Comments on: Keeping women in their place: on the Brownlow red carpet. Wearing dresses.

By: EnergyPedant

EnergyPedant — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:31:17 +0000

You forget the say at the end “You know it makes sense”.

By: Ilona

Ilona — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:11:54 +0000

Ben, you are hilarious. I get you. Don’t listen to the haters.

By: JaneShaw

JaneShaw — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:34:29 +0000

Note to self: write something this week that can legitimatly contain the word numpty.

By: bpobjie

bpobjie — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:38:45 +0000

Piers, I only have three readers. They all suffer from multiple personality disorder.

By: meski

meski — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:43:31 +0000

Piers, I thought they were the same readers.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:28:24 +0000

BEN BOBJIE: Quite brilliant! I am moved to apologize for my fellow Crikey readers. Many of whom appear to fail to understand irony. As PWNEROUS puts it. ‘What’s not to like?’

I’ve always thought the testosterone sodden voices of commentators like what’s his name..Yeah, Rex Hunt. Makes them sound as if they all are wearing iron jock-straps. Heheheheheh.

By: pierskelly

pierskelly — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:41:03 +0000

Are crikey readers really less sophisticated than new matilda readers?
Ben, this is brilliant satire and it’s wasted on the literalist numpties.

By: acannon

acannon — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:41:58 +0000

Heh heh heh…liked this very much.

By: pwnerous

pwnerous — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 06:03:51 +0000

I thought the hyperbole was obvious, funny, and critical of the haters. Whats not to like?

By: nico

nico — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:49:06 +0000

I must also be a numpty.

By: bpobjie

bpobjie — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:43:57 +0000

“Just remember if you dont get his genius you are stupid”

Seems to be true, but don’t forget correlation is not causation, Heathdon.

By: The Pav

The Pav — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:11:53 +0000

Don’t know what the fuss is about a women commentator is. After all “Brewce” has been doing it for years

By: hobjobbles mum

hobjobbles mum — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:29:23 +0000

I second the numpties call.

By: meski

meski — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:22:30 +0000

Heathdon, sometimes I’m critical of his work, sometimes it’s great. Not because of the subject matter, more how well it’s done. It’s somewhat as critical of the cliched way male commentators carry on, in my view.

By: Heathdon McGregor

Heathdon McGregor — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:01:00 +0000

How dare anybody not find this author the epitome of comic genius. He has taken a subject that everybody else has spoken on and found no new ground. Sorry to upset his friends who stick up for him at his posts( is there a term for a reverse troll?) and only post on his posts.

For anyone who doesn’t see his genius then you must be stupid for he is witty. (or something like it)

Perhaps next week he will take on the chaser kids sketch, or Bindy Irwin or Shannon Noll or ……

Just remember if you dont get his genius you are stupid, or perhaps you have caught an occassional weekend update in your time…..

By: scottyea

scottyea — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:25:19 +0000

Rather than finding the hackneyed protestations amusing, I’m saddened that noone thought to cut to the metaphysical chase on this one - this article is clearly a vigorous attack on the all-too prevalent and idiotic assumption that ‘it’s all one’. By asserting that men and women are - duh - different, the author has demonstrated a non-zombie-like grasp on reality. Bravo.

To criticise the messenger, i.e. this article, is to miss the point altogether.

By: bpobjie

bpobjie — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:28:39 +0000

I found the fatal flaw in your argument Lolo; Channel Ten didn’t have the AFL rights pre-Pankhurst!

Check and mate, my friend.

By: lolo

lolo — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:14:26 +0000

Look, I don’t care if people like or don’t like a female game caller, that’s their preference…personally I hate football so much that any novelty factor like the above is the only thing that might pique my interest…but it’s this hackneyed mocking of women taking non-traditional roles that I do find on the nose - if it’s meant as a humorous but genuine argument, it’s offensive and besides that an old anti-feminist joking stance that’s been around pre-Pankhurst, and if it’s a parody, it’s still an old joke that’s been around pre-Pankhurst. If you really have a problem about her work, fine, but don’t trot out your vaudeville witticisms, it’s all too tiresome.

By: meski

meski — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:55:21 +0000

Ben, I think that’s come thru babelfish.

By: bpobjie

bpobjie — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:35:40 +0000

“Was it for the sake of wording a feeling or are you really meaning something? Are you actually a woman with lots of humour ? Are you trying to reestablish a limit that you deeply miss or that you need to be able to live in this world ? Are you trying to do so by addressing the most classical issue?”

Is your comment of the good, or have me apology nice you bad me sent?

By: bpobjie

bpobjie — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:26:51 +0000

GEF, I vote for your sterling use of the under-used word “numpties”.

By: gef05

gef05 — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:00:11 +0000

Not sure what was funnier. The article, or the numpties who have no clue as to what the intent of the article is.

By: gaetane potard

gaetane potard — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:06:05 +0000

Was it for the sake of wording a feeling or are you really meaning something? Are you actually a woman with lots of humour ? Are you trying to reestablish a limit that you deeply miss or that you need to be able to live in this world ? Are you trying to do so by addressing the most classical issue? If it is just ‘this’….then i really dont understand the point of publishing it.

By: meski

meski — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:58:47 +0000

J-Boy, it’s like commentating on their handbags then?

By: j-boy57

j-boy57 — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:34:17 +0000

she’s only doing tigers and hawks games though
cause they play likes like girls, so its more of an
interpretive role….