Matt Lodge Discussion

[Jedhead]

Poor guy can't take a trick at the moment. There seems to be quite a few hairs on his old noggin that are growing inwards too.

 

[Aldo]

You know you've hit rock bottom when you have an ingrown hair on your arse. Things will only get better from here Matt.

 

[jarro65]

Really? Why is that newsworthy

The buttburt media still want the hate to remain so keep Lodge in the headlines.

Pretty pathetic really.

 

[007]

Reporters with intelligence of a budgie

 

[Super Freak]

On 360 last night when they were talking about the Manly saga, Hooper still managed to find a way to bring Matt Lodge into the conversation to have another dig.

 

[Nashy]

The buttburt media still want the hate to remain so keep Lodge in the headlines.

Pretty pathetic really.

Seems more like Lodge is the butthurt one here.

 

[Browny]

Badoom tish

 

[tommy]

At least John Hopoate isn't still playing. Now there is a bloke who would have no qualms targeting that injury.

 

[theshed]

So a lot of women on my Facebook wall are sharing an article about the villain Matt Lodge and how ball tampering is seen as a bigger issue than abusing women.

I won’t link the article because even as someone who leans slightly towards the ‘Lodge shouldn’t be playing’ side of things, I find it teeth grindingly infuriating to read/listen to (there’s an audio discussion attached).


I can’t deny that it is a valid point but some of the wording in the article, and in the media discourse of this issue has got me thinking.

I’ve noticed that the “terrorising” of the women and child is the major focal point. The fact he king hit a man repeatedly seems to be a side note or secondary consequence of the night in question.

I really don’t want to come across as ignorant here so I genuinely am interested in all views but is it fair to find it unreasonable that the assumed emotional distress of women is higher on the social care factor than the actual physical abuse of a man?

 

[Sproj]

So a lot of women on my Facebook wall are sharing an article about the villain Matt Lodge and how ball tampering is seen as a bigger issue than abusing women.

I won’t link the article because even as someone who leans slightly towards the ‘Lodge shouldn’t be playing’ side of things, I find it teeth grindingly infuriating to read/listen to (there’s an audio discussion attached).


I can’t deny that it is a valid point but some of the wording in the article, and in the media discourse of this issue has got me thinking.

I’ve noticed that the “terrorising” of the women and child is the major focal point. The fact he king hit a man repeatedly seems to be a side note or secondary consequence of the night in question.

I really don’t want to come across as ignorant here so I genuinely am interested in all views but is it fair to find it unreasonable that the assumed emotional distress of women is higher on the social care factor than the actual physical abuse of a man?

No it isn't fair but white people also don't cop racial abuse despite the fact my better half got spat in the face over here and called a name I won't repeat. But the world isn't fair and people love a good ol' bandwagon, regardless of whether it really is important or not.

 

[theshed]

No it isn't fair but white people also don't cop racial abuse despite the fact my better half got spat in the face over here and called a name I won't repeat. But the world isn't fair and people love a good ol' bandwagon, regardless of whether it really is important or not.

Depending on the language that was used, I’d find it hard to imagine anyone wouldn’t consider that racism.

 

[Brent81]

So a lot of women on my Facebook wall are sharing an article about the villain Matt Lodge and how ball tampering is seen as a bigger issue than abusing women.

I won’t link the article because even as someone who leans slightly towards the ‘Lodge shouldn’t be playing’ side of things, I find it teeth grindingly infuriating to read/listen to (there’s an audio discussion attached).


I can’t deny that it is a valid point but some of the wording in the article, and in the media discourse of this issue has got me thinking.

I’ve noticed that the “terrorising” of the women and child is the major focal point. The fact he king hit a man repeatedly seems to be a side note or secondary consequence of the night in question.

I really don’t want to come across as ignorant here so I genuinely am interested in all views but is it fair to find it unreasonable that the assumed emotional distress of women is higher on the social care factor than the actual physical abuse of a man?

Unsurprising.

There are a lot of misandrists, who rate a bad word against a woman as an offence akin to a war crime but who think that it’s perfectly ok to be violent against a guy.

My mates ex was incredibly violent to him and the cops would do bigger all.

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

If anyone wants a laugh tonight, you could do worse then watch "league life" tonight on fox...
They are interviewing Russell packer, I'm sure that there won't be any hypocrisy from the female "journalists" that hammered the Matt lodge situation

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

Not one question or reference to lodge whilst gushing lavish praise on packer. Surely even they could see the hypocrisy and irony in that? Highlighted how agenda driven their campaign at the start of the season truly was...

 

[ivanhungryjak]

 

[Porthoz]

As someone who was very vocal against Lodge, I will say he has definitely been walking the talk, and I'm very happy for him.

 

[Browny]

Seeing as I can’t go a month without a drink kudos to him

 

[Chewed]

Hopefully he stays off it for a 1000 more, good work by him.