Love Rugby? Disrespect Toxic Masculinity!
The ugliness of the Chiefs scandal aches because it just managed to get worse and worse.
The immediate response by the team and the sponsors only highlighted the very mentality that allows women to be abused and ignored and left us all wondering just how entrenched these victim blaming views really are.
I think the debate however has moved away from where it should be, the focus at the moment is how the Rugby Union have responded and how pitiful their response has been.
While there is validity to be scathingly critical of their whitewash of this, the real debate needs to be back on the men themselves.
I’m no prude. What consenting adults wish to do in the privacy of their own lives is their own business and no one should be judged or penalised for that, but that’s not really what happened here is it?
This was a grotesque pack mentality at work, where the woman was assaulted and degraded by a group of men who were workmates. This wasn’t some kind of stag party – this was a team of professional sportsmen. Sure the response by everyone scrambling to defend their actions should be critiqued and criticised but it comes back to these men and all men who would cheer this on if they were there.
How come none of the guys said anything when they saw this deteriorate? How come no one spoke out when it was first mooted? Why didn’t anyone come forward afterwards?
I think the issue is amongst these men, the issue is about all men refusing toxic masculinity and the issue is about those of us in those male only cliques speaking out and calling for it to end as it happens.
That sort of courage in my mind is real masculinity, not kicking, chasing and catching balls.
The Chiefs are most likely to go down the tubes next season. The players with a conscience are going to be pissed off with the players who acted so shabbily and, because of it, that they are all tainted with the same brush. You can’t have that much descension in the ranks and still win matches.
Perhaps it just makes it easier to cull the Chiefs when Super Rugby has to lose a NZ team.
Mothers decide what winter sport their sons will play. Rugby is toast.
Scarlett said she was intimidated and felt unsafe because of the behaviour of the men present during her ‘performance’. She said would have ended the performance but because she felt so intimidated she thought it was safer not to end the performance. Not her exact words but that was the gist of what she described in the two interviews I heard on National radio and on television where she appeared in shadow.
After her performance where she felt so intimidated, unbelievably this intimidated woman went on to negotiate another “performance” where she would get her ass licked by one or some of the guys present.
Can anyone with brain seriously think that those are the actions of woman who feels she needs to get away from this situation? For God’s sake!
Furthermore, Scarlette does not want the police to conduct an inquiry, she wants her privacy. She wants privacy?
And now you can hardly hear yourself think because of the shrieking misandrists.
If Scarlette was assaulted or not paid for her performance(es) then she should rightfully take some action via the police.
To the Chiefs I say, hire more strippers, it’s legal.
Hire a prostitute too if it’s legal.
If it’s ok for a woman to strip and sell herself for sex it’s equally ok for a man, or men to buy it.
In the meantime could all the moralistic busy-body hypocrites mind their own business and butt out (intended).
While angry meatheads chase inflated pig bladders up and down a field of grass, and crowds of adoring fans cheer their favorite gladiators, foreign invaders and their Kiwi friends are carving up the country.
Repeat performance circa 1820
One thing puzzles me regarding this unsavory saga.
I thought all strippers had at least one minder/bodyguard (often male) with them while they perform so they can deal with any punter that gets a bit carried away.
Did Scarlet have a minder? and if so, why did he/she fail to protect her?
Doesn’t excuse anything, but it is a valid question.
So now the report has been leaked and it appears that the additional performance that Scarlette had agreed to did not include having her ass licked, so I was wrong in my previous comment.
The extra performance that she negotiated was for an additional $100 and this was after she had completed the performance where she felt so intimidated that she felt it would be unsafe not to continue?
However she claimed someone did lick her during that additional performance for which she she demanded an additional sum of money which was not paid.
Independent witnesses say she hugged and kissed attendees of her performance after she has completed it?
No update about these new revelations from TDB or doesn’t it suit the TDB agenda?
The response of TDB, the media, and notable idiots like, but not only, Dame Susan- should have-stuck-to-squash- Devoy is of the same kind that led to the witch hunt of Peter Ellis.
Shame! shame! shame!