I've got a couple of rellies staying with me at the moment. I'm going to call them Muddy and Dusty; mostly because it's close enough to their "real" names to feel authentic but not close enough to come up in a Google search. I've spoken before about how—in my family—sometimes a parent will go off the rails, and then the oldies will have a yarn amongst themselves, and then the kids will go off to live with aunts and sisters and cousins and so forth (It's always been a worry of mine that—since i don't have kids—I might get nominated; but so far, so lucky). Anyway, Dusty & Muddy are a perfect example of this. They're not biologically father and son, but for all intents and purposes, that's what they are. In fact, Dusty is closer to Muddy than he is to any of his biological children. This is due to some shit he went through with his mad alcoholic missus many years ago. At any rate, none of this has anything to do with this post. The point is that since Dusty has been needing to come to the city for specialist treatment, I've been seeing quite a bit of them recently. In fact, they're part of my three month backlog; so expect to see more of them in coming posts.
During the periods they've been staying with me, it's been all sport all the time. So, last night, we're watching the T20 cricket match between the Melbourne Renegades and the Hobart Hurricanes. Dusty & Muddy are nattering away—filling me in on a century's worth of gossip and community history—ignoring the cricket commentators and pausing only when one of the players appears on screen to speak … and then this interview happens:
My two guests laugh their arses off.
Then they go back to their conversation—seemingly missing everything the commentators say about the exchange:
Eventually we get to the end of the game.
And I did. But we'll get back to that in a bit. Man of the match is announced and it's some other bloke.
I ended up giving the whole incident quite a bit of thought last night—trying to work out how I felt about it. But—truth be told—I didn't really feel anything. All I could think was, "The way he said that was so awkward and stilted—like he had specific lines worked out ahead of time. Did somebody put him up to doing it? His team mates? Her work colleagues?", and also, "I'll bet this is going to blow up on the interwebs".
Well, a day has passed, and I've had time to think about it some more. I haven't listened to any radio or telly, but I did take a quick look on the interwebs and sure enough—about a dozen headlines on ABC, about the same on The Guardian, Fox Sports News, Sky News, etc. Even tried swimming through the river of shit that is Twitter. Saw all the stuff I expected to see too. Gayle's been fined ten grand and issued one of those not-so-apologies, stating he's sorry if anyone got offended by his harmless little joke. There were outraged feminists; anti-feminists telling them to calm down; some misguided bloke suggesting she should have replied with "I don't go out with monkeys who've just come down from the trees", just to let him know what a "joke" feels like; female journalists talking about hostile work environments and male-dominated industries; female athletes declaring that they're going to try chatting up a male interviewer on air, just to show how much things are being blown out of proportion; and of course, the obligatorily nonsensical "The dumb slut looks like she could use a big black dong to loosen her up!" (… hang on, aren't sluts—by definition—already loose women who get more than enough … oh—fuck it—why bother?)
So anyway, I'm reading through all this outrage and abuse and bullshit, and I'm thinking again about how I should feel about the issue … and still there's nothing. The whole incident/reaction seems so predictable and by-the-numbers that it almost feels mechanical. I just can't bring myself to care—even though somewhere—at the back of my mind—there's a nagging little voice telling me I should. … Actually, I'm lying. There is one thing I care about—a little bit. I really hope none of the splatter lands on the women's league that's trying so hard to get off the ground this year. And maybe I also feel a tiny bit guilty that that's the only thing I care about. But that's it for me—truthfully, this time.
What about you lot? Did this come across your radar before you read about it here? What did you think? Do you care? Do you think it's an important issue that we should all be concerned with? Or not? Would it steer you away from exposing your young (possibly hypothetical) daughters to cricket?
**EDIT** This is the current header image for the BBL at cricket.com.au
8 comments :
I hadn't actually seen the video yet, but I had definitely seen the controversy on FB and The Age website. (I don't have time for Twitter)
Look at first glance, he's just having a lark, but the deeper level of it is: she's in her workplace, he's asking her out when she's clearly just trying to get on with it. And (let's face it) she's a woman in a man's world, she'll be having a hard enough time as it is to be taken seriously, so how dare he make it harder for her?
This sort of thing was (I believe) mostly addressed in the 90s in the US. The era when everyone was saying political correctness has gone mad, but that happened because it NEEDED to. And it's happening here now because IT NEEDS TO. No-one was harmed in this instance, and it was gratifying to hear her male colleagues back her up, but if it took two overs for it to happen that means 6 minutes or so passed when someone got a bollocking about it and they were told to make a statement or else. How long Mel herself spent on the phone or off-mike getting mad about it, we'll probably never know, but it's disappointing that her colleagues didn't say STRAIGHT AWAY that it wasn't cool.
Thanks for your input Suze. I appreciate it. You've succeeded where the media has failed, and actually kicked my brain into gear.
So anyway, I think there's a couple of different contexts you can view this in:
1) Women's experiences in society
2) The Big Bash League as an entertainment medium
I think you've addressed the first quite well, I'm going to focus primarily on the second.
"Look at first glance, he's just having a lark, but the deeper level of it is: she's in her workplace, he's asking her out when she's clearly just trying to get on with it. And (let's face it) she's a woman in a man's world, she'll be having a hard enough time as it is to be taken seriously, so how dare he make it harder for her?"
I find it hard to believe that was an actual attempt at asking someone out. I think he was trying to embarrass her to get a laugh. One of the reporter's columns I read recently (someone Meadows, I think) said Gayle has a history of this—basically, he thinks it's a big joke to embarrass women in front of a crowd. My gut feeling is that he's touched a nerve with women who know what it's like to feel demeaned and/or objectified for real. In a way, it's a bit like Julia Gillard's misogyny spiel, which—regardless of whether it came in response to genuine misogynistic behaviour or not—tapped into an absolutely genuine feeling of frustration and resentment.
Now, as for being taken seriously, this is where things get a little stickier. One of the things that makes the BBL is that they've given cricket a light-hearted, inclusive, family-friendly, "party" atmosphere. It's bright and colourful, they play music between balls, they've got mascots and pyrotechnics and dancers of both genders who don't look and dance like clothed strippers. Everything about the atmosphere is spot on … except for the commentary. Yes, they try to keep things "humorous", but apart from Howie (the only non-former-cricketer), the team seems to be comprised of a bunch of moody, egotistical pricks, whose idea of a joking around often comes down to petty, mean-spirited jabs at each other. The notable exception is newcomer Flintoff, whose corny, good-natured, self-effacing "modern-dad-humour" has been pitch-perfect for the format—and who has been mercilessly shat upon by the rest of the team. I feel like kicking the telly every time Mark Waugh says, "I can't understand a word you're saying with that ridiculous Yorkshire accent" (NOTE: Flintoff is not from Yorkshire).
Now, I'm not trying to say that harsh ribbing and jokes about Poms have absolutely no place in comedy—but there's a time and a place for everything. So, just as I never want to see Benita reading 50 Shades Of Grey on Playschool, I also never want to see somebody using fake sexual harassment as a vehicle for comedy on the BBL. For those people who are saying this was the type of "witty banter" the BBL is known for—I think they're absolutely right. I also think that's not something to be proud of.
To underscore the point about the tone and atmosphere the BBL is trying to foster, I've appended to the post, the current background image at cricket.com.au.
My understanding is he fancies himself as a cocksman, and has done it before, and flashed at a female sports journalist in the change room etc. So he has form. I reckon he was flirting for whatever reason, but didn't give a fuck about the appropriateness of it as an on camera thing (ie public) and a workplace thing (wrong). Her reaction was she was uncomfortable but remained professional. She was probably shocked, I was shocked that he could even say shit like that. But what a fucking dick, is my reaction. It wasn't about entertainment or anything, it was a dickhead who forgot where he was for a moment, or didn't care. He wasn't very contrite - gave the 'if she's offended I'm sorry' spiel. And probably just dug in for the next media kerfuffle which came this morning with a sports journalist trying to address the Gayle issue via parody, and it backfired hugely. Did you read the article? SO BAD. I don't think he's racist himself, but it was so ill-advised. Was in The Age and the SMH. You would be able to find it on line. He wrote the article in a Jamaican patois and while meant to be ironic and instructive on why Gayle was sexist; it was just bad and people are calling for his resignation etc etc.
Anyway, la di da.
I haven't seen the article. Will look it up.
We'll have to disagree on Gayle's motivations. I just can't believe that any normal (sober) person would roll out that load of shit if they were legitimately trying crack onto someone.
Gayle played again tonight. His team lost, but the arena was sold out 24hrs in advance. So, at least in the short term, it seems there's no such thing as bad publicity.
I found the "racist" article. I find it interesting that, just like Gayle, he seems to have completely misjudged the type of humour that was appropriate for the platform. Also, I'm reminded of something Mel Brooks said about Blazing Saddles. I think it was along the lines of, "If the end product is funny, people will call you a satirical genius; if it isn't funny, they'll call you a racist".
I didn't mean that it was a serious come on. In his mind he probably thinks he was joking and being playful but the point is it's not on these days and men have to fucking catch up. It wasn't funny or charming or anything other than idiotic (misguided, whatever you want to call it.) I don't know what his motivations were either, that was all just my interpretation. Who knows what goes through the head of someone who thinks he's hot shit? I don't know.
You say above "he thinks it's a big joke to embarrass women in front of a crowd. My gut feeling is that he's touched a nerve with women who know what it's like to feel demeaned and/or objectified for real." It seems to me you're implying you don't think that being embarrassed in front of a crowd just because you're a woman and maybe have nice eyes is real objectification, and also that only women who know what's it's like to feel demeaned 'for real' are reacting to this, because they are hyper sensitive after what happened to Gillard etc etc. If so then we really do have to disagree about this.
Yes, that Mel Brooks quote is spot on.
I probably should have broken my paragraphs up differently. To clarify:
I don't think what happened with Gillard has a direct influence on the present situation—I'm using it to draw a parallel. At this point, you could probably drop Gillard and substitute in the "racist" satire piece from the SMH instead. When I read it, it didn't seem to me to be the work of a racism-spouting racist; it came off as someone effecting a racist tone in an attempt to be clever and funny … and failing. Now, my gut tells me, the people who would have had the strongest negative reaction to that piece are people who know what it's like to feel discriminated against for real—IE: Their feelings are real, unlike the racism, which was effected for comedic purposes. (NOTE: My gut could be wrong. Maybe the people who are most upset are people who have never felt discriminated against, and are simply passionate about the issue).
I don't want to say that this style of satire should be completely off limits to everyone all the time—HOWEVER—you should understand the kind of fire you're playing with and you should be willing to wear the consequences if you miss the mark. Basically, unless you make your living as an "edgy" comedian, I don't think it's worth attempting. If we drop the analogy and go back to talking about Gayle directly; I would guess that—because he's an arrogant turd who thinks he's hot shit and enjoys humiliating people—he probably didn't (and still doesn't) understand why so many people found what he did so repugnant. This is not an excuse.
Let me know if this makes things more or less clear, and which bits you still disagree with.
Post a Comment