Nifty. Never addresses the substantive issues but deflects deflects deflects with side swipes straight back at ya, all the while talking about standards in the blogosphere. Give me a hissy fit passive agressive little break.

Yes, yes, OT, Im going now.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/06/02/punched-out-ii/

The only possible response to such places – which inevitably attract the worst sort of commenting dregs, because there is no peer pressure on people to think before they post and be accountable for their comments – is spEak You’re bRanes http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/

Beer columnist! How do I get a gig like that?!

Klaus @34

The bad news is for all those independent blogs that basically caught the wave of the Howard culture war years. Unless they’ve got a niche hook of expertise in something – astronomy, economics, law, etc., blogs like LP are going to die. Even Road To Surfdom worked this out a while ago.

Maybe, but it’s not lost on me that the Catherine Lumby discussion appears to have migrated to this post/blog. Why is that?

The mistake you’re making is in thinking its an either or when in reality its both. Different audiences and different markets different conversations.

Remember too that it’s News joining the conversation, extending on what they have done in their online dailies, the barbarians won, comprehensively, that’s why they are here in this space and will attempt to monetise it.

Good luck to them too on that score, but my bet is that attempts to monetise opinion as opposed to journalism will fail. Opinion resides totally in the realm of the gift economy.

It’s the quality information niches that will pay, witness the WSJ, so yes, News may be better off establishing that Astronomy journal now.

Yes, it’s a problem in the wider society and many efforts are being made to reduce sexual violence and family violence. It may well be that (somehow) ensuring changes in men’s attitudes will make the largest contribution. And it may just be that widespread discussion of the most flagrant cases with “star” perpetrators, could make some blokes sit up and take notice, then take action.

I’m not excusing the responsibility of the NRL in this, nor the AFL, nor any organisation that turns out to include more than it’s fair share – how could any share except zero be fair? – of perpetrators, to make a contribution to fixing this blight.

Prof Lumby has had so much publicity out of this: she would need to be a very strong and focussed researcher not to relish the opportunity to push related barrows.

Thanks for the point of detail Shaun. As far as I’m concerned, when “consent is withdrawn” then consent no longer exists. And regardless of the impetus and rhythm of events, action must cease. Simplistic, but it’s the only way. That’s worth the cogitation of blokes, too.

Sometimes a bottom up approach is what will work and if the younger players coming through come into the game with a better perspective, then that will flow through when they are senior players.

It is not an easy task. And I think Lumby and Willis and the others supporting their efforts realise that. But outside the NRL, there are societal attitudes that if improved will make their work easier.

Especially, I think blokes need to start talking among each other about attitudes towards women and well as confronting notion of masculinity. That is what the NRL is trying to do and is starting to show up discussions on footy which is a great thing.