Leave a comment

sjazzmreow May 15 2009, 08:15:04 UTC
By the time I wrote the asterix bit I was quite tired, and really don't think I was processing either what I was reading or what I wanted to say about it particularly well. I wasn't so much trying to analyse what Annabel Crabb said, but she started a different train of thought that I was trying to figure out. Re-reading it now, yeah, I have no idea what I was trying to say, and really don't like the way it came out. I shouldn't try to think or analyse after midnight. Ugh.

The way you've put it here though - that makes sense. Thankyou for explaining it so clearly.

What bothers me about this is that, although I have respect for the NRL and do believe the higher-ups are making a concerted effort to change the collective attitude to women, is that I don't think it'll get very far.

That's why I'm so impressed with The Footy Show at the moment; I know how ingrained the problems in League attitudes are, and, though one TV show making a big change in how the teams and players themselves behave might not be terribly realisic, The Footy Show is a big part of the culture on the outside. If the show is less masculinity-centred, then that might play some small part in making some people percieve League as a less masculine sport, and then the atmosphere of the games, and the reactions of the public and non-playing League affliates to drinking and sex scandals when they do happen, might improve. I'm probably being overly optimistic, and I'm not going to pretend that I really understand the depths and intricacies of the issues in their entirities, but nonetheless the show making such a shift is a really good thing, and is demonstrative of at least some ability to change something for the better (even if that something is not yet in the way that the teams themselves operate). The more this stuff is talked about, and the more the non-players parts of the NRL are seen to be opposing the old cultures and behaviours, the better.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up