User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.0298 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
As I said, I don't disagree with this as a general statement. But it's a generalization, and not an automatic rule. The two instances you've cited would be cases where the point would hold, but not this one, at least IMO.
And to my mind the problem here relates precisely to the different standards involving women in the workplace. She's hired to be eye-candy, meaning of course, were she less attractive, she'd be much less likely to get the job. That's not fair in itself. But since she's hired as eye-candy, she can't then complain about being treated as eye-candy by the boys. Well, that's unfair too.
Again, I wouldn't argue with the point, except that she hasn't complained. Guilt on Sutcliffe's part should not be the default position.
I find ESPN's casual sexism pretty interesting considering that much of their male talent could be charitably described as "unattractive" in the looks department. I find it odd that such people find it so easy to judge others on their looks. Probably pent-up jealousy from high school or something.
It isn't like most of ESPN's female talent is attractive. I'd say it is about a 50/50 split. They also employ Pam Ward and Linda Cohn.
As a side note, why DO they employ Linda Cohn? She is annoying at her job and doesn't have the looks to keep her job without being good at it
Sounds plausible, and it's a good point.
What's nonsense is that I'd "want" them to be offended. What I want is for all people to have a sense of their dignity. That entails occasionally taking offense at other people's attempts to treat them w/o dignity. That's what I want.
Trust me, in this case I find Sutcliffe's comments merely stupid. Just a dumb guy saying unfortunate and not damnable things.
Good point, ######.
A solid sentiment, and this is why we generally applaud when people stand up against genuine harassment or bullying, even if the larger community is unsupportive of the stand. But when the "victim" in question shows no evidence of objecting to the alleged disrespectful behavior, the question then becomes what category this falls under.
Fine, but like I said, it's just a label that is generally used as a perjorative--stop the PC crap, cut the PC silliness, I'm sick of the PC police, etc. That defeats discussion, rather than promoting it.
I'll say it again -- some of you guys live in work hell if you can never say something remotely sexual to a colleague you're friends with at work.
And if it is not between you and her, MYOB. What's truly despicable are people running to the boss over penny-ante bs like Sutcliffe's comments.
FYI, I work in an environment that is 90 percent female and have three daughters. Perhaps women won't talk in front of you because they perceive you as an asexual drone, but most talk sex amongst themselves enough to make even Andy blush.
Prudishness is a bad enough trait in a woman. Some of you need to regrow your testicles.
It's more a case of asking ESPN to maintain a comfortable work environment. It should not be incumbent upon Andrews to risk her career or even her standing with her male colleagues to get her company to enforce basic standards of workplace behavior. ESPN is certainly a less cringe-inducing place to work now than it was in the early 90s, but that's no reason they should not be vigilant on that score.
And you are implying that it isn't a comfortable work environment for Andrews, why? Because you say so or because she says so?
I don't quite get what you're saying, but yeah, of course it involves some "imposition" of a moral code, or, to put it differently, it involves moral education. A Jewish child might not know it's offensive to have to wear a star; a slave might not have known it was offensive to have their family separated by economic transaction; a woman might not have known it was offensive to be blamed for being raped. I am definitely interested in helping bring about a world where people are aware of those offenses. Yes. Guilty as charged.
I live in work purgatory at least.
Because I know people who worked there in the early 90s, and it was a nightmare. I'm sure it has improved, but management letting Sutcliffe's comments to Andrews go sends a message throughout the Worldwide Leader that such talk is acceptable.
Is this because I tend to fall asleep when women start chit-chatting about Sex and the City? Or is this an "ageist" comment that if I were a full-Geritoled member of AARP I should feel deeply offended by?
(As seen on a sign at the Vatican)
Best Regards
John
That's true.
Check my posts about my workplace. The issues are relationship, time and place. Even if Andrews and Sutcliffe have the type of relationship that allows it, doing it on the air is kind of dumb.
There seems to be no point to this other than to say "I'm cooler than the people I disagree with." There is another way to interpret that dynamic as well, however.
So does your mom.
management letting Sutcliffe's comments to Andrews go sends a message throughout the Worldwide Leader that such talk is acceptable.
And you are saying it is unacceptable, is Andrews saying that? Is any female at all saying that?
So then you are not even railing against being offended but against ignorance and for the most part an almost impossible level of ignorance at that.
How many people can you find that could actually fit into one of those groups? 4, 5, 10?
If you did, it wouldn't be my place to say, "You shouldn't be offended. That's stupid." If Andrews had no problem, cool. But there are arguably larger issues in play since Sutcliffe said it on the air. That's the point.
I said this in #202. Sometimes failure to take offense is rooted in ignorance.
Oh, SNAP!
Ron Franklin got in a little trouble for calling Holly Rowe "sweetheart" in a condescending fashion during a college football game.
Seriously, I hear you. If I made any comments in the ballpark of those, the provost would have me out the door tout suite.
Uh, no. Maybe next time you follow the entire discussion before jumping in? As I said, we don't know her reaction since Sutcliffe's comments came AFTER she was on screen. And, I was making a broader (heh) point.
Or is this an "ageist" comment that if I were a full-Geritoled member of AARP I should feel deeply offended by?
If you did, it wouldn't be my place to say, "You shouldn't be offended. That's stupid."
Maybe not, but the day I get offended by comments like that is the day I authorize anyone in the telephone book to send for Dr. Kevorkian.
Also, Mr. Sutcliffe's comments on the broadcast may or may not have been inappropriate, and I'm still forming my opinion on it, but I'm fairly certain I'll decide it's not as offensive as what Mr. Zumsteg directed towards the two announcers with his \"#### you" ending to his commentary. You think their treatment of Ms. Andrews is unacceptable, especially in a professional, public setting, but it's acceptable on a public, very popular blog to attack others in such a manner? You should have quit while you were ahead.
And your broader point was that slaves dead for over a hundred years now should be taught to be offended about being enslaved? Bravo, we'll get right on that.
How do you guys really feel towards women in the workplace? Do you ever find yourself contemplating the body beneath the business attire? Ever had a workplace affair?
I guess what I object to is the neutering of human beings, turning us into cogs in a machine, forced to take our secret desires behind closed doors or to internet chatrooms and the like.
Give me something besides canned responses or secondary emotional reactions to the human condition.
Anything beyond pseudorational outrage.
Hit me with something real.
I'd love to oblige.
B/c the alternatives are either (1) neutered cogs, or (2) be-drooled, be-hard-on'ed letches banging colleagues on the Xerox?
Just watched the video and I can't believe it got 200 plus posts here, much lees that crap from USSM.
"I am more worried about Erin in that dress, wearing a short skirt in windy city" is all he said, and it got this kind of reaction? are you ####### kidding me?
Then stay single.
Best Regards
J hn
oo
It was a reference to your long history in poolrooms. Women can get raunchier than that.
You ever meet either of the Boucher brothers?
EDIT: this post didn't really work as humor, or as insult. I'd delete it, but that seems wrong, too. Eh, sorry about that.
Hourly.
Yeah.
If Sutcliffe's comment was out of line, neutered cog is about all that's left.
It goes beyond sex and women to honest opinion and real feeling. Nothing worse than sitting in meetings where all you're allowed to do is nod in agreement and clap when fellow employees are given biscuits for stupid pet tricks.
TJ Simers is my hero.
Robin -- I'll get back to you in a bit. Thanks.
It was a reference to your long history in poolrooms. Women can get raunchier than that.
Gotcha. And women in poolrooms can get even raunchier, though even that's been tamed down a lot in the Brave New World of the "billiard cafe."
Even though it had nothing to do with sex, one of my alltime favorite memories of my current Rockville poolroom was when one of the pro women (all 95 pounds of her) executed a perfect jump shot, and then from the top of her lungs, screamed out to the world, "YOU SEE THAT MOTHERF*CKING JUMP SHOT?????!!!!!" You could have heard her all the way to China.
And hard as it may be to believe, in context it was one of the sweetest things (in a poolroom, anyway) I've ever heard, and I've been a big fan of hers ever since. I'm always a big fan of unbridled enthusiasm.
You ever meet either of the Boucher brothers?
Never even heard of them.
Sounds like you've already been neutered. We may now know the source of your obvious resentment.
Well, women bend over tables with hard sticks in hand, reach into pockets to pull out somebody's balls.
They ask if you want a break before doing it over again several times a night.
I mean ... c'mon!
Best Regards
John
She's less annoying than Chris Berman, and he still works there.
(Wow, second time in one day I get to use the same response.)
There's obviously a danger with any set of standards of conduct that it place unnecessary limits on social interaction, but having worked for years without ever saying something like that to a colleague in the workplace (let alone on national television), I am quite confident that such limits mainly function to prevent creeps from acting creepy.
of course people look at the body under the clothes. of course there are workplace affairs.
the question is, is it skillful behavior? does it offend our sense of what's moral? if not, then why are we doing it? if not, what's to be done?
shrugging and saying oh well she isn't upset, so what's the big deal? is that the proper response?
how much 'outrage' have you seen in this thread aside from dmz? it's all coming from posters who seem to have a beef with those who think its a good idea to treat women like people instead of objects.
Depends--is she screaming?
Best Regards
John
nevermind, i've done worse.
Are you new to the internet, Matt?
don't guess you'd mind a lil female point of view, would yall????!!!
- who KNOWS what erin andrews thinks in private. we got NO idea whether or not she hates doing what all yall call "banter" - and it might could be what she figgers is part of her job and she has to put up with that shtt. just like if you are a cocktail waitress you gotta put up with men feeling you up if you want good tips
- but in private, who knows whether or not she's afraid she'll lose her job if she tell sutcliff to talk to her like he'd want some old guy talking to his daughter
- and you guys talk about at work - well you got no idea what it is like to not want to have to listen to your boss/coworkers talk to you and about you like you not even a person, just a thing to be rated/graded. or to have to bring your brother to "meet" (scare the hell out of) your boss so as he'll get the idea that if he isn't, um polite, your brothers will kick the shtt out of him.
- you remember the old line about - a lady in the streets and a freak in the bed
well what that means is when you go to work everyone should remember to use good manners at ALL times. males AND females. it isn't "PC" - it is remembering that there is a time and place for everything and work is the time when you should try to respect other peoples dignity.
so if erin andrews and rick sutcliff WANT to kid each other about dresses etc, well, the right time and place is NOT during a live broadcast.
and, by the way, there is a huge difference between telling some male co-worker AT THE WORKPLACE that you like his tie and telling him that his new jeans really show off the package
oh yeah
and yes, us females talk about males and sex and who we would like to **** and a whole lot of other stuff too. just not in front of them AT WORK (unless you want trouble and a lot of it) and yes we think a LOT about how some man would look underneath his clothes and yeah we stare with lust at ballplayers. and joggers. and bike riders. and guys walking by. and guys lifting boxes at the store. and guys bending over to get something. and guys doing just about anything else. and we think all KINDS of, um, ponographic thoughts too when we watching them.
besides, us females are real good at telling males we wanna have sex without having to actually come out and say - hello, would you please have sex with me... and it sure would help it some men weren't so **** dense that sometimes you practically HAVE to....
People keep saying "in the workplace," as if all workplaces were the same. If I were to lose a summary judgment motion, and scream #### really loudly in the office when I saw the decision from the court, I'd be in trouble -- but a pitcher who hangs a breaking ball and sees it sail out of the park will do exactly the same thing (as every lip-reader knows), and nobody remarks on it.
As for workplace environments, these rules are not about making people comfortable in the workplace -- employers and coworkers can abuse and harass other employees all they want, with no remedy for the employees other than quitting -- but (ostensibly) about preventing discrimination. You can't single out women (or blacks, or whomever) for harassment, but you can treat everyone poorly.
Dinger in the bottom of the ninth to tie the game.
Erin:"it's spelling bee yellow. Can I buy a vowell." laughter. "it's for a (our?) boy, come on now. It's for a (our) boy. I'm pulling out all the stops."
Sutcliffe: "I got a new favorite color, I know that man."
A chuckle, then announcer brings up cancer. Sutcliffe has no desire to talk about so he obviously tries to change the subject.
"Well I'm more worried about Erin than I was me, wearing that skirt tonight in the Windy City. You think all eyes weren't on her during batting practice?"
Then he gets back to the cancer talk.
That's it. So what's exactly is the line that was crossed to get Sutcliffe fired?
Come on; that's not why businesses forbid such conduct. Businesses forbid that because the government has created causes of action that enable juries to impose arbitrarily huge costs on businesses where it happens.
- although most females who been harrassed don't never get to court or get a settlement.
and david, good thing (for once) that the government got involved here. most women do not have the time/money to get a lawyer and sue. and from what i've heard from a LOT of women my mother's age, getting fondled/harrassed was what happened to you.
thing is david, although i will be one of the first to say that i am in awe of your brains, you got no idea what it is like to be poor, desperate or powerless. having to be fondled/screwed in order to keep a job that is not in the sex industry shouldn't have to happen. but it did. a LOT.
david, i did mention earlier that a lot of the workplace regs are in place to preempt legal action, so its not all about making the office a friendly place. but: if an employee can sue over bad behavior, then, yes, the bad behavior can mess up the workplace. you're a lawyer, right? you think all your clients are happy to have to utilize your services? not trying to pick a fight, just sayin. my boss would rather pull out his nails than have to get his lawyers out over a disgruntled ex-employee.
I'm not saying he should be fired over this. (He should have been fired years ago for being such an abysmal analyst, but that's beside the point.) What I'm saying is he was being clumsily inappropriate and unprofessional.
The "my favorite color" line was leering, but conceivably acceptable. But once he starts talking about the wind blowing her short skirt around, and "all eyes being on her" because of it, he's left the line in the dust.
Whatever her on-air response to it is completely irrelevant to the appropriateness of him saying it. She might be a jerk, but that doesn't excuse him from being one.
You're correct that it has taken the intervention of lawmakers to create the incentives for businesses to institute these codes, but I think the moral case remains the same, and the point I was making to Alex remains the same.
IMO, it's not really my place to criticize someone in that situation.
Rick Sutcliffe is not a gentleman. But then, he's a baseball player; we probably could have guessed that without this incident. Unfortunately, we seem to have reached a point, culturally speaking, where the only form of social opprobrium that corrects bad behavior is actual arrest, and then only fitfully.
IMO, it's not really my place to criticize someone in that situation.
I don't know. One time years ago I was in the extremely difficult position of having to decide whether to fire an employee for having committed a pattern of sexually harassing behavior in the workplace, and this employee was in the process of undergoing cancer treatment. We finally decided that we didn't have one set of employee misconduct rules that most employees were to follow, and another unwritten, unspecified set for employees with serious illnesses; he was a grown-up in a responsible professional job, he'd been warned, he knew the consequences of doing what he did, and so he was treated the same way anyone else who did what he did would have been treated. We terminated his employment.
It was no fun, to say the least. But faced with the same situation again, I'd do the same thing again.
Women should try being a man for a couple of days and experience all the #### men have to take they don't. Then they wouldn't be so quick to play that card.
Criminy.
- kevin,
please explain what you are talking about
please tell me what exactly shtt men take AT WORK that women don't
Women should try being a man for a couple of days and experience all the #### men have to take they don't. Then they wouldn't be so quick to play that card.
Criminy.
Okay, I know I'm just opening Pandora's Box (and I know I should have gone to a thesaurus before using that word) here, but what exactly is all this #### we take as men that women don't have to?
true but it is most certainly the wrong topic in which to try to pump those causes. Al Franken can yell racism all he wants but when he is standing on the back of woman falsely accusing a white cop of rape then nobody is going to listen.
Workplace conduct and their views on it might very well be real and valid issues but since this thread and this topic is the backdrop of those views they are going to be judged based on the absurdity of the outcry towards Sutcliffe. Which means they won't be taken seriously.
I have a small (5 year old) son who is an Aspy. He's probably as mild a case as you'll ever see, but my wife and I are on pins and needles when he goes over the line with other kids at his pre-school (99% of the time he's just being playful, like his classmates. But we're very scared about that extra 1%, both regarding what he'll do and parents reaction to it. And that's even though we have the full support of the school).
At this point in my life, it's VERY difficult for me to be judgemental of others. That's not a criticism of anyone, just where I am.
At this point in my life, it's VERY difficult for me to be judgemental of others. That's not a criticism of anyone, just where I am.
I understand, and I appreciate the difficulty of your challenge.
But I'm sure you'll agree that the behavioral problems of 5-year-olds, of whatever cause, aren't the same thing as the workplace conduct of adults.
And managers of workplaces, whether they like it or not, have a responsibility to exercise judgment regarding the conduct of their employees.
Other than Zumsteg, I have not seen anybody advocating termination.
Sutcliffe was in SD for several years pre-ESPN, and while I never liked him in the booth, he seems like a nice man, and I know a couple of people (men) who interacted with him and said as much. But if the chemo is making him more likely to say dumb stuff due to how draining it is--totally understandable--then maybe he should take more time off.
Indeed. Relationship, time and place.
280 plus posts and counting. everybody's picked up on the link and gotten their licks in, and they are seriously engaged. why is this the 'wrong' topic? the merits of this particular incident have been put in perspective, i think, yet there is still a thoughtful (mostly) discussion going on.
Workplace conduct and their views on it might very well be real and valid issues but since this thread and this topic is the backdrop of those views they are going to be judged based on the absurdity of the outcry towards Sutcliffe. Which means they won't be taken seriously.
I agree completely with your implicit point about crying wolf, which seems to be the case here, but I think you might have meant to refer to Al Sharpton, not Al Franken. If Al Franken got steamed at some cop, he'd be more likely to challenge him to a rasslin match than would be to accuse him of anything. Al Sharpton's the serial liar / libeler who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge nearly every time he opens his mouth.
does anybody know who that man [boy] is?
It's as good a story as any to start a discussion over, but if the case against "sexual harassment" had to rise and fall on an incident as trivial as this one, it'd be about as viable as the third baby girl of a Chinese collective farmer.
This would be a good handle if it weren't over the character limit. Maybe
Subtracting from human knowledge with every post (robinred)
would work
Derek Zumsteg.
I actually think she said "our boy" meaning Sutcliffe, and like Mattbert said, it was a cancer support thing. If it was "a boy" maybe it was a kid with cancer?
you've lost me, andy. after dmz, i just don't think there were a lot of folks here accusing sutcliffe of sexual harassment in the sense that it was actionable. i think the general consensus was that he's just kind of a dork who doesn't have a lot of tact. not a good thing in a broadcaster, though it doesn't seem to slow down sports commentators (see the conlin thread).
that the discussion migrated to sexual harassment in the workplace issues i don't dispute. it didn't seem like an abrupt shift, but whatever.
I understand ESPN is sending out DMCA takedown notices by the sheaf. They would do well to let this video stand; frankly, it seems to me that if there is any overreaction, it's on the part of USSM. It's tough having to deal with a sinking ship, and that's when your judgment can get foggy, as I think it is here.
http://www.tiger-town.com/whatnot/updike/
I get the analogy, but I don't think it's fair to compare DMZ or posters here to the protagonist because the kid in the story is such an ass. This is my first time reading it, but I can sense that it's one of those works that changes as you approach it from different points in your life. If it's been a while since you've read it give it a look and tell me why the kid is more than a hateful little cretin.
Watching an old man flirt with a young woman is sickening and that's what it was. How do I know this? Because it happens every single week.
Hell yeah. There's this former Dean of the Hospital who comes into the Cardiology every week for "teaching rounds". If it's a girl presenting a case, if she wears a short skirt, then he's completely docile. If it's a dude, he starts to make derogatory comments about the students BEFORE his powerpoint slide is even up. It's ridiculous.
This of course, coming from some old F!@!# who says he's never misdiagnosed anybody since his internship. And when we present a case in which he didn't guess the correct diagnosis, it's because "The case is too rare and has no teaching value".
And if this story on Sutcliffe is a true indicator, he is not only not a horrible person, but a very good one who has garnered the love and respect of those with whom he has come into contact.
The take from Deadspin:
There ya go, JC! Let me have it! I knew you had it in you!
It is true that I once lived as a neutered male performing stupid people tricks, and true that I am resentful when I am pressed to assent to untruths in the workplace, and resent organizations where asskissers rise no matter their incompetence.
It's not the content of the disagreement that irks me, but its style, the "intellectual discourse" way of arguing that not so subtly looks down upon the expression of strong emotions like anger, lust, desire, etc.
I just get frustrated with the word games and the pretense that we're somehow solving human ills by denouncing racism, sexism, homophobia, bestiality or whatever when it's really about our own discomfort with the same feelings.
Ah, I'll stop digging now while I can still climb out of the hole.
Back to my regular cynical pose.
Sorry if I didn't give offense.
His more recent post on the subject claims that "ESPN is wildly trying to suppress commentary on this by sending take-down notices whenever anyone posts video, which is a reprehensible use of copyright power to keep a story down."
Nevermind that ESPN sends take down notices to any website that ever posts any video from ESPN, no matter how benign, just as MLB does. But now that he's in a tizzy about this issue, it's ESPN trying to suppress commentary. Meanwhile, nobody can explain that to him in the comments on his posts there because he is suppressing commentary on the subject.
I do think that Sutcliffe was out of line, but not horribly so. Nothing to get fired over, or even require a public apology, IMO. I do give him a break for having to deal with an uncomfortable situation (talking about his cancer). And former baseball players are among the people I am least likely to set high standards for in this regard.
Still, it shouldn't have been said. The important context here is the workplace environment for women and the subtle (and not so subtle) objectification and sexism that occurs in the workplace over and over again. And women do have it much tougher than men in the work environment in that regard, even today. I hope that someone at ESPN does sit down with him and talks to him about it.
you say "word games" and i say good manners. because if everyone just says/does whatever he/she thinks/feels at any time and any place, things would get a lot worse for the simple reason that most people can't/won't stop to think how what they want to do say affects the others.
and of course us human beings have all kinds of problems with all the stuff they made rules about in the bible. when you have to be told by divine edict to treat your own parents/spouse decently, you know us humans got all KINDS of problems.
and even leviticus was telling people not to have sex with animals - and if people didn't then there wouldn't have to be no rule about it. years pass, people still the same
we all have plenty of discomfort with issues - and speaking of discomfort, i wish to heck i hadn't clicked on your link about mr cummings because looking at this 60-70 old geezer screwing teenagers made me feel sick. i wonder if they got porn of 60-70 or whatever year old grandmothers screwing delivery boys or something.
sigh
there probably is but don't tell me cuz ida wanna know...
- and alex, you got daughters, but i see you don't have daddyitis. do you want your grrrls to have to be groped/fondled/leered at/have to laugh off unwanted sexual comments at work? well, unless they sex workers that is?
don't know what to make of this. if someone is trying to talk to you without succumbing to emotions like anger, you think they are looking down on you? because they can control themselves?
how would you go about solving human ills? assuming you want to, cuz i'm not sure. of course i'm uncomfortable with my baser urges. they tend to be counter productive.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main