Dear Mark,
Your recent article about AFLW in the Herald Sun was particularly offensive to me.
I’m a 34-year-old man. I was raised almost exclusively by women. I’d like to think I’ve always treated the women in my life with the respect and equality they deserve. But it wasn’t until mid-2016 when I started to date a wonderful, intelligent and voraciously feminist woman that I realised how unbelievably blind I had been to the fact that, as James Brown once put it, it’s a man’s world.
Inherent misogyny has always and still does permeate our society.
I initially reacted poorly when challenged with this notion. I argued that it couldn’t be so because I’d never experienced any of this so-called favour even though I’m a white male.
That position was stunningly naive and I thank my girlfriend for showing me that in a gentle and respectful manner – a luxury that hasn’t been afforded many women throughout the years of human history.
I only came to read your article about the 2019 AFLW season today. Suffice to say I was disappointed. So many of the hallmarks of the male domination of society are present, starting with an opening sentence demanding that you not be called a misogynist for claiming that women are less worthy than men.
(Adam Trafford/AFL Media/Getty Images)
You’re clearly personally threatened by women’s AFL, because to my mind you don’t start a narrative about it like that for any other reason.
Then you say that the AFLW is only “only average. Played in slow motion on full-sized grounds with 16 players a side”. That you have completely and utterly missed the point of this competition could not have been demonstrated any better than with those words.
Mark, you’ve made the same mistake that every man makes when assuming the female version of whatever they’re doing is less worthy – you’re comparing it with the men’s game. The tagline for the AFLW before it started was, “See what we create”, not, “See how much like the men we can be”.
You point out that it’s played on full-sized grounds like there’s some half-sized alternative available.
Then you credit the AFL for the fact that 500,000 females are now playing footy nationwide. Sorry, Mark, but that’s got nothing to do with the AFL. All that credit goes to the players – those women who’ve busted their guts for breadcrumbs for decades to see a competition like this even be possible.
I don’t have any kids, but one day I might, and I well might have a daughter. Many of my already friends do. So I’m sorry, but you don’t get to trample on their dreams because the ‘product isn’t attractive enough’.
From day dot the AFLW has done something the AFL has failed miserably to do for many years: it’s kept the fans at its core, the women and girls who’ve been inspired by seeing someone of their own gender play professional Aussie Rules football.
Just the other day my girlfriend recounted to me a conversation she’d had with workmates about how amazing it is, thanks to the AFLW, to be able to cheer on professional players that she could see herself being. And I tried to make it about me by making some intelligent comment about how it was great to see that as a man too. She rightly shut me down there, reminding me that no matter what I say, I can’t understand what it’s like to be a woman seeing professional athletes of my own gender play the game for the first time.
The point is, Mark, that this is the reason 500,000 women now play AFL; it isn’t some clever scheme by the administrators of the men’s league.
(AAP Image/David Mariuz)
The sooner we start seeing the AFLW for what it is – something wholly unique and distinct from the men’s game – the better.
You see, Mark, it’s not about you it’s not about me and it’s certainly not about dollars. It’s about women.
Your points regarding the validity of the competition based on its commercial value are logical enough, but they’re still wrong. Sometimes things need to happen just because it’s right and fair for them to. This is one of those scenarios.
Right now it shouldn’t matter what the commercial value of the AFLW is. The players should be paid better and the AFL should be pursuing expansion, not retraction. If the men’s league had been around for only three years, I dare say the standard wouldn’t be anything like what those women provide for us now.
With no alternative women have enjoyed men’s footy for decades. Likewise men can enjoy women’s footy, just as I do. I cheer Erin Phillips, Chelsea Randall and Ebony Marinoff with the same fervour as I do Taylor Walker, Eddie Betts and Rory Sloane. But it will never mean to me what it does to the women who’ve finally been given what they’ve deserved all along: footy made by and played by women.
That’s why the AFL is obliged to grow and support the AFLW – because it should never have been this one-sided.
[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]
An anecdote to finish. I’ve attended every Adelaide AFLW home match with my girlfriend and various members of my family. Earlier this year, after a stirring win at Norwood Oval, Crows superstar Jenna McCormick ran the boundary signing autographs, and my brother-in-law, another of our friends and myself stood at the fence hoping to get Jenna’s signature.
Despite there being copious numbers of young girls vying for her time and a club official telling her it was time to leave the field, Jenna still stopped and signed our guernseys.
That is why people go to watch AFLW – because, despite the unfairness of gender bias in footy, the women who created AFLW haven’t carried it into their league. It’s a league made by women and played by women, but it’s for everyone. Just like AFL always should have been.
To propose a shorter season undermines all of the hard work those women have put it to get the AFLW to where it is. It’s insulting and it shows that the AFL is out of touch with its fans.
The AFLW, its fans and its players all know why this league is happening. The AFL and people such as yourselves clearly don’t – which is fine, but it’s better that you don’t pontificate about something you clearly don’t understand at all.
Downsey
Guest
Gawd you go to such extremes to legitimise your stone throwing. Anyway, AFLW...
Aligee
Roar Rookie
Dear oh dear - very insulting to Hungary i think, who actually do have a fantastic history of academia, culture, music and film. I would have thought you would support the Hungarians right to choose via a democratically elected Government what can and cant be taught in their schools. Funnily enough tourism to Hungary is just huge, there aren't the safety concerns that Western Europe seems to have these days.
Lroy
Guest
Plenty of people agree with the Hungarians.
Downsey
Guest
Yeah cos Hungary is always our go-to exemplar for academia. You just threw that in as a pathway to your insulting little nugget at the end. Anyway, LSIF, your understandings are a bit over my head but I'm appreciating the intellectual challenge :)
Aligee
Roar Rookie
Hungary banned Gender studies because they see it as a ideology rather than a faculty of study, they are concerned that it is a waste of resources and there is absolutely no interest for gender studies graduates in the Hungarian job market. After glancing over your ramblings i tend to to think the Hungarians are spot on.
Jon Kau
Guest
Sport will be politicised and economised every day of the week. If it’s the highest field for male or female, it has to survive. The WNBA is currently facing a crisis as it is bleeding money from nearly all clubs and being propped up by the NBA. This is after a numbers of years (21 in fact) of it operating. Having said that, I wish the success of not just the AFLW but any elite sport pursued by male/female. I think everyone should have the opportunity to pursue, but you will have to accept that certain sports are not going to get you paid big bucks. Equalisation is never going to happen. Plus don’t forget the criticism from the female sports (soccer, basketball, netball), when the AFLW came in, threatening to take athletes away and take a chunk of fans/spectators away because Aussie Rules has the highest following. Some thought it unfair that they had more televised rights than their struggling sport that rarely sees air time (WNBL and WSL still played on ABC/SBS?).
Pope Paul VII
Guest
The thing that astounds me most is manny manny man man men attaching manny manny man man men attributes to womens ' footy. Just give yourself a 4 to 5 power ratio regarding womens' footy and you can relax. Then after that, think of the clangers. Men;s football is astoundingly inept. Old mate Robbo would be the first to comfort an afl man who's shanked a sitter. This fixation by blokes with skill is is a handy excuse to undermine girls playing fo
Low SES Indigenous female
Guest
RESPONSE: Your thoughts are not very well thought-through, ALIGEE. I don't know why you'd express them if you were not willing, prepared, or able to defend them. Thankfully we are all entitled to speak yet it does not mean we have to do as each other say.
Low SES Indigenous female
Guest
Anything to do with gender evokes this primordial reaction in people a lot of the time. The moment you have a concept for light, you also bring into existence the concept of not-light(dark). These binaries exist in opposition to one another by necessity. White and black, rich and poor, Up and down, big and small, smart and stupid, Gay and straight, etc. We have a tendency to compare such concepts against one another also, it seems logical for us to create two polar opposites and then everything that exists falls in between the two poles. So that nothing can be ultimately one AND the other at the same time. This plays a crucial role in the construction of gender roles(sex roles). If masculine=not feminine and feminine=not masculine. If Male=not female and female=not male. Then males are masculine then females are feminine by association. If I am female and this is 'oneness' for me, then maleness(and masculinity) becomes 'other' by necessity and vice versa. If strong is thought to be male then the opposite has to be true for the opposite of male. If nurturing is thought to be essential to the female form then the opposite is thought to be true for the opposite of female.This is the line of reasoning that takes over people when discussing gender, particularly if someone throughs out the term "equal"(meaning equivalent but not identical i.e. 3+2=5 but digits 2 and 3 combined are not identical to the digit 5). The nature of the other is inferior if the nature of one is thought to be superior(this is why misandry is not a substitute for women's empowerment). Light and dark cannot exist at the same time in the same place. This is a driving force behind the division of the sexes and inequalities amongst them. For example, if neglect(of offspring), lack of emotion and brutishness are thought to be essential to the nature of a male, then what effect is this going to have on our social structure, social institutions and culture? and then how would this be reflected in the life chances and outcomes of people of both sexes? This cognitive process is the result of evolutionary principles, but it cannot be said that it is "good" or justified in itself. It simply exists. It is clear to see how this process advantages us, but therein lies its disadvantges also. The biggest being its role in moral reasoning. What happens when someone challenges this is equivalent to claiming that ultimately light and dark can exist at the same time in the same place. Just as one is not born with language but possesses some biological mechanism for acquiring language; we also have some biological mechanism that enables our brains to interact with its environment by means of this binary opposition system. Nothing can be said of its "goodness" though. For some thing to occur naturally is no indication of the thing's "goodness" or "badness". We can suppress and inhibit this process. By being aware that it is there and understanding it, in the same way that we harness electricity or manipulate minerals by studying their properties and compositions over time. Evolution has no moral rudder driving it nor a moral compass guiding it.
Aligee
Roar Rookie
This is my response ..... If the writer wants to describe himself as a white privileged male he is more than welcome to wear his mangina hat, but don’t dare speak for me or millions upon millions of others of white males.
Low SES Indigenous female
Guest
I liked your post BANGKOKPUSSY. It is not just about fan culture but our national identity and history, social status, class and "taste", symbolic violence, gender roles, economic culture and media, and race - these are all factors that cross-cut and cross-link in this matter. To ignore all others without acknowledging that each factor plays a role in all others is naive and certainly not objective. There are some questions we can all ask though: Has football been an exclusively male sport? And if so, why? Why have females been excluded? What is its role as a social institution? What is the relationship between football and gender(particularly masculine gender)? Is there one? What role does football play in our economy? What is "football culture"? What kinds of attitudes and behaviours does football serve to enforce or re-enforce? What objective standard should participation in football be determined by? What role does football play in reproducing and producing gender, class and race? What is a social good and how does it differ from a business? Is football is a social good? If so, can it maintain that title while being an extremely profitable business? What is football's purpose? Is football targeted at working-class Australian heterosexual men? And if so, why? What function does that serve? What are the benefits? If we are claiming to be reasonable and objective then we should defend our claim as a matter of courage in ethical conviction. The alternative is to make the default choice(which is still a choice) and retreat with cowardice accepting that this is not a claim we are prepared or willing or worthy yet to defend. The choice is ours.
Downsey
Roar Pro
AFL is the Australian sport. It's a you beaut, fair dinkum, home grown bonanza, and so it stands to reason that we'd want all Australians to have access to playing it. For me, the purpose of having the AFLW is to address the 'you don't know what you can't see' belief. Having an elite league for female players is what inspires girls to join the game at the grass level. More participation should equal more growth across amateur to professional levels (yes, it will take some years, of course) and eventually that will result in an elite playing style that is uniquely AFLW. In the meantime, I'm enthralled watching how the AFLW players create and shape our nation's game for their competition, and I hope the AFL doesn't limit their opportunity to do this. It's also a relief to hear some pro-AFLW male voices rather than the usual 'it's terrible football' crowd.
Low SES Indigenous female
Guest
I'm inclined to agree. The economy should serve to fuel our lifestyle, not the other way around.
Low SES Indigenous female
Guest
RESPONSE: Hi again ALIGEE, You need to read it back-to-front. The order is likely responsible for this confusion. He has described some action and then gives what he thinks is the explanation for that action. He writes "I initially reacted poorly when challenged with this notion". He means to say that, at first, he came to a false conclusion. He then goes on to give an explanation for this error in judgement. He later writes: "Even though I am a white male" as part of his reasons. There is a hidden premise contained within that statement - that if any privilege is present due to one's membership to a salient group then one will aware of it. This is also why he describes such privilege as "so-called" i.e. he thinks that if male privilege exists then he would be aware of it. Once. we clarify the meaning and rearrange the premises so that one leads us to another, this is what we gather from his writing: P1(hidden premise): If white males experienced any favours they would be aware of them. P2: I am a white male and have never been made aware of or experienced any favour because I am a white male. CONCLUSION: Therefore it is false that any favour is experienced by white males(and thus why he reacted the way he did at first). As you can probably see by now, the failure to acknowledge some phenomenon is not an acceptable reason for the dismissal of its existence. The premises do not logically follow from one another because they are false. This made his initial conclusion false also. That his action was not adequately justified was what he was attempting to demonstrate. How would you respond to his later conclusion that white male privilege exists?
Aligee
Roar Rookie
They tried this vanilla PC world - Venezuela where they are now eating grass and Sweden where they are being bombed and other words that wouldn't make it through moderation out of existence by their socialist Governments policies. Hard to believe but a report by the UN has Sweden a third world country by 2030, but hey their feminist welfare Government feels good about immigration.
Aligee
Roar Rookie
If the writer wants to describe himself as a white privileged male he is more than welcome to wear his mangina hat, but don't dare speak for me or millions upon millions of others of white males. https://unherd.com/2018/04/diversity-debate-left-white-working-classes-behind/
Low SES indigenous female
Guest
ALIGEE, looking at your argument, I decided to put my indigenous female privilege aside for a few minutes and walk through this argument with you. I'll address each of your claims individually. ALIGEE PREMISE 1: "18-year-old women are 35 percent more likely to attend university than 18-year-old men" RESPONSE: UCAS published that from 2016-17 female students accounted for 57% of the domestic intake, just under 300,000 more females than males across the UK(HESA, 2018). Women aged 18-19 were more likely to apply and enter into university than men aged 18-19 (2017, p. 27). 63% of undergrads were female and 48% of postgrads were female. (visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/participation-rates-in-higher-education-2006-to-2016 for more info). The only thing this establishes is that more 18-19 year old females are entering into a british university than males 18-19 years old during that cycle. But why that is or how this is happening are different questions that this information is inadequate to address. ALIGEE PREMISE 2: "37 percent of black school-leavers go to university, only 28 percent of white school-leavers do." RESPONSE: Their analysis of that year's intake reported that white 18-19 y/o were the ethnic group least likely to enter university compared to 18-19 y/o from other ethnic groups with an entry rate of 29.3%(UCAS, 2017, p.24) UK domestic students 2016-17: 1,114,480 from a white ethnic group and "blacks" accounted for 124,070 of students. Total number of students was 1,891,980(HESA, 2018) ALIGEE PREMISE 3: "These stats were unveiled by UCAS in December, leading its chief executive to wonder if it isn’t time to initiate ‘outreach’ projects designed to get more white blokes into college" ALIGEE CONCLUSION: "..towards the end of 2015 it was revealed that there’s a social group in Britain more derided and less successful than pretty much every other social group.... young white men. Especially young working-class white men". RESPONSE: The entry rates for the most disadvantaged groups of 18-19 year olds or who you may consider to be "working class" and under was 13.8% and 24.7% respectively. No progress had been made in the last three years in narrowing the gap between the most advantaged group and most disadvantaged group (UCAS, 2017, p.24). I don't know how you went from this to "young working-class white men" are "more derided" and "less successful". Quite the leap you made. There are many social factors that could be contributing to the under-representation of 18-19 year olds who are working class; of the white ethnic group; and of the male sex, in British university admissions. But for you to assume that the cause of this is because they belong to a salient group described as white, male, working class and young relies on the dark, hidden supposition that the dominant culture, social structures and institutions are culminating to produce(or as a result of) contempt that results in inequality for young white working class males as a salient group. This is not only false but is a slippery slope that is easy to justify with confirmation bias. The conclusion that 18-19 males who are working class and white are less successful than all other social groups is not supported by the premises, because the premises are false and so it will lead us to a false conclusion. Once the meaning is clarified and hidden premises are included, this argument becomes the difference between inciting hatred amongst friends for a corn farmer, and inciting hatred amongst an angry mob that has assembled outside a corn farmer's house. Speech like this could indirectly or directly lead to clear and established harm or constitute harm in itself. You need to apply and adhere to the principle of free speech and protect others' rights to moral independence if we are to defend them. Neither defend against trolling BTW. There are a few logical fallacies involved here as well. This argument is unsound and invalid. REFERENCES: Higher Education Student Statistics: UK, 2016/17 - Student Numbers and Characteristics. Retrieved from: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/11-01-2018/sfr247-higher-education-student-statistics/numbers UCAS: End of Cycle Report: Patterns by Applicants Characteristics: 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.ucas.com/data-and-analysis/ucas-undergraduate-releases/ucas-undergraduate-analysis-reports/2017-end-cycle-report
BrainsTrust
Guest
The AFL has hijacked the women to grab billions of govenrment money to mens AFL without even putting a half baked effort in. If you told womens netball they would receive a couple of billion towards their sport in return for mens netball it would already be done.
Champs
Roar Rookie
Well said Lisa!
Onside
Guest
In recent times your article could have as easily been about womens, big bash cricket, rugby league, rugby union, netball, and been as relevant. The common denominator in these games, is they are all late starters as is AFLW in the 'professional' arena. One reason for this is TV stations are desperate for sports content, hence AFLW matches are repeated what must be over 20 times a week. (no probs, all good) The article would not have had the same relevance about women's , basketball, soccer, field hockey, or other well established sports, played at an International World Cup and Olympic standard for decades. Once on TV , vested interests, 'demand it be watched' with promos of highlights. Regardless , AFLW along with of the above is a SPORT, and the only thing that really matters, the only thing that counts wether you play or watch, is ' did you enjoy it ? Its that simple, did you enjoy it.