There’s been plenty of very manly chest-beating since Kirisome Auva’a was found guilty of recklessly causing injury and indefinitely banned from the NRL.
“Let me make it clear… we abhor violence against women and it will not be tolerated in our game,” NRL Chief Executive Dave Smith said when handing down Auva’a’s ban.
The Daily Telegraph‘s Phil Rothfield had earlier written an open letter to Smith, saying, “The game has a responsibility to take a stand on footballers who assault women. Ban them. Zero tolerance. Full stop. End of story.”
It sounds fair enough.
But doesn’t it sound even more fair to take the caveat of ‘women’ out of both those statements?
Why isn’t Smith saying “we abhor violence and it will not be tolerated”? Why doesn’t Buzz say we need “to take a stand on footballers who assault”? Is it only a problem when it’s a man assaulting a woman?
Years ago, in a very public place in front of a lot of people, I was threatened with physical violence by a first-grade NRL prop.
It was late on a Saturday night and we had both had a few. I had only met the bloke that evening and really had very little to do with him, but he had it in his head I was trying to have it off with his ex-girlfriend and spent the evening giving me, who’d make for a small halfback, the kind of looks he usually saved for opposing forward packs.
I was having a traditional post-evening bite to eat in McDonald’s when two metres and 110 kilograms of prop forward loomed over my table and said something to the effect of, “you’re a f**king dead man.”
They say you don’t realise how big a footy player is until you see them play the game live? Bull. You don’t realise how big a footy player is until they’re towering over you, threatening to kill.
That’s where the story ends. He got in a cab and left, and I walked home. Barely worthy of the Telegraph.
But if an NRL player, under the influence of alcohol, had stood over a woman in a crowded fast-food restaurant in the early hours of a Sunday morning and threatened her with violence, would that not be a big story – even if he didn’t actually raise a finger against her?
This is not an attempt to try and justify or excuse what Kirisome Auva’a did. It’s truly a despicable act. But why do we reserve our disgust solely for violence against women?
It’s something we’re taught from an early age – almost every young boy in Australia is told “don’t hit girls”. It’s kindergarten stuff, and why so many have called for Auva’a to be banned from playing rugby league again.
But rather than ‘don’t hit girls’ shouldn’t we be teaching our kids ‘don’t hit’?
Writing for the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, Darren Kane outlined his ‘deterrent’ against further instances of domestic violence in the NRL – that players receive an automatic six-year ban for any such offence, based on the automatic two-year ban for dopers.
“Shouldn’t it logically follow that automatic sanctions apply when a sportsperson is convicted of an inexcusable crime, against a defenceless female?” Kane wrote.
Kane cited both Auva’a and Robert Lui in making his case. It was a little odd that he didn’t mention Russell Packer.
Packer was convicted of assault in January this year, and sentenced to two years’ prison. He is still behind bars, but eligible for parole in January, and clubs are reported to be lining up for his services. While the NRL are not guaranteed to register any contract Packer signs, the fact as many as four clubs are eager sign the former representative prop speaks of confidence he will be allowed to play.
No six-year ban for Packer, Darren? The 112-kilogram giant who punched a man to the ground, then continued to beat him as he lay prone, before finally stamping on his head?
Is he right to play five seasons earlier than the rest since the defenceless person he attacked wasn’t female?
I don’t want to belittle domestic violence, or those who are victims of such a cruel crime. But it’s a highly complex issue, and one the NRL aren’t actually tackling – they’re just painting in broad strokes to say they’re against it.
Well as long as they’ve got the paint out, they can go a bit broader.
Any time any person is beaten it’s to be abhorred. Saving a special place for violence against women gives players who assault men wiggle room. The NRL needs to come down hard on players who assault women, absolutely. But they need to come down just as hard on those who assault men.
It’s time we stop giving violence conditions – if it’s happening, that’s problem enough.
Jackson Henry
Roar Guru
Agreed on that last point. All I heard was flatulent blusterings of outrage with not a counter-argument in sight. Had it all..."Erhmagerd misogyny"..."rednecks"..."people who disagree with me need help". Come on Pop, I'm sure you can do better than that.
Jackson Henry
Roar Guru
Kilbongteb
Guest
Ummmmmmmmm, have you ever talked to many women about your wonderful ideas ? Haha
Jay C
Roar Guru
They are ambassadors. I know lots of jobs where if you were convicted of serious crime you would lose your job or at least receive some penalty. At the very least it would damage your reputation and make it harder to find other work or get promoted. Maybe it doesn't have that impact on bog men.
cedric
Guest
Jay C, your reply does not convince me. A league player an ambassador and spokesman for the game, I don't think so. I gotta say that 99% of the people I've known over a long period would take that as a joke! I know we all want them to be that, but it won't happen unless somehow they can be brainwashed! Role models, nobody in their right minds believes that. This NRL justice system still looks like double jepeordy to me. I give you an analegy, We in the plumbers labourers union (just picked a random job) want our employees to be honest and accountable, therefore we will impose our own justice after the Courts have done theirs. NO!!!! Looks like everything the NFL do, we gotta follow.
Jay C
Roar Guru
Domestic violence is worse than random acts of violence because of the situation (difficulty in leaving, emotion, children, etc). Not because it is specifically man on women. I haven't heard anybody here argue that point. What is being discussed is the often invisible issue of violence against men, even domestic violence. Nobody has advocated for domestic violence here. The discussion is a mature debate about societal constructs and the different ways in which the media and population as a whole view violence against all sexes. It seems to me that this comment has been the most predictable, inarticulate viewpoint expressed in this discussion.
The Barry
Roar Guru
So if Auva'a got into an argument with his best mate or his brother and ended up slamming him into a garage wall he would deserve to be rubbed out of the game for 12 months? Of course not. It's barely even comparable when you take the consider the exact same circumstances, actions and intent however replace the gender of the victim.
Brian M
Guest
Interesting perspective. Did you do anything to provoke the NRL player,or they just came up out of the blue and threatened you? If so, that's pretty crazy. Did you call the police? At any rate, anyone who is honest understands the reason behind the domestic violence meme in the media and politics. Its due to the political power of feminist ideology, obviously. Most people know this, but it seems nothing can be done about it. Many of the same feminist groups that demand women in combat and in boxing and MMA, etc, turn around and carry on about how men beat up women all the time in relationships. The fact that that is simply not statistically true is irrelevant. In feminist ideology, woman are eternally victimized saints and men are creepy neanderthal beasts who need to be monitored and controlled with ever more laws and government programs. The fact that 99% of men never engage in any sort of physical domestic violence is ignored because it doesn't fit the ideological narrative. The fact that women are often verbally abusive, controlling or manipulative in relationships is also never discussed, again because it doesn't fit the narrative. Nevertheless, as long as the ruling elites use feminist ideology as one of the props of their power, it won't matter. It just needs to be accepted, like punitive damage awards in lawsuits. Companies budget for that, its just part of business.
belroseeagle
Guest
thank you for proving my point is it that hard to understand for you its deplorable to hit anybody at anytime unless in self defence where did anybody say it was ok to hit women no where but because you dont see women as equal to men you think they should be the focus men should just harden up right? and we are old fashioned ? go look up equality then come back and explain how saying dont hit anyone is wrong but saying dont hit women is right because what you are saying is women are not equal to men there just a little girl that always need protecting to me that sounds old fashioned and misogynist to me
pop
Guest
pathetically predictably. old fashioned red necks trying to justify their power driven mysoginist ways. if you don't understand why hitting a woman is deplorable then you need help. domestic violence is so so different to a random assault. if you don't understand that then you need help. this is such sad reading for a woman
Michael
Guest
I don't think anyone should be punished until found guilty, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Of course this man is guilty, but remember Brett Stewart?
mushi
Guest
That said I don't agree with the "There is just more violence against women in society than there is against men." but i think he meant domestic violence.
mushi
Guest
"at least one in three victims of family violence and abuse is male." That includes children though and still says a 2:1 female to male victim ratio
max
Guest
Well i don't know where you go the more violence against women "stat" from because around 56% of assault victims are male. Up to one in three victims of sexual assault and at least one in three victims of family violence and abuse is male. The vast majority (94%) of perpetrators of intimate partner violence against males are female. I guess you wont see that stat on white ribbon day.
Muzz
Guest
What's wrong with hairy women?
belroseeagle
Guest
thats a complete falsehood men are the victims of violent crime way more look it up
max
Guest
That is rubbish PGNEWC if a woman assaults a man then he has every right to defend himself and that includes physically. You hit someone then no sympathy when you get your arse handed to you back on a platter male or female. The only lame excuses i see is the rubbish in your post.
belroseeagle
Guest
ah the whiteknight its not ok to hit ANYBODY but you have excused all women for there violence because men are usually stronger it called a double standard and its wrong so if i find a woman that could kick my ass it s ok for me to hit her cause she is stronger. Some people will always try and justify their actions with excuses
mushi
Guest
I will take the last word and say... That was a very admirable retreat even though you probably wanted to press on and you used restraint I would probably not be capable of on this topic. I think we are both on the same page of social fairness but used different methods of getting there
Jackson Henry
Roar Guru
Who is?