Double standards?

[TheCat]

So after 1000's of years of oppression, feminism has given women equality of opportunity....

But third wave feminists seem to disagree....apparently 'everyday sexism' is rife....

Well I agree, but perhaps not in the way that feminists think....case in point..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/why-is-it-sexist-when-a-man-flirts-with-a-female-interviewer-but/

[Loz]

After the Chris Gayle 'furore', someone dug a clip of Maria Sharapova doing exactly the same thing and usual double standards and excuses were trotted out.

Have to say though, men are our own worst enemies when it comes to things like this. We're a bit rubbish at standing up for ourselves when this kind of thing happens.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Have to say though, men are our own worst enemies

> when it comes to things like this. We're a bit

> rubbish at standing up for ourselves when this

> kind of thing happens.

Maybe the two Ronnies weren't that far off with their prediction for 2012

(Although I did like the state police)

[Jeremy]

If a man does it, it's threatening and predatory. If a woman does it, it's a compliment. Or something like that.

[Henry_17]

TC,

It will not benefit you to expend concern with examples such as these.

[JohnL]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If a man does it, it's threatening and predatory.

> If a woman does it, it's a compliment. Or

> something like that.

Difficult really because in a power mismatch one side

can feel threatened whilst the other side doesn't.

Is there still a power mismatch is the question.

[Jeremy]

Power - in what sense of the word? I'd suggest a hollywood sleb or a sportsperson is in a position of power over their interviewer...

[KalamityKel]

I don't get the point being made here?

[Loz]

Did you follow the Chris Gayle story about a month ago, KK?

[miga]

One difference having now watched this piece of "reverse sexism" was that the interviewer here was clearly playing along. What's it meant to prove?

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is nothing sexist with a man (or woman) flirting. But when it becomes clear that one party isn't receptive, obviously feels uncomfortable and yet it continues, that's when there is an issue.

Men also have to be sensitive to the fact that Women are often have to put up with repeated, unwanted attention and low level street harassment (much as I would like to pretend that I get wolf whistled at as a man, it isn't true) and so they are operating in a very different context.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sorry, cross posted with Miga, but yes, the reaction of the person on the recieving end of the 'attention' is absolutely key.

[DaveR]

I'm, not really bothered about this tbh, but there is a valid underlying point. Chris Gayle's conduct was portrayed as being inherently wrong, at least in part because of the power balance - he's the star, the woman in question was a journalist. That power balance is the same as between a female movie star and a journalist, but in that situation "the reaction of the person on the receiving end...is absolutely key". I suspect if that reasoning were applied to a gender reversed scenario, it would be said that it's irrelevant - the pressure on the less powerful person to play along or at least not object makes that analysis invalid.

There is a real question as to whether this:

"Men also have to be sensitive to the fact that Women are often have to put up with repeated, unwanted attention and low level street harassment (much as I would like to pretend that I get wolf whistled at as a man, it isn't true) and so they are operating in a very different context."

is relevant at all in a situation where the woman is obviously in a position of power.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is nothing sexist with a man (or woman) flirting. But when it becomes clear that one party

> isn't receptive, obviously feels uncomfortable and yet it continues, that's when there is an issue.

Absolutely - I fully agree. But Gayle didn't continue - he flirted for a sentence or two. realised he wasn't getting a welcome reaction and then continued the (brief) interview fairly normally. Yet Gayle was fined $10000 for that interview, it made newspapers around the world and there were calls for him to be banned from the competition.

If the interviewer in the Dakota Johnson/Leslie Mann interview had reacted similarly does anyone actually think they would have received anything near the same level of opprobrium Gayle received?

[Jeremy]

Society is much more tolerant to flirtatious behaviour from women - even in a professional environment.

It doesn't really bother me all that much. But I'm amused at the sanctimony and hypocrisy of the habitually offended.

[miga]

Loz - I think part of the reason the Gayle story made headlines around the world is that it proved popular with the people who are ready and loaded to shout "PC gone mad!", "Feminism gone awry!", "SJWs ruining free speech" etc. If the female journalist in question is to be believed he had a history of making passes/unwelcome remarks at her/other women/journalists who were in his surrounding. That and the reaction from the "panel" back in the studio which was along the lines of "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap" would have probably made her feel a bit shit - she wanted to talk to him about the game, as part of her job, on live telly, and he wanted a date, which her male colleagues thought hilarious. She clearly didn't, and made a fuss. I think she had every right to.

TBH - I didn't know what to make of the "everyday sexism" thing to begin with - but it made me talk to a number of women about the subject (none of whom are CiF commentators, Student Union leaders, career SJWs AFAIK), so I think it's been a worthwhile exercise. As a bloke in his 30s, I'd previously conceived of sexism and gender equality in abstract terms of equality of opportunity, cultural norms around professional choices etc. However, from talking to a few women about the "everyday sexism" thing - I've realised that there is a constant low level hassle that comes with being a woman, especially a young one. It's not something that I experience, and I doubt many blokes do.

[Loz]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz - I think part of the reason the Gayle story made headlines around the world is that it proved

> popular with the people who are ready and loaded to shout "PC gone mad!", "Feminism gone awry!",

> "SJWs ruining free speech" etc. If the female journalist in question is to be believed he had a

> history of making passes/unwelcome remarks at her/other women/journalists who were in his

> surrounding. That and the reaction from the "panel" back in the studio which was along the

> lines of "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap" would have probably made her feel a bit shit - she wanted to

> talk to him about the game, as part of her job, on live telly, and he wanted a date, which her male

> colleagues thought hilarious. She clearly didn't, and made a fuss. I think she had every right to.

Where on earth are you getting your information from?? Did you just make all that up as you typed?

The panel didn't go "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap" nor find it hilarious - in fact almost diametrically the opposite. Actually, she didn't really make a fuss at all in the beginning - it was all done by other people. And yes, she did talk about it a few days later, but that was probably because she was being chased by all and sundry to make a comment. And the story went round the world not for the reasons you outlined (because she didn't make a fuss), but the usual hyped up 'fury!!!' by the usual people who like making the full song and dance over this sort of thing (boosted, of course, by the Twitterati). The same ones that suddenly go very, very quiet and/or start making vague excuses when something like the interview in the OP comes out.

It's all, as the thread title asks, double standards. You can try and justify why there is a double standard, but a double standard it is.

[miga]

Look at it on YouTube buddy - you can hear them roaring with laughter in the studio as the interview progresses. "Don't blush, baby". OK - one of the other guys talks about him going a bit too far, and defends her as a professional. Good, well done. One of the others comments "playing shots on and off the field". So - NOT almost diametrically the opposite. The following morning she was reported as "angry and upset" by her channel's boss (the channel retweeted the "don't blush baby" comment to fuel the twitter storm with hashtag smooth earlier, though). Of course there was a twitter storm. There's a twitter storm when someone flytips a mattress these days.

Isn't it clear that this is a joke being played on her, that she's not enjoying in that video? Isn't it clear that in the other (stupid, asinine) video the interviewer is playing along?

[Loz]

Yep - just rewatched it. The panel defended her immediately. No one - no one at all - ever said "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap" as you claim (or have you realised that didn't happen either). And the "playing shots on and off the field" was clearly a dig at/criticism of Gayle. You also seem to be suggesting that the panel set her up, which AFAIK is the first time anyone has claimed that.

In fact everyone can look at it on YouTube and see you are utterly wrong. It's at https://youtu.be/lnLHUr60HK0 - the change back to the studio starts at 1'56.

> Isn't it clear that in the other (stupid, asinine) video the interviewer is playing along?

As rahrahrah correctly pointed out above, when it becomes clear that one party isn't receptive, obviously feels uncomfortable and yet it continues, that's when there is an issue. Gayle tried to flirt, got (very) short shrift and stopped. Made himself look very silly, certainly, but not worth a $10000 fine. And certainly note worth the threats to his career.

As it happens, had the women in the video suffered the same rejection as Gayle suffered and they too stopped, I don't think they should have been fined/punished either. There has to be consistency - anything else is, by definition, a double standard.

[miga]

Sorry - I thought the discontinuity was obvious and you knew more of the "case". Additional information is that the YouTube link is live up until the "taking shots" thing, the "on reflection" bit happened several minutes later. Live, they played another over, during which the boss called the studio, read them the riot act, and then once the footage cut back to the studio the faces were more sullen, and Mark "Howie" Howard stood up for Mel McLaughlin. During the broadcast the panel were laughing, which you can clearly hear in the background. I have no idea whether the panel set her up - that's an idea you introduced - it was clear (at least some of them) thought it was pretty funny (you can hear them laughing, right?), Chris Gayle had a chuckle, but the journalist didn't enjoy it - hence my "joke she wasn't in on" comment. As for Gayle backing off - he didn't - at the end of the interview he goes back to the eyes thing.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cricket/chris-gayle-faces-cricket-australia-sanctions-over-controversial-interview-with-channel-10s-mel-mclaughlin/news-story/112048d7837a8e1483b0440587b8fec0

Whatever, I still don't see how the reaction to either video is indicative of "double standards" or the idea that "everyday sexism" (or whatever you want to call it) is somehow invalidated by presenting the two cases side by side.

[miga]

Between the chuckling during and immediately post-interview, and the "on reflection" sullenness BTW - even on that YouTube footage you can see it goes from 1/86 and 2/107, and nearly two overs by the looks of things.

[Loz]

OK, so there was a jump - but what happened in that time - are you claiming more happened? Or did they just jump the cricket? And if indeed the panel did laugh, were they laughing at the interviewer, or were they laughing a Gayle making a prize chump of himself?

Unfortunately, you link disproves your own assertion about what happened: "I [the boss] immediately called (host) Mark Howard and we had a long talk about it. He was very upset about it as well and that?s when he decided to make his statement.? *He* decided. So, he didn't "read them the riot act".

And have you decided that no one actually said, "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap"? You seem to be avoiding that question.

You are going a bit SSW on the evidence here, miga.

Anyway, to the important point - I'll repeat again...

"As rahrahrah correctly pointed out above, when it becomes clear that one party isn't receptive, obviously feels uncomfortable and yet it continues, that's when there is an issue. Gayle tried to flirt, got (very) short shrift and stopped. Made himself look very silly, certainly, but not worth a $10000 fine. And certainly note worth the threats to his career."

Are you saying it was worth that punishment? And can you - hand on heart - say that if the male reporter had not played along that you would consider both case as equals?

[miga]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OK so there was a jump - but what happened in

> that time - are you claiming more happened? Or

> did they just jump the cricket? And if indeed the

> panel did laugh, were they laughing at the

> interviewer, or were they laughing a Gayle making

> a prize chump of himself?

Right - so the critique wasn't immediate.

Can you not hear the laughter?

Yes - of course more happened, their boss called them.

(BTW Gayle didn't stop once rebuffed as you claim - the last thing he said was again about the eyes).

We can't know what the panel were laughing at, you're right. Maybe another interview? Maybe someone did a quiet fart? Maybe the cricketer being sleazy to the lady journalist? Maybe with irony? My take on it is they were laughing at him being a cheeky chappy, but your take that they were laughing at him as a critique of his sleaze could be just as valid. The channel boss (unsurprisingly) claims there were a lot of things going on in these guys' earphones and the laughter was unrelated. It didn't play that way to me because of how it was timed - but I could be wrong.

[miga]

> And have you decided that no one actually said,

> "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap"? You seem to be

> avoiding that question.

FFS Loz - don't be so literal - I never said anyone said that - I said their reaction was "something along the lines of", and given the laughter and the immediate "taking shots" comment, yeah, I think it's a valid interpretation. I'm usually careful not to misquote. And BTW - I'm under no obligation to address each of your straw men, this was a courtesy.

[miga]

> You are going a bit SSW on the evidence here,

> miga.

SSW? Sorry, don't know this abbreviation.

> Anyway, to the important point - I'll repeat

> again...

>

> "As rahrahrah correctly pointed out above, when it

> becomes clear that one party isn't receptive,

> obviously feels uncomfortable and yet it

> continues, that's when there is an issue. Gayle

> tried to flirt, got (very) short shrift and

> stopped. Made himself look very silly, certainly,

> but not worth a $10000 fine. And certainly note

> worth the threats to his career."

>

> Are you saying it was worth that punishment? And

> can you - hand on heart - say that if the male

> reporter had not played along that you would

> consider both case as equals?

I would consider it just as bad, yes.

I also think the punishment was about right. It's not up to me to determine the scale of the punishment - but I assume he signed some kind of contract including definitions of reasonable behaviour re: harassment, sexism, racism etc. as we all do when we're employed. I'd say this was inappropriate workplace behaviour. The kicker is that his misstep was very public, and that a sports league would probably want to appeal to a broad range of people, and having someone turn in a bit of prime time TV sleaze in this way is not the image they'd want. If I was running the league I'd want to send out a clear signal about appropriate behaviour, and I think they struck the right balance. Ian Chappell and others called for him to be banned (partly because, as it turned out, he had a bit of a history of hitting on female journalists publically etc.), which I think is overkill.