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

[Zinzan]

It does strike me as a little weird that while almost 100% of folks throughout this thread have rightly condemned Gayle's antics, the 40 pages of robust debate seems to be all about the degree of inappropriateness or outrage people feel, with those on the extreme PC side of things seemingly getting upset with anyone who doesn't view it as '10 out of 10' on the outrage scale. Even '9 out of 10' doesn't seem to be enough for some on this issue.

It seems that those holding the view that Gayle did act like a misogynistic ass but equally feel the issue has been blown out of proportion somewhat have been pretty unreasonably labeled as ***ist misogynists themselves for not holding the absolute extreme view. Could it be that the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle?

Anyway, what I did find quite interesting & even ironic (after reading the last 40 pages) & not sure if others will agree, is this bit from an Australian talk-show with mostly female commentators, actually seem a little more measured (overall) in their reaction than most of the blokes on this forum in terms of the extent of the outrage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMHgAauwFEk

 

[harsh.ag]

It does strike me as a little weird that while almost 100% of folks throughout this thread have rightly condemned Gayle's antics, the 40 pages of robust debate seems to be all about the degree of inappropriateness or outrage people feel, with those on the extreme PC side of things seemingly getting upset with anyone who doesn't view it as '10 out of 10' on the outrage scale. Even '9 out of 10' doesn't seem to be enough for some on this issue.

It seems that those holding the view that Gayle did act like a misogynistic ass but equally feel the issue has been blown out of proportion somewhat have been pretty unreasonably labeled as ***ist misogynist themselves for not holding the absolute extreme view. Could it be that the true actually lies somewhere in the middle?

Don't think anyone criticized anyone saying "Gayle did act like a misogynistic ass but equally feel the issue has been blown out of proportion somewhat". It's happened that there is always a "but" attached at the end of that sentence with some weirdness, which is replied to in the broader sense.

 

[Dan]

But what you said before doesn't limit yourself to racist, ***ist views etc. It extends to not using the word hell too much in case religious people in the vicinity are offended. I'd be having a mild personal crisis if I caught myself doing that. And your logical viewpoint is that there's no such thing as an overreaction because 'it's their lived experience', so the possibilities for self-censorship are endless.

One specific person, ftr, after they mentioned they weren't comfortable with it. I'm still only talking super low effort stuff, not 'go vegan because your vegan friend is offended by you eating meat' or 'leave Islam because your atheist friend is offended by religion'.

> Acknowledge that people feeling something is them actually feeling that thing
> Don't tell them how they should be feeling instead
> Don't be a dick (which includes, you know, recognising the context of the conversation you find yourself in and adapting appropriately)

Really not that hard to grasp, and I have literally no idea how or why not telling people how they should feel has turned into this.

Think about the last time you told someone they were overreacting. I cannot think of a single instance where someone has immediately gone "hmmm, you're right, I shouldn't be feeling upset so I'll stop feeling upset"; usually it just makes everything worse.

Yea plz. Not just because of Skyliner, but because Dan is going to come back online eventually and reply to all the replies to his posts and I don't think I can sit through anymore of that. CW has suffered enough.

Last one, I promise!

 

[Prince EWS]

Think about the last time you told someone they were overreacting. I cannot think of a single instance where someone has immediately gone "hmmm, you're right, I shouldn't be feeling upset so I'll stop feeling upset"; usually it just makes everything worse.

Reversing this I know, but the last time someone told me I was over-reacting they were spot on and I recognised that pretty quickly.

I think I actually agree with your overall point, but you almost seem to be making the case that there's no such thing as an over-reaction, which I don't really think is right. You can't consciously change your emotions, but sometimes having a friend tell you that you're being a bit silly helps put things into perspective and actually calm down as a result.

 

[Zinzan]

Don't think anyone criticized anyone saying "Gayle did act like a misogynistic ass but equally feel the issue has been blown out of proportion somewhat". It's happened that there is always a "but" attached at the end of that sentence with some weirdness, which is replied to in the broader sense.

Certainly wasn't my take in skimming through (admittedly) the 40 pages or so. There's were certainly some stupid 'buts', but equally some providing some balance to the argument such as "Gayle was/is a dickhead, 'but' let's not get carried away and ban him from cricket for life' type comments.

Interesting a couple of those women from that clip posted threw in a couple of 'buts' also, which probably reminds us guys that perhaps we shouldn't always be so presumptuous in how 'all' women might react as opposed to some we know.

I'd actually be more interested in what CW members gfs/wifes thought about it than what they did tbh. I know my gf's first reaction was 'Oh gawd, Gayle's a cheesy dick but I hope this doesn't become a media beat-up'.

 

[The_Bunny]

It does strike me as a little weird that while almost 100% of folks throughout this thread have rightly condemned Gayle's antics, the 40 pages of robust debate seems to be all about the degree of inappropriateness or outrage people feel, with those on the extreme PC side of things seemingly getting upset with anyone who doesn't view it as '10 out of 10' on the outrage scale. Even '9 out of 10' doesn't seem to be enough for some on this issue.

It seems that those holding the view that Gayle did act like a misogynistic ass but equally feel the issue has been blown out of proportion somewhat have been pretty unreasonably labeled as ***ist misogynists themselves for not holding the absolute extreme view. Could it be that the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle?

Anyway, what I did find quite interesting & even ironic (after reading the last 40 pages) & not sure if others will agree, is this bit from an Australian talk-show with mostly female commentators, actually seem a little more measured (overall) in their reaction than most of the blokes on this forum in terms of the extent of the outrage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMHgAauwFEk

To be fair any women in the public eye who aggressively calls this behaviour out will almost certainly be subjected to a significant amount of abuse online, in most cases including rape and death threats.
And a fairly significant portion of the Australian population (likely including some of her colleagues and friends) would consider her to be just overreacting anyway.
It's a big (possibly career defining) move for a female personality to put herself right out there on this subject, not surprising it doesn't happen that often.

 

[indiaholic]

Lol, will participate in the SO survey. She felt this was entirely inappropriate in a workplace. Would have complained to human resources if her co worker had addressed her as 'baby' and responded to her questions with comments about her eyes.

 

[GIMH]

One specific person, ftr, after they mentioned they weren't comfortable with it. I'm still only talking super low effort stuff, not 'go vegan because your vegan friend is offended by you eating meat' or 'leave Islam because your atheist friend is offended by religion'.

> Acknowledge that people feeling something is them actually feeling that thing
> Don't tell them how they should be feeling instead
> Don't be a dick (which includes, you know, recognising the context of the conversation you find yourself in and adapting appropriately)

Really not that hard to grasp, and I have literally no idea how or why not telling people how they should feel has turned into this.

Think about the last time you told someone they were overreacting. I cannot think of a single instance where someone has immediately gone "hmmm, you're right, I shouldn't be feeling upset so I'll stop feeling upset"; usually it just makes everything worse.



Last one, I promise!

I don't think he's saying that you should tell other people how to feel. But that you shouldn't necessarily worry about it 100% of the time.

I remember being devo'd because I made a comment about suicide to a girl (something like 'right I'm gonna kill myself now' purely in jest) and she went off because her boyfriend had killed himself a few months prior. I legit felt awful and was apologetic around her for a long time. I'd never make a comment like that again in the presence of people whom I didn't know all that well, because I wouldn't want that reaction.

But similarly I've been out with a few people when some haven't taken to some of my language or constant taking the piss, in fact they've probably been offended by me. It is what it is, I'm not going to change who I am to accommodate one person when there's five or six of us about. And I think that's what UC is getting at. I'm not talking racist/***ist comments. But I'm mouthy, and I do generally have something to say (to the surprise of nobody). If somebody was offended by this, what should I do? Go into my shell? If everyone was offended by it, of course I would just go home. But I wouldn't see that as 'low cost' at all but you're still reaching for the same end goal.

 

[GotSpin]

Boobs

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

It does strike me as a little weird that while almost 100% of folks throughout this thread have rightly condemned Gayle's antics, the 40 pages of robust debate seems to be all about the degree of inappropriateness or outrage people feel, with those on the extreme PC side of things seemingly getting upset with anyone who doesn't view it as '10 out of 10' on the outrage scale. Even '9 out of 10' doesn't seem to be enough for some on this issue.

It seems that those holding the view that Gayle did act like a misogynistic ass but equally feel the issue has been blown out of proportion somewhat have been pretty unreasonably labeled as ***ist misogynists themselves for not holding the absolute extreme view. Could it be that the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle?

Anyway, what I did find quite interesting & even ironic (after reading the last 40 pages) & not sure if others will agree, is this bit from an Australian talk-show with mostly female commentators, actually seem a little more measured (overall) in their reaction than most of the blokes on this forum in terms of the extent of the outrage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMHgAauwFEk

Yeah but no one is calling for Gayle to be banned for life or whatever. People frame that as the other side so they can feel like they're being the one with the balanced, truth-is-in-the-middle opinion. And it pretty much doesn't matter what your or my partner thinks about it because they weren't the one being harassed nor (as far as I know) are they working as an interviewer in a male-dominated sports environment.

 

[Zinzan]

To be fair any women in the public eye who aggressively calls this behaviour out will almost certainly be subjected to a significant amount of abuse online, in most cases including rape and death threats.
And a fairly significant portion of the Australian population (likely including some of her colleagues and friends) would consider her to be just overreacting anyway.
It's a big (possibly career defining) move for a female personality to put herself right out there on this subject, not surprising it doesn't happen that often.

Nah, don't buy that for a second in Australia in 2015. Those older women commentators are outspoken on a number of issues so I don't believe they were holding back in fear of any retribution..and the presenter herself who was incidentally outraged didn't seem to hold back in verbalising her opinion.

I think it's actually the very opposite to what you've suggested, in which publicly saying anything considered 'Non-PC' is what's likely to lead to abuse, not that other way.

 

[indiaholic]

Nah, don't buy that for a second in Australia in 2015. Those older women commentators are outspoken on a number of issues so I don't believe they were holding back in fear of any retribution..and the presenter herself who was incidentally outraged didn't seem to hold back in verbalising her opinion.

I think it's actually the very opposite to what you've suggested, in which publicly saying anything considered 'Non-PC' is what's likely to lead to abuse, not that other way.

Not disagreeing with you, but have you met the internet? The dweebs on reddit and twitter go straight for the jugular as soon as they smell a hint of women who says anything that they deem feminist.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah, don't buy that for a second in Australia in 2015. Those older women commentators are outspoken on a number of issues so I don't believe they were holding back in fear of any retribution..and the presenter herself who was incidentally outraged didn't seem to hold back in verbalising her opinion.

I think it's actually the very opposite to what you've suggested, in which publicly saying anything considered 'Non-PC' is what's likely to lead to abuse, not that other way.

Presenting an opinion on this topic at all will lead to abuse from one side or the other tbh.

 

[jcas0167]

If you're kiwi and have a self hatred streak check out the Veitch on Sport facebook page comments section if you feel like getting angry. Some of those comments make Captain Cooks reddit nerd mens rights wobble look balanced.

I wasn't overly surprised at the level of comments on Veitchy, but thought Mark Reason would at least get that she was being subjected to harrassment in the course of her employment. On the plus side I did learn a new word - "pulchritudinous".

Mark Reason: Six talk and four-play are OK, Chris Gayle | Stuff.co.nz

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah but no one is calling for Gayle to be banned for life or whatever. People frame that as the other side so they can feel like they're being the one with the balanced, truth-is-in-the-middle opinion. And it pretty much doesn't matter what your or my partner thinks about it because they weren't the one being harassed nor (as far as I know) are they working as an interviewer in a male-dominated sports environment.

Mate, she's a lawyer working for a firm run by 2 male partners, so not far off in that respect.

But the greater point/question is should the 'degree' of outrage always match the level of offense taken by a given person? I'm sure there's many things that offend me to an greater extent than I would expect others empathise with me about.

 

[Zinzan]

Presenting an opinion on this topic at all will lead to abuse from one side or the other tbh.

Not disagreeing with you, but have you met the internet? The dweebs on reddit and twitter go straight for the jugular as soon as they smell a hint of women who says anything that they deem feminist.

As Pews quite rightly said above, most opinions will lead to offense taken by one side or the other...this works every which way whether it's feminists, misogynists right through to the Black life's matter nuts.

My main observation about this particular thread is people aren't actually that far apart in their views on the issue overall, yet the robust discussion would suggest they're worlds apart but it's all about the 'degree' of outrage felt.

 

[Uppercut]

Reversing this I know, but the last time someone told me I was over-reacting they were spot on and I recognised that pretty quickly.

I think I actually agree with your overall point, but you almost seem to be making the case that there's no such thing as an over-reaction, which I don't really think is right. You can't consciously change your emotions, but sometimes having a friend tell you that you're being a bit silly helps put things into perspective and actually calm down as a result.

Yeah, I would tend to prefer people to tell me I'm overreacting rather than indulge my fury over their eating the last jaffa cake. That's just me though.

Pretty sure GIMH also won our last feminism-related thread by essentially stating "I act like a sane person in most circumstances".

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Mate, she's a lawyer working for a firm run by 2 male partners, so not far off in that respect.

But the greater point/question is should the 'degree' of outrage always match the level of offense taken by a given person? I'm sure there's many things that offend me to an greater extent than I would expect others empathise with me about.

You're confusing outrage with "it's pretty ***ist to harass a woman while she's doing her job". Outrage implies that people are becoming hysterically angry, which as I said is used a convenient way to frame the issue.

 

[Furball]

Whats with you and these weird posts?

*****; Platters, Pratters; *****

 

[Zinzan]

You're confusing outrage with "it's pretty ***ist to harass a woman while she's doing her job". Outrage implies that people are becoming hysterically angry, which as I said is used a convenient way to frame the issue.

No, you're taking the extreme (all or nothing) view again.. there is actually a balanced/middle ground here in which one can recognise it's both ***ist behaviour but slightly blown out of proportion at the same time. I've already made it clear that I condemn Gayle's lame performance but it's whether the 'degree' of outrage is warranted that we're squabbling over. I think it's been slight overkill, you clearly don't.