Ines Sainz Controversy & female reporters in men's locker room
- Thread starter default
- Start date
NAOS
Well-Known Member
...and the bumping of Beantown-pragmatism with Kicky-pragmatism ensues...
Quick, how many female sports broadcasters can you name over the age of 40?
I can think of three, and only one that's 50. Two of the ones I can think of are routinely described as "ugly."
How many male broadcasters can you think of over the age of 60?
Too many to count.
You know what professions rarely have dress codes? Models.
Female sideline reporters aren't much more than models in many instances. Sainz herself is a former Miss Mexico who competed for the title of Miss Universe. TV Azteca promotes her as a journalist/model and her work bio indicates no history of sports fandom or journalism prior to being hired by the station. She's a beauty queen that was handed a microphone.
Hiring a person solely because she is physically attractive and then decrying her for lack of professionalism because of how she looks is a double standard. No way around it.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
You are forcing him to reply something equivalent to this: "Double standards are the way the world works."
Beantown doesn't care because he inhabits the position of power in this world of double standards.
Thus, brickwall
C l u t c H 385
Banned
u don't ever get cutty, do ya?
WTF?
By the way, free agency isn't used that way outside the LDS church. Most people would just say freedom or free will, unless of course you're saying that she could have signed with the Jets because of her free agency.
I'm sure that what she wears is not entirely up to her, her employer would have let her know if they considered her outfit inappropriate (take note of the correct spelling of inappropriate, the way you spelled it was far more inappropriate than her outfit). I'd go so far as to guess they suggest she dresses in the style she is known for and would probably be upset if she showed up in a pant-suit.
Fundamentally then, you are now positing that she picked this particular job that functionally requires her to dress this way (which you have not disputed) as a de facto job requirement was a choice by
You've also completely bypassed another issue here, which is that this is a de facto job requirement for female announcers but not for male announcers. That means, by implication, that the question we should be asking is not should women be allowed in the locker room (assuming anyone should be allowed in the locker room). Instead, the question should be "why do we impose this as a job requirement on women and not on men?"
But let's just go straight to what Bean and Marcus are saying, that by dressing "unprofessionally" (in a manner mandated by her employer) that she was asking for it. The assumption made in that argument is essentially that consent to sexual harrasment is inherently implied from non-explicit factors. As applied to the clothing that a particular person wears, this is a frankly unjustifiable position.
I think, as a society, we feel comfortable saying that non-verbal factors can, under certain circumstances, indicate a willingness to engage in sexual activity or at least permission to explicitly query for permission. Examples include some level of physical conduct, context of lengthy loving relationship, and an absence of significant negative factors.
But, as a society generally, we don't feel comfortable (well, I hope not) saying that because you see a particular woman kissing someone else that this means that it's acceptable to believe she has consented to sexual activity with you personally. That is precisely the attitude that underlies all "she was asking for it" arguments; that behavior that implies a willingness to engage in sexual activity generally is directed at you personally. Certainly that's the fundamental thesis behind the long-standing defense that women that are sluts can't be raped and women of "loose virtue" should just expect random men that they don't know to sexually harrass them.
Basing a form of blanket consent on clothing choice is one level of abstraction even farther out than implying a willingness to have sexual behavior with you because of a willingness to have sex with others. Choice of clothing is a performance apt to transmit highly subjective and varying messages to various viewers. For that reason, it's a lot easier to have breakdowns in communication between the message the wearer intends to send the message that the viewer interprets. Consider as an example a guy with a nylons fetish. Someone could easily wear nylons, in a perfectly acceptable manner, and have no idea that she is dressing provocatively to a particular viewer.
What about situations, like here, where the woman is functionally wearing a uniform (as covered above, effectively mandated by her employer), but the uniform is "sexy"? Like the "catholic school girls in fishnets" uniform worn by waitresses at "The Library" chain of bars that populates college towns or the Hooters girls outfits, this outfit was a uniform. When someone is wearing a "sexy" uniform, the question of immediate intention is even more murky than when someone is wearing a sexy going out clothing, or wearing clothing that she thinks is errand clothing and someone else thinks is harlot garb. If you consent to a job that has a "sexy" uniform, are you offering a blanket consent to everyone who sees you to leer or harrass? That certainly seems to be the argument made by bean here, that in accepting the job she has offered blanket consent to everyone that might see her.
What if your initial consent was several years ago? At what point are you just sexlessly donning a sexy uniform, maybe not even thinking about it because really, who does think about their uniform, and yet your blanket consent is considered by some to be in force? Point being, the idea that we can intuit consent from the changing, subjective, and in some instances totally contrary messages of clothing is highly dangerous because we are very, very likely to be wrong.
And then, there's the deeper issue about whether a woman can even consent to become public property, in the way that those who say "she was asking for it" are claiming Ms. Sainz consented. Is consent valid if you have no idea, and no way of knowing, the scope of what you are consenting to? You don't know who will accept the alleged consent or what they will do? That's not only a statement no one would ever agree to, but I think it might not be possible to agree to this - it's not effective consent.
Sirkickyass, I'm sure you are way off-base here. In fact, I'd bet the next time Marcus/Beantown/Archie Moses is hit on by a gay guy, they will absolutely assume that the gay guy is behaving in a perfectly appropriate way, the responsibility if on Marcus/Beantown/Archie Moses for dressing in amanner that is provocative to that guy, in the future taking care never to dress in a manner that might be attractive to some gay guy somewhere. Because being hit on would be the fault of Marcus/Beantown/Archie Moses, and the gay guy is just behaving like a guy.
candrew
Well-Known Member
This thread is hilarious.
This woman is a model, not a reporter. What are her journalistic credentials? None. Did she even go to journalism school? Everyone knows why she was there - to attract tha attention of athletes in order to get quotes/interviews.
We get it. The Jets are a bunch of overgrown jerks with the collective maturity of 13 year olds. Shocking. Who knew a group of professional athletes would ever act that way? And why did this happen to her and has never happened to Erin Andrews or Michelle Tafoya or Pam Oliver? Umm...duh.
And while it was inappropriate I'm still trying to figure out what transpired that justisfied the discussion of actual charges being brought against some of the players players. I'm old enough to remember the the Lisa Olson incident (a notorious ****-watcher; but an actual journalist nonetheless). A player walked up to her grabbed his junk and waved it in her face - now that's sexsual harrassment.
This woman is a model, not a reporter. What are her journalistic credentials? None. Did she even go to journalism school? Everyone knows why she was there - to attract tha attention of athletes in order to get quotes/interviews.
We get it. The Jets are a bunch of overgrown jerks with the collective maturity of 13 year olds. Shocking. Who knew a group of professional athletes would ever act that way? And why did this happen to her and has never happened to Erin Andrews or Michelle Tafoya or Pam Oliver? Umm...duh.
And while it was inappropriate I'm still trying to figure out what transpired that justisfied the discussion of actual charges being brought against some of the players players. I'm old enough to remember the the Lisa Olson incident (a notorious ****-watcher; but an actual journalist nonetheless). A player walked up to her grabbed his junk and waved it in her face - now that's sexsual harrassment.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Question for kicky or Own_Brown, intellectuals of the universe.
Have you ever gone out of your way while at work, public, or school, to get a better look at someone you thought was hot?
Do you not see the humor in throwing footballs to get a better look at the hotties in the Corona commercial?
How would you feel if a guy dressed up like a KKK-Nazi and went to BET awards and interviewed African Americans and was beat up/harrassed? Would it be wrong to assume the KKK guy had it coming?
Have you ever gone out of your way while at work, public, or school, to get a better look at someone you thought was hot?
Do you not see the humor in throwing footballs to get a better look at the hotties in the Corona commercial?
How would you feel if a guy dressed up like a KKK-Nazi and went to BET awards and interviewed African Americans and was beat up/harrassed? Would it be wrong to assume the KKK guy had it coming?
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Let's all just agree that bitches ain't **** but hoes and tricks.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
this is one of the more bizarre threads we've had in recent days
Beantown
Well-Known Member
She should not have been harrassed. But she also shouldnt act surprised. Dressing like that in that type of enviroment will get those type of results. I would expect the same if I walked into work and I was wearing a tank top and my sweet muscles were exposed. People dress a certain way to draw attention to themselves. Tattoos, punk, goth, skater, suit and tie.... etc..etc.
A. You know that her employer is asking to dress as she does how? This is a huge assumption on your part.
B. I never said she is "asking for it" or that she is giving her consent to be sexually harassed. I did say that her clothing exacerbates the situation. Dressing more professionally may help defuse the situation and reduce the risk of being harassed. Look, she is dressing provoctively and entering a room full of half dressed men jacked up on testosterone and adrenaline having just vanquished their foe. Its akin to slathering lamb fat all over your body and walking into a lion den.
You guys arguing that her clothing has no bearing on how she is treated are living in a make-believe world. In a perfect world how she is treated should have no connection to what she wears and sexual harassment would never happen.
One Brow said:
I would never wear leather underwear, let alone in public, so it is all good.
And before you go all ape **** on me, it's a joke!
unluckyseventeen
Well-Known Member
Kicky back to acting like a clown, I see. From the way you rip quotes out of other peoples' posts and act as if that was their entire statement, maybe you SHOULD consider being a journalist. I hear ESPN needs more people to drum up **** about nothing.