Alledged Sexual Harrassment complaint on jets, followed by Clinton Portis comments - Page 3

DrPhil · #31 09-15-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluPhire

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.

Where do we disagree?

I really would like to know.

BluPhire · #32 09-15-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

DrPhil · #33 09-15-2010, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluPhire

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?

DaemonSeid · #34 09-15-2010, 01:03 PM

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)

BluPhire · #35 09-15-2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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?

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.

DaemonSeid · #36 09-15-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluPhire

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.

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.

DrPhil · #37 09-15-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Yes.

Happens all the time.

And I see your point there.

Eureka! We don't disagree, afterall.

starang21 · #38 09-15-2010, 01:21 PM

she is fine, though.

BluPhire · #39 09-15-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

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?

AOII Angel · #40 09-15-2010, 02:24 PM

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.

DaemonSeid · #41 09-15-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluPhire

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?

Hell. NO.

That's the point I am trying to make. Neither side gets a free pass.

Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should do it.

Even when you exercise your right, you still have to be responsible for the choices you make.

For instance, which no one has addessed yet in this thread;

Clinton Portis made a choice to exercise his right to free speech by commenting on what happened.

Do I agree on what he said? No not really

Did he have the right to say it? Sure

Should he have to apologize for what he said? Well, that's what happens when you work for a public organization. At the same time, I believe he shouldn't have said anything at all, since really.....they don't get paid to speak...hehe

DaemonSeid · #42 09-15-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

Can we start with her?