Sorta OT: Ines Sains Wont Do Locker Room Interviews Anymore

[TB=TD]

Since when can Roger Goodell impose sanctions or punishments on Azteca TV reporters, or any reporter for that matter? He can only punish HIS employees. The only people in this situation that fall into that catagory are the Jets and their coaches.

Roger can punish the NFL players for their unsportsman like reactions towards Ines. Why would anyone condemn Azteca or Ines? They did nothing wrong. She was allowed in the locker room to interview NFL athletes without a peep about an outfit. If Ines violated any reporter morality clause maybe Godell can disallow her?

That's simply an incorrect way to put it, and it stems from using failed logic. Once again, both sides could have done more to help themselves. Not sure how I can explain that to you any easier, especially since you admitted as much yourself a couple of posts ago.

Failed logic is when you compare an actual violation to your opinion an outfit that supposably justifies harassment. Ines can not control anyones reactions but her own. They conjured all those images/reactions not the clothes.

And how is that relevant, at all, to the discussion at hand

Are you serious? Your whole argument is based upon her unprofessionalism.
If that was the case why was Ines allowed in to interview those NFL players? Apparently Ines was professional enough.

Yes it is. She chose to wear it. Now, there are only one or two conclsuions that can be drawn here. The first is that she has a brain between her ears and knew beforehand that her attire would garner some different kind of attention. The second was that she had no idea and is therefore a complete idiot. Which do you think is more likely?

I don't think you understand the difference between attention and harassment. Until you figure that out there is no room for debate.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Have you seen any pictures of this women?

Yes I have. You sound as if you think there is nobody else in the world with similar physical attributes. In reality, there are many in any decent size town or city. The only reason you don't know it is because the paparazzi aren't following them around taking pictures of them, and/or because at some point they got tired of guys leering at them so they wear looser fitting clothes than she does.

I have known many women both personally and professionally who can look professional in order to be taken seriously, and then at night or on the weekends look completely different by simply changing the clothes they are wearing. And guess what - people treat them completely differently based on that change in attire; I've seen it firsthand.

Also, a wardrobe can only create the images in your mind. If that happens to lead to heckling and confrontational behavour it's on you. There is no dress code as well.

You're still missing my point. I never said the behavior was acceptable. The wardrobe that a women wears will or will not elicit certain responses from men. It's not that it's right, it's just the way it is; and she of all people should have figured that out by now.

Once again, dressing a certain way should not cause conflict when no one protested against her outfit.

Perhaps the Jets management felt it would be inappropriate to ask her to change; more likely they did not envision the coaches letting things get out of hand the way they did.

Again, I'm not saying the behavior was acceptable; it wasn't. The point is the less conservatively a woman dresses, the more likely men are going to act inappropriately; it's unfortunate but it's just the way it is. If you want to be taken seriously - men or women - dress professionally.

 

[TB=TD]

You're still missing my point. I never said the behavior was acceptable. The wardrobe that a women wears will or will not elicit certain responses from men. It's not that it's right, it's just the way it is; and she of all people should have figured that out by now.

Ines shouldn't have to wear certain outfits to stop harassment when neither the NFL nor her employers have said otherwise.

Perhaps the Jets management felt it would be inappropriate to ask her to change; more likely they did not envision the coaches letting things get out of hand the way they did.

But shouldn't they have known those outfits cause perverted reactions?

Again, I'm not saying the behavior was acceptable; it wasn't. The point is the less conservatively a woman dresses, the more likely men are going to act inappropriately; it's unfortunate but it's just the way it is. If you want to be taken seriously - men or women - dress professionally.

There is no Reporter dress code. Apparently the NFL took her seriously....

 

[Kontradiction]

Roger can punish the NFL players for their unsportsman like reactions towards Ines.

And he might just do that. But let's not sit back and act like she was completely innocent in all of this. After all, she knew how she was dressing.

Why would anyone condemn Azteca or Ines? They did nothing wrong.

According to you, she did...

I agree there needs to be a middle ground. Maybe Ines likes to be the center of attention whether it is positive or negative

Of course, there are varying degrees of wrong. But dressing like she did for the job that she was sent to do showed that she and her employer didn't seem interested in conducting things in a professional manner. If she had, and had simply gone with a pantsuit (like what Andrews and various other reporters wear), then there probably wouldn't have been a reaction from the Jets. If there had, they would have been 100% at fault. As it turns out, she wore what she wore. Because of this, she shouldn't be surprised that she garnered the type of attention she did.

She was allowed in the locker room to interview NFL athletes without a peep about an outfit. If Ines violated any reporter morality clause maybe Godell can disallow her?

Probably because the NFL rightfully expected her to dress in a manner befitting a professional.

Failed logic is when you compare an actual violation to your opinion an outfit that supposably justifies harassment.

I challenge you to show me where I said that sexual harassment was justified.

Ines can not control anyones reactions but her own. They conjured all those images/reactions not the clothes.

She gave them something to look at. Something that would entice cat calls. Like I said before, she's either a complete idiot who didn't see that her attire might have enticed these cat calls, or she knew what she was doing. I guess you're going the route that states that she was an idiot who didn't know any better. Personally, I'd like to give the girl a bit more credit than that.

Are you serious? Your whole argument is based upon her unprofessionalism.
If that was the case why was Ines allowed in to interview those NFL players? Apparently Ines was professional enough.

Perhaps you would like to either clarify your point, or refine your critical thinking skills. This is what you said...

There is no Reporter dress code policy but there is an NFL player version.

So, I ask this once again: How is the NFL player dress code at all relevant to the discussion about whether or not Ines should have worn what she did? Did she suddenly suit up linebacker for the Jets?

As for any sort of reporter dress code. As I said before, (1) there would be no way for the NFL to enforce that and, (2) reporters are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner. This inlcudes dressing in a way that befits a professional. In this case, Ms. Sainz cannot be presumed to be completely innocent because she didn't do everything she could to ensure than innocence.

I don't think you understand the difference between attention and harassment. Until you figure that out there is no room for debate.

Actually, I do understand it. I also understand that attention leads to harassment. And, as I said before, if the harassment had occurred without her drawing attention to herself, then the Jets would be 100% to blame. As it turned out, she didn't help matters by drawing attention to herself and, therefore, she didn't help herself in this situation.

 

[Ron Sellers]

TB=TD, I'm done. I feel like I'm trying to convince you that 1+2=3 and your response is 'no, the circle is blue'.

 

[Satchboogie3]

I have immense respect for female journalists/reporters who are inteligent, knowledgeable sports fans. My problem is that I have ZERO respect for the MANY female journalists/reporters who are really only there because they are "hot" and boost ratings, etc. I've never understood how people could watch bimbos in short skirts interviewing athletes.

 

[Kontradiction]

TB=TD, I'm done. I feel like I'm trying to convince you that 1+2=3 and your response is 'no, the circle is blue'.

LOL. Yeah, I actually said that earlier but now I'm going to act on it. He actually agreed with my point then changed his mind I guess. I'm not sure how many different ways I can explain the same point to the guy, especially when he already admitted that I was correct in my stance. So I wash my hands of this...

 

[TB=TD]

And he might just do that. But let's not sit back and act like she was completely innocent in all of this. After all, she knew how she was dressing.

But did she know it would cause her to be verbally assaulted?

I agree there needs to be a middle ground. Maybe Ines likes to be the center of attention whether it is positive or negative

Of course, there are varying degrees of wrong. But dressing like she did for the job that she was sent to do showed that she and her employer didn't seem interested in conducting things in a professional manner. If she had, and had simply gone with a pantsuit (like what Andrews and various other reporters wear), then there probably wouldn't have been a reaction from the Jets. If there had, they would have been 100% at fault. As it turns out, she wore what she wore. Because of this, she shouldn't be surprised that she garnered the type of attention she did.

There is nothing wrong with wanting attention it's actually an advantage to a reporter. I hope you can see a maybe in the statement as well. Anyone should be surprised by harassment.

Probably because the NFL rightfully expected her to dress in a manner befitting a professional.

That is reaching considering they have the right to refuse her as an interviewer at any time.

I challenge you to show me where I said that sexual harassment was justified.

By stating Ines brought it on herself is calling this incident justifiable....

She gave them something to look at. Something that would entice cat calls. Like I said before, she's either a complete idiot who didn't see that her attire might have enticed these cat calls, or she knew what she was doing. I guess you're going the route that states that she was an idiot who didn't know any better. Personally, I'd like to give the girl a bit more credit than that.

Square circle.... Who would expect sexual harassment from an outfit? Especially when the NFL allowed her in their locker rooms to conduct interviews?

So, I ask this once again: How is the NFL player dress code at all relevant to the discussion about whether or not Ines should have worn what she did? Did she suddenly suit up linebacker for the Jets?

There is no code to specify what an NFL reporter should wear.... Do you understand how that is relevant?

As for any sort of reporter dress code. As I said before, (1) there would be no way for the NFL to enforce that and, (2) reporters are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner. This inlcudes dressing in a way that befits a professional. In this case, Ms. Sainz cannot be presumed to be completely innocent because she didn't do everything she could to ensure than innocence.

The NFL can disband any reporter from interviewing athletes if it will cause a scene. They thought she was conducting herself in a professional manner or else Ines would not of been there.

Actually, I do understand it. I also understand that attention leads to harassment. And, as I said before, if the harassment had occurred without her drawing attention to herself, then the Jets would be 100% to blame. As it turned out, she didn't help matters by drawing attention to herself and, therefore, she didn't help herself in this situation.

Wanting attention and wanting to be assaulted are very different. This isn't difficult. No one can read her motives as well.

 

[TB=TD]

 

[tuckeverlasting]

If she doesn't wanna be treated like a wh*re, then don't wear the uniform of a wh*re.

and go back to whore island.

 

[Patjew]

This thread probably belongs in the political forum.

Or the boobs forum. We have one of those, right?

 

[Kontradiction]

Or the boobs forum. We have one of those, right?

If there was such a forum, I'm sure WhiteWesWelker would be there macking on all the babes.

 

[Pewsterbaby]

Kontra, go beddie bye already. Geebus. lol.

 

[Kontradiction]

Kontra, go beddie bye already. Geebus. lol.

Can't. Working until 7:30 AM.

 

[Patjew]

and go back to whore island.

Or the Isle of Man, whatever floats your boat.

 

[ivanvamp]

I have two daughters and work on a college campus, and here's what I tell our female students: Clearly, no means no, and wearing skimpy clothing does not give men the right to make unwanted sexual contact. However, men are...well....men, and it's probably unwise to put yourself in a position like that.

Everyone needs to take responsibility for his or her own actions. A beautiful co-ed walking around campus in cutoff jeans and a tight tank top is going to get stares. She knows it. If she doesn't want to get stared at, she ought not wear that kind of thing.

That said, obviously it doesn't mean she's asking to get sexually assaulted or anything like that.

This isn't really rocket science.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

That's an easy one: because Andrews and Nichols are football sideline reporters, and Ines Sains isn't. She's an entertainment reporter who was at practice to do a general-interest piece on Sanchez as a Latino athlete. Different job, different uniform.

Getting back to the initial premise of the thread: it was obviously tongue-in-cheek, and of course these weren't football infractions that affected competitive balance. BUT...

Consider that players, and thus their teams, regularly pay football penalties in the form of suspensions for off-field transgressions that reflect poorly on the league -- especially a pattern of such behavior. We now have accusations of a pattern of sexual harassment implicating Jets players, coaches, and front-office personnel. (The most serious, IMO, are the accusations that FO guys gave players female employees' personal contact info from HR records. That's a HUGE no-no.) Clearly, this has all reflected poorly on the league. So seriously, why not football sanctions?

Why not football sanctions?

Simple. Because the scumbag commish is a Jets fan.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

and work on a college campus, .

Predict you college's response to the following situations.....

1) A male student sends unrequested photos of his junk to a female student. The female student does not complain to the school. She does, however, show the photos to a friend. A year later the friend publishes a story in the school newspaper about the male who sent the photos. The reciepant of the photos says she does not want the male punished for sending the photos.

Does the school punish the male student?

2) A female student is in the male locker room. One of the male students sticks his junk in the face of the female student. The female student does not complain. Others see this occur and complain. The female student does want to have the male student punished but has decided to stay out of the male locker room in the future.

Does the school punish the male student?

 

[Haley]

This thread is so intent to ignore the basic fact that it doesn't matter what Ines wears. If the players in that locker room act out while on the job, they should be reprimanded the same as any working stiff out there. If they aren't at work then fine but this is at work, not out at the bar.

You are all intent on calling out Ines for a lack of professionalism, however despite the way those men are dressed in that locker room (sheesh, man whores!), you don't see her slapping them on their backsides and asking if "fries come with that shake", now do you?

Sorry folks but I think some of you should check a mirror, your sexism is showing...

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

This thread is so intent to ignore the basic fact

And plenty of folks are intent one ignoring a basic fact that she was in a MALE locker room.

My position has not changed since Lisa Olsen. Females should be barred from areas where the males change and shower. If females do enter such an area they should not be shocked, surprised or offended by male nudity.

As allowing male reporters to enter the locker room and not allow female reports would be discrimination, the locker room should be a player only location and interviews confined the field, hallways, and other locations set up to allow the media to interact with players when all parties are fully dressed.

The one exception I would make to this blanket prohibition would for 30-45 mins post a championship win, in which media members, owner, family etc would gather for the traditional dousing of champaign etc. During this period the players would be told to keep their clothing on. Once all the media (male and female) and all females are cleared out the players can shower and change.