The case clearly has some longevity, it's still all over the press.
The only appropriate punishment is for the entire team to watch every episode of Ted Lasso and internalize all of its progressive ideas about masculinity.
I do not know if people watch this show or will understand this comment in Australia.
I'm an avid reader of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books in which "slap" is a troll equivalent of cocaine. When first hearing about this AFL debacle I was quite confused about what "slap" meant. It may have been some sort of slang for "snort". I never would have expected anybody to be buying OR selling a slap on the bum.
The way these ghastly women are being portrayed as both “victims” and “empowered women” at the same time, confirms once again the inherent contradictions of the despicable misandrist movement.
This has all the familiar features of an organised hit job. It may well backfire this time. Important to note:
- as far as I can tell, to date no Swans player has engaged in criminal behaviour of any kind towards these tarts (sorry, “sex workers”).
- it is lawful (and was very very stupid of the Swans guys to do it - but legal) to pay whores in Victoria for sex services.
- if there is proof that there was a breach of consent of some kind there may be enough for charges, but the evidence would need to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to satisfy criminal charges. That’s a very high bar - and to date there doesn’t appear to be any evidence even close to meeting the standard (even for the notoriously politicised, allegedly corrupt and low quality Victorian cops).
- no one is focusing on the cocaine allegations. “Someone” supplied the coke, paid for it, snorted it and apparently these hookers were fully involved in what went on. I hope they all understand that as citizens and participants in this shabby affair, they are just as liable to be charged for drug supply, possession and / or use, as any of the Swans guys are.
- deluded misandrists may believe that hookers and porn stars are highly serious people of great integrity, but reality begs to differ: I can assure you that if this ever gets to a jury and a court, the defence barrister for the Swans will tear any of these women to shreds in cross examination & it’s highly doubtful any jury will believe a word they say.
The women are unlikely to be charged and even less likely to be convicted of drug offences. It will be a matter of "the men made us do it" as they switch from empowered women to brainless victims without agency, however the narrative benefits them.
And noticed how this “scandal” seems to have been “memory holed” by those who hyped it up? I suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye, and that these skanks (sorry, “sex workers”) may have bitten off more than they can chew (no pun intended).
If you take a step back, you'll see that this incident - and feminism generally- is an example of the globalists' attempts to divide us, keep us arguing, and therefore make us easier to control. And so far, it's working!
When we finally learn that it was all a sham, a big fat nothing burger, a shake down, a false allegation by conniving creatures- be assured the media will throw up smokescreens and run cover for them and they will remain anonymous whilst the men whose lives they destroyed will continually be referenced in ongoing commentary about this disgusting example of toxic masculinity which runs allegedly rampant in the AFL.
The utterly sickening hatred of white men spewed by so many commentators, including Matthew Klugman on the ABC, who said the following regarding the incident, leaves me feeling genuinely shattered:
"The number of women killed by current or former partners who are men, is staggering. So, there's a cultural problem which sport is at the heart of, but significantly broader than sport. But yeah, sport is a key place where you could intervene, you know, where, actually, you know, for the AFL, they could treat the women's league like they treat the men's league, as long a season, the women getting much more money, you know, on a par, all of these kinds of things. But they've always got arguments against that, they're willing to lose millions and millions of dollars supporting men's teams for broader cultural reasons........"
He went on to say football is used to make white boys into white men.
As long as football is dominated by white male players, white male administrators and white male commentators nothing is going to change.
I have never heard a more insane, twisted, deceitful, illogical pile of tripe spewed by a professor from a university in Victoria in my life. Had I been in close physical proximity to this hateful bigot, I may have been tempted to remonstrate as his words were all simply borne of a hatred of white men-nothing more. There is nothing more contemptible than a man who makes a living selling out other men. I see it as a particularly disgusting act of treachery.
There was not one attempted pushback on his deranged rant. He was not asked if the NBA is problematic as long as it is dominated by black men or Netball Australia being administered by women, played exclusively by women with no suggestion of the creation of a competition for young men, and commentated by women is a problem.
Nor was he asked if the total domination of the music scene by women like Taylor Swift, Adele, Pink, Katie Perry and others and the tens of millions they make is an indication of the rampant sexism in the music industry where so many male performers are relegated to the sidelines and make a fraction of the money these girls get.
Let's not talk about the modelling world and the imbalance there.
What kind of a professor argues that women who play at the level of 13 year old boys in a competition being held up by the success of the male product ( the AFLW loses 50 million a year for the AFL) which the men subsidize should be paid the same money as the men who bring in crowds and tv audiences which make the AFL a billion-dollar industry?
No thank you has ever passed the lips of an AFLW player for the creation and supporting of this competition or the many new changerooms and facilities being created all over the state entirely for the comfort and convenience of the girls' competitions in the suburbs and country regions.
No. Just sour whining that it should have happened earlier.
No acknowledgement of the tens of millions of dollars young white men who play footy and cricket have raised for FEMALE specific cancers over the past decade or two. Klugman seems to be unaware of these facts. Is this misogyny in action?
My son was more optimistic than his burnt-out, worn-out dad. He is a tradie and said the almost universal response from blokes was to say they have had enough of this rubbish- the endless media bombardment over confected stories designed to be a cudgel to beat men and boys with, which so often turn out to be based on lies, half truths and rumour.
I imagine the kind of bile Matthew Klugman presents to his students at his university. Is it any wonder we keep seeing new waves of man hating witches emerging from our tertiary institutions.
Mark Dent: Great insights and well written, thanks.
The femicentric demands that females playing men's sports (at least sports that men have developed and made into profitable entertainment) should be paid similarly to the male players is just wanting special treatment. It's as ridiculous as my local pub band demanding as much money as The Rolling Stones per performance, or (as you mention) Taylor Swift. My local pub band plays very well and provides a great night for those who like the genre. They are probably more accomplished musicians than the Stones have ever been (perhaps apart from Charlie Watts); that doesn't change the relative audience-attracting capacities of the two bands. But that's one of the spurious arguments from gynocentric women: that the females play just as hard and well as the males so therefore deserve the same pay. "Wah wah wah, it's so unfair and everything done and paid for to support women in sports is not enough and just proves we live under patriarchy, wah wah wah".
But you hear the same tired garbage all the time. It came up again after the Swan's scandal broke-AFLW players must be paid the same as the men in order to end gendered violence.
What I hate is the fact that not one AFLW player stands up and says that is crazy talk and they are lucky to be getting what they are right now! It's far more than they deserve given they cost the AFL 50 million bucks in losses per year.
No media pundits will call out this feminist shit either. Every man in the media is terrified of losing his job for daring to be seen to be criticizing the feminist narrative.
My son's best mate is married to a well-known female football journo at Fox. She has told us they were ordered to never write or say a negative word about the AFLW. She also said they lied about attendances and also covered up a grooming scandal in the changeroom of some AFLW clubs.
The men? Kick their heads in every chance you get.
One thing I have never been able to fathom is why these defenders of women’s rights to do anything, say anything, be anything because they are W‑O‑M‑A‑N allow themselves to be referred to as the mere sound “W”. I was delighted to receive a PhD, and therefore no longer obliged to suffer being called “Ms”, which is just a sound and not a word. Yet this generation of the highly educated, fully entitled and empowered are happy to be referred to as a minuscule sound. The hypocrisy mystifies me for sure ( perhaps they are not be bright enought to see it)
Privileged, pale young men commit a violent sexual offence. Commentators throughout the land proclaim this to be a consequence of the culture from which the offenders come. The connection is unchallenged, undoubted and echoed in the commentariat's versions of "amen".
From the other side of the tracks, some young men of darker pigment and less common names commit a violent sexual offence. Attributions to culture are avoided and disclaimed, except in the uglier fringes of internet discourse, where fear of differences is stoked.
Is this:
1. A valid and explicable difference in approach?
2. An illustration of a modern societal taboo?
3. A willingness to punch up but not down? or
4. A reminder that the bad conduct of a few individuals ought not to be hastily attributed to the characteristics of a whole class of people?
I would say it is simply another example of sociopathic projection that feminist ideologues are responsible for across the whole gammit of social politics.
It is anti-civilisational and authoritarian terror targeted at the society that cradles it.
Feminisim is a terrorist ideology and it is about time the nations security services started treating it as such before it is too late.
Brilliant Bettina. So funny, I wrote a piece exploring this topic on LinkedIn and questioned the AFL's total weakness in setting boundaries around behavior, ie drug use. I also questioned their cowardice in calling this abuse of women whilst they allow biological males to play women's football, and further how they turn a blind eye to butch lesbians bullying and abusing straight girls in the AFLW ()to the point where girls leave clubs), while jumping on every male transgression. I got attacked by many - men! Can you believe it? But I also picked up several hundred followers who preferred not to like or comment in case they were identified as supporters of such white male bigotry. Ha Ha.
The cowardice of men is simply a fact of life. They are terrified of upsetting wives and girl friends or desperate for a tug. I don't believe any of them actually believe the bigoted anti male tripe spewed out in our media and online every day. They simply choose to stay silent, or worse, side with rabid man haters in the hope they will be seen as the "one good man" .
I write about that in my book, "Masculine Intelligence" Mark. There is a difference between a Good Man and a Nice Guy. Good men have clear boundaries and they enforce them. Nice guys are weak men who spend their entire live anxiously looking for signals. I would never trust a "nice guy". And hands up, I was one of those once. https://masculineintelligence.com.au/
I agree. My point was the irony of him writing “FFS”, which is exactly why the footballers had women in the hotel. For sex sake. FSS. If he intended that, it is quite witty.
I enjoyed reading his post, & highly respect you Bettina.
Do you think it’s time for a masculist movement? In many ways, it describes what you are doing now.
Or do you fear it make take us on as nasty a tangent as feminism?
My sister went to school with Germaine Greer, who insists that she is a liberty, NOT equality, feminist. For that, she’s seen as having betrayed ‘the cause’, & is now despised for it.
Brian, WTF? Germaine Greer was dux of her school in Phrahran (not Elwood, not that it matters) AND dux of her year in BA at Melbourne University (call me biased, I am an alum). And all you can do is allege the absurdity of “half an abortion”? Which came out first, the legs or the head?
Germaine lived in Elwood as did I. The Catholic school at the end of Normandy Road was a primary school. I lived in Normandy road and Germaine is a little younger than me.
My sister Jessica met Greer, older, through a mutual friend, when she was at “Star”, as they called Star of the Sea in Gardenvale. Perhaps the one to which you refer is the same school, as it’s close to Elwood.
I’m disturbed by Greer’s support of abortion, which I’d forgotten. I nevertheless recognise her intellect. I hope she is more enlightened in her old age.
Greer called her best selling book "The Female Eunach". There can be no such thing as a female eunach .It is not factually correct implying that her other
claims of female disadvantage are also factually incorrect. The eunach metaphor
is evidence of a faded star. p.s. How can eunachs become prostitutes ?
The persistent spread of this story over all the media is the worrying part. They certainly have a well oiled righteous indignation machine ready to roll at the next available opportunity.
Thank you Bettina for your summary. We need more opposition to this nonsense.
I was waiting for this article Bettina as it distills all the cultural ingredients that bug the crap out of me. The analysis is cogent and says the things that many people dare not say for fear of ridicule.
She writes - "There is a reason the law treats children differently, protecting their identities and surrounding proceedings involving them with safeguards. The ordeal ahead will be dreadful for four families, whatever happens. The laying of the charges was newsworthy. Then there was little more to say until the law had done its work.
"Instead, day after day, we heard from a band of anonymous Scots parents. The school hasn’t communicated enough. The boys should have been expelled. Their boys are being “tarred with the same brush”. The school is protecting the boys because their families are donors. The school’s “culture” is wrong. The principal should resign.
"Perhaps there is a boys’ culture problem here. But before commissioning another consent seminar for 13-year-olds, might we look at the behaviour and culture being displayed by the anonymous parents? " This link should get behind the paywall -
One irony is that feminist influence has rendered parents (and schools) much less effective in enforcing boundaries and teaching discipline. 'Rights of the child' have been expanded largely on emotive arguments from women and male feminists, prioritising empathy over effectiveness in discipline. In general, female ways of parenting were (without good evidence) defined as correct while male ways of parenting were demonised. Especially for teenagers, the father could and previously would, if necessary, physically overpower a teenager to enforce boundaries and teach the youth that greater forces will always exist in life (in a much less harmful way than when it is left for law enforcement and justice to try to do so a few years later). But now, a father doing so would be most unwise. Not to mention the widespread erasing of fathers from families and parenting influence, as encouraged financially (through free money to reward separation) and legally (in Family Courts) by the state.
In the past, parental authority was respected socially and in law. The law (rightly so) did not allow unreasonable force in discipline and there were plenty of parents in prison for using unreasonable force. Sure, there was justification for tightening laws (actually, just making the definitions clearer) and encouraging less social tolerance of unreasonable force. However, foolish changes resulted from irrational arguments and slogans against patriarchy and male ways of doing things. Now, if a parent physically restrains or directs a child in public, punishes a child in any way, or even so much as raises a voice to his/her child, that parent faces a serious risk of being visited by child protection services or police, possibly prosecuted for child abuse, or threatened with prosecution or loss of the children unless (s)he attends an indoctrination course claiming to know better than what was known by those who built our civilisation and past civilisations, or at the minimum subjected to a patronising warning and ideological lecture. Increase in youth self-entitlement, crime and delinquency is plain for all to see. Having cut off parental authority at the knees, emasculated parents are now being prosecuted for the bad behaviour of the children they were prohibited from disciplining. Viva la feminism.
It's a brilliant article from someone who has observed these behaviours first hand. Louise is also a barrister and the wife of the Opposition Leader, so perhaps we may see others now ready to tell certain truths, especially those close to the halls of power, just like her.
Not too many lawyers are prepared to speak up and mention constitutional safeguards because they'd be threatening their revenue stream if successful and thereby killing the golden goose. In fact make that none in my involuntary but extensive experience.
Thanks Bettina for another sensible analysis and for your unrelenting work to reintroduce some sense into societies.
The case clearly has some longevity, it's still all over the press.
The only appropriate punishment is for the entire team to watch every episode of Ted Lasso and internalize all of its progressive ideas about masculinity.
I do not know if people watch this show or will understand this comment in Australia.
I’m sure that the Governor General - Sam Mostyn - should be remaining quiet or neutral.
This position is representative of the King and Queen of England and therefore I assume that King Charles III is a man hating feminist also!!
Just a thought I had.
Charles does have some Woke tendencies, so don't be too comfortable with his support of a healthy society.
I'm an avid reader of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books in which "slap" is a troll equivalent of cocaine. When first hearing about this AFL debacle I was quite confused about what "slap" meant. It may have been some sort of slang for "snort". I never would have expected anybody to be buying OR selling a slap on the bum.
Well written, Bettina.
The way these ghastly women are being portrayed as both “victims” and “empowered women” at the same time, confirms once again the inherent contradictions of the despicable misandrist movement.
This has all the familiar features of an organised hit job. It may well backfire this time. Important to note:
- as far as I can tell, to date no Swans player has engaged in criminal behaviour of any kind towards these tarts (sorry, “sex workers”).
- it is lawful (and was very very stupid of the Swans guys to do it - but legal) to pay whores in Victoria for sex services.
- if there is proof that there was a breach of consent of some kind there may be enough for charges, but the evidence would need to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to satisfy criminal charges. That’s a very high bar - and to date there doesn’t appear to be any evidence even close to meeting the standard (even for the notoriously politicised, allegedly corrupt and low quality Victorian cops).
- no one is focusing on the cocaine allegations. “Someone” supplied the coke, paid for it, snorted it and apparently these hookers were fully involved in what went on. I hope they all understand that as citizens and participants in this shabby affair, they are just as liable to be charged for drug supply, possession and / or use, as any of the Swans guys are.
- deluded misandrists may believe that hookers and porn stars are highly serious people of great integrity, but reality begs to differ: I can assure you that if this ever gets to a jury and a court, the defence barrister for the Swans will tear any of these women to shreds in cross examination & it’s highly doubtful any jury will believe a word they say.
Let’s see what happens.
The women are unlikely to be charged and even less likely to be convicted of drug offences. It will be a matter of "the men made us do it" as they switch from empowered women to brainless victims without agency, however the narrative benefits them.
Probably.
And noticed how this “scandal” seems to have been “memory holed” by those who hyped it up? I suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye, and that these skanks (sorry, “sex workers”) may have bitten off more than they can chew (no pun intended).
Let’s see what happens.
If you take a step back, you'll see that this incident - and feminism generally- is an example of the globalists' attempts to divide us, keep us arguing, and therefore make us easier to control. And so far, it's working!
When we finally learn that it was all a sham, a big fat nothing burger, a shake down, a false allegation by conniving creatures- be assured the media will throw up smokescreens and run cover for them and they will remain anonymous whilst the men whose lives they destroyed will continually be referenced in ongoing commentary about this disgusting example of toxic masculinity which runs allegedly rampant in the AFL.
The utterly sickening hatred of white men spewed by so many commentators, including Matthew Klugman on the ABC, who said the following regarding the incident, leaves me feeling genuinely shattered:
"The number of women killed by current or former partners who are men, is staggering. So, there's a cultural problem which sport is at the heart of, but significantly broader than sport. But yeah, sport is a key place where you could intervene, you know, where, actually, you know, for the AFL, they could treat the women's league like they treat the men's league, as long a season, the women getting much more money, you know, on a par, all of these kinds of things. But they've always got arguments against that, they're willing to lose millions and millions of dollars supporting men's teams for broader cultural reasons........"
He went on to say football is used to make white boys into white men.
As long as football is dominated by white male players, white male administrators and white male commentators nothing is going to change.
I have never heard a more insane, twisted, deceitful, illogical pile of tripe spewed by a professor from a university in Victoria in my life. Had I been in close physical proximity to this hateful bigot, I may have been tempted to remonstrate as his words were all simply borne of a hatred of white men-nothing more. There is nothing more contemptible than a man who makes a living selling out other men. I see it as a particularly disgusting act of treachery.
There was not one attempted pushback on his deranged rant. He was not asked if the NBA is problematic as long as it is dominated by black men or Netball Australia being administered by women, played exclusively by women with no suggestion of the creation of a competition for young men, and commentated by women is a problem.
Nor was he asked if the total domination of the music scene by women like Taylor Swift, Adele, Pink, Katie Perry and others and the tens of millions they make is an indication of the rampant sexism in the music industry where so many male performers are relegated to the sidelines and make a fraction of the money these girls get.
Let's not talk about the modelling world and the imbalance there.
What kind of a professor argues that women who play at the level of 13 year old boys in a competition being held up by the success of the male product ( the AFLW loses 50 million a year for the AFL) which the men subsidize should be paid the same money as the men who bring in crowds and tv audiences which make the AFL a billion-dollar industry?
No thank you has ever passed the lips of an AFLW player for the creation and supporting of this competition or the many new changerooms and facilities being created all over the state entirely for the comfort and convenience of the girls' competitions in the suburbs and country regions.
No. Just sour whining that it should have happened earlier.
No acknowledgement of the tens of millions of dollars young white men who play footy and cricket have raised for FEMALE specific cancers over the past decade or two. Klugman seems to be unaware of these facts. Is this misogyny in action?
My son was more optimistic than his burnt-out, worn-out dad. He is a tradie and said the almost universal response from blokes was to say they have had enough of this rubbish- the endless media bombardment over confected stories designed to be a cudgel to beat men and boys with, which so often turn out to be based on lies, half truths and rumour.
I imagine the kind of bile Matthew Klugman presents to his students at his university. Is it any wonder we keep seeing new waves of man hating witches emerging from our tertiary institutions.
Mark Dent: Great insights and well written, thanks.
The femicentric demands that females playing men's sports (at least sports that men have developed and made into profitable entertainment) should be paid similarly to the male players is just wanting special treatment. It's as ridiculous as my local pub band demanding as much money as The Rolling Stones per performance, or (as you mention) Taylor Swift. My local pub band plays very well and provides a great night for those who like the genre. They are probably more accomplished musicians than the Stones have ever been (perhaps apart from Charlie Watts); that doesn't change the relative audience-attracting capacities of the two bands. But that's one of the spurious arguments from gynocentric women: that the females play just as hard and well as the males so therefore deserve the same pay. "Wah wah wah, it's so unfair and everything done and paid for to support women in sports is not enough and just proves we live under patriarchy, wah wah wah".
But you hear the same tired garbage all the time. It came up again after the Swan's scandal broke-AFLW players must be paid the same as the men in order to end gendered violence.
What I hate is the fact that not one AFLW player stands up and says that is crazy talk and they are lucky to be getting what they are right now! It's far more than they deserve given they cost the AFL 50 million bucks in losses per year.
No media pundits will call out this feminist shit either. Every man in the media is terrified of losing his job for daring to be seen to be criticizing the feminist narrative.
My son's best mate is married to a well-known female football journo at Fox. She has told us they were ordered to never write or say a negative word about the AFLW. She also said they lied about attendances and also covered up a grooming scandal in the changeroom of some AFLW clubs.
The men? Kick their heads in every chance you get.
One thing I have never been able to fathom is why these defenders of women’s rights to do anything, say anything, be anything because they are W‑O‑M‑A‑N allow themselves to be referred to as the mere sound “W”. I was delighted to receive a PhD, and therefore no longer obliged to suffer being called “Ms”, which is just a sound and not a word. Yet this generation of the highly educated, fully entitled and empowered are happy to be referred to as a minuscule sound. The hypocrisy mystifies me for sure ( perhaps they are not be bright enought to see it)
I'd already commented and then re read https://www.dailymail.com/sport/afl/article-16075225/swans-hotel-scandal-woman-family-earnings-wealth.html
this is like a feminist hit job on men, sounds like a repeat of a certain Canberra case that won the female concerned a couple of million.
'And it's such easy money to make too. I'm open with my body, I don't care, you have to be resilient.'
Yet, maybe not her, but one extra slap on the buttocks has sent her into a tail spin.... if she is so weak, why is she even doing this job?
The media lynch mob at its best.
There is I beleive some sort Voyeurism on part of the female journalists, exposing the sexaul allegations made against footballers etc.
I'd call it eroticism... perhaps...
Good commentary from Brisbane criminal lawyer Ken Mackenzie:https://lnkd.in/p/gVPbCFQP
Privileged, pale young men commit a violent sexual offence. Commentators throughout the land proclaim this to be a consequence of the culture from which the offenders come. The connection is unchallenged, undoubted and echoed in the commentariat's versions of "amen".
From the other side of the tracks, some young men of darker pigment and less common names commit a violent sexual offence. Attributions to culture are avoided and disclaimed, except in the uglier fringes of internet discourse, where fear of differences is stoked.
Is this:
1. A valid and explicable difference in approach?
2. An illustration of a modern societal taboo?
3. A willingness to punch up but not down? or
4. A reminder that the bad conduct of a few individuals ought not to be hastily attributed to the characteristics of a whole class of people?
I would say it is simply another example of sociopathic projection that feminist ideologues are responsible for across the whole gammit of social politics.
It is anti-civilisational and authoritarian terror targeted at the society that cradles it.
Feminisim is a terrorist ideology and it is about time the nations security services started treating it as such before it is too late.
Not sure if this helps but China has classified femnism as a destructive force and decided to not give it any chance in China.
precisely...... yet they are more than happy to support feminist socialist groups in western countries?
Not sure about China, but Soviet Union had definitively used undermining tactics to destabilize the West - especially Europe. See Besmenov.
Brilliant Bettina. So funny, I wrote a piece exploring this topic on LinkedIn and questioned the AFL's total weakness in setting boundaries around behavior, ie drug use. I also questioned their cowardice in calling this abuse of women whilst they allow biological males to play women's football, and further how they turn a blind eye to butch lesbians bullying and abusing straight girls in the AFLW ()to the point where girls leave clubs), while jumping on every male transgression. I got attacked by many - men! Can you believe it? But I also picked up several hundred followers who preferred not to like or comment in case they were identified as supporters of such white male bigotry. Ha Ha.
The cowardice of men is simply a fact of life. They are terrified of upsetting wives and girl friends or desperate for a tug. I don't believe any of them actually believe the bigoted anti male tripe spewed out in our media and online every day. They simply choose to stay silent, or worse, side with rabid man haters in the hope they will be seen as the "one good man" .
Yeah, there's nothing more pitiful than a male "feminist".
I write about that in my book, "Masculine Intelligence" Mark. There is a difference between a Good Man and a Nice Guy. Good men have clear boundaries and they enforce them. Nice guys are weak men who spend their entire live anxiously looking for signals. I would never trust a "nice guy". And hands up, I was one of those once. https://masculineintelligence.com.au/
Good for you, John. It is great to see people like you out there in social media taking on the woke brigade.
I agree. My point was the irony of him writing “FFS”, which is exactly why the footballers had women in the hotel. For sex sake. FSS. If he intended that, it is quite witty.
I enjoyed reading his post, & highly respect you Bettina.
Do you think it’s time for a masculist movement? In many ways, it describes what you are doing now.
Or do you fear it make take us on as nasty a tangent as feminism?
My sister went to school with Germaine Greer, who insists that she is a liberty, NOT equality, feminist. For that, she’s seen as having betrayed ‘the cause’, & is now despised for it.
All the best for your important work.
Russell.
Greer went to a Catholic school at the end of Normandy Road in Elwood.
Greer turned out to be a rebel. Best example of that is her marriage which lasted
just 10 days. Greer's mate ( Dr Anne Summers) had half an abortion in Melbourne
and the other half in Adelaide. Is that their idea of " equality " ? Or are they saying
(all the time) "It's me ! me! me! ".
Brian, WTF? Germaine Greer was dux of her school in Phrahran (not Elwood, not that it matters) AND dux of her year in BA at Melbourne University (call me biased, I am an alum). And all you can do is allege the absurdity of “half an abortion”? Which came out first, the legs or the head?
Germaine lived in Elwood as did I. The Catholic school at the end of Normandy Road was a primary school. I lived in Normandy road and Germaine is a little younger than me.
I was talking about her secondary school, but you were still slandering her regardless of schools.
My sister Jessica met Greer, older, through a mutual friend, when she was at “Star”, as they called Star of the Sea in Gardenvale. Perhaps the one to which you refer is the same school, as it’s close to Elwood.
I’m disturbed by Greer’s support of abortion, which I’d forgotten. I nevertheless recognise her intellect. I hope she is more enlightened in her old age.
Greer called her best selling book "The Female Eunach". There can be no such thing as a female eunach .It is not factually correct implying that her other
claims of female disadvantage are also factually incorrect. The eunach metaphor
is evidence of a faded star. p.s. How can eunachs become prostitutes ?
The persistent spread of this story over all the media is the worrying part. They certainly have a well oiled righteous indignation machine ready to roll at the next available opportunity.
Thank you Bettina for your summary. We need more opposition to this nonsense.
I was waiting for this article Bettina as it distills all the cultural ingredients that bug the crap out of me. The analysis is cogent and says the things that many people dare not say for fear of ridicule.
See terrific article by Louise Clegg about the other sex scandal playing out in recent weeks. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/stop-blaming-the-school-for-sexual-assaults-the-buck-stops-closer-to-home-20260823-p60qpi.html - Three boys from Scots College, one aged 13 and two aged 14, have been charged with the aggravated sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl following an alleged incident well away from the school in Bondi Junction.
She writes - "There is a reason the law treats children differently, protecting their identities and surrounding proceedings involving them with safeguards. The ordeal ahead will be dreadful for four families, whatever happens. The laying of the charges was newsworthy. Then there was little more to say until the law had done its work.
"Instead, day after day, we heard from a band of anonymous Scots parents. The school hasn’t communicated enough. The boys should have been expelled. Their boys are being “tarred with the same brush”. The school is protecting the boys because their families are donors. The school’s “culture” is wrong. The principal should resign.
"Perhaps there is a boys’ culture problem here. But before commissioning another consent seminar for 13-year-olds, might we look at the behaviour and culture being displayed by the anonymous parents? " This link should get behind the paywall -
https://smry.ai/s/G0sQPpHV
One irony is that feminist influence has rendered parents (and schools) much less effective in enforcing boundaries and teaching discipline. 'Rights of the child' have been expanded largely on emotive arguments from women and male feminists, prioritising empathy over effectiveness in discipline. In general, female ways of parenting were (without good evidence) defined as correct while male ways of parenting were demonised. Especially for teenagers, the father could and previously would, if necessary, physically overpower a teenager to enforce boundaries and teach the youth that greater forces will always exist in life (in a much less harmful way than when it is left for law enforcement and justice to try to do so a few years later). But now, a father doing so would be most unwise. Not to mention the widespread erasing of fathers from families and parenting influence, as encouraged financially (through free money to reward separation) and legally (in Family Courts) by the state.
In the past, parental authority was respected socially and in law. The law (rightly so) did not allow unreasonable force in discipline and there were plenty of parents in prison for using unreasonable force. Sure, there was justification for tightening laws (actually, just making the definitions clearer) and encouraging less social tolerance of unreasonable force. However, foolish changes resulted from irrational arguments and slogans against patriarchy and male ways of doing things. Now, if a parent physically restrains or directs a child in public, punishes a child in any way, or even so much as raises a voice to his/her child, that parent faces a serious risk of being visited by child protection services or police, possibly prosecuted for child abuse, or threatened with prosecution or loss of the children unless (s)he attends an indoctrination course claiming to know better than what was known by those who built our civilisation and past civilisations, or at the minimum subjected to a patronising warning and ideological lecture. Increase in youth self-entitlement, crime and delinquency is plain for all to see. Having cut off parental authority at the knees, emasculated parents are now being prosecuted for the bad behaviour of the children they were prohibited from disciplining. Viva la feminism.
It's a brilliant article from someone who has observed these behaviours first hand. Louise is also a barrister and the wife of the Opposition Leader, so perhaps we may see others now ready to tell certain truths, especially those close to the halls of power, just like her.
Not too many lawyers are prepared to speak up and mention constitutional safeguards because they'd be threatening their revenue stream if successful and thereby killing the golden goose. In fact make that none in my involuntary but extensive experience.
This fabricated saga reminds me of a joke from the before credit cards became ubiquitous.
A prostitute reporting to police that she had been r8ped; "Officer, I didn't know I'd been r8ped until the cheque bounced."