captain_Cook's statement here is remarkably flippant, and completely lacking any sort of empathy. Waiting for a butchered Rothbard or NAP reference at this point, he's so angsty-teen-meme-libertarian.

Also more reaction-policing of Mel, which is self-evidently dire.

][/B]
God forbid your experience be belittled. Your ideas and feelings have no rights. If you are offended, vote with your feet. My right to belittle your experience if you think that the Moon landing were a hoax isn't trumped by your right to have your experiences protected. Some people's "experiences" are wrong in objective ways.

This is basically the 'Islam is not a race' argument here. You've also, weirdly, taken the free speech argument about opinions not being protected and find-and-replaced 'opinion' with 'experience', as if the two are one and the same. To put it bluntly, they're not. That sentence makes no sense.

I'm sorry Captain_Cook, your experience reading this post is objectively wrong. You didn't actually read it (nor get angry at the 'bloody SJW'), rather, you spent the last six hours of your time buying potted daffodils for your patio.

Also this suggestion that Mel ought 'vote with her feet' by, presumably, quitting her job because if she wants to interview BBL megastars like Chris Gayle she's gotta deal with the ***ual harassment, is incredibly poor.

][/B]Gayle was being lewd and there is a difference. I'm don't want Jack Nicholson to be fined or banned from film because he creeps me out.

Huge difference between choosing to not watch a Jack Nicholson movie because he creeps you out and, uhh, being told that the only way to stop the creepy dude from hitting on you is to quit your job. Else you just have to put up with it, because some random bloke on a forum who's never experienced this doesn't think its that serious.

 

[Coronis]

My question is, if this was the Women's Big Bash, and he was interviewing her, and she was propositioning him, would this even be a thread?

 

[91Jmay]

My question is, if this was the Women's Big Bash, and she was propositioning him, would this even be a thread?

It wasn't she didn't so it is.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yes, if he was made to feel uncomfortable. Glad that's out of the way.

 

[Dan]

The only thing I was getting at is that it was a **** post, ftr.

 

[Prince EWS]

Also this suggestion that Mel ought 'vote with her feet' by, presumably, quitting her job because if she wants to interview BBL megastars like Chris Gayle she's gotta deal with the ***ual harassment, is incredibly poor.

If anything it's Captain_Cook who ought to vote with his feet because the property owners attempting to sell their product to the public -- Ten, CA and the Melbourne Renegades -- have all sided with McLaughlin. If he doesn't like it he shouldn't buy it.