It's Entrapment!!!!!!

People tend to give men a pass as though they are uncontrollable idiots.

The coach staff should've told the players at the beginning of the season that there will be male and female reporters in the locker room, at which time they will cover themselves up and be respectful to the reporters regardless of anything else.

The onus is on the coaches and men in the locker room. The female reporter who is perceivably "scantily clad" bears some responsibility in how she's received. But, the onus is not on her.

I disagree with people who say that women shouldn't be in locker rooms. Most sports reports and locker room interviews are conducted on male athletes. Female locker room interviews are a lot less common just as female sports are less popular. If female reporters were relegated to female locker rooms, that would shape access to sports news opportunities and potentially shape promotions and pay for male reporters as compared to female reporters. Discrimination is based on outcome and not intent. Therefore, having female reporters who have a difficulty in finding job leads would have a discriminatory effect even if the intent seemed honest and fair.

Wait wait waaaaait. Why do the men have to learn to shut up?

Hmmm...I agree and disagree with the statement.

I think there still has to be some accountability on both sides. I mean, again, men should not make those kinds of comments but at the same time, knowing what kind of atmosphere that she is entering, a men's locker room, what she wears may deter them or goad them on.

And her just wanting to get an interview? HHHHHmmmmmm.

Now, I got a question, when can the playing field be evened and male reporters be allowed to interview, say...WNBA players in their locker rooms?

;)

When it comes to gender dynamics, males are the dominant majority. That means that their response can have a big impact on social interactions and there are instances when men need to shut up and act like they aren't moved by certain things. Or, notice it but quickly move on (since men aren't animals who can't control themselves). That is even moreso the case when we're talking about men with lots of (undeserved and overpaid) money.

The same goes for white people when talking about race, heterosexual people when talking about sexual orientation, and so on and so forth. There are times when the power majority needs to SHUT UP both literally and figuratively. It is important to note that there is a gender, race, and social class dynamic in these locker rooms that helps to fuel interactions in terms of privilege and overcompensating for a lack of privilege (i.e. Black males who suddenly get billy badass because they can throw a damn ball).

When there is no gender or sexual orientation-based discomfort in the interactions and everyone has an understanding of what can and cannot occur in those interactions. If that happens today then it can begin today.

The problem is, she isn't the shining example that should be rallied behind.

good points both of you.

No one is rallying behind her. We are rallying behind the structural dynamic. It does not matter whether it is she or someone else and it doesn't matter whether or not the target of the perceived harassment feels harassed.

To see the larger point using an extreme example:
Similar can be said for Emmitt Till. What the hell was that Black boy from Chicago doing whistling (he probably did it) at a white woman? Even a 14 yo from Chicago knows better than that. Dumbass. Does that mean that he deserved what he received, he shouldn't have been rallied behind, and we have to lose the larger point because of him, specifically?

Coming back around again...and dayum that was an extreme yet good example, I still to a degree think that one has to be aware of their surroundings, even by going on the supposition of what you proposed, one still should know and be responsible for any actions that could work against you.

No he didn't deserve to die.

But, what if he really did put himself in a position to be harmed? How could it had been avoided? These are some of the things that I am thinking about when I look at this situation.

She dresses in clothes to attract attention. She didn't deserve what she got.

However, if she already knew that where she was going would have a high probability of getting undue attention paid to her, then perhaps she either could have prepared better for the situation or not did it at all.

We still have a choice in what we decide to do and we should be forward thinking enough to know what the possible consequences of our choices may be.

This still doesn't excuse the bad behavior from both situations.

However, in this particular case I also wonder if there is a question about whether or not some of this behavior was encouraged.

If you throw meat out in a room of hungry wolves, they are going to eat.

Exactly which is why most free thinkers are saying she didn't deserve what happened to her.

The reason why your extreme example doesn't work is because unlike the Emmitt Till situation, violence did not occur. A better comparison would have been if Emmitt Till whistled at a white woman, and he was told shut your **** up."

Or if she went into the locker room dressed as she did and was attacked physically, and somebody claiming she deserved it because she dressed that way.

Yes at the end of the day, they are supposed to have enough maturity to not react to her like that. At the same time though she "knew" what type of reaction she would get dressed that way, her television station knew what type of reaction she would get. They wanted it, and when she got it, after it was pointed out by another reporter, then she has an issue.

LOL. As soon as I finished typing the last post, I saw pest control walking down the hall. I asked them to spray my office.

One of the older gentlemen said "the bugs are always clinging to the good looking women." I laughed and the younger gentleman gave an uneasy chuckle. LOL. We continued to talk about "bug stuff" and before they left my office, the older gentleman said "yeah it's the beautiful ones that they're after." I said "the beautiful bugs?" and laughed. He said "nah, the beautiful women! The bugs will keep coming back for you." Again, the younger gentleman laughed but looked like he was thinking "oooook...uncomfortable...don't push your luck...."

It was a little uncomfortable because it was kinda random bug humor, but it was all in good humor as long as the man understood his boundaries. The shock of seeing a younger woman who he found attractive weighed in on his choice of humor, but he kept it at a level of professionalism because although they have white male privilege, I am technically higher on the social class and bureaucratic hierarchy than they are. That has a way of balancing things out in certain contexts; and it speaks to what I was typing about earlier.

LOL. Then you did not grasp my extreme example.

Power is power whether it involves killing, whistling, groping, firing someone, not hiring someone, etc and etc and etc.

I grasped it and understood what you were saying. I just did not agree.

Power is power is true, but the application of power is where the disagreement comes in.

No, you didn't grasp it which prevents you from being able to agree or disagree.

I'm not the one that is still commenting on it.

I'm still having the debate because outside of this conversation nothing else is really going on in here. So I have no problem debating with somebody that disagrees because I can learn a lot from the other perspective. Now if you want to break it down further or show me where I am wrong I'm open for it. Doesn't mean I don't grasp it, prove me wrong.

The application of power is the same thing as "power is power." I am talking about common themes and underlying assumptions in all of this. I am not talking about specific thought processes and behaviors. That's why what this woman had on is noteworthy but not groundbreaking and conclusive.