CAMPO: What I really meant with my Tweet

Now he is saying he is not a misogynist but a racist? He hates Deans because he is a Kiwi? Shame he never had Deans as a coach, Deans might have taught the Speedbump to tackle.

Hear, hear Fishface!!!

Well, since you ask... how about more content, and more frequent updates? And some news from around the world - or at least more insight into what our SH neighbours are up to.

Now it is the turn of Mr. Smith telling us what we should and should not do. You should be the one to back off, with your fancy words, and respect our right to express our views.

Arrgh, my editing failed! I had intended to post this paragraph in place of the the second above: "Additionally, upon reflection, while I certainly don’t write Robbo off because of her gender, I do have to agree to some degree with Campo's opinion. Given that international Rugby Union IS a male bastion that demands a lot from all involved in the elite sport (contrary to the PC mob’s wishes who seem intent on breaking down all gender boundaries), the appointment of not just an inexperienced rugby commentator but a female one at that IS surprising and DOES seem out of place, and certainly is difficult – but not impossible – to accept. As I’ve intimated before, kudos to Robbo for her appointment and good work thus far, but I’m not comfortable with this, nor do I accept the fascile reasoning that revolutionary cultural change can be justified just because “it’s the 21st century”. So, while I’ll give a Robbo a fair go, to use an old adage, 'the jury is still out' with me ..."

I do have to correct myself here. I've just found out that this apparently is Robinson's first year as a Rugby commentator, and while I would've much preferred someone as a commentator who already has a long history of involvement with international Rugby Union (preferably an ex player or coach), the fact that this is apparently Robbo's first season commentating means that she deserves some slack from us armchair generals, and that her restricting herself to reporting quotes without giving in-depth analysis is therefore quite understandable (and as a result I have to say for her level of experience she's done an excellent job so far). However, that being said, I blame SMH for not providing a commentator with the said necessary experience and in-depth knowledge in order to do justice by the game, its players and staff, and the supporters. Obviously I certainly don't write Robbo off because of her gender, but given that - contrary to the PC mob's wishes who seem intent on breaking down all gender boundaries - international Rugby Union IS a male bastion that demands a lot from all involved in the elite sport, the appointment of not just an inexperienced rugby commentator but a female one at that IS surprising and DOES seem a lot out of place, and certainly is difficult - but not impossible - to accept. As I've intimated before, kudos to Robbo, but I'm not comfortable with this.

Oh, you poor unfortunate. I've been practising anti-discrimination law for 20 years, was one of the authors of the Age Discrimination legislation, and have won a number of leading cases on sex discrimination (never lost one, actually). You've effectively had several thousand dollars of free advice from me just now, so I suggest you get back in your box and be grateful I'm not billing you.

What is beng widely overlooked here is that Georgina Robinson is covering her first Wallabies spring tour and, in my opinion, is doing an outstanding job of it. I remember covering my first Wallabies tour, the 1978 trip to New Zealand, and was very thankful to have such veterans as Jim Webster, Frank O'Callaghan and Ian Telford to guide me. Like Georgina, I restricted myself to covering the facts and left the opinion and deep analysis to those journos with a long background in the game. So might I suggest Campo and all the other curmudgeonly types back off and just enjoy watching a very fine rugby writer learning her craft - and learning it quickly.

Hey, Sacking Campo from Roar,.. I say yes... He is very annoying... This would be a good pretext to rid us of his rants

I hope the roar sack you for it. Face up to it.

Campo wrote what Campo thought, and Campo doesn't like reading what a girl has to say about the Wallabies. Good on him for speaking his mind. More to the point, the SMH appears to have chosen a FEMALE because its good for their perceived image and audience. Thats got nothing to do with RUGBY. The sport of rugby was invented by men for men. Women are free to go someplace else if they want. Men do some things better than women ever will. Like playing rugby. Women do other things better. Men and women are not equal - they are DIFFERENT. I bet that all the men on this blog who complain about Campo let their females choose their clothes and buy their ties. What a joke. Do the true rugby fans a service and go watch the NETBALL.

I posted this reply a while ago but it doesn't seem to have gone through. Second try. 1. “show me where there was anything derogatory? or discriminatory?” I would argue, as many others have, that his use of the word “girl” IN THIS CONTEXT was both as, to a certain extent was his later tweet suggesting women are inherently easier on the coach than men. 2. “when people use terms such as “implicitly suggested”, I’m afraid your argument doesn’t hold much weight” I disagree. A lot of discrimination these days in implicit as opposed to explicit. I don’t believe that makes it less real, simply harder to address. 3. “are you just getting terribly self righteous about it all because its the new “enlightened” way to comment about such things?” I’m angry partially because I’ve also had men assume that as a woman I must not have any real knowledge of rugby, and partially because I think there is real harm when those attitudes towards women and sport are heard and internalized by young women and girls. 4. “the fact that you assume that i “must” be a straight, white, middle class, middle aged man shows the inherent flaw in your argument.” I didn’t assume you must, I thought it more likely than other possibilities because as all of those things you would be less likely to experience the sort of institutionalized discrimination women and minorities do. (I should mention that you almost had a good point here, it wasn’t a very well thought out statement, but then your comment didn’t make any sense, sooo…) 5. “what makes you assume that only men can have this viewpoint?” I don’t 6. “do all women have to take offence to everything uttered by a man?” Of course not, we don’t. 7. “you are getting bent out of shape over the utilisation of the word “girl” but think it is acceptable to label someone a bigot, sexist, misogynist et al.” Yes. It isn’t very nice of me, but it isn’t the same thing. 8. ” it is acceptable to be offended in the first place.” It is always acceptable. You obviously are by me. 9. “was he talking to you?” Yes. Though that debate is partially what all the fuss is about. 10. “does georgina need your defence? is she strong enough to make up her own mind? and what if she actually doesnt care? does this make your moral indignation lose its validity? does this push us back to the stone age? will your explicit outrage merely become implicit?” No. Yes. Then she doesn’t. No. No. No, and I don’t understand the point you’re making. 11. “typical first world problem” Most problems we deal with in the first world are. I get mad when my power goes out to. Doesn’t mean it isn’t valid annoyance or that I shouldn’t get it put back on. 12. “you should read the last line of your comment again. it may just hold the key to the whole argument (and whether the self righteous indignation has any merit).” I just did this, and I could have sworn the last line was me insulting you childishly, but it doesn’t seem to be anymore, so I must have deleted that. Either way, I don’t understand what the key is according to you so I’m going to continue to believe in the merit of my indignation. Cheers.

at least the humidity is good down there! its 3am up here and still muggy as all hell. starting to feel like johnno, being up at this time on theroar.

again, prove by any standard measure what david wrote is discriminatory? to claim anything that he wrote was discriminatory is frankly absurd and is, infact, people getting upset because they believe they have the right to. nothing more, nothing less. typical self indulgent, self righteous indignation so that people can then fire back their own hatred all in the guise of free speech. we all do it, so dont act like you dont. some of us dont get bent out of shape about it, is all. i would suggest you look up the legal definition of unlawful discrimination and not spout off some quasi intellectual knowledge that you may have heard from a report on today tonight. if you believe that what campo wrote will magically influence georgina's employer (thus be unlawful discrimination!!), then there is no reasoning with you (not to mention you clouding your own argument with random supposition and falsehoods). you do realise they are just words, dont you? you were never taught about sticks and stones? have a difference of opinion, sure, but dont blow everything out of proportion to relieve the boredom. why so quick to jump onto rugby forums to voice your displeasure at the big bad men of the world? chip on your shoulder? do poor women like georgina need your faux outrage? or is she quite capable of blowing off the ramblings of an ex footballer? i mean, im pretty sure she has heard much much worse, but hey, dont let your outrage get in the way...... your last paragraph illustrates how far from the issue you have actually gone. all fire and brimstone and not a whole lot of reason or logic. does david employ georgina? is he on the board of the newspaper? does he have any influence over her job? is his opinion just as valid as yours, or mine? should we all sensor how we write things from now on just in case it may offend someone (im sure a few of our muslim friends might take umbrage to sam kekovich and his "lamb" ads)? is this progress? is this enlightened? is this free speech? did david attack her credibility with a thorough and concerted effort? has georgina said anything? does she care? why should you be offended in her place? will you answer any of these questions????

Stillmatic: you're probably right about some people being too sensitive in some cases, but it's easy to see where Campo was discriminatory: the point isn't the word 'girl'; it's how he used it in the sentence. What he wrote was ‘Why does the SMH get a girl to write about Rugby?’ Try this for an analogy if you can’t understand what’s wrong with it. ‘Benjamin Disraeli was a Jew who became Prime Minister of England’ ——–this is O.K ‘Why did they let a Jew become Prime Minister of England?’————-This is not OK. Try it yourself: Italian, African-American, man, woman, Christian, Aussie. All inoffensive words, all totally inappropriate in the second sentence. If he'd written 'Growden was OK by me; I don't like the new girl much' it would be overly sensitive to complain perhaps, but he clearly stated that Robinson was disqualified by gender before any other considerations. I don't actually like PC stuff much, but if you are going to be straight up sexist or racist in the media these days you deserve to cop it for stupidity alone.

Campo did nothing wrong. You soft, sensitive, politcally correct do gooders are all crying cause you broke a nail. If they journo was male and Campo called him a "boy" would you be crying out? She's a crap, run of the mill, cliched, copy and paste journo. She won't ask the hard questions. He pointed it out. Greg Gowden is much better. All you sooks would not have survived living in the 80s and 90s. Youd be seeing shrinks now. PS David Pocock stick your big mouth outta other peoples business. You never say anything interesting or relevant. When the wallabies are down in the dumps do you talk about the hard decisions to be made or give us a Robbie Deans script. To be honest i think you just wanna hook up with Robinson

You don't think it's discriminatory to say "why is a girl writing about rugby"? He didn't say she was incompetent, he didn't insult her writing. He actually said she should not hold the job she does because she is female. That is the sole basis for his objection to her. She should not hold her job because she is a "girl". That's pretty much the precise definition of unlawful discrimination. And of sexism. And before you start shrieking about political correctness, ask yourself how you'd feel if someone did not discuss your skills, or qualification, or experience, but just said they were going to sack you because you're a 'boy". Are you OK with that?

Agreed, that is the biggest irony of all. Leaving aside the sexism, Campese strings together the same recycled cliches article after article yet he has the hide to criticise a reasonably competent journalist!

and Campo will be a candidate (probably favourite) for the Ernies.

Well said Fishface