Aker isn't often right whenever he happens to try and engage with the world using his mouth rather than his feet. In fact, he often manages to get the two confused, with an outcome that is too cliched to mention. But when he suggests that the AFL, with its rampant homoeroticism may not be able to cope with an openly gay man in its ranks, he may very well be right. But Aker's missed the point in his thinking that repression is the solution.
Personally, I find rather alarming that any young man would pull on the boots in the hope of one day being able to give a naked man an affectionate slap on the bum. I'm not saying that's not a dream worth having, but surely it runs concurrently, rather than co-dependently, with a professional sporting career. Acker is right when he suggests that the AFL is comparatively unique as a working environment, with regards to its rampant displays of affectionate, laddish nudity. (It's not as unique as Acker might think, but I don't think he'd like the comparable careers very much.) To that end, I am wondering if it isn't perhaps the AFL that needs to consider just how essential group nudity really is to the playing of football.
I mean, I don't recall Acker's former coach, "lethal" Leigh Matthews attributing the Brisbane Lions' staggering Premiership success in the early noughties to shower high-jinks, nor has Acker himself ever come out (so to speak) and said that it was a half-time grope - from a mate, not a poofy grope - that enabled him to (Matron, forgive me) raise the bar in the last quarter and get his side over the line. Acker's a mouthy bloke; I'm sure he'd have said something if it had happened.
I have no problem believing that the AFL isn't anywhere near as enlightened on issues pertaining to sexual tolerance at it would like to claim; so nor am I surprised that they have leapt so quickly to distance themselves from Acker's sincere, if misguided comments. I mean, at least give the man his due; he's spent more time in a footy locker-room than most, and as qualified as any to gauge its mood of acceptance.
Perhaps its time football grew up. I think as a species, we're a way off being able to de-sexualise nudity between genders, so it's no surprise, once sexual orientation is considered, that we're a comparable distance from it within a gender. Well, within the male gender at least. If anything is going to alter this culture, it's a need for tolerance.
To that end, all AFL clubs must list - and out - a minimum of four gay players. This equates to roughly ten percent of one's list, which sound about right. Either the players will grow up, or they'll bond with each other fully clothed. They say it takes maturity to win a flag these days. If you tell me that a side with openly gay players can't integrate their differences into a cohesive whole and succeed, then I'll tell you you're a bigot. Why? Because in years gone by, it was skin colour, not sexual preference. Acker is to be admired for worrying for the first, brave man who outs himself in the AFL, but he's wrong to think that the players, nor the code, isn't ready to embrace it. And, after the Eagles, I'll happily barrack for the side who possesses the player who first takes that step.
Unless, of course, they play for Collingwood. With regards to the Pies, I am unabashedly prejudiced.
No comments:
Post a Comment