Mark Knudson, a former relief pitcher for the Milwaukee Brewers, decided to weigh in on the issue of openly gay professional athletes, with a piece in Mile High Sports.
We have to admit, we haven’t read such a calm and cool explanation of an incredibly stupid opinion in a long time. Seriously, it’s incredible how reasonable Knudson sounds.
...But Knudson really gets going when he explains why it’s so hard for pro athletes to accept a gay player, and why we probably shouldn’t ask them to:
In a normal work environment, people are individuals with jobs. In pro sports, it’s all about as George Karl puts it, “teamness.” Individualism and personal agendas might be okay in a normal workplace, but it’s not okay in team sports. Teamness is what fans demand from the teams they pay to watch. Any individual with an agenda that’s even slightly different from that of the team hurts that cause.
Just as absurd as comparing workplace environments is the ridiculous claim by some in the gay community that there wouldn’t be any sort of physical attraction for a gay athlete toward any of his straight teammates – which would cause those very uncomfortable situations. He’s gay; he’s not dead. He can’t just flip a switch and turn off his feelings when he walks into the locker room.
Of course he’s going to have feelings of attraction toward a teammate or two. It’s human nature. These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet. The gay athlete isn’t going to notice that? And obviously, the straight teammates are going to feel the same sort of vibe that the attractive girl on the co-ed softball team gets from a few of the men on her team. Attractive people know when they’re being “checked out” and it leads to those very awkward moments. It’s human nature for people to be attracted to other people and it’s not going to stop happening because the workplace environment is a locker room rather than a typical office setting.
We should salute Esera Tuaolo and other gay athletes who are able to keep their sexual orientation private during their playing days. It’s got to be very difficult to do, and yet it’s what’s best for the team.
So apparently, Major League Baseball is a more intense atmosphere than the U.S. military, which has fairly seamlessly integrated gay and lesbian members?
Repoz
Posted: March 02, 2013 at 09:28 AM |
90 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
brewers
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.
1. Guapo Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4379103)Um, Mark? You OK there, buddy?
Um, Mark? You OK there, buddy?
Are we still talking about baseball, or a different sport?
Are we still talking about baseball, or a different sport?
That John Kruk was one sexy b*tch.
"That John Kruk was one sexy b*tch."
You only say that because he's a ditzy blond.
Isn't this just a version of the argument against having female reporters in the locker room?
EDIT - Yep. Thought so.
I'm sure that whatever it is will be fixed on the relaunch.
Most of the men are dead? Were does this necrosoftball league play?
I try to avoid the flamebait threads, but attractive people getting checked out is present in roughly 100% of all work environments. Even those that don't include thousands of paying spectators and a vast television audience. Somehow people manage to get work done, anyway.
Why not merge all accommodations and facilities that distinguish on a sexual/gender basis? Why not have women and men at health clubs or in schools share the same locker rooms, showers, etc. Why not allow male coaches to be in women's dressing facilities while they dress? Or women in male's? People tend to not see the conceptual cluster #### behind their views on sex, gender, and the relations thereof. So, the sides assume a righteous air and never go into it. And whoever is momentarily in ideological ascendancy dares the other side to even bring it up, except in their accepted way.
Agreed. If you can resist your urges after seeing Bartolo Colon or Jonathan Broxton in the shower, then you're a stronger man than I.
Mark has obviously never worked in software development.
He seems to be groping
Except software development. And possibly garbage collection, less sure about that.
Huh. "Teamness" rhymes with "anus". Someone should do something with that.
How is it possible that "teamness" has not been roundly mocked?
If this is the crux of Knudson's argument, the reply can be a simple, even a friendly, "What of it?" He's correct, that it leads to awkward moments, even "very awkward moments", but we don't do or not do things contingent only or primarily on whether they engender "very awkward moments". The way ahead can be one where we acknowledge very awkward moments will arise, but that's sometimes the price we pay for inclusiveness; for not asking people to pretend to be substantively other than who they are.
On my high school baseball team we were mostly worried that some would-be jokester might walk off with our clothes while we were in the shower. My best friend at another high school once pulled that trick on one of his teammates in retaliation for a particularly nasty (if hilarious) practical joke, and news of the incident had already circulated up to us.
That's a sensible take, and one that Knudson should consider. It's not as if we're talking about a team full of Jerry Sanduskys and 11 year old bodys.
Or the good old "YMCA".
Gary Glitter, Queen, The Village People, Liza ((she oddly married and divorced two clearly gay men-Peter Allen and that Guest guy who sued her for batttery (she sings on the version of "NY, NY" that they play when the Yanks lose-but they played Frank after "the biggest loss in sports history")). I'm forgetting some dammit.
After the game...25 players, 25 shower stalls. Nah.
They stopped doing that several years ago. They play the Sinatra version after every game now.
i mean seriously, they chew tobacco, they spit. they eat sunflower seeds, they spit. they drink gatorade (it's got what plants crave), they spit. the whole sport is basically standing on a field and spitting, or sitting in a dugout and spitting, and then maybe running for a handful of minutes spread out in 20 second bursts over 3 hours.
Me? I have multiple gay family members and my two closest friends growing up were also LGBT, so even as a bona-fide conservative Republican I really don't care about such things. (Heck, I always figured that if a gay guy found you attractive you should honestly take it as a compliment...those dudes generally have tough standards.) But it's pure vanity to assume (or insist, as if it's as easy as waving a magic wand) that everyone else shares the same perspective.
There's an interesting parallel to "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the military and the idea of team esprit de corps in a sports context worth mining. I was a big supporter of eliminating DADT precisely because what my military buddies (as well as common sense) told me was that, in a life-or-death situation like those faced in combat zones, people set such things aside and focus on what really matters...because they have to. But on a sports team the same sense of reflexive live-or-die compulsion doesn't really exist. Food for thought.
Hilarious.
That's fine, if a guy doesn't want his package checked out, he shouldn't have to. But why are they showering like it's 1899? MLB is a multi-billion dollar enterprise, putting up some dividers or something would cost them what, a few grand? If you don't want gay people checking you out, do something about it, and cover up. If you are uncomfortable being ogled, saying 'as long as you check me out without me knowing, it's cool' is retarded.
And outside of covering up bits of you, you don't want seen by people who might fantasize about them, you have the same right, to not be lusted after by another man or woman, as any other man or woman does (any permutations of gender and sexuality.) Which is to say none.
Except we've been doing it literally our whole lives. Every locker room - high school, college, etc. The novelty wore off long ago. I think I know how to behave in a locker room at this point.
I'd be OK with that. It'd probably feel weird for a couple of weeks, and then I'd get used to it.
Spoken like a guy who's never seen a naked offensive lineman in the shower. It ain't pretty.
Thus, there may not be anything to be done about that. However, there is an issue of expression. Just as many censure not the belief but the expression of the belief (for instance, you can believe that males are in some ways subject to prejudice and discrimnation but how dare it be articulated here among the better people, much less a case made for that, you stupid whinning low-bottom male).
So, why won't this solution simply follow the logic: Same-sex/different-orientation and different-sex/same-orientation should be added to the pile. It's all the same, isn't it?
I guess the thing is he did manage to "pass". Would his having been out have made it more difficult for his teammates than his being closeted made it for him? And is it right that the imposition was on him rather than his teammates?
My college roommate was a D1 athlete and there was an openly gay player on his team. The teammate was elected co-captain of the team so it obviously wasn't an issue for the rest of the team (and this was a sport that demanded a lot more physical fitness than baseball--those guys probably were actually physical specimens).
think of it this way, if you're okay with sharing a locker room with a gay teammate so long as he's in the closet, then the issue isn't that there's a gay teammate in your locker room, it's the anticipation at being consciously aware of there being a gay teammate in your locker room. but the thing about that is that just about everyone who would be okay with having a closeted teammate would adjust to having an openly gay teammate within a week because after a couple of days, the anticipation and awareness of the situation will just fade into the background.
Wow. The Thought Police are everywhere.
** Factor in the question of what the #### else most of these guys are going to do for a paycheck like even MLB minimum and just how many won't go all tolerant on you?
Meh. He's making the same argument that's been made for centuries about allowing "them" to join "us", especially in "team" situations. African-Americans and women in the army brought forward basically the same arguments (although not the "I don't want them checking me out" argument against African-Americans; and in the case of women it was twisted the other way that the guys would be distracted, get jealous, etc).
And this is extreme to the point of absurd (and not sociologically-grounded):
Individualism and personal agendas might be okay in a normal workplace, but it’s not okay in team sports. Teamness is what fans demand from the teams they pay to watch. Any individual with an agenda that’s even slightly different from that of the team hurts that cause.
and this is not sociologically-grounded either:
We should salute Esera Tuaolo and other gay athletes who are able to keep their sexual orientation private during their playing days. It’s got to be very difficult to do, and yet it’s what’s best for the team.
With that one notice who has to take one for the team. Rather than Knudson and those like him swallowing their discomfort with an openly gay person in the locker room for the good of the team, the gay person should stay closeted.
And if one's teammates in all their noble teamness won't accept you, who will?
Teams are being asked to change. He's saying change is bad because it's disruptive. It's the argument that's trotted out every time the status quo is defended and here, as in most cases, it's really nothing more than "sociological" cover for defending a status quo that is more comfortable for the speaker.
It's not a reasonable position because (a) the history of ethnic and gender inclusion shows it hasn't been disruptive to "teamness" and (b) even if true, the problem lies with those who feel uncomfortable with gays on the team, not the gay people who live open lives.
Very good post, Walt.
Exactly. You can think whatever you want abo0ut another person having the hots for you - be offended, outraged, flattered if you want, that's entirely your right. The other person gets to think whatever they like about you though, including having the hots for you.
This is basically the exact opposite of "thought police".
I misread the multiple negatives in your post to mean that you thought that such a "right not to be lusted after" existed (it's the weekend and I really don't feel like doing any more Boolean calculations). I re-read it enough times that it is clear now. I retract my snide remark.
It's an interesting situation, but I guess in terms of privacy the knowledge of being spied upon might be more damaging than the actual spying. So the effective Peeping Tom who plies his craft undetected causes less damage because the subject never is aware they have been spied upon.
How about gay guys who don't want other people checking them out? They can't dress with the guys, can't dress with heterosexual women. About all they can do is pair off with a single lesbian.
People keep ignoring the crux. It's not about thought. It's about place. Women know men think about them. They know they serve as masturbatory fodder. That doesn't make the issue of sharing intimate accommodations irrelevant. But, if you believe that, let's integrate all the places where the sexes are kept separate. Why does this keep whistling pass people's ears?
I don't think that's too much to ask from a big league athlete, either - particularly compared to asking people to hide or deny a core part of who they are.
Hockey players are by and large in better shape, and there are some lookers in the NHL. But by god no one does ugly like hockey.
Obviously, the situation is different from TFA, but I think it touches on a somewhat similar general idea. So many of the policies we have regarding the genders, as far as locker rooms, dorm rooms, etc. are hetero-normative and to what extent should these things change since OMG gay people exist?
People keep ignoring the crux. It's not about thought. It's about place. Women know men think about them. They know they serve as masturbatory fodder. That doesn't make the issue of sharing intimate accommodations irrelevant. But, if you believe that, let's integrate all the places where the sexes are kept separate. Why does this keep whistling pass people's ears?
It's an interesting question to ask although I would say you're missing the crux, which is that Knudson is not arguing that gay men should not be allowed to shower with the rest of the team, but rather that they should be able to continue to do so but should hide their gayness (and that having to do so would avoid awkward moments and contribute to the atmosphere of "teamness"). So it is really a question of thought rather than place.
In response to your question, I think that the unequal power dynamics (physical as well as social) between men and women make that situation different from the question of a gay player in an all-male locker room. I would also suggest that the overwhelmingly male contributors to this thread might not be the best people to ask your question, and that might be why you're getting few responses.
Other than being a pervert, I have no idea why you would go in that direction, rather than the obvious one. Every person should be able to decide for themselves which parts of their body they want to expose to which people (insert flasher joke here). It's trivial for an organization such as MLB to accommodate that. Expanding a system where others have to expose themselves to people they don't want to, is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
And as a straight man, I would very much appreciate it, if you made full use of that option. I really have no desire to see your 5 incher flopping around at the gym. You'd be doing me a huge courtesy.
Yet another example of special privileges for favored minority groups!
- here we go again
there are not coed changing rooms/males allowed in female locker rooms because females are uncomfortable/embarrassed enough about having to be nekkid in front of other females but frightened about hwving to do that in front of other males. because we've gotten used to males having masturbatory thoughts about females but we FEEL safer with clothes ON. and with YALLS clothes on. it is a rape/power thing.
but morty is the kind of guy who thinks that old guys screwing 12-16 year olds is kewl, so there is no talking to a mind like that
when you get in large groups of males and females, there aren't problems like this, although i would bet there were/are BITGOD when females were kept in a small powerless group and had to put up with sexual crap from males or quit/get fired
i have asked some former male athletes about gay guys on the team and have heard pretty much that either they thought/knew that some guy was gay and it wasn't a problem because the gay guy didn't either drool over his junk or come on to him.
The mind simply boggles at the possibilities.
This is what I don't get, they spend millions of dollars on these athletes, why do they have to shower as if the place of employment can't afford to spend a few thousands to upgrade the shower facilities? If it's all about the showers, then it should be a non-factor at all.
First thing I thought when reading this article, is that I have heard this argument before. It's given out by people who want to restrict, while pretending to be open. As pointed out, same article could have been written about the military (femals, blacks and gays). I just don't see how it's that big of a deal. Most guys who have taken a few dozen showers with other guys, just stop caring about what is going on around them, and get to the task at hand. Any trepidation or worry is gone after about a week with the same group of guys anyway.
Besides, having openly gay is probably less stressful than closeted gay if you are worried about that stuff. If being open allows you to know who is gay, and it's going to bother you, then you can time your shower visits to avoid the openly gay guy if you want. Versus having closeted gay guys means "who knows who is checking out your junk?".. I would rather be in the know than guessing(assuming I would care)
This completely misses the issue being raised.
And I'd love to see what would happen to the first player who tried that. That alone would be an obvious deterrent to any gay player trying to act out his fantasies.
I've very occasionally been in situations where an openly gay man has been aggressive, even belligerently so, in the pursuit of other men. In situations involving nudity it is indeed unpleasant, but the answer isn't excluding gay men from locker rooms, or telling them to keep their homosexuality to themselves; the answer should be more along the lines of how we discourage harassment in situations involving heterosexuals.
No, no, I want to hear your response to BBC.
minimum of 3 feet on the floor
The mind simply boggles at the possibilities.
Yeah, this is a rule thought up by people with very little.... knowledge.
I agree. We should get over our ridiculous hangups about nudity, and that won't happen for as long as we segregate the sexes. Build your showers with little dressing room areas and there will be privacy for those who desire it.
If you can measure someone's junk in the locker room with that degree of precision, I'm getting the idea that you really do want to see it.
Someone could make the same sort of argument based on a belief that homosexual males are predatory. Men do rape other men on occasion.
Most men aren't rapists, and the fact that some are isn't really a good reason for segregation.
It is noted that you don't find that "some" a notable number, but enough women do to appreciate not having to be naked in front of strange men.
If you're going to equate the frequency of men raping men with men raping women to make your argument, that's fine, but it's just not smart.
Don't put words in my mouth. I think "one" is a notable number, as in "one too many."
I'd also point out that it's much more than just rape statistics that drives this idea of segregated locker rooms. It's a cultural attitude toward certain body parts as exclusively sexualized. It's the same sort of reason people oppose breastfeeding in public.
I also think there's bit of lousy logic going on here, that unfairly paints men as beasts incapable of self-control. It's like the mere sight of naked woman flesh will drive men into a frenzy of uncontrollable sexual desire. My honest belief is that a coeducational locker room would, if anything, reduce the sexualization of the female form in our society, and I think that's a very good thing to be striving for.
If you're going to equate the frequency of men raping men with men raping women to make your argument, that's fine, but it's just not smart.
I'm not equating anything. I thought "on occasion" made it clear that I was talking about something relatively rare, but I could see how it looked sarcastic rather than matter of fact in text.
I'm saying that if a subsection of the population has a particular characteristic that it's unfair to brand the entire population with that characteristic. Over 25% of black men serve some time in prison. Is it really ever appropriate to segregate based on race because of this sizable minority? What if, based on these statistics, someone doesn't feel as safe around black men as he or she would around white men, and won't take a black man as a roommate? Is that reasonable?
My old newspaper's executive editor decreed that men couldn't be raped, period. Also, there were no such things as neo-Nazis or racism.
Why, yes, he did fancy himself a libertarian.
I found this funny, as the phrasing made it sound like it signaled a real difference between the sexes. I doubt women do this any less often than men do.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main