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

[cnerd123]

First being against the Pink days at the cricket, now this...tsk tsk Red Hill.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nope OS, if Virat had said the same stuff, he would have sounded like a creep.

It was a joke you ****.

 

[Red]

First being against the Pink days at the cricket, now this...tsk tsk Red Hill.

I actually just despise the contrived-ness of the modern world. I am in no way a misogynist.

 

[Bahnz]

It was a joke you ****.

That's what Gayle said. You ***ist.

 

[indiaholic]

Jesus Christ. Wtf are you guys on about? She works in television.. Being easy on the eyes is a part of the job. Why is that wrong? The guys who host the IPL show are pretty good looking too. It is not wrong. And it does not mean that your co workers are allowed to hit on you while on national television.

 

[cnerd123]

It's not an either/or thing. Someone can be perfectly competent at a job but still have been hired for inappropriate reasons.

Why does this matter? So what if she was hired for her looks? That doesn't make what Gayle did okay. Two wrongs dont make a right. I dont see why you are bringing this up.

"Hey, she was only hired for her looks, so that makes it perfectly fine for men to harass her on air instead of treating her with the respect she deserves'

 

[Prince EWS]

I think that being attractive and female contributed to her getting the job alongside the other factors you mentioned.

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.

 

[Shady Slim]

Jesus Christ. Wtf are you guys on about? She works in television.. Being easy on the eyes is a part of the job. Why is that wrong? The guys who host the IPL show are pretty good looking too. It is not wrong. And it does not mean that your co workers are allowed to hit on you while on national television.

ok sorry this is my last ****post in this thread the rest are gonna be serious

 

[cnerd123]

I actually just despise the contrived-ness of the modern world. I am in no way a misogynist.

The fact that you think such initiatives and issues are contrived is exactly why we need then to begin with. ***ism in sports is so deeply ingrained its considered the norm and any efforts to involve women in fee contrived and against the grain.

 

[Red]

Why does this matter? So what if she was hired for her looks? That doesn't make what Gayle did okay. Two wrongs dont make a right. I dont see why you are bringing this up.

"Hey, she was only hired for her looks, so that makes it perfectly fine for men to harass her on air instead of treating her with the respect she deserves'

I don't think he meant that. I think he meant that there's a massive and broader spectrum of misogyny on commercial TV, and that networks coming out defending their employees is kind of hypocritical.

Didn't Kerry Packer famously say that any woman on his network has to be ****able?

 

[thierry henry]

i should be more specific: i don't care about the nature of ten's employment of her in the context of discussing chris gayle's actions. these two conversations have, imo, zero intersection outside broader discussions about how women are treated in sporting culture, which i am not going to enter into at 5am.

it's whataboutery to conflate the two, and there are few things i despise more.

Since when did it become "weird" and "whataboutery" to start off by discussing a small incident which reflects a broader issue, and move on to discussing the broader issue or a bigger and more obvious manifestation of that issue? That's the way the human mind works and it's a way that I think about and discuss many issues (like ones related to cricket, for example).

Honestly I think it's total crap the way that you are subtly throwing around tumblrisms like "intersectionality" and "whataboutery" and inferring that I have some sort of unspoken ulterior motive or prejudice and am being "weird" because those are your preconceptions of how people think about these things. It's obvious what is going on here and the agenda you are pushing and I think it's really unfortunate we can't have a proper discussion because you have alarm bells set for people who don't talk about these things "the right way".

Now you are going to respond by repeating the assertion that I am being weird or that you don't know what I'm talking about, presumably to a hail of likes. I just think it's really weak chat.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's what Gayle said. You ***ist.

It was a prank bro. Watch out for my next video: Picking Up HOT Girls at the cricket (GONE ***UAL)

 

[Red]

The fact that you think such initiatives and issues are contrived is exactly why we need then to begin with. .

No, it actually begins at grassroots and individually. Which is entirely my point.

 

[Spark]

Since when did it become "weird" and "whataboutery" to start off by discussing a small incident which reflects a broader issue, and move on to discussing the broader issue or a bigger and more obvious manifestation of that issue? That's the way the human mind works and it's a way that I think about and discuss many issues (like ones related to cricket, for example).

Honestly I think it's total crap the way that you are subtly throwing around tumblrisms like "intersectionality" and "whataboutery" and inferring that I have some sort of unspoken ulterior motive or prejudice and am being "weird" because those are your preconceptions of how people think about these things. It's obvious what is going on here and the agenda you are pushing and I think it's really unfortunate we can't have a proper discussion because you have alarm bells set for people who don't talk about these things "the right way".

Now you are going to respond by repeating the assertion that I am being weird or that you don't know what I'm talking about, presumably to a hail of likes. I just think it's really weak chat.

yes, how dare i actually try to focus on the topic at hand and not get sidetracked into discussions which are not actually relevant to what is being discussed.

jesus i have explained three times why i'm not interested in discussing this, and you keep bringing it up. and when i clarify exactly why i didn't care, you start bringing up... intersectionality? what?

p.s. whataboutery is not a tumblrism. in fact, tumblr often hosts the most egregious examples of whataboutery to be found anywhere.

 

[Bahnz]

Can't wait to see Guptill try out Gayle's lines on Laura the next time she interviews him.

 

[Prince EWS]

Since when did it become "weird" and "whataboutery" to start off by discussing a small incident which reflects a broader issue, and move on to discussing the broader issue or a bigger and more obvious manifestation of that issue? That's the way the human mind works and it's a way that I think about and discuss many issues (like ones related to cricket, for example).

Honestly I think it's total crap the way that you are subtly throwing around tumblrisms like "intersectionality" and "whataboutery" and inferring that I have some sort of unspoken ulterior motive or prejudice and am being "weird" because those are your preconceptions of how people think about these things. It's obvious what is going on here and the agenda you are pushing and I think it's really unfortunate we can't have a proper discussion because you have alarm bells set for people who don't talk about these things "the right way".

Now you are going to respond by repeating the assertion that I am being weird or that you don't know what I'm talking about, presumably to a hail of likes. I just think it's really weak chat.

Spark, I think you basically just got accused of tone-policing. I enjoyed the irony.

 

[thierry henry]

Why does this matter? So what if she was hired for her looks? That doesn't make what Gayle did okay. Two wrongs dont make a right. I dont see why you are bringing this up.

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?

 

[Spark]

Spark, I think you basically just got accused of tone-policing. I enjoyed the irony.

the funny thing is that i've agreed with the basic points he's outlined, i've just said repeatedly that "yeah ok but this isn't actually relevant to the incident in question which is what people are discussing"

mel mclaughlin could've been hired because she has a mind control ray for all i care about that right now.

 

[Shady Slim]

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

 

[Spark]

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

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