The popularity of this board over the past couple years has brought in whole gang of child men who cannot give a s--t about sexism. These guys--they are not men--would rather be locked up than even come close to using the word "women." When it comes to racism, these sames bullies of women, are very cautious about racism, knowing that black men might actually fight back.
Amazing too that these sports boards are so absolutely male, esp when compared to the spectator ratio at the real games. It can be very disgusting and is the reason why the level of talk can be so puerile and even infantile.
What a terribly thought out post. First of all, it's not sexism to say that a Sains and Sterger were dressing both suggestively and unprofessionally. It is not sexist to wonder what they thought the reaction was going to be when they walked into the locker room or onto the field dressed like that. It's not sexism to suggest that these situations could have easily been avoided had both sides done things differently. In the Jets case, they could have acted like gentlemen when she walked on the field. In her case, she could have dressed a bit more professionally. And what the hell does racism have to do with this? Completely irrelevant. Perhaps you might want to rethink your point and come back with a stronger, more relevant argument?
There is no specific journalistic dress code. Has she ever been banned from reporting in any location? Or fired for indecent exposure in a working environment? And that ginger Nichols has no soul.
No, but there's a professional dress code. Erin Andrews, Rachel Nichols, Bonnie Bernstein, and the like all abide by it. Why? Because they are professionals. Sterger and Sains definitely did not. Because they didn't, they shouldn't have been surprised by the reactions that they got.
Also, how is calling Nichols a "ginger" any better than what the people who are criticizing Sains' outfit have been doing throughout this thread?
OK, Sterger and Sains employers are the ones who dressed them that way, get it? It was their job.
The reason their employers dressed them that way was for fans watching in the stands or on tv to LOOK. To catch some attention, so their message could be delivered. Again, its their job. It was not for other employees to grope, mouth off, expose themselves or act like morons. Nor was it so these morons could use other employees to gain private access to these women.
Oh please. While you're right that the employers probably had more control over it than we know, I highly doubt that they would have risked a potential high profile lawsuit by forcing these women to dress like that had they not wanted to. Furthermore, why would they care what the fans would be looking at? This was a cheap ploy to gain locker room access and notoriety for a smaller television network and it worked to perfection. You can't honestly tell me that if that woman had dressed more professionally, the Jets would have done the exact same thing. They wouldn't have. Best case scenario, they would have pointed, said "look at her... damn" (or something along those lines), and went back to work.
I'm floored that there is this much cheap sexism here. I started this thread to point the difference out between what their organization has done and what ours did in 2007. And the huge difference in severity of the crimes, which should result in much more devastating punishment to be fair and even.
But reading many of these responses, the Jests are prolly gonna get away with this.
Where has sexism been committed in this thread? Nobody claimed that these women were any worse at their jobs because of their sex. On the other hand, people on your side are calling women like Nichols a "ginger with no soul". I guess that's better? :ugh:
