You probably have forgotten about Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website, billed as the conservative answer to HuffPo when it was announced last year. Like anything described as "the conservative version of _______" the Daily Caller is unadulterated shit. It makes Drudge Report look like the collected works of Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell. That it borrows the layout of a 1997 GeoCities website does not help, but I digress.
In a move guaranteed to offend none of the site's 14 daily readers – all white males averaging 318 pounds and 44 years of age – DC decided to offer a "slideshow" as commentary on the controversy surrounding a female reporter, Ines Sainz, working in the New York Jets locker room doing NFL coverage for Spanish-language TV networks in the U.S. and Mexico. It has been alleged by other reporters present that players made suggestive comments toward her and members of the coaching staff threw things at her during practice. Interestingly, the Jets ownership apologized and Sainz herself did not claim to be all that offended by the behavior. The Daily Caller, recognizing that this was becoming A Story nonetheless, left little doubt about which party bears responsibility in their 12-photo montage:
The accompanying caption to this photo reads, "The skin tight jeans — er, we mean, the sensible outfit that sparked the current controversy." Other photos, all emphasizing Sainz's obvious, despicable sluttiness, carry captions like "Hello, Ines! My, what a serious photo you have to headline your website!
online pharmacy flexeril best drugstore for you
" and "Sainz’s dressing for success recipe: Low cut lacey top? Check. Necklace with strange white things drawing the eye to her chest? Check." Classy. It is a logical extension of the "Ines Sainz is a Whore" meme that has dominated the media coverage.
The NY Post misquotes and demeans the reporter with this little blurb:
Sexy TV sports reporter Ines Sainz slinked into last night's Jet game in a black minidress with a plunging neckline and matching black stilettos — while insisting that she "felt very uncomfortable" when lusty Jet players made salacious comments about her in their locker room after practice Saturday.
Noted legal experts like Joy Behar and TV actor Richard Belzer were brought in to discuss the intricacies of sexual harassment in the workplace, taking care to thoroughly investigate the possibility that she provoked whatever behavior ensued by wearing clothing too sexy for a locker room full of dudes. Washington Redskins star and stupid quote machine Clinton Portis chimed in helpfully: ""You know, somebody got to spark her interest, or she's going to want somebody. I don't know what kind of woman won't, if you get to go and look at 53 men's [bodies]. I know you're doing a job, but at the same time, the same way I'm going to cut my eye if I see somebody worth talking to, I'm sure they do the same thing." His insightful comment underscores the fact that she was actually in the locker room scouting for hot New York Jets cock, not, as she alleged, because she is paid to do things like interview Spanish-speaking quarterback Mark Sanchez.
online pharmacy strattera best drugstore for you
buy synthroid online buy synthroid no prescription
I always end up pissing off both sides in this debate, so bear with me for a second. Above is a photo of Sainz at last year's Super Bowl. I would not wear that to work. Personally. If I wanted to take myself seriously as a professional and have others do the same, I would not dress like I went on a shopping spree in the juniors' department. For the same reason that I put on a tie to teach classes, reporters should probably be in business casual while on the clock. That said, the issue here is not "Is her clothing appropriate for her job?
buy singulair online buy singulair no prescription
" or "Does this total stranger look like a skank?" The issue is, regardless of what she wears, can harassment of someone performing a job be tolerated? The answer is unequivocally no. I understand the urge to question her choice of wardrobe but the bottom line is that whether she shows up to work in a suit of medieval armor or a thong that barely complies with local anti-nudity statutes, sexual harassment is against the law.
Dressing or acting in a way that could be interpreted as engaging in a little exhibitionism – remember Meghan McCain's famous Twitter picture? – is not a green light for others to engage in illegal acts. If I am stupid enough to stumble around a bad part of town blind drunk at 4 AM drunk while holding a wad of money in my hand, one might argue that I am Asking For It. Certainly my judgment could be criticized. But mugging me and taking the cash is still illegal. Similarly, by not wearing something that approximates professional attire, Sainz may make herself a somewhat easier target. Doesn't matter. This isn't about her judgment, her fashion sense, or which outfits are slutty. It is about an individual's right to be protected by the law and for people who violate those laws to be held accountable. Doing something that appears to others to show poor judgment does not mean that an individual consents to the boorish at best, illegal at worst behavior of others.
waldo says:
Interesting perspective…"If I'm stupid enough to stumble around a bad part of town blind drunk at 4 AM drunk while holding a wad of money in my hand, one might argue that I am Asking For It." No, I'd say you're Fucking Begging For It, and while it might be illegal for a starving individual living on the street to take your money, I doubt that anyone wouldn't have some sympathy for him and a good deal of contempt for your drunken stupidity.
So, while we all agree that women should be allowed to do a job without being harrassed, it's probably not the best workplace practise to send a woman into a locker room of semi-naked testosterone-charged men, particularly a very attractive woman with her tits, twat and ass on conspicuous display. Conversely, do you think a room full of sportswomen in change room would appreciate a man in skin tight clothes strolling through asking them questions?
There's a controversial court case going on here at the moment where a firm is being sued for $37 million because a senior executive sexually harrassed an employee by repeatedly propositioning her and once touching her bra strap. Compare that to a soldier's widow who gets a pension of $1450 per month.
Perspective requires a little common sense and prick-teasing a room of footballers doesn't seem to meet that criterion.
ladiesbane says:
I agree. I think that a streetwalker is as sacred in her person as the Virgin Mary — true for everyone, male or female, young or old, whatever. The issue of professionalism is the only beef they could have.
What burns me is that the most swinish, disrespectful behavior comes from the God-Fearing Family Values crew. I don't care if they cherish the Madonna-Whore fallacy, and despise all women who are not Phyllis Schlafly; espousing a return to the Good Ol' Days version of the 50s means behaving like gentlemen. Instead, they show themselves as horny hypocrites. Despicable.
duck-billed placelot says:
Waldo – so you're comparing a locker room full of rich, fit young men in their physical prime to a starving homeless person? In that we should have sympathy for them, because they're…starving for women to harass, I guess? Women being sexually harassed and physically assaulted (things were thrown at her, apparently?) at their workplace is, you know, kind of a big f-ing deal. So there's your perspective.
Ed – yes, with the 'her behavior is not relevant'. Because it's not. Full stop. On a side note, I'll bet you a fifth of your favorite that her outfits are approved – if not chosen – by her bosses. Most likely her interview skills are only part of her job description. So all this 'ooh, how can she possibly have expected anything else' is doubly crap.
daphne says:
maybe I'm copping out by splitting the difference, but it appears to me she was practically demanding comments, boorish and otherwise, which are not illegal. if I were her, I'd have worn something less provocative, not to preempt the feedback but because the outfit is not flattering to her. Since she opened the door, so to speak, I find it fair game to observe that the clothing she chose exposes not terribly much on top and way too much on the bottom. To highlight her assets, that is.
waldo says:
so you're comparing…? dbp, did you read the original post? The analogy is in the last paragraph.
Jeff C. says:
Are you really attempting to justify criminal behavior on the basis of victim stupidity, Waldo? Essentially you're arguing Might makes Right: it's okay to take advantage of the stupid because they're, well, stupid – at a disadvantage. I'd recommend rethinking that.
Further, the relationship between visualizing an attractive woman and neanderthal behavior in men is not causal – there is such a thing as self-control. It's puzzling, then, that you would stress the perceived difficulty of the men to act like civilized beings. What sense does it make to say that a woman has the right not to be sexually harassed while, in the same breath, making a parallel that declares she was "fucking begging for it"? If you've already declared that she has a right not to be harassed, then her attire becomes IRRELEVANT.
Edgar Johnson says:
This is a manifestation of what better writers than I refer to as "rape culture": The notion that someone who is victimized is somehow "asking for it." Ed is absolutely right. We see it mostly in discussions of how rape victims are "asking for it" by wearing what they're wearing or walking where they are walking, or whatever. But, to quote this excellent post at Fannie's room, "the one common denominator in every rape, despite everything women are and are not doing to "prevent" such an assault, is the presence of the rapist" (From here: http://fanniesroom.blogspot.com/2010/02/average-joe-fails-to-see-rape-culture.html). It's worth reading in its entirety.
Here, we're dealing with garden-variety jock sexual harrassment from a crew of people whose lives have been privileged in terms of access to woman who will have sex with them. So, I guess they take that as their due. Women: Just desserts. And the locker room is some sort of sacred space where normal rules don't apply? Aren't most stadiums paid for with abundant tax dollars and municipal bonds and so forth? One would think the laws should apply there as well.
No, it's not rape. But it's still based on the assumption that projecting one's sexual aggression onto another person is simply her fault. Not about the person doing the perpetrating, oh no. He has no control. He is overwhelmed by her feminine wiles. He is a MAN, dammit! Well, if by "man" one means "poorly behaved child," then, yes, a man indeed.
Bugboy says:
Seriously, this has nothing to do with someone being offended. This is pure T&A for the masses, and she is taking advantage of it with every second of airtime she gets. To wit: How ludicrous is it for her to be discussing sexual harrassment on a sports show with a top unbuttoned down to between her breasts, clearly exposing herself? This is a media noise machine masquerading as a real story about someone's rights being violated. There is no there there other than this vapid womans body, which as you note is on display for all to see.
Tim H. says:
The reporter may have dressed that way to put the players at a psychological disadvantage. Unsurprising she wishes to not suffer any downside from that tactic. Who gets to draw the line separating the prevention of boorish behavior from dehumanization?
ladiesbane says:
Okay, since some people still haven't learned that there is no such thing as asking to be raped, here is more grist for the mill: Ines Sainz is from Mexico. Has anyone here watched Univision or Telemundo? Perhaps then you have observed that the standard of decent display for honorable women involves deep cleavage, tight pants, metallic accents, and bright colors. Her turnout is mighty tame compared to the standards of Mexican television — not that it should matter. The "How DARE She Wear Tight Pants!" brigade should crawl back to the 50s, or Utah, whichever comes first.
And Bugboy, for a start: "this vapid woman" has a law degree and a Master's in tax law. I'm afraid your assumptions are showing.
Hazy Davy says:
You have pissed off both sides of me.
(I am a Gemini.)
Ms. Reporter sure knows how to get herself some press…
And many professional athletes are poopooheads.
jazzbumpa says:
This isn't the first time a female reporter has been treated this way in a pro football locker room, which as we have been reminded is fill of semi-naked testosterone-charged men, who happen also to be rich, fit young men in their physical prime. I'll add that they're also pampered, sought-after, idolized, and very likely used to having their way in most situations – maybe just a tad spoiled. Oh, and has anyone ever noticed that athletes in general, and football players in particular, lean conservative. You know – the women's place is in the home, bare-foot and pregnant, not in the workplace or voting booth crowd.
This is a fundamentally stupid situation, and without either blaming or excusing anyone this outcome is 100% predictable. What the hell is she doing in the god-damned locker room? What the hell is ANYONE doing in the god-damned locker room.
Interview these intellectual giants in the designated press room, or the corridor, or parking lot, after they have finished putting on their street clothes and are outside of the locker-room environment, where testosterone-charged really means something.
The situation is a set-up for this kind of event. After the current up-roar it won't happen again for a while. But a couple of years from now there'll be a not-so-instant replay. Upon further review, expecting humans to not act like the lowest denominator of humans is rather stupid, don't cha think?
JzB
waldo says:
We're talking about a team of footballers, not Roger fucking Federer and I'm not justifying anything. There's things you don't do in life if you don't want to be abused or worse. Don't walk into a gay biker bar act tough and call them faggots. Don't abuse a cop. On second thoughts don't be anything but servile to US cops if you don't want your ass tased. Don't snort copious amounts of drugs or get locked in a US jail if you want your brain/ass intact. It's more than common sense, it's avoiding a Darwin award.
Break that down to everyday life. There's lines you don't cross. Don't screw your friends wife. Or anybody's wife for that matter. Don't get pissed at the Xmas party and ogle the bosses wifes tits. In all of these cases there will be unplesant repercussions for you.
But dumb behaviour like this happens all the timea and this story, for mine, is just that – stupid behaviour on the part of everybody concerned.
I'll bet you a fifth of your favorite that her outfits are approved – if not chosen – by her bosses. I think you're probably right which is why I'm more than sure that this article is a set up to create a series of 'ohh men are such shits' stories. Exactly the same thing happened here several years ago (though the reporter wasn't so sexy or sexily dressed) but with exactly the same results, and the media pumped it for days.
Might makes Right – tell it to the US Foreign Affairs dept.
Well, if by "man" one means "poorly behaved child," then, yes, a man indeed. Well duh. Tell it to Bill Clinton.
how can she possibly have expected anything else' is doubly crap.
Yeah, she couldn't have possibly had an idea:
250,000 cases of male-female rape or attempted rape were recorded by police in the US annually but only 39% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported.
Someone is sexually assaulted in the US every two minutes.
One of every four rapes take place in a public area or in a parking garage
31% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger.
One in two rape victims are under age 18.
The US government policy of utilising torture rape and murder in Abu Ghraib should demonstrate that what men are or can be. It ain't pretty but it's real.
Scott says:
Could we consider, just for a moment, that this particular situation is the result of a relationship this reporter cultivated with players?
Yes, her mode of dress could be a bit more professional, but she also has ridden on the shoulders of football players and pinched players' biceps in an attempt to find the strongest player in the course of her reporting, too. (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=hill/100914). Don't the male football players get to work in an environment that is free of sexual harassment, too?
Also consider that the number of reporters who cover the NFL is pretty small and over the years, the players become familiar with the reporters and their methods.
So, yes, the players in the locker room were probably being rude to this reporter. Might this be in response to the actions she committed? Not in a "we're going to get revenge" way, but in a friendly way?
The end result here is that both sides are at fault. In my mind, both sides are guilty of objectifying the other. The problem is that the reporter suddenly got offended by it.
Brandon says:
"Okay, since some people still haven't learned that there is no such thing as asking to be raped, here is more grist for the mill"
She wasn't raped, so quit putting words into people's mouths. If you rephrased it say that that there is no such thing as asking to be sexually harassed, I'd still agree with you, and I don't think anybody is absolving the athletes for being knuckleheaded morons. But I don't think it's inoffensive or justifying the athletes' behavior to point out that this whole phenomenon of sending female reporters into locker rooms is pretty asinine. And one doesn't have to a moral prude or reactionary to think this, as your admonition to "crawl back to the '50's" implies.
Bugboy says:
@Ladiesbane:
The so-called "birther queen" is a dentist and a lawyer…vapid she is too.
I guess you have to be a man to be witness to women using their bodies to achieve their goals. I have seen it up close and personal more than a few times. In this case it wasn't even this "reporter" that was offended, but another person putting their frame reference on this woman.
Answer me this? Why isn't she a fucking tax lawyer instead of flashing her tits on a sports show?
John says:
When civilized men go to a beach and see a bunch of women in bikinis, they leave well enough alone.
When football players go to the locker room and see a woman in tight jeans, they lose their shit and harass her.
Nothing we didn't know already.
Larry Signor says:
This conversation is as ignorant as the "Ground Zero Mosque" bullshit. This woman has the right to dress as she and her employer deem appropriate. Nose ring, tattoo, lacy blouse, pink hair rollers, whatever. Sexual harassment is illegal. Does everyone get that? There are no extenuating circumstances, despite ones personal philosophy or moral view. Ed tried to explain this but it evidently didn't take.
Edward says:
"Methinks she doth protest too much."
By "she" I mean the U.S. press & public.
Every time there is a story with sexual meaning the U.S. press and public go haywire. I think Americans are in some sense sexually repressed and these stories provide a safe way to obsess over this taboo.
Nick says:
Wow, 16 comments in and both sides of the debate are full of shit. To those pissed off about the football players: She wasn't raped. Sexual harassment isn't good, but to make the immediate jump to rape is pretty hyperbolic. They're creeps, sure, but not (at least in this instance) rapists. To those pissed off about those gosh-darned wimmins in the locker room: I'm almost certain she wasn't "flashing her tits," nor did she have her "twat…on conspicuous display." She's an attractive reporter whose bosses more than likely tell her to wear clothes that highlight her attractiveness; she's not a stripper.
It comes down to what John said in the post above mine. If I see an attractive woman in tight jeans at my workplace, I might have a glance, but I'm not gonna start making suggestive comments to her or throwing things at her–I'd be fired, and rightly so. This isn't a story about some horrible attractive woman invading men's personal spaces; this is about a group of men at their place of employment who sexually harassed a woman at her place of employment, and should be dealt with accordingly. They won't be, of course, because professional athletes tend to be spoiled man-children, but if you're getting paid to play football, that's your job, and the same rules apply as any other workplace.
Brandon says:
"Wow, 16 comments in and both sides of the debate are full of shit."
And so you just basically reiterate the points made by each "side" without adding anything new.
Bugboy says:
My point is this: THERE IS NO POINT! They are using each other. The reporter uses her body to get access to stories, and the steroid stooges she interviews play up to that dynamic. All of which is played out on television for the benefit of its viewers to increase viewship.
It has nothing to do with rape, sexual harrassment or anyone being offended other than the person that was there superimposing their frame of reference on this reporter. This reporter was well aware of the challenges she faced and I submit, encouraged the behavior. THERE IS NO THERE, THERE. If this other person that was was offended wants to submit a complaint, FINE. But this reporter WAS NOT OFFENDED. GET IT?
Ed says:
….
Bugboy says:
And YES rape and sexual harrassment is illegal and under no circumstances is it acceptible. But one person does not speak for another when sexual harrassment occurs…the victim speaks for themself.
If Ines Sainz felt she was being sexually harrassed she has denied feeling so…unless you take her saying she was "embarrassed" as meaning she was harrassed. She has by all indications cultivated a relationship with the players that borders on harrassment itself. So no one is right here. Not even the person attempting to speak for her by filing a complaint on her behalf.
Bob says:
Some players and coaches on the Jets are indeed guilty of sexual harassment in the workplace. Absolutely true. What they did was wrong, they have been called out and punishment is being administered.
As for Ms. Sainz, ok, fine, she has a law degree and a Master
Bob says:
sorry – part of my reply was cut off:
As for Ms. Sainz, ok, fine, she has a law degree and a Master’s in tax law. And that has what exactly to do with sports reporting? She wasn’t hired for her in-depth knowledge of sports nor for her journalistic savvy – she possesses neither. She was a former Ms. Universe contestant who was hired for her looks. And she flaunts those looks every day. She presents herself in an entirely sexual manner and I find it impossible to feign surprise upon hearing people responded to that in a sexual manner.
In other words, it is possible for both sides to be in the wrong. The Jets SHOULD be punished. What they did was wrong. But spare me the claims of her being an innocent victim. On top of everything else, Sainz is reinforcing the worst stereotypes regarding the proper place for women in the world of professional athletics. She isn’t there because she’s a sports savant or a talented journalist: she’s there because she causes men to get aroused. That is her job. That she succeeded is an indictment of her and her employers every bit as much as it is of the NY Jets organization.
Geeno says:
I'm with the one who said her bosses approve/pick her wardrobe at work. If you've spent any time watching Spanish language networks, you'd know that women are always used for eye-candy. They may serve some additional function, but eye-candy is always part of the job. ALWAYS.
Common Sense says:
Women do not belong in a men's locker room.
Zamboni Sam says:
I'm having a problem with what defines "sexual harassment." I'm all for prosecuting anything that resembles "Suck my dick or there will be consequences" (violence, passing over for a promotion, etc). BUT – I'm less comfortable with anyone being punishing for simply saying things. I hold freedom of speech a bit higher than someone's right not to be made to feel uncomfortable by that speech. If you don't like what people are saying about you, leave the room.
And remember, while she was indeed doing her job, the NFL guys were not her co-workers or bosses. They have no employment level obligation to her to anything of the sort. She is really just some person in THEIR locker room.
I'm also uncomfortable that we single out sexuality as a form of harassment, but not others. What if you're at a Sarah Palin rally and want to continue to yell "hick retard" at her over and over? Should you be sued for "intelligence harassment?" Or how about at a Mitch McConnell press conference and you continued to yell "Hey! Turtle boy!" Could you then be sued for "Weird Face Harassment?" Why is someone's sexuality somehow more sacred than their intelligence or physical appearance?
evrenseven says:
this is as vapid and useless as the ground zero terror victory mosque debate. I have two words for you: ERIN ANDREWS. Here's a girl who's so crazy hot that some guy *risked and indeed landed in prison* to take a nude photo of her while she was changing in a hotel room.
Now, has Erin Andrews, or that other crazy hot redhead on ESPN, or any attractive local reporter been in this kind if fracas? No, because they're professionals who happen to be attractive (probably a requirement for their job, since it's television after all).
Can we please put a lid on this? You go into a male locker room dressed like you just got summoned through Craigslist's Adult Services (before it was censored) and she should be surprised she got out of there intact.
Jacquie says:
For all the commenters who think that Sainz's clothing is "inappropriate," I would like to know just how many TV reporters you see wearing shapeless burlap sacks or chadors instead of "sexy" clothes. The fact is that in the television entertainment/reporting industry, women are expected to trade on their sex appeal to get ahead. Even Rachel Maddow is subjected to a litany of "would you or wouldn't you" comments from people who believe they have a right to comment on women's bodies.
And PS…Maybe I missed the memo, but I'm not sure when it was decided that Jeans=Slutty. Was it in the 1890s, perhaps?
Patrick says:
Her "Necklace with strange white things drawing the eye to her chest" appears to be an ID tag….
duck-billed placelot says:
@waldo
So you're saying that she should have expected harassment, because women are raped in epidemic numbers in our country? So…so maybe it has jack all to do with what she's wearing? (Also, how would you respond if a woman told you that she views all men as potential rapists? 'Cause, you know, that's what those numbers tell women to do, but damn if men don't get angry if women suggest that bodily security is not that secure for women in America and then act accordingly [Maybe I'm wrong! Maybe you completely understand when women view you with suspicion.])
duck-billed placelot says:
@Common Sense (et al)
Maybe we can just let lesbians into the locker room? No, no, because the MEN could still be attracted to them, so that wouldn't help. Or what about just fat chicks! No, no, because some men are attracted to fat chicks, so it could still cause problems. Ugly women? No, no, some men have a thing for ugly chicks (presumably). So just male reporters, then. OH NO WHAT ABOUT GAY FOOTBALL PLAYERS well, those probably don't exist, right, and even if they did, they'd KNOW not to act sexually in a locker room full of men who are, essentially, still at work and don't want to get freaking hit on, man, that's disgusting.
Oh. Right.
Bugboy says:
@Jacquie
By any standards of US television (or professionalism), her clothing is inappropriate. Perhaps not for Mexico standards, but this is not Mexico. Perhaps she dresses for her Mexican audiences. It's already been discussed why that standard might be different, and I am appalled that woman are not offended by the term "eye-candy", if that is indeed the role women play on Mexican television.
Again, this means nothing if the victim of said sexual harrassment is not the one that made the complaint. She has denied being sexually harrassed. End of story.
Bob says:
@ Jacquie: Are you serious? Really? You don't see any distinction between this:
http://www.brobury.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ines-sainz.jpg
and this:
http://www.worldcorrespondents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/erin-andrews-02.jpg
Here's what I see: two beautiful women working in the field of sports reporting. One dressed in a way which screams "Look at this body" and one dressed in a manner which, although certainly doing nothing to hide her beauty, says "I am a professional here doing my job."
No burlap sack necessary.
Nunya says:
Often in America, the only difference between getting a date and being charged with sexual harassment is whether or not the woman finds you attractive. The abuses of the past are pretty much gone in anyone under 50. We know better than to grope, proposition or make unwanted advances in the workplace.
That being said, women have to take some responsibility for the simple fact that men are very visual creatures. If you come to work with cleavage exposed and a figure flattering dress, you can assume that you will get at least a sidelong glance from men. Yes, we've learned not to whistle or make overt comments but the desire to stare at the pleasing female form is still there.
How on earth are children still being born when any expression of lust is repressed is viewed as predatory behavior?
duck-billed placelot says:
@Bob
And yet BOTH of them were sexually harassed. Funny, that. Almost like what the woman does is not the determining factor.
@Bugboy
The reporter in question has considerable disincentive to complain about sexual harassment; her job is still to interview these athletes. How much easier do you think her life would get if she spoke up about harassment? Also, even if someone claims that paying a protection fee to the Mob isn't coercion/theft, we – and the law – still consider it coercion and theft.
Ed says:
I am not sure where to start here. I feel like a parent whose child just flunked 1st grade.
First, I like the Erin Andrews comparison. Andrea Kremer of ESPN and Monday Night Football comes to mind, as does Suzy Kolber and others. Show up to work in a damn sportcoat or something like that and people will be more likely to treat you like a professional.
Second, if you've spent five minutes watching Telemundo or TV Azteca you understand that her superiors encourage, if not require, skank attire. Women on Mexican TV are bimbos who dress like bimbos as a matter of corporate policy.
Third, it might not be the worst idea for sports teams to enforce the separation between the private area and media area of locker rooms. Athletes and journalists are both trying to do a job, and I don't think either group is made more comfortable when a female reporter needs to get a quote from a male player who is air-drying his nuts on a bench outside the shower. The solution is not "No women in the locker room" but maybe "Get dressed and go talk to the media in the media room."
Fourth, I'm not used to having a point so badly missed.
Fifth, it isn't remotely clear whether Sainz ever said to the team or players that she was uncomfortable and their behavior should stop. That makes some difference, I suppose, but the onus is still on the players to refrain from engaging in behavior that they all know and have repeatedly been told is inappropriate.
Sixth, I refer back to the Meghan McCain argument. If you want to show the world your titties, go right ahead. Your manner of self-presentation is your choice. It doesn't excuse or justify the way others respond to it.
Bugboy says:
@duck
I think you are going out on a limb here comparing her to being bullied by the mob. She is likely to lose access either way, as this is going to be bad for her continued access to the players. This unnamed person who filed a complaint on her behalf did her no favors.
From here on she won't be that hot reporter from that Mexican station, she'll be that hot reporter that got the Jets in trouble. Not that it's right, but that's the reality.
Bugboy says:
@Ed:
I disagree about the showing your tits…the act of showing tits is an act to draw attention to ones self, and in an environment where showing your tits is not an acceptible course of action, could be construed as sexual harrassment. Perhaps in Mexico it's permissible to walk around with your tits hanging half out but in the US is generally isn't.
My use of "showing tits" was pure hyperbole referring to what I consider unprofessional dress on her part, which is probably not under her control. The actions of the players would be inexcusable HAD SHE BEEN OFFENDED. She claims she was not. Do you continue to say their behavior is inexcusable because a 3rd party witness the exchange and "thinks" Ms. Sainz SHOULD have been offended? What right does that person have to impose his or her views on Ms. Sainz?
Bob says:
@ duck: Wow, the goal-posts keep moving on this thread, don't they? Are we talking about sexual harassment in the work place or any form of sexual harassment exhibited anywhere by any person?
And by the way, please read what I wrote carefully. I have stressed all along that the Jets are guilty of sexual harassment. I also pointed out that the way Ms. Sainz dresses on virtually every day she reports to work is in a style which would not be allowed in the overwhelming majority of American workplaces due to its being inappropriate for the work place. Where I work, which is actually a very worker-friendly place with a lot of protections for labor, such attire would not be allowed.
One more time: it is possible for there to be fault on both sides of an issue.
Entomologista says:
This is really unfair. The only way it is possible for a woman not to be accused of using her looks to get ahead is to be ugly. I spend an inordinate amount of effort to dress well for ESA meetings, because I am not ugly and those meetings are full of old men.
Entomologista says:
I just realized how that last sentence could be taken. What I mean is, I know that those old men are conservative. And since I don't want to be judged poorly or "loose" or what-have-you, I put a lot of thought into dressing appropriately. But at the same time, I don't want to be frumpy. It's a fine line.
Bugboy says:
@Entomoligista
There is a difference between women looking sharp and professional, just as men do, and using your sex to get what you want. Big difference. And I'm not talking about simply LOOKS I'm talking about ACTIONS. If anyone accuses you of using your sex to get what you want simply because you present yourself in a professional manner…well, consider the source.
Too many woman assume since THEY wouldn't screw some poor sap over for every emotional fiber he has, their fellow women wouldn't either. But it DOES happen…often. Some men sadly chalk off all woman to that category, fortunately I've managed to avoid that trap.
And I've seen those same old ugly men at my mosquito control association meetings. Yeah it's not hard to look better than them. LOL We ARE slobs.
Jacquie says:
@Bugboy–"by any standards of American television"…have you ever even *seen* American television, what with the Victoria's Secret runway shows in primetime? Her outfit is pretty damn tame, to me.
But even if it wasn't, do you know why it wouldn't matter? Read this list of women describing what they were wearing when men decided that their bodies were open for public comment: http://jezebel.com/5608138/what-you-were-wearing-when-you-were-sexually-harassed
Jacquie says:
@Nunya: You said it best: "Women have to take some responsibility for…men." No. NO. Men have to take some G-D responsibility for themSELVES and appreciate that women have the right to bodily autonomy.
Bugboy says:
@Jacquie
Perhaps Ms. Sainz would be better served to be employed at the Victoria's Secret show…as I mentioned above either way I don't see this turning out good for her. She has runway experience, after all…
Don't be stupid. I'm not talking about standards of modeling underwear.
Actually, it doesn't matter because SHE DIDN'T FILE THE COMPLAINT. Until she actually is the complainant, technically there IS no sexual harrassment, as far as I'm concerned.
Not that the NY Jets aren't a bunch of steroid addled pinheads…
Paul W. Luscher says:
I say a "plague o'er both your houses." Sexual harassment is never cool, but really–dressing like you're going clubbing for cock?What were you thinking?
Seriously ladies, ya can't let all the thangs hang out in some "fuck-me" outfit, and expect a man to act like he's got no testosterone. Sorry, say what you will, but biology calls. There' s a time and a place for dressing like that, and it's not on the job. I don't dress for the job in a wife-beater and tight jeans.
But on the other hand..let's face it–Ms Sainz wasn't necessarily hired only for her keen intellect and incisive analytical skills, but also for her ability, while wearing skimpy clothes and tight jeans, to give the Great American Sports Fan a woody, along with his Bud Lite…
MarilynJean82 says:
So men are allowed to use biology and being visual creatures as an excuse to be assholes? I'm confused: do women not have biological urges? Are we not aroused when seeing attractive men? I find men in uniforms sexy. I find men in suits sexy. So when I'm in a board meeting, it would be inevitable that my biological urges take over me and I say and do inappropriate things to my colleagues? If the UPS guy comes waltzing in to my office with a "package" for me, it'd be OK if I tried to reach for his ass? The opportunities for me to harass hot dudes on a daily basis must be endless. Oh wait…there are some hot construction guys outside my building, let me make sure I catcall them on my way out.
Nope. Somehow I manage to behave like a decent human being.
If you're going to argue that men simply can't help themselves when in the presence of an attractive woman, then all men need to be locked up like animals. That way women can wear whatever they want and be safe from sexual harassment and other offenses like rape.
Zeb says:
I can understand the players looking at her… even in the pictures it's hard not to. She is a very beautiful woman.
That said, once it crosses over into more invasive acts (and, might I add, lecherous staring qualifies here), it becomes inappropriate. There are no excuses for harassing a woman, EVER.
Since I attend a public university known for its attractive student population, I see beautiful women, often dressed even more provocatively than her, every day. Yet, having some measure of self-control and considerable respect for a woman's right not to be harassed, I (and most of the other men around me) do not make any lewd comments, gestures, etc. There are no excuses for such actions, and anyone claiming otherwise is foolish.
We are not beasts; we should know how to restrain ourselves, no matter how provocatively attractive the woman is.
Zeb says:
Also,
It doesn't matter why she was hired or what her qualifications for the job are. These are irrelevant issues. Unfortunately, even commentators with whom I usually agree, like Keith Olbermann, have given in to the claptrap about how her lack of professionalism/poor qualifications/etc. make harassment of her more understandable or excusable. They don't.
Stop making excuses for animalistic behavior.
Nunya says:
@Jacquie-
The truth is that men do, in fact, have to take responsibility for their themselves. If you sexually harass a woman in the workplace, you are pretty much going to be fired if the allegations are true and, sometimes, when they are not.
I believe your definition of "bodily autonomy" is overreaching, however. While I am not free to touch you or proposition you or use my authority to solicit sexual favors, I am free to look and to form private opinions. If you would like to limit any thought you may regard as animalistic, you may choose to dress or present yourself in a way that is less overtly sensual.
I will continue to maintain a professional relationship at all times with my female colleagues but I will continue to reserve the right to form opinions of their lack of professional behavior when overtly sexual behavior is used to perhaps curry favors from my less enlightened or politically correct colleagues.
September 15th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
@Nunya: You said it best: "Women have to take some responsibility for…men." No. NO. Men have to take some G-D responsibility for themSELVES and appreciate that women have the right to bodily autonomy.
Nunya says:
@ MarilynJean82
Assuming that you are an attractive female or even average, I'm sure your cat calls and whistles would be received with a coy smile or even an invitation to dinner. You shouldn't, of course, touch them without consent.
Larry Signor says:
@ ED: "Fourth, I'm not used to having a point so badly missed."Amazing, isn't it?
Jacquie says:
@Nunya: The point is that the men involved did NOT limit themselves to "private thoughts," and that none of this occurs in a vacuum. In a culture where women are extremely disproportionately the victims of sexual violence, we have to make a snap judgment about every man who makes a comment that he believes might flatter us. If a guy doesn't respect my boundaries enough not to make comments about my tits, he doesn't respect me enough not to follow me home and rape me, either.
Nunya says:
@Jacquie
"If a guy doesn't respect my boundaries enough not to make comments about my tits, he doesn't respect me enough not to follow me home and rape me, either.
A bit of a slippery slope, isn't it?
Jacquie says:
@Nunya: A bit of a slippery slope? Read the above 50 comments telling me that if I wear tight jeans, men can't control themselves and that's MY fault. Again, this does not happen in a vacuum.
Bob says:
@ jacquie: Please stop digging. You become more of a caricature by the comment. 99% of the men in the US have made inappropriate comments about a woman's tits (assuming we start in grade school and work forward) and yet, strangely, 99% of men in the US haven't raped anyone.
Nor have 50 commenter’s here said it's the woman's fault if she’s harassed.
If you think you’re exaggerating to make a point please select your words more carefully. If you think you are speaking some sort of truth, I genuinely feel sorry for you. Hyperbole is not an intellectually defensible stance.
Jacquie says:
@Bob Thanks for putting this little woman in her place.
evrenseven says:
@Jacquie:
Every time a woman likens boorish behavior to rape, it's no different than a political interest group likening the group in power to the nazis.
All you succeed in doing is making your argument look outlandish and non-sequitor. You're equating behavior that the woman in question herself did not find offensive to one of the most grievous crimes imaginable.
Please, you're making yourself look foolish. Stop.
And if you don't want comments made about your tits in a professional setting, put them away and take them back out when you're in a casual setting.
Bob says:
@ Jacquie: Thank you for proving my point.
Radical Scientist says:
Some thoughts:
I don't even watch sports, and I know locker rooms interviews are standard fare for post-game sports reporting. It's not like she waltzed into the men's room at your YMCA. She was supposed to be there, doing her job, like tons of other (mostly male) sports journalists. Maybe it would help the athletes remember that giving interviews is part of their job if the NFL banned reporters from locker rooms and had the do their post-game commentary from a media room instead. But so long as reporters are expected to get their quotes before atheletes finish cleaning up, you can't blame any particular reporter for doing her job the same way as everyone else. Staying out of locker rooms when no one else has to would put Sainz at a professional disadvantage, and it's unfair to punish her because someone harassed her.
Making Sainz cover up to protect herself, against the wishes of her bosses, would also damage her career. Regardless of what we think, those tank tops and jeans are professional attire for her, as much as an office drone's slacks-and-blouse or a Hot Topic cashier's mohawk. Lots of TV producers in the US and Mexico demand that their female on-screen talent dress sexily (for lack of a better word). Again, putting the onus on her to grab a blazer or put up with whatever athlete's dish out isn't fair. No one deserves to be harassed no matter what they're wearing. But if they're at work, wearing their work clothes, being harassed by a bunch of other people who are also at work, it's extra stupid to try and make this about personal fashion choices. It's about working conditions.
Lastly, I've about had it with the 'testosterone-addled men can't be expected to control themselves' bit. Thanks to a genetic quirk, I have to inject myself with the maximum standard dose of testosterone each week. Having test-run my endocrine system everywhere from full-stop to full-throttle, I'm comfortable saying the 'men are slaves to testosterone' line of reasoning is pure unadulterated bullshit. Otherwise, I'd spend a few hours a week on a Incredible Hulk/Chuck Norris meat-porn-and-barfight rampage, but I've never even come close. Yes, hormones can effect people's mood and libido. To an extent, and in complicated ways. But men are not robots or animals, and we always have the free will to not sexually harass reporters, no matter what they're wearing or what our blood chemistry is like at the moment.
Meaghan says:
This! This is why women aren't safe even if they follow all the asinine rules that society constructs for them. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
The sheer act of having tits (or exposing them completely or partially, or even jiggling them in a man's face) is not an expressly sexual/sensual act. Tits are only sexual/sensual to those pseudo-Puritans who view them as sexual/sensual accessories. Namely, the modern American man. So seriously, enough with your Neanderthal-apologism. You can't commodify my breasts and tell me how and when it's appropriate for me to display them.
Also – I feel it's necessary to say this (because I didn't see it anywhere in the comments) – sexual harassment is not about sexuality. Rape is not about sex. Sexual assault is not about erections and boobs and arousal. If we agree, which probably a number of you won't, that we live in a patriarchy, then it's impossible to disassociate power from the act of a man committing sexual violence (verbal or otherwise) against a woman. Men don't have some sort of crystal clear insight into who exactly is most likely to be assaulted based on a number of physical characteristics. The fact is – all women are vulnerable no matter what they look like, what they're wearing, where they are walking, who they look at or how they speak to a man. So to construct an argument against Sainz based on all of her titillating and tantalizing attributes is both unnecessary and completely missing the point.
Another Perspective says:
She's hot. I'd fuck her.
Entomologista says:
Before you all pile on Jacquie, keep in mind that harassment is just another facet of rape culture, which is the culture in which we live. Taken from Finally Feminism 101:
There is literally no way for a woman to win when it comes to how she dresses. I completely agree with Ed's original point – there is a way to dress professionally, for both men and women, and what that reporter was wearing was not it. Asking people to dress in business attire in the workplace is obviously a completely different discussion from telling a woman she is dressed like a slutty slut slut. But telling women what to wear will never, ever keep even a single woman safe from harassment of any kind. Seriously, how well has that worked out for women in Muslim societies? Not well.
Andrew says:
Anyone who tries to argue it's the woman's fault when a man can't control himself is beyond any help a conversation on a comments thread can provide.
Ed says:
I have been doing this for almost 10 years and this is the first time that I am both embarrassed and somewhat disturbed by the comments.
I agree with Andrew. I never thought I would see the day where I would have to furrow my brow, wag my finger, and lecture about misogyny. Ironically, though, the most demeaning aspect of this entire exchange is the idea that men are slobbering dogs who can barely refrain from whipping it out and cranking on it every time they see an ass in tight pants.
Nunya says:
Thanks God I'm a married, dried up, neutered old man that is immune to this crap. I promise not to "commodify" anyone's breasts or engage in any participation in "rape culture."
Seriously, this crowd needs to lighten up. Men aren't the enemy, we don't want to subjugate you or control you with our patriarchal ideas. That shit is long dead but the more we hear about how oppressive and deviant we are, the more we want to hole up in our corner and avoid all contact with women.
Good luck to the younger men. You're going to need it.
Scott says:
@Entomologista – I had no idea that we were living in rape culture. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Instead of treating women with respect and expecting equality from them, I should have been raping them.
Why is it that these posts bring out the wingnuts? Ed's essay was nicely written and some of us attempted to add something to the conversation through logic and evidence. The crazies derail the conversation with dogma – and that's what it is, it's no different than Marxist or Catholic dogma: men are always wrong and women are always victims.
It's shit like this that makes me not want to participate any more.
eau says:
Holy shit, people.
Are you fucking serious?
The reporter gets to wear what she (and, yes, her employers) want.
The team/franchise and the media involved decide when and where the interviews take place. No one else.
If she's fine with the interaction, but someone else IN THIS WORKPLACE isn't, then it should be reported and dealt with appropriately.
None of us know exactly what happened, so perhaps we should hold off on damning the players/staff involved.
And last but not least, this seems to be a very flimsy excuse for the msm to show the titilating images above ad infinitum, under cover of having Serious Discussions about a topic which deserves better.
Perhaps this should be what we're getting worked up about.
And some of the regular commenters here need to take a good hard fucking look at themselves and their opinions on this issue. Naming no names. Just sayin'…
waldo says:
"Doing something that appears to others to show poor judgment does not mean that an individual consents to the boorish at best, illegal at worst behavior of others".
This is perfectly true. I expect you to start supporting Fred Phelps immediately. Make sure you stand right out the front at the burial of a soldier with your Fag Troops, Thank God for IEDs, Thank God for 9/11, God hates Jews signs.
I'm sure the denizens of every comments section on the web will ratify your rights.
eau says:
@Waldo – Going by the intellectual powers on display in your 8.28 comment, I expect you to start supported Fred Phelps any moment now.
eau says:
Support*ing*. Damn. Burn fail.
Zeb says:
"This is perfectly true. I expect you to start supporting Fred Phelps immediately. Make sure you stand right out the front at the burial of a soldier with your Fag Troops, Thank God for IEDs, Thank God for 9/11, God hates Jews signs.
I'm sure the denizens of every comments section on the web will ratify your rights."
Actually, he does have that right. We can (and should) counter-protest and intelligently critique his bullshit positions, in the same way we could have a separate debate over Sainz's qualifications to be a sports reporter.
What we cannot do is attack him (or her), run him out of town, threaten him with physical violence, etc. That's the whole point of living in a free society. Your opinions can be bullshit, your qualifications can be void, you can be as stupid as you want, and you still can have the right to live with certain fundamental rights.
What happened to Sainz was not rape, obviously, but a society that tolerates sexual harassment will be more forgiving toward rape, or at least not as guarding against it. Normally I am not a fan of "slippery slope" arguments, but this one is borne out by evidence. Look at all the absurd debates our society has had about provocation and rape (see O'Reilly for an example). Don't you think these debates might have some connection to the one about Ines Sainz's dress?
Any man who claims to support womens' rights must accept the principle that people need to have self-control, no matter what the woman is wearing. Yes, men have sometimes beastly instincts; but, being human, we have the opportunity to control those instincts. A true man respects women enough not to harass them.
bb in GA says:
Using a little Obama administration logic, can y'all imagine how much worse it would have been if a bunch of us Right Wingers were commenting?
Perhaps a disconnect here?
"Oh, and has anyone ever noticed that athletes in general, and football players in particular, lean conservative. You know
bb in GA says:
had a misfire
Using a little Obama administration logic, can y'all imagine how much worse it would have been if a bunch of us Right Wingers were commenting?
Perhaps a disconnect here?
"Oh, and has anyone ever noticed that athletes in general, and football players in particular, lean conservative. You know – the women's place is in the home, bare-foot and pregnant, not in the workplace or voting booth crowd."
Using the NFL as a proxy for football players, I note that the racial composition of the NFL is:
Football (NFL):
•Black: 66%
•White: 31%
•Asian: 2%
•Hispanic: 1%
In recent history, Black Americans have voted 90%+ for the Liberal Democrat. I assume w/o proof that Black American NFL players fall in line w/ those numbers.
90% of 66% is close to 60%
I conclude that football players lean Liberal.
//bb
Larry Signor says:
@Ed: "I always end up pissing off both sides in this debate…", damned if you didn't. I just don't know how. This is such a no-brainer, one would think even the T-baggers would get it. I know, I just insulted 2/3 of your commenters. Fuck'em. May they get charlie-horses in their fingers.
bb in GA says:
Yeah, I do know that the 66% comes from 13% of the general population and that the NFL can't proxy football players. I love my numbers …and I am amazed at the storm hereabouts.
Y'all will really have a hoot when I say that I was raised to "keep your hands to yourself" and treat all ladies like they were your momma or your sister.
//bb
Bugboy says:
I have to aggree with bb here…there is no logic to the assertion that the players are conservative. However, there is equally no logic to assume they are liberal either. Other than they are predominantly black. Rich and black. That kind of shoots your logic full of holes, doesn't it?
I submit political pursuasion has nothing to do with it.
Once again this is a matter of who was offended in the workplace. You do not speak for another when sexual harrassment occurs. If Ms. "Hottest Reporter in Mexico" (her own words) was offended, she has every right to protest the treatment she was given. She has not. Arguments about how protesting said treatment having negative impact on her job are beside the point. It's her right to protest the behavior of the players…NO ONE ESLE'S.
Bugboy says:
eau Says:
"And last but not least, this seems to be a very flimsy excuse for the msm to show the titilating images above ad infinitum, under cover of having Serious Discussions about a topic which deserves better.
Perhaps this should be what we're getting worked up about. "
Absolutely!
I saw a story that was even saying the stupid quote machine Clinton wasn't even talking about Ms. Sainz in perticular when he was quoted, he was talking about women reporters in general being in the locker room, and the MSM just couldn't resist attributing the quote to Ms. Sainz.
Expatriesse says:
Wow…just wow…
I cannot believe how textbook this comment thread is, especially for a left-leaning blog. I am so disappointed.
Common Sense says:
Again, women do not belong in a men's locker room.
Andrew says:
I cannot believe how textbook this comment thread is, especially for a left-leaning blog. I am so disappointed.
Well, that's the patriarchy for you.
Elle says:
A minor point, this, but I think this is slightly misguided. Women are often under significant social (if not direct) pressure to laugh off harassment, and to underplay how distressing they find it. No one wants to be that chick at work who can't 'take a joke'. (The same thing is true(r) for the gay guy, or the black guy.)
It's far easier for bystanders to say that something isn't cool, than it is for the person being harassed. It's also true that harassment doesn't only affect the person who is the obvious target. I'm a straight woman, but I don't want to work / be somewhere that it's acceptable to call anybody a faggot.
MarilynJean says:
It's totally within reason for someone who observes sexual harassment to complain about it. Sure, they can't make Sainz file a complaint, but witnessing sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior creates a hostile workplace for everyone. Just because she's not complaining about it, doesn't mean it's not making things more difficult for other women in her industry.
Fred Fnord says:
It's really amazing… all these people who seem to think that people who show poor judgement shouldn't be protected by laws.
If that really were a rule, then I bet the vast majority of them would be, shall we say, amongst the unprotected, pretty much 24/7.
-fred
waldo says:
I was in Denmark awhile ago, in Copenhagen. One night while at the movies I went the toilet; it was as crowded as you'd expect and while I was in there, along 10-15 other men and boys, a young female employee came in and started mopping the floor.
I was astounded. There was no obvious need for it, (no spills, no hazard) she was just cleaning while 15 blokes were standing at the trough pissing.
Also while I was in Denmark, I noticed that pornography, legal for sale and displayed in most corner shops, was often displayed in a rack that could be clearly seen from the street. Some of the racks were actrually against the street window and giant dicks penetrating stretched assholes were visible to any child who walked past.
Some people might say that this is acceptable, the illustration of a socially advanced society. I see it as gross stupidity, an assault on children's sensibilities and the debasement of civilised society.
So I don't concede that women can rationalise "having tits (or exposing them completely or partially, or even jiggling them in a man's face) is not an expressly sexual/sensual act." It's as stupid as hiking on the border of a long-time war zone then whining 'I didn't know" when you get arrested.
And Zeb "Actually, he does have that right." is correct but Phred Phelps is MONUMENTALLY STUPID, FEROCIOUSLY PROVOCATIVE, SOCIOPATHICALLY HEARTLESS, DELUDED, ARROGANT, BIGOTED, SMALL-MINDED and TOTALLY WRONG to do what he is doing.
Andrew says:
So I don't concede that women can rationalise "having tits (or exposing them completely or partially, or even jiggling them in a man's face) is not an expressly sexual/sensual act."
Well, you've certainly convinced me you can't tell the difference between a sexual act and a non-sexual act, but your thesis that society at large should operate on the same level of hopeless confusion remains, well, hopelessly confused.
JMP says:
Wow. Lots of electrons spilled on this. But I've got to agree:
1.) She's wearing what her employers Want her to wear, and indeed what her audiences demand & Expect her to wear. This is really Not our TV here.
2.) If what went down was 'sexual harassment' or described as an 'egregious example' of same? Boy are we all so screwed here. Because it's going on every minute of the day someplace. Now that still does not make it right or polite. Just pretty typically human, sadly enough.
3.) If she wanted to dress better & get harassed by experts? She might as well be working in fiance, it mostly requires the same skill sets, really.
4.) And I'm truly sorry to tell you this, but yes you'll continued to be 'objectified' for having tits, some of the guys for having 'packages' too. That's not precisely anyone's fault. It's about the process of Commodification. It's not a bug, it's a design feature. Of the entire enterprise.
5.) Again, What part of Televised Pro-Sports does anyone not understand? The long didactic lectures at half time on Marxist economics? The studiously serious, scrupulously well behaved, impeccably well dressed & groomed players/coaches/staff/fans? Does anyone have this in graduate level seminars? Is there even anyone awake & in long pants for most of them for the summers? And yes, Lenin always wore that trench coat too when 'striding about' town. As (once) seen on all the statues. JMP
Bugboy says:
Elle Says:
"A minor point, this, but I think this is slightly misguided. Women are often under significant social…"
You know what they call that in the world of alcoholics? ENABLERS.
In the court of law and in the workplace IT IS A MAJOR POINT who is the complainant.
MarilynJean says:
"And I'm truly sorry to tell you this, but yes you'll continued to be 'objectified' for having tits, some of the guys for having 'packages' too. That's not precisely anyone's fault. It's about the process of Commodification. It's not a bug, it's a design feature. Of the entire enterprise."
Oh, it's somebody's fault.
Guess I need to chop off my breasts to minimize my role in getting objectified.
Andrew says:
All of these hard-nosed truth-dropping listen-up-you-whippersnappers "this is how the world works" monologues fail to explain why this is how the world must work, or why this is the only way the world will ever work, for ever and ever, amen.
Elle says:
I'm not sure I see the parallel.
Well, it's a point. The law around sexual harassment in the UK is such that employers would expose themselves to potential liability if they ignored any information about sexual harassment.
The Sex Discrimination Act (as amended), which is the current rubric under which sexual harassment falls, proscribes harassment related to sex (as in gender). Consequently, it provides locus for complainants who are not the person to whom the comments, or actions, were addressed. It also provides locus for complainants who are not the same sex as the person to whom the comments, or actions, were addressed.
A grievance procedure, which would form part of an employee's terms and conditions of employment, should not draw its own definition of sexual harassment more narrowly.
JMP says:
Yes my point about objectification? Is that even w/o tits? We could find someone to objectify butts. Failing that, thighs or feet. Or hair & eyes. (To name a few of the 'top 10' that commonly reappear). So there's really no sense in chopping anything off. But trying to better understand the process as it's yes, hard wired into us might prove to be useful to many.
And yes, the 'times are changing' but this can be painfully slow. And the legal arena is again sadly one of the last places to actually resolve the issue. If you've got a bunch of hyped up sports figures semi nude & dressing & undressing before you? It demands not only a bit of discretion, but something of mutual tolerance too. Yes, it might be 'your work place', but really? That's still Ancillary to the primary purpose of the Locker-room. And for my lights? Much of this can and really should be done in an ante-room/press area for this very purpose. Each time we have another of these silly blowups/sacres it really reinforces that.
No, athletes likely really ought not to be held to some 'universal pristine' sexual harassment standard kept under glass in the former National Bureau of Standards facility. That's just never going to work or happen. They were not trained to be closely PC minded bureaucrats or political functionaries. They are trained to use their bodies to play games few of us would or can ever master, but always gracefully & telegenically while doing so for our mutual pleasure, while typically also slowly or quickly destroying their bodies doing so. Expecting very lawyerly pristine 'white collar' standards from such crews is as foolish as it is unlikely. And yes, that's the accumulated wisdom of the ages mind you. But the while collar guys? They harass better & for longer & for keeps. With much higher stakes & consequences. But hey, they know plenty of lawyers, so we almost never hear much about it. And it's sadly rarely recorded. But look up 'Boom Boom rooms' sometime and you might be surprised how active the filed has been there. JMP
Bugboy says:
I suggest we all take a look at the NFL findings and see just what a non-issue this is…
And @Elle, if Ms. Sainz willingly works for an employer that insists she dress like a skank, and she complies, she is an enabler. She clearly has the credentials to find employment elsewhere in the field of tax law. She does women no favors retaining employment at a clearly sexist media operation. Neither do any of the other countless "bimbos" that serve as "eye-candy" on Mexican TV.
That others are offended by the treatment she is given, and they feel they must stand up for her rights, and she does not, she is an enabler.
That she continues to trade in the currency of access as she does, and her record is clear that she does, she is an enabler.
Stop defending her. This is a media side show circus and she is a willing part of it.
Elle says:
I think that it's very tempting to assume that women can somehow influence whether or not we are sexually harassed. It's tempting in the same way that it's tempting to think that women can avoid being raped. The bad faith motivation for that position is that the culture which enables harassment and rape does not have to be interrogated. The good faith motivation for that position is that none of us wants to believe that we / people we love are equally at risk of such sexual harassment and rape as women who don't follow the rules. (Sidenote: if you're interested, you might like to ask a female friend what she does on a daily basis with the explicit aim of avoiding rape.)
The remedy you suggest, that she becomes a tax lawyer, highlights the problem with blaming women for harassment. Commercial (even more than criminal, because the cases take longer to litigate) law is beset with structural sexist assumptions about work, and women are far less likely to be found as partners of law firms, even as the number of female students reading law increases.
There is literally nowhere for women to go where sexism can be definitely avoided. There are only a series of choices between the devil and the deep blue sea. I don't have the stomach to blame women for doing the best they can, however much their choices may not be my choices.
Elle says:
@Bugboy: Also, I'd love for you to point out a clearly non-sexist media operation. If women waited for one of those to appear, then there would be no women working in the media.
Amy says:
If the team feels her wardrobe is inappropriate for a reporter, they have every right to discuss this with her and if necessary revoke her press credentials. Just sayin'.
eau says:
100.
You can call me, 'Sir' says:
Hey, Ed! I'm a little late to the game, but just wanted to chime in and say that I think rape is bad! Football is fun, though. CONUNDRUM!!!!
Rolland Striegel says:
Many thanks for your time to have had these things together on this web site. Emily and I very much loved your insight through your own articles about certain things. I realize that you have several demands on program hence the fact that a person like you took equally as much time like you did to guide people just like us by this article is actually highly valued.