Manly Inclusive Pride jersey backlash

[earl]

The think I find confusing is that people are saying the players are being excluded when they chose to stand down. So if I decide against going to a work function does that mean I am being excluded even tho it was my choice?.

I agree. There is no one being forced here or anything like that.

It's cancel culture in action but this time it's on the side of the people who typically rail against that.

It's another interesting point about this situation.

If anyone supports their actions they cannot complain about cancel culture or they are hypocritical,

 

[earl]

I dont think the players were excluded. The players were certainly excluded from the discussion or the decision behind the jersey, which of course is the whole problem.

Assuming if they were consulted they would have agreed with the decision. I'm not sure that is true.

There was something I learned in management. There is no use consulting if you aren't going to listen. It's ruder than consulting and then completely ignoring their opinions.

 

[CloudyGlock]

I agree. There is no one being forced here or anything like that.

It's cancel culture in action but this time it's on the side of the people who typically rail against that.

It's another interesting point about this situation.

If anyone supports their actions they cannot complain about cancel culture or they are hypocritical,

Why do you say it has anything to do with "cancel culture"?

Surely it is the opposite of cancel culture? Manly have made a decision and an action that a group of people/players disagree with on a cultural level. Manly respect the opposing view and allow them to sit out the game and then accept them back without repurcussions. The coach comes out and says the opposing players should be respected and protected. No one sacked or cancelled, opposing views respected and coexisting.

Where is the "cancel culture?.

Actual cancel culture would be if Manly cave in to the baying social media calling for players to be sacked.

 

[CloudyGlock]

Assuming if they were consulted they would have agreed with the decision. I'm not sure that is true.

There was something I learned in management. There is no use consulting if you aren't going to listen. It's ruder than consulting and then completely ignoring their opinions.

Earl, do you realise that you just disagreed with yourself in the one post?

Consultation DOES mean you have to listen and Manly would have had to listen to the players opinion. If the club went ahead with the decision without that agreement, its hardly consultation is it?

Are you suggesting that if Manly had "consulted" with the players first that those players would have cast aside their culture and principles?

 

[earl]

Im not sure bigotry is the only reason for this. Its equally likely that these players are tolerant and accepting of LGBT people but do not want to publicly promote something that is against their culture.

That would be interesting. How would we know this ?

This if true opens up a whole other can of worms. It's makes the culture so bad which comes back to my suggestion that religion has to change.

 

[earl]

Why do you say it has anything to do with "cancel culture"?

They refuse to play. Just as people cancel because they don't like something. They've said we won't play.

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

There’s too much finger pointing on both sides of this. Realistically an open discourse about why the Manly club felt this was important for their club with the players having an opportunity to express why they didn’t believe they could go ahead is what was required. Without an open discourse it is just each side digging their heels in with neither side really learning anything. Hopefully there is an opportunity for everyone to grow from the fall out from this.

 

[The SHADOW]

There’s too much finger pointing on both sides of this. Realistically an open discourse about why the Manly club felt this was important for their club with the players having an opportunity to express why they didn’t believe they could go ahead is what was required. Without an open discourse it is just each side digging their heels in with neither side really learning anything. Hopefully there is an opportunity for everyone to grow from the fall out from this.

Where does the buck stop ?

 

[earl]

Earl, do you realise that you just disagreed with yourself in the one post?

Consultation DOES mean you have to listen and Manly would have had to listen to the players opinion. If the club went ahead with the decision without that agreement, its hardly consultation is it?

Are you suggesting that if Manly had "consulted" with the players first that those players would have cast aside their culture and principles?

Not really. I do try and view things from different viewpoints though. Let me clarify though.

It's good speaking without the emotion as well. Thank You.

I'm suggesting if Manly had consulted with the players they would have still said no I'm not wearing that jersey. At the same time people are pushing to provide support to the non-heterosexual community and they state well there is no choice.

So if you are going to consult as you state you have to listen and adjust but if they weren't willing to adjust then consulting is stupid.

The principle I learnt in management is don't do this. If you are going to make a hard decision and you always intend to make the hard decision do not consult.

Does that make sense ?

 

[earl]

There’s too much finger pointing on both sides of this. Realistically an open discourse about why the Manly club felt this was important for their club with the players having an opportunity to express why they didn’t believe they could go ahead is what was required. Without an open discourse it is just each side digging their heels in with neither side really learning anything. Hopefully there is an opportunity for everyone to grow from the fall out from this.

I hope the NRL looks at this and does something about. I saw Israel Folau's wife called the NRL boss a hypocrite. She isn't exactly right but I get her point.

The difference is Folau was openly preaching hatred towards gay people. These players are just stating we don't agree with it and we won't participate.

I hope something comes out of this but I don't see anything really changing unless religions change and start accepting that a person's sexuality is not a big deal.

 

[CloudyGlock]

Not really. I do try and view things from different viewpoints though. Let me clarify though.

It's good speaking without the emotion as well. Thank You.

I'm suggesting if Manly had consulted with the players they would have still said no I'm not wearing that jersey. At the same time people are pushing to provide support to the non-heterosexual community and they state well there is no choice.

So if you are going to consult as you state you have to listen and adjust but if they weren't willing to adjust then consulting is stupid.

The principle I learnt in management is don't do this. If you are going to make a hard decision and you always intend to make the hard decision do not consult.

Does that make sense ?

That is not consulting. That is telling.

Consultation means having a discussion with all parties and all parties listening to the points of view of all parties and all parties having a say in the decision. If one side has already decided on the outcome (the jersey will be worn) then the other party has not been part of that decision at all and has no input into the outcome. That is not consultation and is extremely poor management that ends up in very poor outcomes. Pretty much like Manly this weekend.

Completely incorrect to say there is no choice. If Manly had consulted with the players they do have a choice. The club should have listened to the players, been respectful of their culture but also explain to the players the reasoning behind the jersey and why they are proposing it. After that, one if the following were the options and the choices for the club.

a. The players listen to the clubs reasons for wanting to wear the jersey, understood and decided that they could overlook the culture and principles of their community and get on board and wear the jersey. Good result and no one is hurt.

b. The players listen to the clubs wanting to wear the jersey but explain to the club that due to their communities culture and religious principles they can not be seen wearing a jersey promoting something against those principles. Club accepts the players principles despite disagreeing with them and shelves the idea of wearing the jersey. No one outside the club knows and no one gets hurt including no one in the LGBT community.

c. The players listen to the clubs reasons for wanting to wear the jersey but explain to the club that due to their communities culture and religious principles they can not be seen wearing a jersey promoting something against those principles. Club does not accept the players position and pushes on with the jersey regardless of the players principles. Outcome. Good expression of inclusion and acceptance of LGBT, good virtue signalling, meanwhile leaving 7 players out to dry as pariahs in the media, probably throwing the opportunity for 2 points away this week and potentially seeding unrest within the playing ranks permanently.

Manly screwed this up royally but their disaster mitigation with Dessie is about as good as they can do in the circumstances.

 

[CloudyGlock]

They refuse to play. Just as people cancel because they don't like something. They've said we won't play.

I dont think "cancel culture" means what you think it does Earl. It has nothing to do with someone voluntarily cancelling something, it is about people being involuntarily cancelled by others. Doesnt apply in this case....................yet.

 

[earl]

Manly screwed this up royally

I disagree. I think you are talking about perception management and stuff like that. Yeah there has been drama but to me that is better than hiding an issue.

I think the current outcome is one of two possible principled outcomes that I can see. The second is to let the players that object play and wear the normal Manly jersey. So the players can provide support to the LGBT community if they choose to or not to. There might be others but I can't see them.

I think this is good though. It's exposed how sections of our society are still not accepting of LGBT people. It clearly requires work. I just don't have the answers on how to do this and I haven't heard any answers on here either. If anyone has solutions I'd like to hear them.

2 side points:-

1. I don't like the virtue signalling line. They might just be principled like myself (and I'm sure many other people including Trent Robinson) and believe that we should be inclusive of the LGBT community. To take one of your earlier posts virtue signalling would be these players are supportive of the LGBT community privately but will not support them publicly.
2. Thank for using the term LGBT. I kept stating non-heterosexual. LGBT is a better term.

I'm about done on this topic. If I don't respond further (I may) thanks for the discussion.

 

[earl]

I dont think "cancel culture" means what you think it does Earl. It has nothing to do with someone voluntarily cancelling something, it is about people being involuntarily cancelled by others. Doesnt apply in this case....................yet.

The people providing the jerseys have had 7 jerseys involuntarily cancelled. Someone else will wear those jerseys but not the people they intended or wanted to use those jerseys.

We can see it differently but that is the way I see it.

 

[CloudyGlock]

I disagree. I think you are talking about perception management and stuff like that. Yeah there has been drama but to me that is better than hiding an issue.

I think the current outcome is one of two possible principled outcomes that I can see. The second is to let the players that object play and wear the normal Manly jersey. So the players can provide support to the LGBT community if they choose to or not to. There might be others but I can't see them.

No way the NRL lets Manly wear two different jerseys.

There is another more obvious outcome. The whole club doesnt wear the jersey. There was no compulsion to have a "pride" jersey. If they didnt do announce it and didnt do it, no one would be the wiser and there would have been no offence or damage done to anyone.

I think this is good though. It's exposed how sections of our society are still not accepting of LGBT people. It clearly requires work. I just don't have the answers on how to do this and I haven't heard any answers on here either. If anyone has solutions I'd like to hear them.

What happened to LGBT people last round. How were they hurt or helped last round or any other round. Why the compulsion for Manly now, this round?

2 side points:-

1. I don't like the virtue signalling line. They might just be principled like myself (and I'm sure many other people including Trent Robinson) and believe that we should be inclusive of the LGBT community. To take one of your earlier posts virtue signalling would be these players are supportive of the LGBT community privately but will not support them publicly.

That is the opposite of virtue signalling. Virtue signalling is when you dont really care about a cause but signal your adherance to it just for the social capital, exactly as they were asking the players to do.

2. Thank for using the term LGBT. I kept stating non-heterosexual. LGBT is a better term.

I'm about done on this topic. If I don't respond further (I may) thanks for the discussion.

No worries, you too.

 

[hank37w]

I bet none of these players who pulled out would knock back attractive lesbians who turned up on there door

But it's highly likely that they would reject them.

 

[hank37w]

Yeh, fair enough, but you're part of a majority so you dont need any encouragement or TLC. That's the way I see it anyway?

It's getting to the stage now that the majority are the disadvantaged group in many instances.

I guess I'll just have to be cancelled for having the temerity to put forward such a view.

 

[hank37w]

I like dessie... And it seemed sincere... He wrote that himself

Poor old Des apologized to everyone except for Wests Tigers for getting ripped off.

 

[hank37w]

I thought the jersey change was the owners idea, if that’s the case then he should be doing the explaining. The whole thing smells of Manly trying to knock us off the story for the week. What next? “tales of Manly town” doco?

If this was the first episode, I'm definitely up for watching the remainder.

 

[Harvey]

I am not sure why the 7 stood down aren't playing reggies. No pride colours for the Blacktown workers jersey this weekend is there?