But is there a difference in the degree in concern? Cause what people do in response will be different depending on how worried they are.
You're ignoring the fact that a cabbie would most likely not have subjected a man to that situation in the first place.
Nice false equivalence. You're the one who said these situations are comparable without any evidence and you still haven't provided any.
What are you even trying to argue here? Good grief, this is embarrassing
This nailed it but there don`t seem to be enough people on here who understand these points and the ones I made. Context is crucial to having understanding of situations in life that get people stirred up and it`s clear to me that the context of over privileged celebrity sports `stars` is being dismissed as not important or not important enough in this case.Well, Kerr did hide behind every culture war excuse going. Non white, a woman, gay, privilege, and the best part "I had Sarah Everard on my mind". She was drunk, acted like a cnut and was treated like one. But those things she hid behind have everyone coming out to make excuses for her. You acting now, like you arent all balls deep in the culture war is disingenuous as feck. Because the culture wars, are the only reason to defend someone who threw up in taxi, refused to pay the cleaning, had her girlfriend kick out the windows, and then start mouthing off to cops "Is this a race thing?" and "You are stupid and white".
Remember when Mel Gibson got arrested for being drunk, and started mouthing off anti Jewish shit at the Jewish officer arresting him? Were you there, pearls in hand, chatting a lot of shit about the culture wars? Cos this is exactly like that. Famous person is drunk, acting like a cnut, mouthing off bigoted nonsense, and is rightfully arrested for it. There is no difference. Other than the obvious gay, woman, privilege, Sarah Everard. Everyone else, like your friends, would have taken the slap on the wrist, and went about their day. She wanted to make it culture war bullshit. And here we all are, talking about anything other than what she actually did. And thats 100% on her for making it her defence.
Whats the saying you all love so much? Give your head a wobble? Cos you calling out others for "culture wars" is just laughable. This whole thread is nothing but culture wars shit. And now your all piling on a woman for having an opinion? Why are you all so sexist?
No one has said that men can't feel threatened. But you are being obtuse if you think that those fears are even remotely comparable in terms of rationality.
Why the feck are Australian pieces that came out defending her and would subsequently be proved to be correct in a court of law triggering you to this extent?
Yes, the title of this thread still applies. Keep ignoring context and facts that you clearly feel threatened by for some reason. It seems time to change your user name and make it shorter. Have a nice life.
Solid rebuttal to literally nothing. Ah well, it's always a pity to see a snowflake triggered so badly they can't come up with a coherent response. Have a nice bigoted life!
Really? I always assumed that she was indigenous until I found out she had Indian and Pilipino heritage. It never occurred to me that she was Anglo.
Oh ffs.
That title is gone. You can stop trying to bait people now.
I`m sorry for you that you lack basic reading comprehension skills and have to put your own trollish twist on things. The thread was started with that title because as soon as it was known that Sam Kerr was the accused, all the apologists especially in the Australian media and politics on the grounds of her supposed exceptionalism started the stanning in the media for her and excusing her before finding out details.
I just removed your spin on the story from the thread title. Despite your very strong opinions, it's not a cut and dry situation, and the title doesn't help in what's already a heated discussion. If you like facts, that there is a pretty clear one.
Oh how we long for a time when women could freely advocate, without comment from other posters, for other women not to be concerned about being subject to depravation of their liberty in a locked car, driven by a man, going who knows where. And then not pipe down like a good little missy when told to by an authority figure.
It's the caf, I expect it tbh.
Also the legal system.
Likewise, nobody here is saying she did nothing wrong. Just giving context to her behaviour.
Who said that it was necessary to wiggle out of a moving car? You mean they in their drunken state was so sure the driver was going rape or kill them (or both) that they figured they would kill the driver first before he could drive them to an unknown location? Or did they figure if they were violent enough they could convince the cold blooded murdered to stop the cab and let them out?
The contest is she was drunk and disorderly, nothing more.
I agree, bizarre that gets this much discussion.
