Chris Gayle. Stay Classy



  • http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/80244216/Chris-Gayle-involved-in-another-sexist-outburst-to-a-female-journalist
    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.



  • 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 think it is mainly a fairly small minority of breast-beaters who feel the need (and the media pretending) to express outrage and offense on our behalf.
     
    The worst thing about the internet is that it has given everyone a voice.



  • I'm not offended at the comments, like Barbarian said, they are pretty fucking lame in the scheme of things.
     
    What disgusts me is the situation in which they were made. Female sports journalists shouldn't have to put up with that shit at work. End of.



  • if I said that to a colleague I expect I'd be up for sexual harrassment.
     
    Is just lame and unprofessional really.



  • 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.

    Care to elaborate on who on the fern finds sexism acceptable?
     
    I think the article was just lame in general.Why didnt she walk out after the first comment? Why did her company publish the remarks.
     
    Actually I dont really care. Not sure why I am still discussing it.



  • ...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...

    Is sexist creep an acceptable mid point or still name calling? I'm confused.



  • He called his new daughter "Blush"
    Troll level? Expert
    Exactly. He feeds off this shit. Ignore him and he goes away.
    This perpetually offended bullshit is getting seriously tiresome.



  • We won't see Gayle back in BBL next season.  Indians love him to bits, but wonder if there is an ulterior motive somewhere to wrap him on his nails?



  • Gayle - say whatever the fuck you like in the changing room, down the pub or when you're chasing tail.
    But if you are really too thick to see the difference between doing that and talking to the national press then people will judge you.



  • if I said that to a colleague I expect I'd be up for sexual harrassment.
    Is just lame and unprofessional really.

    In your work place is it permissible for female members of staff to ask about your sexual history and your views of women's role in the home?
    Massive false equivalence.



  • In your work place is it permissible for female members of staff to ask about your sexual history and your views of women's role in the home?
    Massive false equivalence.

    Were those questions asked of him or did he simply make those statements? Reading the article in the OP it seems to me it's the latter.



  • In your work place is it permissible for female members of staff to ask about your sexual history and your views of women's role in the home?
    Massive false equivalence.

    He is being interviewed as a cricketer is he not?
    Still unprofessional of him...or is he using the she started it defence?



  • He is being interviewed as a cricketer is he not?
    Still unprofessional of him...or is he using the she started it defence?
    I don't think he is defending his comments. He likely stands behind them and couldn't care about the reaction.
    I wasn't aware the Times Weekend liftout had strong cricket coverage. Gayle is being interviewed as a celebrity. Not that it matters, trying to compare pro athlete to an accountant misses the point entirely.



  • Jeez you are contrary knob just for the sake of it....I have no idea about the times lift out, he is still a bit of a knob and unprofessional.
    As to the accountant pro-athlete, wtf are you on? They both are supposed to abide by the same laws as others, or are you one of these ones that thinks sports stars get a free pass?
    I'm not an accountant btw.



  • Jeez you are contrary knob just for the sake of it....I have no idea about the times lift out, he is still a bit of a knob and unprofessional.
    As to the accountant pro-athlete, wtf are you on? They both are supposed to abide by the same laws as others, or are you one of these ones that thinks sports stars get a free pass?
    I'm not an accountant btw.

    What laws has he broken? I'm unaware of the laws of India but I will venture he has not broken any. If he wants to say these things and come off like a goof then he can.
    It is just a pet peeve when people try to compare celebrities/athletes whomever to whatever office job you choose. They are different.
    Judge them on what they say, just as you would anyone, but their is no position in your job outside of a celebrity where you would be required to answer the questions Gayle was asked here. If you were a trip to HR would be appropriate.



  • I m judging him on what he has said, they are pretty low brow and in any other situation could be construed as sexual harassment, we most certainly can compare him to any other persons job, they are people too, just because they are famous they shouldnt get the right to act and behave differently (although the courts and governing bodies sometimes disagree)
     
    Anyway, I stick with my original view, lame and unprofessional.



  • 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.
    This is missing the "for the bros" viewpoint. Its not all about getting a bit. Gayle is a aware of his audience and a good portion of this nonsense is for him to have a laugh with his boys later on. Or to appear cool to his fans. Its not all about picking up.http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/80244216/Chris-Gayle-involved-in-another-sexist-outburst-to-a-female-journalist

    Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk



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

    Maybe ... but I just found his comments crass and classless. As i said I'm not "offended" but I do judge him as a person as a result of his repeated sleaziness.
    This is missing the "for the bros" viewpoint. Its not all about getting a bit. Gayle is a aware of his audience and a good portion of this nonsense is for him to have a laugh with his boys later on. Or to appear cool to his fans. Its not all about picking up.
    Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

    My feeling there is that anyone who has to try that hard to appear cool really just isn't.
    He's damaged his image as the cool laid back totally in control dude. Screaming "look at me! I've got a big dick!" is kind of juvenile.



  • Maybe ... but I just found his comments crass and classless. As i said I'm not "offended" but I do judge him as a person as a result of his repeated sleaziness.
    My feeling there is that anyone who has to try that hard to appear cool really just isn't.
    He's damaged his image as the cool laid back totally in control dude. Screaming "look at me! I've got a big dick!" is kind of juvenile.
    I agree. But you can tell so much of this is looking down the camera lens looking directly at his mates.
    Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk



  • I'm not offended at the comments, like Barbarian said, they are pretty fucking lame in the scheme of things.
     
    What disgusts me is the situation in which they were made. Female sports journalists shouldn't have to put up with that shit at work. End of.

    Come off it.  The whole thing was a set-up for sure.  The magazine wanted him to make some shitty comments, so they sent across an attractive female reporter.  She would have known what she was getting herself into.
     
    I wouldn't interview a leftard as I don't have time for idiots, so why would an attractive female journalist choose to interview Gayle and talk about all the woman he's apparently slept with.
     
    The reaction to what is clearly a contrived setup situation is equally as shitty as his responses.  He looks like a dick which was clearly the entire point of the whole thing.  Lets not start this shit about the "poor woman".



  • Come off it.  The whole thing was a set-up for sure.  The magazine wanted him to make some shitty comments, so they sent across an attractive female reporter.  She would have known what she was getting herself into. I wouldn't interview a leftard as I don't have time for idiots, so why would an attractive female journalist choose to interview Gayle and talk about all the woman he's apparently slept with. The reaction to what is clearly a contrived setup situation is equally as shitty as his responses.  He looks like a dick which was clearly the entire point of the whole thing.  Lets not start this shit about the "poor woman".I haven't read the article, nor was I an attendee at the interview, but Charlotte Edwardes is an interviewer and feature writer for the Times. It's unlikely they said Gayle's agreed to an interview so send a moderately attractive woman in an inappropriate dress in the hope that he makes a dick of himself. But having done so, of course they've amplified the awareness in order to sell copy. That's what the media does when an interviewee trods on their dick.Or was his dickishness with Mel McLaughlin a set up too?


Log in to reply