Racial slur

Everyone gets that no one "means" racial comments, and that they "should be put into context".

This week we have seen an iceberg-tip (I would suspect) of comments from three football figures

(see some of the ongoing debate here...Timana Tahu & Andrew Johns & Mal Brown here & here)

When we discount these sort of comments and say (as Brown said) that he apologised 'reservedly', and when other commentators note that such a person has "been a wonderful advocate" as St Kevin Sheedy did, sort of implying that he should therefore be allowed to be as red necked as he liked...we rather miss the point.

It is this discounting that is the problem.

When we say it is OK for some people to behave poorly because at times that they have behaved well we are also saying that the subject of their bad behaviour does not have sufficient importance.

For example:

"No one should make racist marks"...but if you've taught or trained aboriginal people then that's ok.

It is not only this area. We realise too if we were to say

"No one should sexually molest a person under 16"...but if that person is gay, or dresses provocatively, or has 'asked for it' then that's ok

In the end. The "advocates", the "Trainers and the teachers", the "parents", the "tole models"...and so we might go on...are the ones who particularly need to set the example.

Poor old Brendan

This is the wonderful dilemma of sport. How far do you excuse poor behaviour because of brilliant sportsmanship?

Brendan Fevola's drunken night out at the BrownNose Medals is becoming an increasing debacle. Why should we be surprised? Now we are told what was a drunken binge was also an occasion of sexual assault. I ask again...Why should we be surprised?

We will wait with baited breath...but imagine we will be disappointed if we think that desperate sports clubs will sacrifice their never assuaged appetite for success on the altar of decency. Or am I just an old prude...or prune...or both?

On not getting it!

One suspects that Rugby player and (former) media personality Matthew Johns is in for a rude shock today or soon in the wake of his 'apology' for participation in fairly aggressive group sex behaviour. He just doesn't get it
Last night on A Current Affair (ACA), I thought interviewer Tracey Grimshaw made a good attempt at asking the hard questions. Johns also did well at fending off some of the difficult ones.
When, for example, Grimshaw asked him whether or not a 19 year old girl who began what may have been "consensual sex" in a room with two men and ended up participating with considerably more than that, was subject to a power imbalance he just seemed to ignore it. Either he doesn't get it or he knows how to play the media. Perhaps both.
Increasingly as I have participated in more and more of this sort of education I have understood that sexual abuse is firstly about power, and only secondly about sex.
When Grimshaw used the expression 'sexual abuse', Johns steadfastly asserted he had not been involved in abuse. He just doesn't get it!
When you can use your status, physique, and charisma to influence the consent that others might give there is potential for abuse.
The footballer's wife, Trish Johns, looked tragic......one fears that her pain will not be easily resolved. He does get that no amount of apology will undo that woman's pain.
Whilst agreeing that the moment the woman's inappropriate consent to have sex with two men became something worse when others joined in, he was asked to identify the other participants. Out of seeming team loyalty he was obviously not going to name those persons. Even though, as it was pointed out, those other persons are possibly guilty of sexual assault and/or rape (since the woman did not consent to have sex with them). He just doesn't get it.
Former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Pru Goward, noted that the NRL should not condone Johns' refusal to pass apropriate evidence on to police (that may of course have been done).
There is of course the deeply disturbing issue that we may be witnessing damage control by the NRL and/or Channel 9. One suspects that the complainant will be already be being spoken to and great wads of cash are being waved at her.
Nor should we be satisfied to think that if the NRL deals with this then that solves the problem. It cannot be thought that this attitude towards women is confined to male sporting bastions.


(POST 999!!!!)

Is enough, enough?

Crows player Nathan Bock has declared that he is repentant and ready to play.
He was caught striking his beloved in anger, whilst drunk. Crows management decided he should be (at least) temporarily suspended. And here we are a week or so later, and he declares he is ready to go.
Is it long enough?
We shall see what they decide. Personally I think spousal violence is a bit more serious!