Alleged Sexual Harrassment complaint on jets, followed by Clinton Portis comments
 

Yet another age old issue of a woman trying to do her job and then to add insult to injury, someone who wasn't even there speaks his mind only to 'apologize' for it later.



YMMV

http://toppayingideas.com/blog/wp-co...-practice1.jpg

http://toppayingideas.com/blog/wp-co...nes-sainz1.jpg

Bears vs Colts Super Bowl

Now while I agree that a person has a right to wear what they want to wear without fear of backlash, I am ALSO a fan of, "You get what you give."

Also, that is why there are dress codes.

And while this story may be new to some people, this isn't the first time that she has been called out for her outfits while 'reporting' NFL news and also she really isn't a 'competant' NFL reporter.

And Clinton Portis...STFU...idiot.


A sampling of reporting and opinion from around the Web regarding Ines Sainz, the TV Azteca television reporter who was reportedly sexually harassed by the Jets at practice on Saturday:

Sainz did not initially lodge a complaint against the Jets. Her cause was taken up by at least one reporter on the scene, and the N.F.L. is investigating.

The Jets’ owner, Woody Johnson, apologized, and the apology was accepted.

Jets Coach Rex Ryan said the team was open to sensitivity training.

Redskins running back Clinton Portis restarted the controversy with remarks in a weekly radio appearance on 106.7 The Fan, which serves the Washington area:

“I think you put women reporters in the locker room in position to see guys walking around naked, and you sit in the locker room with 53 guys, and all of the sudden you see a nice woman in the locker room. I think men are going to tend to turn and look and want to say something to that woman.”

“You know, somebody got to spark her interest, or she’s going to want somebody.”


The N.F.L. and the Redskins condemned Portis’s remarks, and Portis later apologized.

“The comments are clearly inappropriate, offensive and have no place in the NFL,” league spokesman Greg Aiello said in a statement. “We have contacted the Redskins and they will discuss the matter directly with Mr. Portis.”

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports said the league had made little progress in dealing with sexism:

That Clinton Portis of the Washington Redskins has spent nine seasons in the NFL and still assumes that female reporters are eager to look at the players’ “packages” speaks to an ignorance and an arrogance that still, sadly, permeates the league.

Does Ryan need to run a tighter ship?

Tim Dahlberg of The Associated Press says the Jets have been undisciplined on the field and off:

The New York Jets will soon get together to learn how to act like real men in a locker room where frat boy hilarity apparently reigns.

After Monday night’s debacle against Baltimore at the $1.6 billion New Meadowlands Stadium, it may be time to teach the team’s offense a few new tricks, too. Acting like real football players would be a good start.

Tara Sullivan of The Record of Bergen County says the Jets need to understand that it’s her workplace, too.

She expressed disappointment that at least two members of the Jets’ public relations staff reportedly did not stop what was said to be catcalls directed at Sainz in the locker room. She also quoted the Giants’ Mathias Kiwanuka as saying, “The guys the Giants would bring into the organization wouldn’t behave like that and that’s the biggest difference.”

Eric Deggans of the National Sports Journalism Center says there is a worthwhile debate to be had about how television networks sell the sex appeal of some of their sideline reporters. But, he said, that issue would have to wait for another day — it shouldn’t be confused with the problem of workplace harassment.

No matter how provocatively a woman is dressed, she never invites sexual assault or harassment.
Link

she does not look like a professional reporter. i don't agree with her being harassed, but she needs to get a clue. yesterday afternoon i began hearing a different story from her. she was saying that the boys were just joking and they weren't harassing her, just making jokes and that it was another female reporter who was offended and made the initial complaint.

i think the nfl, nba,etc. just need to ban all reporters from the locker room. they can't just ban women, so it will have to be a mass ban.

frankly, the network she works for seems to be promoting her as a sex object/centerfold, and that's just wrong.

I don't care what gender someone is, I don't want strangers with recording devices in my area when i'm changing, bathing, and coming off a win or loss. I don't particularly find her outfits appropriate for a journalist, and she wouldn't be allowed to wear that ensemble if she worked in my office either. The heels are questionable, the cleavage and bare midriff are out, and the pants are way too tight as well as being light hued denim.

What is wrong with a reception area where the media can kick it and let people show up when they are clean and respect the privacy of the rest of the team?

Right.

My question too is, is she allowing this? because again, she doesn't strike me as a credible journalist (if I remember she asked Tom Brady how he plans on beating the Jets in the Super Bowl, heh!) and some of the reports I have seen show her 'not reporting' so uhh, really?

"Eric Deggans of the National Sports Journalism Center says there is a worthwhile debate to be had about how television networks sell the sex appeal of some of their sideline reporters. But, he said, that issue would have to wait for another day — it shouldn’t be confused with the problem of workplace harassment."

THIS. In most workplaces, there is a dress code of sorts. These ensembles fail in the professionally attired category. Sorry, eye candy as journalist doesn't cut it. BUT it never means it is ok to sexually harass her.

Christine Brennan, a sportswriter at one time for the Washington Post (she is now at USA Today), was one of the first female sports reporters covering a professional sports team, I believe. Her beat was the Washington Redskins. She took a ton of abuse from the players who had a hard time with women in the locker room. Portis' comment reminds me of those times, 20ish? years ago.

From what I understand, sportswriters want to get into the locker room because they can get a "better" interview from the players, who are still elated or deflated from the game just concluded. Makes for better quotes. By the time players have showered, dressed, and are at the mic at the post game press conference, they have cooled off and become more scripted and bland.

Adding insult to injury: Gaaaaatdaaaamn *oogles reporter*

Serious: I agree with FSUZeta -- you can't dress like that in testosterone central and not expect people to take notice. There are ways to dress "sexy" yet professional (I think we discussed this in the Citibank thread), but she honestly looks like she's on the way to the club for Free Before 11.

Same thing like that other woman that was on Wall Street.

1) The players should have known better in this day and age.

2) Her station promotes her to dress like this. It is part of their "culture"

3) Hopefully this truly opens the door though that there is still a certain "uniform" professionals should wear if they want to be taken seriously.

There are plenty of good to great looking female reporters that never had this issue. Heck even Erin Andrews never had issues with players in coaches, her's was a stalker that went to her room.

This is the same woman that asked Brady to marry her during the Super Bowl interviews dressed in a wedding dress. So its hard to take her serious...which is sad.

Wrong woman BUT from the same TV station!!! HA!

I agree with the quoted. If she tries to pass her style of dress off as "corporate culture," she's going to have to deal with the consequences. She (and others) needs to use some common sense.

My job allows us to come into work in casual attire (as I'm typically not client-facing). Even thought I CAN come into work with a tall tee and a du-rag, I won't do it if I want to be taken seriously.

If she were wearing the outfits the citibank lady at least posed for pictures in, I would take her more seriously.

She's definitely sexy. Part of how she's dressed is a component of what you see when you watch the news on stations such as Telemundo (?). I have seen female news anchors and meteorologists on some Latin American stations who were clearly placed there for viewers to WATCH.

However, you can be beautiful and sexy without exuding it in the manner that she is. Her outfits are doing too much. I'm sure she's dressed like that as a result of a combination of encouragement from her bosses and her own free will. I would say the same for a male reporter who found it necessary to wear a muscle shirt and scrotum clinching pants in a WNBA setting. Save the sexy for a better venue, people.

Sexual harassment? Nah. Hypermasculinity? Yes. A lesson to be learned and a cultural note about a distinction between sexuality in North America and sexuality in Latin America? Yes.

This is also a reminder that something can be sexual harassment even if the target encouraged it (i.e. if this reporter smiled or twitched her ass even more as the cat calling began) and didn't mind how she or he was being approached.

Yeah the Citibank lady was pretty and sexy (wasn't she a plastic surgery fan?) without wearing the tight and low cut shirts and pants.

Yeah. I'm not saying she deserved to be harassed, or either of them really (if they both were - I don't know), but someone would get by just fine wearing the citibank lady's outfits to my office. And I loved her shoes. This lady, not so much.

Although this does speak to the network she was on - I can't imagine she didn't have to go through some sort of wardrobe process.

And for whatever reason, her first outfit reminds me of Kelly Kapowski from Saved By the Bell: The College Years.

Thanks for the correction. I just found out and was gonna edit.

Either way.

From the beginning she said that she wasn't offended and that she didn't feel at risk in the locker room. The complaint was made by another journalist that witnessed the event that included Rex Ryan and his staff throwing footballs near her to get her attention.

While I think that having reporters in the locker room at all is ridiculous, it is how reporting has been done since the beginning of the NFL, and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this one. These guys make a lot of money, and part of the job is appropriately dealing with the press. Unless they want to continue to see these kinds of stories, they need to learn to shut up while an attractive woman is near them. They can rehash it all when she walks out the room. Their rights to free speech end when they infringe on the working woman who just wants to get an interview.

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.

Where do we disagree?

I really would like to know.

Only on the extreme use of the Emmitt Till example. I understood what you were saying, I just don't believe it necessarily applies in this case.

That's all? Uh. Okay. What a cliff hanger.

Sooo...uh...do you see how you can rally behind a purpose without rallying behind a person?

It applies to the case because:

a minority element was in an area where most people of their position normally would not be.

the dominant majority of the area realized this and acted in accordance to the minority in the area.

the minority element in the area passively (Till's skin color, Saintz revealing clothes) provoked a reaction from the majority

the end result was negative and unwanted attention from the dominant majority given to the minority element.

( I know I missed a few steps but my mind is elsewhere)

Yes.

Happens all the time.

And I see your point there.

The thing with Emmitt though is the reaction to Emmitt's whistle was fostered by an environment that felt that he was not even human and thus they had the manifest right to take his life to keep him the rest of the population in place. Which is why the outcry was so that it helped kick-start the Civil Rights movement. Regardless of who he was bad kid or good.

This woman, on the other hand, was trying to get a reaction. Was it proactive on her part? Maybe, maybe not. I lean more toward the station/culture she works for that has a history of going extreme to get a reaction. I'm sure if she worked for ESPN, ABC or any other other networks this would not even been an issue.

Because there are plenty of journalist that don't dress like Sister Savedalot, and receive a lot of respect from players and coaches as well. I pointed out to Erin Andrews, who actually took flack from one of her peers for being spied on.

Just to this alone, I don't agree that the whistle had anything to do with what happened to him. If you read over the case itself, it has never been proven that he ever whistled or made any motion to the woman in question but you let the majority tell it (thus my example) he did.

HOWEVER, the more important and undeniable fact was he was black and in an area where whites were dominat over the black population. (nice way of saying what I really want to say!)

Now applying this to Miss Sainz' issue is, regardless of if she said anything or said nothing at all, the undeniable fact is, she is a woman, by Western standards considered attractive, and what she wore into the locker room full of men in various states of undress, could be considered provocative.

Eureka! We don't disagree, afterall.

she is fine, though.

So the question has to be asked, does she get a free pass to dress however she wants when walking into a men's locker room who are in various forms of dress themselves?

I think the point that is also being missed is that this is not personal time for anyone involved. This is their JOB. When you are on company time, you are expected to behave within the confines of socially expected norms. That includes not learing at other professionals doing their work, EVEN if they are required by their bizarre work environment to wear tight, sexy clothes. But lets get one thing straight, watch ESPN for awhile, don't tell me that any of the female reporters wear business suits. They ALL wear short skirts and tight shirts as expected by the wardrobe department, because that's what is wanted by the MALE demographics of the sports watching world. You can't have your cake and eat it to. If you want women in sports to dress matronly so they don't get harrassed in the locker room, you then wouldn't want to watch them on TV, because all the male TV watching public would then argue that they were ugly. Tell me I'm wrong, and I'll start listing all the women on TV that already get called ugly.