1 dancer vs the NZ Empire of Toxic Masculinity Rugby

ByMartyn Bradbury

Rugby Union - England v Australia - IRB Rugby World Cup 2015 Pool A - Twickenham Stadium, London, England - 3/10/15 England in the Scrum Reuters / Andrew Winning Livepic - RTS2W7U

Is anyone really surprised that the dancer’s version of events has been countered by a ‘leaked’ report that makes a set of allegations that the dancer can’t respond to?

So it wasn’t toxic masculinity at play here folks, oh no. It was the players paying for a dancer to strip for a 70 year old mate and there wasn’t any inappropriate behaviour, alcohol, chants or gravel throwing. Honest because Rugby NZ asked other mates at the event what happened and all the mates said the same thing.

So despite the graphic descriptions of acts between the dancer and those at the event and the fact the players hadn’t originally been able to get the clubrooms because they had drunkenly smashed them the year before – it was all innocent fun done in the best possible taste – except for the graphic descriptions of acts between the dancer and the lads…

The report contains graphic details of interactions between Scarlette and those present at the function, but the Weekend Herald has chosen not to outline them. The report said Scarlette’s performance lasted 20-25 minutes.

…so it was an encouraging and female friendly environment where Scarlette performed graphic acts for the lads in a really pro-feminist setting?

Who the hell believes that?

I have little doubt the lads were as out of control as has been described, the idea that they quietly observed these acts and did nothing seems laughable.

But what did anyone really expect when one woman went up against the NZ Empire of Toxic Masculinity Rugby?

 

 

Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

12 Comments

  1. Agree on your “NZ Empire of toxic masculinity rugby “.
    I am uncomfortable with Scarlette’s modus operandi…..seems to me she ‘bit off more than she could chew'(sic) by offering extras in that atmosphere and over+above her contract. I don’t object to her ‘profession’, it’s probably more ethical than being a money-trader. Can’t someone throw that man out of the temple?!

    2. Peggy Fittes. You implied Scarlette evaded telling the truth and on that basis, didn’t lay a complaint. If the cap fits? Let’s look behind some of your assertions in “fitting detail”

      Because rugby is the opiate of New Zealand voters, it’s ok to place a prominent rugby player’s finger in a “hired” entertainer’s intimate non-hired spaces?
      Because “What goes on tour, stays on tour”?
      “Don’t pull my ponytail! ” “No, means no!”

      She was a vulnerable woman, with some very privileged males in an unequal power situation.

      Dirty sexist politics in a National game. They felt entitled, because they employed her.

      Did management hire Scarlette, or did the players hire Scarlette? Were any women in management sign Scarlette’s cheque?

  3. Who the hell believes that? No one Martyn,

    This group are training to become another clone of ShonKey it seems.

    “One bad apple in the barrel spoils the whole barrel” seems appropriate,
    Or maybe another; NatZ favourite saying; “move along, nothing to see here’.

    All key blacks In’c now.

  4. Similar female degradation was endured by Bevan Chuang, being pimped by her dirty politics handler Luigi Wewigi to have sexual relations with Len Brown to install a right-wing mayor into Auckland.

    Or Rachel MacGregor being pimped by her dirty politics handler Mr Zippy Williams, to endure sexual relations with Colin Craig, to install a more credible Conservative leader than Colin Craig.

    Dirty politics National and rugby don’t seem to have a very high opinion of women.

  5. Describing Scarlette as a dancer as silly as it would be to describing Mike Hosking as a journalist. Scarlett is a stripper and a stripper takes their clothes off titillate. Why can’t you call her a stripper?

    ‘…so it was an encouraging and female friendly environment where Scarlette performed graphic acts for the lads in a really pro-feminist setting?’

    That, Martyn, is the most ridiculous comment about the whole fiasco I have heard yet.

    I loathe rugby. It’s is a game where men and women scream with excitement as they egg on the thuggish behaviour played out on the field and scream with disapproval when, off the field, young men emulate the behaviour of their idols. I have no time for Rugby but I have less time for this woman who took money to sexually titillate a group of men, then make allegations against them that she does not want the police to investigate.

  6. All they had to do in the first instance was get the guys to apologise. The rugby union made it about a woman lying because as a stripper she was an untrustworthy person. If I had to choose who to believe a sober woman earning her living or 15 men who had consumed hundreds of dollars worth of alcohol I would go with the woman every time. As I know drunk people tend not to remember stuff or are too ashamed of their behaviour to tell the truth.

  7. “Scarlette” Let’s tune into Reality FM for a moment.

    If you’re gonna get your kit off in front of a bunch of liquored up, testosterone fueled young men, surely it’s not too much to expect that you aren’t going to be admired for your personality and intelligence.

    1. So the NRL players who played against John Hopoate shouldn’t complain either then. They played the game with the expectation that it was just a game and that no-one in the opposition team would insert a finger in their anus? Same logic applied to that scenario as Scarlette’s case Mr Bigot – get into a physical game with rugby league players and expect a ‘bit of anal fingering”, it’s physical, it’s a game, get over it, what else would you expect, stop being so PC FFS?

      Get physical in this NRL game, but do not finger an anus would be a reasonable expectation of acceptable behaviour. Hopoate crossed the line of acceptable behaviour Bigot.

      So football players, bitten by Luis Suarez shouldn’t complain either then. They played the game with the expectation that it was just a game and that no-one in the opposition team would bite them on the chest? Same logic applied to that scenario as Scarlette’s case Mr Bigot – get into a physical game with soccer players and expect a ‘bit of a bite here and there”, it’s physical, it’s a game, get over it, what else would you expect, stop being so PC FFS?

      Get physical in the beautiful game, but do not bite someone would be a reasonable expectation of acceptable behaviour. Suarez crossed the line of acceptable behaviour Bigot.

      So Scarlette, expected a set of behaviours when she turned up, and she should expect people to play by the rules. ‘Look but don’t touch’ would be the basic tenet of accepted practice with a stripper doing her work. But when she is violated by Chiefs rugby players, she has the right to say “No that was unacceptable!”, just as Hopoate’s victims and Suarez’s victims. Individuals who crossed the acceptable behaviour lines with Scarlette should have been taken to task.

      But no. These demi-gods are beyond reproach and beyond personal responsibility, Some of the Chiefs weren’t even there, but they “took a hit for the team”, in the age-old “what goes on tour, stays on tour mantra”.

      There clammed up tighter than the perpetrator(s) of murder against Christopher Arepa and Cru Omeka Kahui and I feel the same sense of injustice for Scarlette as I did for the Kahui twins.

Comments are closed.