Chris Gayle. Stay Classy



  • Chris Gayle involved in another sexist outburst to a female journalist
    REUTERS
    Chris Gayle is expected to get into further hot water from comments made during an interview.
    West Indian cricketer Chris Gayle is set to face further allegations of sexism following remarks made to a female journalist from the UK Times during a lengthy interview.
    The big-hitting batsman did a two-hour interview with Charlotte Edwardes for the Times magazine supplement, which is published on Saturday.
    During it, the 36-year-old Jamaican boasted about having "a very, very big bat, the biggest in the wooooorld", adding, "You think you could lift it? You'd need two hands."
    He also asked how many black men Edwards has "had", goading her when she deflect the question.
    He also asked whether she'd had a "t'eesome" – "I bet you have. Tell me."
    "Do you dye your hair?" he also asked at one point. It's highlighted, she replied. "But do you dye your hair?" He said again, with his eyes looking downwards.
    Later in the interview he said "women should have equality and they do have equality. They have more than equality. Women can do what they want. Jamaican women are very vocal. They will let you know what time is it, for sure."
    Elsewhere, Gayle discusses how a couple should share domestic duties and looking after a baby when living together.
    "[With a baby] then she doesn't have to [cook]. We can stop and buy a meal. If she's working, then the couple share. First person home, cooks."
    But, Gayle added: "women should please their man. When he comes home, food is on the table. Serious. You ask your husband what he likes and then you make it."
    The interview took place in Bangalore, where Gayle plays for the Royal Challengers in the Indian Premier League.
    "I haven't had a shag since I been here," he said.
    "Ten t'ousand women will throw themselves at me. The fact is that I am damn good-looking." Asked if he threw himself at women, he sighed: "Your questions, you suck me dry."
    Gayle is sure to come under more criticism for his comments as they follow on from a similar incident at the Australian Big Bash in January.
    When interviewed on live TV by Mel McLaughlin when playing for Melbourne Renegades against Adelaide Strikers, Gayle said: ""Your eyes are beautiful, hopefully we can win this game and then we can have a drink after as well. Don't blush, baby."
    Gayle was fined $10,000 for those comments by the Renegades.
    He is due to play for Somerset in the English T20 Blast over the next couple of months.
    Somerset CEO Guy Lavender, who said Gayle's comments earlier this year were totally inappropriate, wouldn't comment on the latest outburst, but said: "Broadly speaking, when he was with us he was fantastic both in terms of activities on and off the pitch."



  • He called his new daughter "Blush"
    Troll level? Expert



  • Great cricketer, tediously gross human.
     
    Hope the next station or paper sends a sweaty, balding 60-something dude.



  • Great cricketer, tediously gross human.
     
    Hope the next station or paper sends a sweaty, balding 60-something dude.

    I'm available in 25 years



  • Hope the next station or paper sends a sweaty, balding 60-something dude.

    Why would they do that? It sells more papers to send a female and ask leading questions like "do you throw yourself at women".
     
    Gayle was silly enough to play along (not that he seems to care) but it reeks of a hit piece. This interviewer (who I believe was former England women's captain) clearly wasn't there to ask Gayle about his forward defensive technique.



  • Man earns a couple of million a year playing sport
     
    Newspaper asks (perhaps pays) to interview him
     
    Man answers questions any old way he wants, people get offended because he said things they don't like to hear - man couldn't give a fuck (an attitude all the offended should adopt)
     
    Good for you Chris



  • man couldn't give a fuck (an attitude all the offended should adopt)

    So you agree: he's a classless dickhead.
    Don't confuse offended with judgemental. 🙂



  • Between this, the Warriors being terrible and people watching boxing for free, I'm gonna need a shitload of popcorn to get through the comments section on Stuff.co.nz today.....



  • So you agree: he's a classless dickhead.
    Don't confuse offended with judgemental. 🙂

    I don't know, your panties sound a bit bunched



  • I don't know, your panties sound a bit bunched

    You'd think people would find more to be outraged about than someones opinions, some of which were clearly said as a wind up, but human beings never cease to get on their high horses about nothing.



  • You'd think people would find more to be outraged about than someones opinions, some of which were clearly said as a wind up, but human beings never cease to get on their high horses about nothing.
    Without a high horse, roughly how many times do you reckon you'd have posted here...
    (Or any of us, for that matter)



  • I am amazed how easily offended the human race is becoming.
    If she found his views so offensive.. why did she repeat them in a widely circulated article? Did she want as many people as possible to also be 'offended'?



  • I am amazed how easily offended the human race is becoming.
    If she found his views so offensive.. why did she repeat them in a widely circulated article? Did she want as many people as possible to also be 'offended'?

    Was she actually offended or have the PC brigade taken up the fight on her behalf, harsh words of condemnation at the ready....?



  • I'm not offended, but I do think he's a creep. And it doesn't even seem like he's that good at flirting.



  • I'm not offended, but I do think he's a creep. And it doesn't even seem like he's that good at flirting.

    We only know that because women have complained, I'm sure they are in the minority because are plenty of skanks who because he is famous and wealthy have shagged him even with the weak lines he has because they are only a hole in a condom away from a lucrative paternity suit.
     



  • We only know that because women have complained, I'm sure they are in the minority because are plenty of skanks who because he is famous and wealthy have shagged him even with the weak lines he has because they are only a hole in a condom away from a lucrative paternity suit.

    I don't doubt he has shagged plenty of women, and I don't think paternity suits have anything to do with that.
     
    Just that the lines he uses in that interview are a bit weird. I mean, 'do you dye your hair' while looking at her crotch... I can't see how that would be effective in any scenario.



  • It's very obvious, the female journalist only asked him "do you throw yourself at women" as a response to him saying that ten thousand women will throw themselves at him. I don't think Gayle was playing along, he is a dickhead irrespective of the questions asked, especially if the reporter/journalist is female.
     
    People don't get offended because they hear answers they don't like to hear; they get offended because he's a sexist pig saying sexist things. There's nothing PC about getting offended; it's a normal response.
    The reporter probably repeated what he said to show their readers that earlier sexist behaviour wasn't an exception; it's how he really is. She was probably angry, too. And obviously, it sells the article (more clicks), although that's more likely a consideration for the editors/paper than the journalist.



  • It's very obvious, the female journalist only asked him "do you throw yourself at women" as a response to him saying that ten thousand women will throw themselves at him. I don't think Gayle was playing along, he is a dickhead irrespective of the questions asked, especially if the reporter/journalist is female.
     
    People don't get offended because they hear answers they don't like to hear; they get offended because he's a sexist pig saying sexist things. There's nothing PC about getting offended; it's a normal response.
    The reporter probably repeated what he said to show their readers that earlier sexist behaviour wasn't an exception; it's how he really is. She was probably angry, too. And obviously, it sells the article (more clicks), although that's more likely a consideration for the editors/paper than the journalist.

    Being offended might be a normal response, but it is fast becoming THE normal response.
     
    Just because someone says something you don't like doesn't mean you should be offended who that he  needs to be censored. I have no issue with those calling him a creep etc. Again that is an opinion. 
    If he is offended by those calling him names.. should they stop because he is offended by it?
     
    I dont like his comments much, but I think many people are just looking to be offended nowdays... which of itself would not be a problem, but they are also trying to censor based on what they think is offensive. Clearly any society needs limits, but they seem to be getting more and more strict, and  dont like it.
     
    I still question the articles role in making sure his comments were disseminated



  • People don't get offended because they hear answers they don't like to hear;

    That is simply not true nowdays.



  • Being offended might be a normal response, but it is fast becoming THE normal response.
     
    Just because someone says something you don't like doesn't mean you should be offended who that he  needs to be censored. I have no issue with those calling him a creep etc. Again that is an opinion. 
    If he is offended by those calling him names.. should they stop because he is offended by it?
     
    I dont like his comments much, but I think many people are just looking to be offended nowdays... which of itself would not be a problem, but they are also trying to censor based on what they think is offensive. Clearly any society needs limits, but they seem to be getting more and more strict, and  dont like it.
     
    I still question the articles role in making sure his comments were disseminated

    Being offended by sexist comments is THE normal response for people who don't like sexism (I'd hate it if anyone talked to my partner, mother, or sister like that).
     
    It is not about people being offended because Gayle says something people don't like; it's about people being offended because he says sexist things. That's not "looking to be offended". Calling him a sexist is a fact, not name-calling; there is not a shred of doubt that he is a sexist if you've read/heard what he has said. Calling him a creep, yes, that's name-calling.
     
    The only reason why society is getting stricter on people saying sexist things is because society finally starts to understand (well, most people anyway, not everyone on the Fern apparently) that sexism is unacceptable. Just like racism and any other discriminatory behaviour.