julesmoto said..
Yara has the right attitude but the original post contained a link to a blatantly feminist/woke article which is all too prevalent today and is a perfect example of how the media brainwashes our society including the intellectual minnows who think that I am criticizing women in the workforce generally rather than the differential way they are treated when they screw up.
I also don't appreciate ageist slurs from people who have not only missed the point of my comment but resort to slurs in order to bolster their inability to make a proper argument.
I kind of expected more from the sailing fraternity but hey I guess this is the internet after all and the woke brainwashing of our age pervades all facets of society.
Since you seem to like old-fashioned frankness and insults, let's play it your way - your claim that "she is a woman so she can't be criticized by the media or indeed probably anyone in the government or public service/defence job" is a lie. Women can be and are criticised by the media and government; look at the insults copped by Gillard, Credlin, Liz Truss, NSW police commissioner Karen Webb and many others. Your claim that women can't be criticised is BS, pure and simple.
You claimed that "(w)hen I start reading things like falling in love with her country on a camper van tour in an article about a captain losing a ship I know what forces are at play" so it seems that you are trying to say that the article shows bias because it mentions why the captain moved to NZ. That's just not logical - there was lots of media about why Team NZ sailors moved to Switzerland, there's media about why NZ police officers are moving to Qld, there has been media about why an Australian Olympic cyclist has moved to the UK, and many similar articles.
In other words, it's common to have media pieces about the reasons why men move from one country to another, so there is no logical reason to see "forces at play" when one media piece mentions why a woman has moved from one country to another. To see some "forces at play" when the media treats a women just like it treats men is not logical.
There's also nothing sexist or novel in saying that a ship was handled well after a grounding - for example, after HMS Nottingham hit Wolf Rock off Lord Howe, the Royal Navy spokesman said it was "in good hands", that the ship would being handled with "great professionalism" and the captain was praised for "tenacity, courage and leadership" after the ship went aground. When the US minesweeper Guardian was lost on a charted shoal, the crew was criticised for running it aground but praised for their "heroic" actions afterwards.
The simple truth is that men who run ships aground can be praised for their actions afterwards, so it's perfectly reasonable to praise a women who runs a ship aground for her actions afterwards. It is sexist nonsense to complain when women get praised when men in the same situation have been praised without complaint.
If you don't like copping "ageist slurs" then perhaps you shouldn't insult others - or do you think you have the right to throw insults but are somehow protected from getting criticism in return?
Oh, and since our information from ECS directly contradicts your claims and ECS has been in the navy doing the job the RNZN ship was on at the time of the loss, surely any reasonable person would accept that ECS is far more aware of this sort of situation than you are and therefore you could learn from them rather than sling insults.
