« Time Waster | Main | Skepticism and the Scientific Method »

September 15, 2010

Dear God, Make It Stop

Recipe for a mind numbingly idiotic controversy:

1. Take one female sportscaster, obviously unclear on the concept of what constitutes appropriate professional attire.

2. Add generous dash of mixed messages.

2. Toss with a handful of NFL coaches and players, unclear on the concept of appropriate behavior for grownups in a public setting.

3. Shake things up by Tweeting your embarrassment at finding yourself in a room full of half naked football players:

First tweet about Jets She says, “Me muero de incomodidad! Estoy en los lockers de los jets esperando por Mark Sanchez y mientras tratando de no mirar a ningun lado!!

Trans: ”I’m so uncomfortable. I’m in the lockeroom waiting for Mark Sanchez trying not to make eye contact.”

Second Jets tweet, “Solo porq es la unica forma de entrevistarlo previo al partido de el lunes!! Pero demasiada hormona masculina en el entorno!!”

Trans: ”Here because its the only way to interview him(Sanchez) before the game Monday. There is lots of male hormone in this environment.”

Third Jets tweet, “Lo siento pero ni de broma sacaria una foto de esto!! Si ni volteo!! Solo veo el locker de Mark y me quisiera taparme los oidos!!”

Trans: ”I’m sorry, not even joking would I take a picture of this. I don’t even dare to turn around. All I see is Mark’s locker but still want to cover my eyes.”

4. Act surprised when the Jets issue a formal apology. Blame media for "causing" controversy.

5. Demonstrate your professionalism by showing up on FoxNews in a shirt unbuttoned below your fake breasts and (at least from what this breast-having individual can see) no bra.

6. Combine with one news anchor desperately searching for somewhere safe to rest his eyeballs:

sainz.jpg

7. Stomp all over one Redskins player who foolishly says what we're all thinking:

Addressing the NFL's investigation of the New York Jets' treatment of TV Azteca reporter Ines Sainz, Portis said that both sides have wandering eyes when the sexes are mixed in such a setting.

"I think you put women reporters in the locker room in position to see guys walking around naked, and you sit in the locker room with 53 guys, and all of the sudden you see a nice woman in the locker room. I think men are going to tend to turn and look and want to say something to that woman," Portis said in his weekly appearance on 106.7 The Fan.

8. Smother in insincere and coerced apologies.

9. Serve with hundreds of uber outragey, hand wringing editorials about sexism, misogyny and double standards. Don't forget to undermine them by posting slide shows with compelling titles like "Half Nekkid Female Sportcasters We Love to Leer At: When Will We Learn to Respect Them for Their Brainz?".

UPDATE: The dumbassery spins out of control:

The country can breathe a sigh of relief now that the New York Jets will be going through a sexual harassment “educational session” sometime this week or early next week.

Why are we punishing the entire team for the actions of a few? Do grown men really need to go to school to learn how to behave in public? But wait - it's gets even better:

Sainz did not bring the initial complaint. The Association for Women in Sports Media raised the issue to the NFL Saturday evening, after receiving notification of the incident.

“AWSM remains steadfast in its long-standing commitment to ensure all women in sports media are treated respectfully, equally and professionally while working in the locker room. We will remain on top of this situation,” the group said in a statement – which begs for a “that’s what she said” retort.

While the team is under investigation at the behest of a third party interest group, Sainz remains unsure as to whether or not she was harassed, preferring to let the NFL make the final judgment. [Ed. note: if you're not sure you were harassed, you weren't.] “I am not the one who say the charge or tried to involve all the team in this situation,” Sainz told Meredith Vieira on NBC’s “Today Show.”

Jaclyn Friedman, executive director of WAM! (Women, Action & the Media) told TheDC that although Sainz did not feel like she was harassed, sexual harassment is not emotional. “It is the sexualizing of an employee in the workplace. So the difference between sexual and sexualizing is that somebody is being treated as though their value is solely reduced to their sexuality,” she said. “It is not about how you feel.”

Friedman denies Sainz has any culpability, no matter her skin-tight outfit, saying the only way to avoid harassment is to not be around harassers. [Ed. note: nope... not. going. there.]

As a woman, this is the kind of thing that really frosts my cornflakes. No one "sexualized" this pathetic oxygen thief - she sexualized herself.

Here's a thought for the Association for Women in Sports Media: if you want to be treated like professionals, try insisting on professional conduct and attire from your members (heh... she said... oh, never mind). Better still, try not issuing unilateral dictats that place all the responsibility for ensuring a professional atmosphere on men while completely absolving women no matter how poorly they comport themselves.

Try doing that. Then you'll have a legitimate complaint if you're treated disrespectfully.

Posted by Cassandra at September 15, 2010 08:47 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3880

Comments

Happening now on "Fox" news?
I'd say.

Posted by: spd rdr at September 15, 2010 09:50 AM

I'll take them seriously when they begin demanding admission to my hootch to get my shower-room insights on the Saturday Night Camel Spider Races...

Posted by: BillT at September 15, 2010 09:51 AM

Why was it we decided that it was a good idea to have journalists in the locker room? Is that really the 'only' way to interview a player? I was under the impression that they could be scheduled for an interview, if they were interested in giving one.

(There is, I suppose, the danger that a scheduled sit-down interview might produce something more insightful than, 'It was a great game out there. We really gave our all. I'm so proud of this team today.')

Posted by: Grim at September 15, 2010 09:59 AM

I did some checking Grim and it appears that there is a designed interview room for players who don't wish to be exposed to the press in the locker room.

I'm a bit torn here. The more old fashioned side of me says that people ought to behave professionally regardless of the circumstances. It's really not that difficult.

But jeez - I am female and I have a hard time not staring at women when they expose large expanses of cleavage and I'm not even attracted to other women. I would have a similarly hard time knowing where to look if I were interviewing a half nekkid man.

The NFL had several options when this idiocy first reared its ugly head (so to speak) decades ago. I can't help wondering whether they should have just banned all reporters from the locker rooms?

Posted by: Cassandra at September 15, 2010 10:06 AM

It's horrible, I just walked into the shower room and I can't believe it, THERE WERE NAKED GUYS IN THERE!

Posted by: Inota Saintz at September 15, 2010 10:10 AM

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the standards for professional conduct in an NFL locker room are different from the standards in most environments we are likely to see. That said, wouldn't it have been a bigger story if "hot, Latin chic" goes into NFL locker room and nothing happens? I mean, I'm seeing an Onion-type parody there. Can you imagine the "tweets" there?

Tweet one: I'm so uncomfortable, I'm in the Jets locker room dressed like a "ho" and not one player as looked at my cleavage. Not even the coaches are looking. WTF!

Tweet two: Okay, unbuttoned another button pulled jeans down another half inch, and they're still not looking.

Tweet three: Doing my best Charro impersonation and THEY'RE! STILL! NOT! LOOKING! OMG, are they all gay....GAH!!!

Posted by: Rob Smith at September 15, 2010 10:14 AM

I can't help wondering whether they should have just banned all reporters from the locker rooms?

But that would just make too much sense. A locker room is not nor should it be "a public space".

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 15, 2010 10:19 AM

How is this an assault on HER?!

SHE is the one who walked into THEIR locker room- by definition a place where they are more than likely going to be changing out of their clothes.

Just to illustrate how idiotic this is, if a male reporter walked into a women's locker room, say the women's volleyball team or some- such, would we publicly criticizing the female team members for turning around and saying things to the men? Or would he be the one who was disciplined? (if, in fact, they would even allow such a thing)

Why is that because these players are male, they automatically lose their right to be naked simply because they are public figures and the reporter "needs" to get her "scoop"?

Posted by: Jewels at September 15, 2010 10:28 AM

Excuse me, that last sentence should have read:

Why is that because these players are male, they automatically lose their right to be naked in privatesimply because they are public figures and the reporter "needs" to get her "scoop"?

Posted by: Jewels at September 15, 2010 10:30 AM

A locker room is not nor should it be "a public space".

Totally agree, Yu-Ain.

FWIW, my statement about the coaches and players not understanding how to act like adults in a public space referred to their behavior on the field when cameras were rolling.

It just seems to me that if you are on the clock for an employer, you do not do things that make your employer look bad or subject him/her to possible lawsuits/criticism/bad publicity.

I think it's important to make a few distinctions here:

1. The salaries of NFL football players and coaches aren't exactly beanbag. Granted the NFL winks at outright criminal behavior all the time, but that doesn't change the basic premise that a professional adheres to a more rigorous standard at work than he or she might when not on the clock. And at the end of the day, it ain't up to the players to set the tone at work - that's the employers' prerogative.

2. Neither the players involved nor Sainz came out of this looking good.

3. I'm sick and tired of morons who want to act in certain ways and then are bewildered when their behavior causes problems for others.

Gee ... do ya think maybe - just maybe? - the unwritten (because they're so freaking obvious) rules civilized societies have lived by for hundreds of years might be based on something more than mere whimsy?

Posted by: Cassandra at September 15, 2010 10:47 AM

Caption:

[Tweeting live from FoxNews] "OMG OMG OMG I'm so embarrassed! This FoxNews anchor such a pig. Doesn't he know not to look at my ginormous heaving breasts? Hell-oooo! My eyes are up here!"

Posted by: Cassandra at September 15, 2010 10:51 AM

Well, I will say this. If the players were making rude and inappropriate comments about her and to her (and from what little I've seen there seems to be some indication that there were) that behavior is inexscusable. Calling out: "Hey babe, nice t***!" to a stranger is rude even when done in a private setting.

But that said, I agree, if you don't want to be exposed to (half-)naked men and lots of "male hormone" a football locker room is probably not the wisest place to walk in to.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 15, 2010 10:51 AM

...but that doesn't change the basic premise that a professional adheres to a more rigorous standard at work than he or she might when not on the clock.

Yes and no.

Let me pose an extreme example.

Let's say a reporter was on the boats interviewing soldiers a half-hour prior to their landing on Omaha beach. Don't you think that the behavior observed might not exactly conform to standard social norms?

Of course. You'd have to expect a strong measure of hyper-masculinity way past the point of what would be detrimental in normal society.

Now a football locker room isn't anywhere near an environment where people are prepping for a firefight, but it isn't anywhere near a suit-and-tie business office environment either.

And knowing that, just as the players have the responsibility of not making their employer look bad, the employer also has responsibility to protect it's players as well. Both the players and the team have failed in that responsibility.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 15, 2010 11:09 AM

You're right - a football locker room isn't anywhere near an environment where people are prepping for a firefight :p

I think a lot of people are failing to make the distinction between whether it's reasonable to expect lapses in self restraint in certain situations and whether it's reasonable for an employer to expect people to exercise self restraint?

Rules work because people can and do exercise self restraint all the time. And they are made because if there is no standard, people will fail to exercise self restraint more often.

There are numerous double standards here that undermine people's willingness to follow rules. The vast majority of male sports anchors I see are wearing a suit and tie. They are well groomed and attired like professionals.

The vast majority of female sports anchors I see are dressed casually. The are frequently not terribly well groomed and are not attired like professionals.

I seriously doubt this woman would have been treated as she was if she adhered to the same rigorous professional image the NFL expects of its male anchors. At the same time, I've noticed that even their professionalism is starting to slip pretty badly.

I've noticed remarks that never would have flown a few years ago. If you have strict rules and then some part of your cohort flagrantly and repeatedly breaks those rules, it's pretty normal for people to take the rules less seriously. After all, clearly they don't apply across the board.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 15, 2010 11:32 AM

IMO, they have no business allowing female reporters in the locker room until all the players are dressed....

I've been in a professional sports "locker room", post-game. Us girls weren't allowed in there until all the players & coaches were dressed. We weren't allowed into the kitchen area until all the nekkid players/coaches had gotten their food and eat or taken it back into the locker area. And, once we were in the kitchen, they'd give us a heads-up if the door into the shower area was needing to be opened, so we could be sure not to be looking that direction...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 15, 2010 11:43 AM

I also wonder how much of this might be cultural. She's an anchor for Spanish-language television. I was listening to a local (San Antonio) talk radio guy discuss this yesterday on my way home from work. Seems this lady brings a measuring tape with her so she can measure the guys' biceps. One thing I have noticed is it seems female anchors that are not American (and I think I've seen it more with Spanish language programs) dress more provocatively...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 15, 2010 11:48 AM

1. At least in our culture. I have no idea what her normal Mexican audience considers appropriate.

2. I've not seen any mixed messages in this story beyond the distortions of the press and the overreactions to the press on the part of all of the players.

2. [sic. [g] Very true.

3. Either she's ate up with dumb, or at best very naive. Surely, a grown, adult human being knows that social networking tools, like Tweet, have no privacy attached whatsoever.

4. No, I was disappointed, bordering on appalled. No apology was necessary.

5. This was a bit much, but not that much over. The women of FoxNews (e.g., Harris Faulkner) often have cleavage showing. Other of the women of FoxNews (e.g., Gretchen Carlson) dress much more demurely.

6. Actually, this is how this guy frequently interacts with the camera and his interviewee. Lots of closed eyes, downward looks, and so on.

7. This is idiotic. Porter spoke nothing but the truth, and it was not offensive. But it wasn't the NLMSM's Truth.

8. Also idiotic. And dishonest and hypocritical.

9. More NLMSM hypocrisy.

Why was it we decided that it was a good idea to have journalists in the locker room? Is that really the 'only' way to interview a player?

I can't address the venue, but it's in the Major League Baseball Players' contract that they must appear for post-game interviews if the press requests them. It wouldn't surprise me if the NFL players umbrella contract had a similar problem--I mean clause.

But as has been alluded to earlier, finding oneself in a male locker room right after a highly competitive, physical game (and perhaps more so, if the particular game hadn't been very competitive) and being surprised that the males involved aren't still fired up strikes me as, at best, naive.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at September 15, 2010 12:56 PM

Eric, I will admit to not paying as close attention to the cleavage of Fox anchors as the average man but I've never seen one with her shirt unbuttoned to BELOW the bottom curve of her breasts. If your shirt is so low that I can see no part of your bra and about 1/3 of the curve underneath your breast (and I could, without even trying) then it's too much.

There's a difference between cleavage and "sideboob" :p

Posted by: Cassandra at September 15, 2010 01:07 PM

I've been watching FoxNews for years, but withal, I only look into the woman's eyes....

I look at the image, and I don't see more than the inside swell, and perhaps the beginning of the curve approaching the bottom. But we're quibbling at this point. I agree that, by American standards, her cleavage is a bit much for a news show (and more than some of the women on FoxNews routinely display.

At this point, I still think it's a tempest in a teapot, perhaps fueled some by naivete (although after the hooraw, and her now additional time in the US, one might expect that Ms Sainz might have figured out that her attire doesn't comport with the standards of her hosts in their house) and fueled in large part by an NLMSM desperate for copy that sells, since no one is drinking any of their cool-aide on any other subject.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at September 15, 2010 01:45 PM

Oh, I agree. I should (perhaps) have linked to the video - I snapped a random screen shot. Trust me - I was watching Fox when she was on and I said something wry about her busting out at the buttons. When she faced the camera directly it wasn't that bad (see photo above) but when she turned sideways you could see a lot more. Anyway...

My husband replied, "Her shirt is unbuttoned that far b/c it's too small. She couldn't get it buttoned any farther up."

I'm inclined to agree with him ;p

Posted by: Cassandra at September 15, 2010 01:50 PM

My husband replied, "Her shirt is unbuttoned that far b/c it's too small. She couldn't get it buttoned any farther up."

I'm inclined to agree with him

Whether it's too small would seem to depend on which set of her brains it was designed to fit.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at September 15, 2010 01:53 PM

*snort*

Posted by: Cassandra at September 15, 2010 01:56 PM

But we're quibbling at this point.
And rightly so. The whole issue is centered upon the boundary between propriety and impropriety, which, in my experience, is a subject custom made for quibbling (unless, of course, you are a zealot of some form or another.) Personally, I applaud this woman for the distraction of her attraction. Just imagine how much more enjoyable that Jets-Ravens alleged football game might have been had she been the head referee? As for the Jets, if they are going to act like cads, heels and chauvanistic romeos rather than overpriced underperforming penalty-prone TV reality show stars, then I suggest that they skip the game films and just tune in "Jersey Shore."

But then, I'm a Giants fan.

Posted by: spd rdr at September 15, 2010 02:15 PM

Some good info in reporter Ann Killian's column at SI:

"...Naturally, the Internet and airwaves once again lit up over the topic of women reporters having access to a professional locker room, with blustering moralists spouting misinformation and outrage over something that happens without incident every day around the country...

Here's a little refresher on the subject:

• The NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA and the NHL all designate the locker room as a work environment. While one of the Jets players reportedly yelled at Sainz, "This is our locker room," the reality is that the locker room is a workplace where many people -- including me and other women -- do our jobs. We're not given an alternative option.

The rooms are open to the media at designated times. There is no ambush or surprise or shock element. For as long as any of the New York Jets players have been alive, NFL locker rooms have been open to members of the media to conduct interviews.

• Men are, indeed, allowed in women's locker rooms...

The WNBA -- the playoffs are going on right now -- has the same rules as the NBA. Open locker rooms at designated times. In the NCAA tournament, the same rules govern both men and women's locker rooms -- they're both open at specific times. During the regular season, NCAA institutions can make their own rules about locker room availability, but during the tournament the NCAA has a uniform policy...

• The reporter did not ask for this behavior...The reality is she came to work last Saturday wearing a pair of jeans and a white blouse..."

Posted by: Falze at September 15, 2010 02:17 PM

I found the FoxNews video of the interview, studied it most carefully with my highly trained Systems Engineer's eye, and there are two points to be made:

1) of critical importance, if one looks (very) closely, roughly 35-47 sec time frame, there is clearly the hint of a bra present at the very bottom of the opening of her blouse. Sort of akin to the exposed bra strap of a less well-groomed woman....

2) throughout the interview, the reporter maintained eye contact with Ms Sainz whenever he was looking at her face at all.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at September 15, 2010 02:26 PM

I think a lot of people are failing to make the distinction between whether it's reasonable to expect lapses in self restraint in certain situations and whether it's reasonable for an employer to expect people to exercise self restraint?

I think that's because the two aren't mutually exclusive. Both are true.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 15, 2010 02:34 PM

2) throughout the interview, the reporter maintained eye contact with Ms Sainz whenever he was looking at her face at all.

But when he wasn't looking at her face... :©)


Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 15, 2010 02:35 PM

This is like the Age of Caligula. Decadence all around, in other forms.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 15, 2010 02:53 PM

Gentlemen, a few points:

When I wrote this:

... one news anchor desperately searching for somewhere safe to rest his eyeballs

...I did not think I was implying in any way, shape, or form that the anchor was behaving improperly. Rather, I thought I was noting (with no small degree of approval) that that he appeared to be doing his level best NOT to look down her shirt.... just as I would have done in his place.

... with blustering moralists spouting misinformation and outrage over something that happens without incident every day around the country...

*sigh*

What is it about anything related to sex that causes people to accuse anyone who disagrees with them (heaven forfend!) of extremism bordering on the fanatic?

Calling someone a "blustering moralist" does precisely nothing to refute their arguments. It's a cheap shot. And since we're talking about addressing arguments, since when did the fact that something "happens without incident every day around the country" make it a good practice or the right thing to do? Weak arguments there (though I thought the 2nd half of her essay was quite good).

re:

that's because the two aren't mutually exclusive. Both are true.

It seems to me that one can distinguish between two things without saying they are mutually exclusive. Kind of the same as, "X is legal - that doesn't mean it's right". Anyway, I thought that's what I was saying here:

Rules work because people can and do exercise self restraint all the time. And they are made because if there is no standard, people will fail to exercise self restraint more often.

Finally, describing Ms. Sainz' attire as "jeans and white blouse" is one of the more amusing things I've read on this whole topic :p

Some day - I don't know when - I will finally figure out what animating principle (other than, "Dayum she's hot") men employ when judging the merits of sexual harassment complaints. Clearly, today is not that day.

I would have thought, based on many of your past responses, that you would object to the Women's Sportcasting Assn. lodging a sexual harassment complaint on behalf of a woman who (according to her) "isn't sure" she was harassed.

I would have thought, based on many of your past responses, that some of you might see an unfair and undesirable double standard at work here that you wouldn't wish to be subjected to in your workplace.

Clearly I failed to factor the hotness of the woman involved as well as her willingness to take off her clothes. There's a joke in there somewhere but frankly I'm too confused to see it.

Aye yay yay.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 15, 2010 03:44 PM

A few points here:

Dear God, Make It Stop
Recipe for a mind numbingly idiotic controversy:

Your own title and intro implied that we weren't to take this all that seriously. At least to this poor, dumb male.

... one news anchor desperately searching for somewhere safe to rest his eyeballs
...I did not think I was implying in any way, shape, or form that the anchor was behaving improperly.

My own response here was intended to be tongue in cheek. I did not take your remark as implying improper behavior on the reporter's part; I was merely, tongue-in-cheekly attempting to clarify a _potential_ point of misunderstanding. The importance of this remark was intended to be indicated by its pairing with my other point. I've written before about the power and clarity of my writing.

... with blustering moralists....
What is it about anything related to sex that causes people to accuse...?

With regard specifically to the sex aspect, that's just penis envy, and nothing more. The gender of the accuser, or of the accusee, is irrelevant here. With regard to the ad hominem attack, I just take that as the accuser's ceding of the point. S/he knows there is no counter argument (or s/he cannot develop one), and so, lacking the integrity to admit same, that person resorts to the cowardice of the ad hominem attack.

Some day - I don't know when - I will finally figure out what animating principle (other than, "Dayum she's hot") men employ when judging the merits of sexual harassment complaints. Clearly, today is not that day.

Maybe a separate post in the coming days? Do you accept homework assignments, or commissions? [g]

I would have thought, based on many of your past responses, that you would object to the Women's Sportcasting Assn. lodging a sexual harassment complaint on behalf of a woman who (according to her) "isn't sure" she was harassed.

I try not to be put off by this sort of thing automatically, although I think the Wimmin's Libbers often are overwrought or outright looking for excuses to be offended. However, there are enough cases, more in outright spousal abuse than in "mere" sexual harassment, where the victim cannot recognize their victim status and an objective outside observer needs to intervene. I suspect that Ms Saenz knows such harassment when she sees it, or is a victim of it, knows what fights to pick in this area and which incidents are better blown off, and that the Women's Sportcasting Assn. is just looking for marketable copy. But I don't know all the facts, so I must withhold judgment here.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at September 15, 2010 04:12 PM

Honestly, I doubt that sport reporting is valuable enough to merit any concessions. I had lunch today at a restaurant that always has their TVs set to sport reporting, interviews with athletes, analysis by experts in various sports, etc. In an hour of sitting there, I learned nothing of value.

I almost learned nothing at all. I mean, in an hour, I learned that two players on a given team are friends; and that two other players who are on different teams are competitors. I learned that there are different levels of outrage over the Bush Heisman situation.

Still, it's pure entertainment. It's about people wanting to think about sports instead of politics or the economy or whatever. The value-added nature of this kind of reporting is so small that it can't bear the counterweight of even the smallest, least affront to civilization. Sorry, but I think we can do without locker-room interviews; and indeed, if it comes to it, without sports reporters.

Posted by: Grim at September 15, 2010 09:45 PM

I've written before about the power and clarity of my writing.

Hey, at least people don't read your comments and then accuse you of being a bitter, man hating feminazi who hates men...and is a feminist... :p

If my comment sounded terse, I didn't mean it that way. I don't understand, but then no one says I have to.

Busy time of year at work, lot of things going on at home. And an old family friend died last night.

Where do the years go?


Posted by: Cassandra at September 15, 2010 10:29 PM

Into the hand of the divine, do they go.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 16, 2010 05:27 AM

I recently went and saw Cross Game, a story about baseball in Japan.

Not being all that particularly familiar with the sort, I had apprehensions as to whether the story would interest me.

The tale of human competition, however, became a strong draw as the story unfolded. Complete with all kinds of baseball terminology, some I even had to look up.

A great thematic difference was made between people who played baseball to get rich and famous as opposed to those who loved the game. A slight difference, perhaps, superficially, but it gets focused on with a laser eye in the show. One is able to see just what difference the motivation makes in the plot.

In this sense, the issue over the reporter is not because of the game or making competition better, but a sort of tv drama that benefits many producers and other political special interest groups.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 16, 2010 05:32 AM

Years remain in place -- we move forward through them.

Sometimes, someone will remain with a year to give you a reason to revisit it...

Posted by: BillT at September 16, 2010 06:13 AM

Well, you can keep 2008, 2009 and 2010. I care not to visit them ever again.

Posted by: DL Sly at September 16, 2010 08:21 AM

I know Sly. I'm so sorry :(

Posted by: Cassandra at September 16, 2010 08:38 AM

Destroy your enemies and rout them into oblivion so that they may never come again to our walls.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 16, 2010 09:12 AM

Something seems stuck in the spam filter.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 16, 2010 09:31 AM

Hey, at least people don't read your comments and then accuse you of being a bitter, man hating feminazi who hates men...and is a feminist... :p

I have, though, been dismissed as a right-wing ideologue. And nothing wrong with being a feminist. I might be one of those, too... See my remarks about ad hominem attacks. It won't diminish the pain of the cowards' words, but maybe it diminishes their importance.

Sorry about your loss. [sigh]

I've lost parents and brothers, but so far, the friends I've lost have been cats. (Incidentally, my wife and I discovered yesterday on one of our walks that the reason we've not been hearing the singing of coyotes that we had been, even deep into urban Plano, along a heavily wooded creek running through the city, is that there is a pair of bobcats in the area, now. The coyotes seem to have been invited to go elsewhere. There's a grade school abutting the woods of the creek bed, with its playground properly fenced off; I just hope no one overreacts and drives off/kills the bobcats.)

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at September 16, 2010 09:34 AM

- Finally, describing Ms. Sainz' attire as "jeans and white blouse" is one of the more amusing things I've read on this whole topic :p -

Recommend re-reading for context, the reporter quoted was talking about the day in question. Not sure why that piece of information is "amusing" and dismissed when so many people, including those commenting here, are implying that the behavior towards her on the day in question had to do with her attire while on TV on other days. How is that not the old 'she was asking for it, just look at how she's dressed!' argument?

Posted by: Falze at September 16, 2010 11:58 AM

...the reporter quoted was talking about the day in question.

I understand that. So was I.

Not sure why that piece of information is "amusing" and dismissed when so many people, including those commenting here, are implying that the behavior towards her on the day in question had to do with her attire while on TV on other days.

I might suggest that you re-read for context (and content) as well. Here, I specifically address the way she was dressed that day:

The vast majority of male sports anchors I see are wearing a suit and tie. They are well groomed and attired like professionals. The vast majority of female sports anchors I see are dressed casually. The are frequently not terribly well groomed and are not attired like professionals. I seriously doubt this woman would have been treated as she was if she adhered to the same rigorous professional image the NFL expects of its male anchors.

I have never seen a male sports reporter attired in skin tight jeans and a shirt unbuttoned halfway down. Never. Ever. Not even once. If I did see a male sports reporter dressed that way, I would think he was unprofessional.

This video has a good discussion of the her attire on that day. There's a huge difference between blaming someone for what I've already said was rude behavior and holding all parties in a workplace responsible for acting professionally.

From everything I have read, she was not "sexually harassed". By her own admission, she "can't tell whether she was sexually harassed or not" because according to her, nothing was said directly TO her. If we are going to police comments made not in her hearing, that in no way affected her because she never heard them then I'm going to call BS. People talk about things (including the impressions other workers make on them, their general professionalism, etc) in the workplace. Do you really want to call this sexual harassment?

It's beyond stupid for a woman to think that the way she presents herself has nothing to do with the way she is perceived (and treated) by others. However, in this case we apparently are not upset about the way she was TREATED (because as she says, she can't even tell whether she was harassed!) but by remarks made out of her hearing.

I'm sorry, but when a woman or man wears skin tight revealing clothes, the message sent is "I'm advertising my sex appeal - here it is. It's on display".

No one that I've seen "harassed" this woman. Some men did look at what she was offering and did approach her in a flirtatious manner (and let's not forget that according to her, she didn't have any problem with this). I don't get the idea that it's OK for her to be flirtatious but God forbid the men she interacts with to notice or respond in kind.

Sorry, but there it is.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 16, 2010 12:18 PM

Forgot the link!

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6868433n&tag=related;photovideo

Posted by: Cassandra at September 16, 2010 12:19 PM

It seems to me that one can distinguish between two things without saying they are mutually exclusive. Kind of the same as, "X is legal - that doesn't mean it's right".

Of course. I was just attempting to explain why the two subjects were getting confounded. Not that the should be (how's that for meta irony?)

I did not think I was implying in any way, shape, or form that the anchor was behaving improperly.

Like Eric, I wasn't trying to make a serious point about the anchor. In fact, I wasn't trying to make a point about the anchor at all. I was just poking fun at Eric for an amusing goof on his part for writing "whenever he was looking at her *face* at all" instead of what he probably meant "whenever he was looking at *her* at all".

I would have thought, based on many of your past responses, that you would object to the Women's Sportcasting Assn. lodging a sexual harassment complaint on behalf of a woman who (according to her) "isn't sure" she was harassed.

Well, I guess that's what I get for hitting "end" and jumping straight to the comments: I miss updates. :-)

If we are going to police comments made not in her hearing, that in no way affected her because she never heard them then I'm going to call BS... Do you really want to call this sexual harassment?

Do I want to? No.

But unfortunately, it already *is* considered sexual harassment. I believe the pertinent phrase is: "The Stupidity, it burns!"

The requirement is that the behavior be "unwanted". Unwanted *by whom* is not material.

This gives rise to the situation where making a suggestive comment to your own spouse within earshot of another coworker can result in disciplinary action for "creating a hostile work environment".

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 16, 2010 02:42 PM

The requirement is that the behavior be "unwanted". Unwanted *by whom* is not material.

Thank you for that - you conveyed my intent better than I was able to.

This is what bothers me about this situation. Certain behavior is always beyond the pale in a work setting (e.g., your "Nice t*ts" remark). I don't know how many of you recall my post about the women who was going on about how she "enjoyed expressing her sexuality in the workplace".

Umm... okay. So why isn't this sexual harassment? Answer: because a woman is doing it.

Maybe this makes me a horrible person or an unreasonable prude but it's not OK for women to "express their sexuality" in the workplace but wrong and wrong/bad for men to do so.

It also is not OK for hot women to act one way and less attractive women to act another. You can't have an equitable legal code based on blatant sexual discrimination.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 16, 2010 02:57 PM

I was just poking fun at Eric for an amusing goof on his part for writing "whenever he was looking at her *face* at all" instead of what he probably meant "whenever he was looking at *her* at all".

OK, I totally missed that. My bad :p

Posted by: Cassandra at September 16, 2010 02:58 PM

Forgot the link!

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6868433n&tag=related;photovideo

Frankly, I could have gone all day with your continuing to forget the link, Ma'am. The vapidity of that "interview" is all to typical of CBS, and it's why I don't watch them any more.

Some will say I didn't need to watch this one, either, but in the interest of the same journalistic completeness that prompted you to post it, I needed to watch it (remember, also, you yelled at me most vociferously for not watching another video....). Besides, it was a train wreck. I _had_ to watch it.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at September 16, 2010 03:08 PM

Do you really want to call this sexual harassment?

if they are paid to, sure, why not.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 16, 2010 04:01 PM

And if you insist on entering a men's locker room, don't be shocked by a few wagging wieners. :)

Posted by: Tony at September 21, 2010 02:29 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)