Let me make this very clear from the outset. Chris Gayle’s comments were inappropriate and unprofessional, and yes, they can certainly be deemed sexist.
Mel McLaughlin handled the situation professionally and I sympathise with her for the awkward predicament that unfolded.
But that is where things should have finished.
McLaughlin chose not to pursue the issue beyond iterating to her employer her displeasure of the incident and being the intelligent professional woman she is continued with her job during the match.
She expressed her desire to put the issue behind her thereafter and that is a credit to her.
More cricket:
» Four things the West Indies might learn from their Australian tour
» Pattinson the Aussie to watch in 2016
» The Liebke Ratings: Australia vs West Indies third Test
» Gayle-forced hypocrisy
» Steve Smith’s Border-esque rebuild (new longform!)
If someone cuts you off in traffic during the day you invoke some level of road rage at the time, perhaps stew on it shortly thereafter and then the next day you are back on the road focusing on getting to your destination.
News that Gayle has now teamed with high-profile lawyer Mark O’Brien to launch a defamation law suit against Fairfax Media is a headline that should only be read in a work of fiction.
Now before you cry foul and say ‘Oh but Gayle’s been doing it for years, he deserves it!’, let me remind you that you yourself had no knowledge of Gayle’s previous sexist remarks to female reporters in years gone by, nor did you have any knowledge about his apparent indecent exposure.
We have only arrived to this point of understanding because of the bizarre circus that has been allowed to foster over what many view as an ignorant yet harmless series of comments.
This doesn’t excuse Gayle’s behaviour past or present but it further makes you scratch your head as to why it was necessary to make such an example of Gayle without having previously arrived at this (now well documented) position.
How did we get to this point? Why the media witch hunt against Gayle?
I’m going to brazenly say it – it’s because equality is the hot topic. In the eyes of a growingly alarming PC media, men don’t just make mistakes or have accidents, they are vindictive sociopaths with a mission to undermine women at all costs.
Sound extreme? So does the beat up around this incident.
Perhaps the most poignant point we have been offered in the week since Gayle’s interview was the video of a UFC weigh-in woman ogling quite literally every single professional fighter who entered the weigh-in area. Whether staring at their pectorals, abdominals or the crotch, her eyes were bulging out of her head – not an exaggeration.
Both Gayle’s interview and the UFC weigh-in videos have gone viral, but there is an alarming difference in the reaction to the two.
Take a quick scroll through social media relating to the two issues and you will find that the general consensus for Gayle is ‘sexist pig’ whereas the UFC woman receives ‘good for her’, ‘can you blame her?’ and ‘looks like she loves her job’.
Given the well stated double standards that permeate through society at all levels, it is shocking that two similar incidents can be viewed in such a starkly different way.
Why are these double standards being encouraged? Equality is extremely important, it should exist, we have made enormous necessary progress in the last few decades – but the goal of feminism and equality should be equilibrium, not a free pass when we see a discrepancy.
True equality says that if Gayle is on the verge of being banned from the BBL then perhaps the woman herself should have her employment reconsidered. Workplace harassment is not a feminist issue – it’s a respect issue, respect that has been undermined.
McLaughlin is a professional doing her job on live television and there was no place for Gayle’s comments especially considering he completely ignored the questions asked of him. But let us remind ourselves that these UFC fighters are also professionals and were at the time all doing their job, so in a logical world where is the difference in the two scenarios?
Both professionals in each circumstance can be seen to have been undermined and disrespected.
Perhaps the most important part though is that beyond basic respect being ignored, we shouldn’t be caring – at all. I couldn’t care less about the woman ogling the fighters, it really is a non-event and in all seriousness it’s quite funny to watch.
Gayle, perhaps rightly, is held to a higher standard and would obviously have received extensive media training. I’m not here to defend him, his comments were unnecessary but the demonising has to stop. He paid his fine, has publicly apologised and has dealt with global condemnation, why is this not sufficient?
What if a female reporter was chatting up a male simply going about his business? That’s not a hypothetical – that happened in December 2014, live on air on Sunrise, Channel Seven’s morning programme.
Substitute weather presenter Nuala Haffner approached a “hunky mystery man” as reported by The Daily Telegraph (inappropriate reporting if we hold the same standard) and proceeded to drop every cliche pick-up line as painstaking as the words Gayle offered.
Here’s a transcript from the article.
“I might embarrass myself on national TV,” she said nervously.
Then came the nail-biting moment.
“Hello I’m Nuala,” she said as she introduced herself. “Do you come here often?”
The hottie said he was a regular there.
“Are you single?” Hafner continued.
I want you to picture in what mainstream publication that would be acceptable by today’s standards if the genres were reversed. Instead of equality the media has engineered reverse sexism which has now indoctrinated itself within the public spectrum.
This is perfectly encapsulated by the fact that senator Jacqui Lambie still has a political career.
In 2014, on live national radio, Lambie, a Palmer United party senator with ambitions of becoming prime minister, stated when asked about her view about a potential partner, “They must have heaps of cash and they’ve got to have a package between their legs, let’s be honest.”
Lambi continued with, “I don’t need them to speak; they don’t even have to speak.”
It is not unfair to suggest that any male politician’s career would be immediately finished with comments equivalent to those. Tony Abbot’s tenure was put in jeopardy and ultimately ended due to the perceived view he was a sexist misogynist. His winking during a radio appearance while listening to a sex worker went viral and was reported in mainstream media outlets with him labelled a “grub”.
No one, least of all myself, is suggesting that Gayle should not have been scrutinised for his cringeworthy comments, nor are they suggesting they were appropriate and should not have been labelled as sexist.
But for this man’s life to now be in tatters with global media outlets chastising him, fines being thrown at him and his career potentially brought to an end, all off the back of this incident, is absurd and completely disproportionate.
The march forward for equality requires a unified and logical front, addressing an issue as opposed to the person, not a media circus and a scapegoat.
JGK
Roar Guru
A bit harsh on Barnaby Joyce.
Yawn
Guest
Like the original story. Not as if we have psychotic leaders throwing around nuclear bombs or a nutter next in line to run our country that has trouble tying his own shoe laces. And that's before we even talk about heading into economic recession and much more unemployment. Nothing much going in the world when the major news item is a bloke trying to chat up a woman.
Mr.Media
Roar Rookie
There are always problems involving people in sport. But I agree, this is incident has been over blown for sure. And there are worse problems here in Australia, like the P-brains in the Brisbane Heat who attack moths with their bats and the Elephant hunters, setting a bad example for everyone....I would like to swat those people OFF THE PLANET!!
Bernie
Guest
I don't want to say too much, as I've said a lot already on msn comments sections to their stories, and, at times copped a barrage of near abuse from large numbers of males for whom the very mention of the term 'sexual harassment' seems to strike absolute terror into their hearts. Many have tried to play down the very nature of all the alleged wrong doings on Gayle's part, often forming a pack mentality, insisting that Gayle's little stunt was a harmless joke, and McLaughlin is precious, and these days you aren't even allowed to talk to a woman ad nauseam. I don't want to further dissect anything from too many angles, but I haven't stated anywhere how odd I have found the 'double standards defence'. I'm sure anyone reading here has seen all the numerous regurgitated examples of females - media figures or relative 'civilians' - ogling hunky men, and why is this ok add more nauseam. To be honest I haven't really known what rebuttal to make, but I have been sure there must be one somewhere. Then it dawned on me. It was so bleeding obvious, that it just jumped up from out of nowhere and bit me: I thought back to me uni days in the 199Os when I was living on campus and the management would actually hire legal advisors to come in and give lectures to the campus residents and it was compulsory to attend. In the wash up, it all boils down to one word with a prefix at the front: 'unwelcome' Behaviour that displays an interest in either the opposite or same gender that goes beyond mere friendship becomes harassment if the behaviour is 'unwelcome'. Given this, it is not hard to punch large gaping holes in all the 'double standards defence' argument that has been doing the rounds. I actually only managed to make it through the first half of the article above before I went to the comments, and I agree with JGK in questioning if the article actually has a point. I remember at the end of 1997 or thereabouts, I read an article in the Courier Mail that gave the very pertinent statistic in that year just gone that 117 out of 128 complaints of sexual harassment lodged to official tribunals in Queensland in that year were from the work place, and from that moment I was liberated from any paranoia I may have been guilty of on the subject. I am sure there were very few that were from pick up bars or night clubs. With 'unwelcome' being the operative word, anyone applying the 'double standard defence' need only pose the question to the men in question: do you mind, for example, as a hunky celebrity being ogled by women of all shapes and sizes and different ages. If the answer is indeed 'no' then that man has every bit as much right to seek appropriate redress if it reaches the stage where he feels uncomfortable or even demeaned. I personally do not want any sexual interest displayed towards me by anyone other than my wife, but I cannot speak for all men, after all I am 43 years old. I could make a blanket statement and say that 'men are less perturbed by public display of sexual interest by the opposite gender than women' and I may not know what I am talking about. But if, to play the devil's advocate I am right, then it isn't me coming up with the idea that a contributing factor is that women have more reason to feel uncomfortable and unsure because they are more vulnerable to potential assault, in one on one situations at least. Gayle's advance - purely verbal yes - was clearly unwelcome, and McLaughlin left no one in any doubt as to this. Let's imagine the roles reversed and McLaughlin had been the one doing it to Gayle, as described in a variety of examples by people of both genders employing the 'double standard defence': If Gayle had reacted in a way that showed he was uncomfortable and that it was unwelcome, then as previously noted, he would have every right to seek appropriate redress. But if he played up to it in a way to advance some sort of 'Ladies Man' image and he welcomed it then there is no harm done. Clearly McLaughlin did not play up to Gayle's 'pass' in an equivalent female manner. Clearly it was unwelcome, and in my opinion, that's really the end of it.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Considering the claim from the woman in the changeroom, I can totally understand why it has surfaced in relation to Gayle's now infamous interview. It suggests a consistent pattern of behaviour from him, and debunks the theory that the interview with McLaughlin was a 'one-off', or just a joke. While I agree that Fairfax would be loving the extra clicks, they didn't make up the story. The woman is on record as saying it happened. Surely you would expect them to report on it? And what if her accusation is, in fact, true? I agree that it's turned into a bit of media circus, and in this modern world, media outlets love controversy. However, I'm not sure how fabricated this particular one is. Nor do I think the media has simply whipped people into frenzy over nothing. It's pretty obvious people were/are genuinely outraged well before the media went into overdrive. Whether they should have been is what's up for debate, I guess.
AVictory
Guest
Agree that the issue should have been finished once it was identified and dealt with. The continuing demonizing of Gayle from the Fairfax was toxic and is a sad reflection of mainstream media and the social justice warriors on the internet in general.
Mick
Guest
For the love of god he was talking about the girl at the boxing weigh in NOT Mel the reporter. Why oh why are you struggling to comprehend what is bleedingly obvious?
James Preston
Roar Guru
I'm really not trying to paint him as a victim - I thought the initial punishment was sufficient (immediate criticism that it was inappropriate, a fine and an apology) and that should of been the end of it but here we are over a week later discussing it. I don't know where you think I have made that assumption? That said we do live in a society in which people are innocent until proven guilty. I won't comment on the merits of his innocence or guilt until evidence emerges either way. It's just unbelievable to me though that a simple poorly handled interview has led to so much fall out and you being someone with a successful media career would know surely that it has been propelled by the big media outlets, Fairfax in particular milking the issue for extra clicks and subsequent revenue - whatever damage no matter how disproportionate to the original indiscretion that occurs won't concern them, I think that is wrong. And as I've iterated I also think Gayle's comments were wrong, but it still remains disproportionate. Completely respect your opinion about the article perhaps not offering anything in the way of a solution, in all honestly that wasn't really my aim, moreso it was to draw attention to the media circus itself and state that IMO it is an overblown farce that similarly has offered no constructive conversation about the overarching issue of attitudes towards women.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
That's an impressive attempt to paint Gayle as the victim. Completely failed at it, but a nice attempt all the same. I'd also be extremely wary of assuming that just because Gayle is launching legal proceedings, then he must be innocent. The women in question is allowed to express her version of events, and has. Gayle is entitled to defend himself, and it seems he is. However, the accusation levelled against him is certainly pertinent and relevant to the issue that began with his interview with McLaughlin, rather than a case of 'demonising' him, as are the number of female journalists who have come out to say they have suffered the same fate as McLaughlin in the past. Just because we haven't heard them before doesn't make them any less relevant now. Unless you believe they're all lying, or have been unaffected? You're welcome to your opinion, as is the nature of this very site. However, my opinion is that your argument is very clumsy - at best - highlighted by the placement of your comment around Gayle's legal proceedings, which feels extremely out of place in the context you provided. Personally, I think the whole episode has now been overblown, but I'm not sure your piece helped in any way, shape or form.
EddyJ
Guest
It's not about equal treatment, it's about fair treatment to achieve equity. I didn't think the UFC was completely harmless (you did say 'everybody' did), but I think it was facile. I cringe everytime I see or hear this types of stupid incidents, whether it's perpetrated by a man or a woman. Sure, adults are sexual beings, but seeing them only as sexual beings is the issue. McLaughlin asked Gayle a question about the cricket: he responded by talking about her eyes and going for a drink. Imagine this situation in a board room or other professional environment. Women: “We have some business results that we need to discuss that relate to the future of our company.” Man: “Yes, I like your beautiful eyes, I've been waiting for this moment for you to ask – we should go for a drink. Don't blush baby!" The problem is that whenever there's an incident like Gayle's, the internet troops find something online that a women has done (Jacky Lambie, UFC-clip) and say 'there you go, same incident, but different reaction. That's unfair'. The world is not a fair place but we can try to make it more fair. Gayle bash-a-thon? Yes, and rightly so. It will be a good education for him, and maybe other people will understand that those types of actions in the broader community are unacceptable.
James Preston
Roar Guru
@no one in particular: "Let me make this very clear from the outset. Chris Gayle’s comments were inappropriate and unprofessional, and yes, they can certainly be deemed sexist. Mel McLaughlin handled the situation professionally and I sympathise with her for the awkward predicament that unfolded. But that is where things should have finished. McLaughlin chose not to pursue the issue beyond iterating to her employer her displeasure of the incident and being the intelligent professional woman she is continued with her job during the match. She expressed her desire to put the issue behind her thereafter and that is a credit to her." At no point I have suggested how McLaughlin should feel or act, as stated I think she handled herself brilliantly and has continued to handle herself brilliantly throughout - conversely Gayle was a moron and I have called him out for his behaviour several times in the piece. He's not a victim, he deserves scrutiny. The media circus has been completely disproportionate though. I would view global news coverage and criticism and the very likely scenario of him being banned from the competition and subsequently an end to his career as a rather bleak outlook....
James Preston
Roar Guru
@Elton, thanks for your comment. I WISH that was what the media reaction were about, if it were, this article would have never been written, but it has instead focused on bashing Gayle which is the point of my whole analysis. There HAS been some discussion relating to the issue of changing attitudes towards women but the vast majority of pieces have centred squarely on Gayle and how sexist he is without offering any constructive points on moving forward with equality. I completely agree with you about what it should be but IMO it hasn't played out that way.
James Preston
Roar Guru
Care to elaborate Kaks? That is not my intention at all. The overall point of the article is: Gayle has been hung out to dry but there has been a distinct lack of constructive or intelligent discussion about the broader notions of attitudes towards women and respect in the work place - it has instead turned into a Gayle bash-a-thon. I am under no illusions that women are not discriminated against in workplaces (far more then men) and this was indeed an example of such which as I've stated several times in the piece is not acceptable as even at the basic level it shows a blatant lack of respect for a professional doing their job, but I raised the UFC example because of the polar reaction that it evoked. Everybody thought it was a completely harmless and funny thing but I wanted to pose the question as to why should it be? Technically ogling all those men and thus objectifying them is no better than Gayle's objectification of McLaughlin, yet no one comments on it. If we are talking in equality terms then that isn't what equality is about. But again though, Gayle's comments were sexist crap and he has been rightly criticised, the witch hunt is over the top however.
James Preston
Roar Guru
@Wayne and @Ryan - I am aware that the defamation suit is to do with the claims of indecent exposure from Fairfax and not the McLaughlin interview. The point and placement of those comments is that it is absurd that it has been dragged out this long beginning with the McLaughlin incident and that he should not have to go to the lengths of hiring a lawyer for defamation as media outlets have gone to town on him. My point being he was criticised, apologised and fined all in quick succession, thus my criticism is aimed at the ongoing demonising of him. This whole fiasco has served purely to demolish Gayle as opposed to offering solutions to change attitudes towards women, particularly in a professional context. At best it has been a conversation starter but 99% of write up's and critique have focused on him being a pig as opposed to identifying that these issues are still prevalent and Gayle epitomises it, digging up dirt on him and threatening to end his career is what has incensed me - it's not constructive and has similarities to the James Deen situation unfolding and Matthew Johns in the past.
Ken
Guest
Lambie was ridiculed, quite rightly, and continues to be. She's a walking punchline and almost everything in the mainstream media treats her as a joke. If she had any intention of being a serious politician then her career was destroyed then. Morning show fluff was cringeworthy, the UFC one was a complete non-event (i.e. if a male hanger-on was caught ogling female fighters it would also be, at most, an amusing video). Both of these examples are chalk and cheese though. To spell it out for you, McLaughlin is a professional reporter in a boys club - she's very good at what she does, and has had to prove that far more than a male reporter would have to gain respect in that field. Ignoring her serious questions on national TV and talking to her as though she's a groupie would rightly have made her extremely angry, that she kept it together professionally only enhanced her skills in most people's eyes. That's without even mentioning the context and history of wider gender inequality, as well as the ugly entitlement/rape culture which cannot be simply ignored as background factors in our lives. You can sigh and say that Gayle isn't to blame for all that, it was just a joke, but he wasn't the butt of the joke.
AlanKC
Guest
"Let me make this very clear from the outset. Chris Gayle’s comments were inappropriate and unprofessional, and yes, they can certainly be deemed sexist." You should have stopped here.
AlanKC
Guest
And she was quite rightly ridiculed for it.
Elton
Guest
I think you are missing the whole point of this media reaction. It's about changing the attitudes towards women and gender roles, not about demonizing some boof head cricketer. Have to say Lambie's comments were feral and she should really be held to a higher standard than that. Perhaps it was a poor taste joke though.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
That was going to be my comment. If you DO know that Gayle's intent to sue is unrelated to the incident with McLaughlin, then why the hell is it placed in that section of the piece? It makes no sense. And if you DON'T know that Gayle's intent to sue is unrelated to the incident with McLaughlin, then you really shouldn't be writing this piece, as it highlights an appalling lack of research.
James
Guest
Have a look at Gayle's pattern: http://antiguaobserver.com/70168/