PDA

View Full Version : Reporter peeved at White Sox for allowing sexist locker room "shrine"



Unassisted
05-06-2008, 09:18 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/slezak/933482,CST-NWS-carol06.article#


White Sox blew it by allowing sexist shrine

Guillen, team leaders weren't man enough to say 'this is wrong'

May 6, 2008

BY CAROL SLEZAK cslezak@suntimes.com
White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen curses this city for failing to give the Sox organization proper respect, but he has no problem with the infantile and sexist "shrine" his players erected in their locker room.

So much for sensitivity training.

Apparently the sensitivity training classes White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen attended after using a gay slur in 2006 did not include a segment on blow-up dolls.

Designed to help the team break out of its slump, the shrine featured two female blow-up dolls surrounded by ''strategically placed'' baseball bats and was accompanied by a sign that read, ''You've Got To Push,'' Canada's National Post reported.

''A few of the bats were doing naughty things,'' Sun-Times beat writer Joe Cowley wrote in his blog. Apparently one of the dolls was propped up by a bat in its rear end. Whether the lewdness was intentional or not, this was inappropriate. As were the blow-up dolls. Period.

Neither Guillen, his players nor anyone else in the Sox organization had attempted to conceal the shrine from reporters before the Sox played the Blue Jays on Sunday at Toronto's Rogers Centre. And on Monday, Guillen defended the display (which had since been taken down), rationalizing that the team treats female reporters respectfully, and besides, he has seen a lot worse during his big-league career. So what's the big deal, anyway?

Apparently the sensitivity training classes Guillen attended after using a gay slur in 2006 did not include a segment on blow-up dolls.

Just so we're clear, had there been any female reporters working Sunday's game -- my understanding is there weren't -- the Sox could have found themselves in legal trouble as a result of the display. It's also possible male reporters were offended by the display.

But this isn't about reporters' feelings. Reporters are conduits to the fans. What a team does behind closed doors is its own business. But once the locker room opens, the franchise is on public display. So, how do you like your team now, Sox fans? Do you think the players respect women? I'm not so sure about that.

Can you imagine the Yankees or Red Sox building a similar shrine in their locker room, in full view of clubhouse visitors? Can you imagine Joe Girardi or Terry Francona allowing that to happen? I can't.

While Guillen has no problem with the shrine, he has definite issues with where the Sox rank in this two-team baseball city. His Sunday sermon proved that.

''The Cubs haven't won in 120 years, and they're the [bleep]ing best,'' he said. ''[Bleep] everybody. We're horse[bleep], and we're going to be horse[bleep] the rest of our lives, no matter how many World Series we win. We are the ***** of Chicago. We're the Chicago *****.''

Why is he wasting energy on the Cubs? More important, how can he complain about a lack of respect while his players are worshipping blow-up dolls in the locker room? It's absurd.

That's not to let the players off the hook. Who among them thought this was a good idea? How could the so-called team leaders -- Paul Konerko, Jim Thome, Mark Buehrle, Orlando Cabrera and Nick Swisher -- allow this this to happen?

To think there wasn't a single player man enough to stand up and say, ''This is wrong.''

I'm sure the players' moms, wives, sisters and daughters are really proud of them. Way to go, guys. And just so we're clear, the tired ''boys will be boys'' excuse no longer works.

But it starts at the top. I'm pretty sure Guillen was born without a sensitivity chip, but what about general manager Ken Williams and chairman Jerry Reinsdorf? What about commissioner Bud Selig, who ordered Guillen's 2006 sensitivity training? Verbal or not, intended or not, the blow-up doll shrine said a mouthful about how the Sox organization views women. And I don't like what I heard.

CrackerJack
05-06-2008, 09:23 PM
Read this earlier, sounds like something a bunch of high school or college kids would do.

While I don't think it's "offensive" necessarily (just immature and stupid) it certainly shouldn't be "displayed" in a professional team's locker room.

Guillen is simply an idiot. Professional athletes demeaning and dehumanizing women is nothing new though I guess.

reds44
05-06-2008, 09:28 PM
It was a freaking blow up doll. Let me ask you a question, what are blow up dolls usually used for?


But this isn't about reporters' feelings.
Yeah, right.

It's a locker room full of 25 guys, stuff like this is going to happen.

VR
05-06-2008, 09:33 PM
It was a freaking blow up doll. Let me ask you a question, what are blow up dolls usually used for?


Yeah, right.

It's a locker room full of 25 guys, stuff like this is going to happen.



That's a pretty solid defense in front of a judge defending a million dollar lawsuit.

Being an idiot is no excuse for not understanding what harrassment is.

reds44
05-06-2008, 09:35 PM
So now what they did is harrassment?

VR
05-06-2008, 09:36 PM
So now what they did his harrassment?

?

vaticanplum
05-06-2008, 09:37 PM
That's a pretty solid defense in front of a judge defending a million dollar lawsuit.

Being an idiot is no excuse for not understanding what harrassment is.

Agreed. Frankly, reds44, I expect more from you. There are solid defenses to be had if you believe the guys in the clubhouse did nothing wrong, so resorting to the shrug, well they're dudes excuse is a pretty lazy take on the situation.

Unassisted
05-06-2008, 09:39 PM
So now what they did his harrassment?If the reporter who wrote this piece had been in the locker room to witness the "shrine," the White Sox organization would indeed be writing her a big check to avoid writing a huge check for a big award in a harassment case.

cincrazy
05-06-2008, 09:39 PM
It was a freaking blow up doll. Let me ask you a question, what are blow up dolls usually used for?


Yeah, right.

It's a locker room full of 25 guys, stuff like this is going to happen.

It's a "professional" team. And Guillen has never run a "professional" ship. It's classless.

I was a beat reporter in college, and I cringe at the thought of being in a locker room with that display while standing next to a co-worker who just happens to be a female.

To my understanding, there were no females present in the room at the time. Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. But when Nick Swisher is the leader of your team and Ozzie Guillen is your manager, what's right normally isn't practiced much.

smith288
05-06-2008, 09:42 PM
This is in not "harassment" as I understand it. this is plain stupid... But we expect that from Guillen.

cincrazy
05-06-2008, 09:43 PM
So now what they did is harrassment?

Yes. Being a reporter in general is tough enough, but examples such as this give a good illustration as to why it's even tougher for a female reporter to do her job in a so called "boys being boys" environment.

VR
05-06-2008, 09:43 PM
This is in not "harassment" as I understand it. this is plain stupid... But we expect that from Guillen.



smith...what would make it harrassment in your mind?

reds44
05-06-2008, 09:44 PM
If this was a WNBA team and they did something similar with a male blowup doll, cardboard cutout, whatever, would this even be a story? Nope.

And the amount of "groupies" that throw themselves at professional athletes should be much more degrading than this. To be quite frank, there are quiet a few number of women who have very little self respect and sleep with these guys when they know little or nothing about them.

Why isn't Carol writing an article about that?

Highlifeman21
05-06-2008, 09:44 PM
Agreed. Frankly, reds44, I expect more from you. There are solid defenses to be had if you believe the guys in the clubhouse did nothing wrong, so resorting to the shrug, well they're dudes excuse is a pretty lazy take on the situation.

I guess color me shocked that we haven't heard of blow up dolls mingling with baseball bats in male baseball locker rooms before now.

They're dudes. They're in a locker room. They're being dudes in a locker room.

*shrug*

What's the big deal?

reds44
05-06-2008, 09:48 PM
Yes. Being a reporter in general is tough enough, but examples such as this give a good illustration as to why it's even tougher for a female reporter to do her job in a so called "boys being boys" environment.
She wasn't even in the room to see it.


''A few of the bats were doing naughty things,'' Sun-Times beat writer Joe Cowley wrote in his blog. Apparently one of the dolls was propped up by a bat in its rear end. Whether the lewdness was intentional or not, this was inappropriate. As were the blow-up dolls. Period.

This is what you call digging for a story, and obviously it has worked.

WMR
05-06-2008, 09:49 PM
I guess color me shocked that we haven't heard of blow up dolls mingling with baseball bats in male baseball locker rooms before now.

They're dudes. They're in a locker room. They're being dudes in a locker room.

*shrug*

What's the big deal?

Seriously.

"WAH, there's a blow up doll in the locker room."

Perhaps if they named it Carol she'd have a case.

reds44
05-06-2008, 09:50 PM
Seriously.

"WAH, there's a blow up doll in the locker room."

Perhaps if they named it Carol she'd have a case.
Now THAT I would have a problem with, but this is nothing.

smith288
05-06-2008, 09:50 PM
smith...what would make it harrassment in your mind?
Making an uncomfortable environment for someone in hopes of benefitting from them in some way, mostly sexual in nature.

This may have made women uncomfortable, but it in no way was done in order to influence or intimidate a women into sexually natured favors. Which is typically what sexual harassment. I've been to my Nationwide Insurance "social" classes...

Ltlabner
05-06-2008, 09:53 PM
Baseball players acting like frat boys? Oh my lord, when did this start? I guess I assumed they just sipped wine and discussed geo-politics back in the clubhouse. Perhaps they need sensitivity training so they can resume singing kumbya and writing poems. Next thing you'll tell me they say naughty words infront of the ladies.

Sarcasim aside, it's their clubhouse, if they want to decorate it in poor taste that's their deal. That doesn't give them liscence to post child-porn or grope people (which are illegal anyway) but if you step into their world you ought to expect to see things that may not sit well with you. Almost like visiting a friends house and they have a painting that bothers you. You wouldn't stomp your feet and demand they take it down. Within reason you conform to your friends way of doing things, not force them to bend to your will.

I am suprised, however, that the White-Sox management allowed this to go on. Why open yourself to horrable PR, potential litigation and just plain looking like jerk-weeds? Baseball players acting like dolts, that I expect. But management should have known much better and put a halt to things pronto. While it's the players clubhouse, management is the land-lord that can demand you mow your yard when the grass is too deep. On the sliding scale from downright offensive to mearly tacky I'd say what the players had was closer to tacky, but why management thought this would be a good idea to have on display in front of reporters is a mystery.

VR
05-06-2008, 09:57 PM
Making an uncomfortable environment for someone in hopes of benefitting from them in some way, mostly sexual in nature.

This may have made women uncomfortable, but it in no way was done in order to influence or intimidate a women into sexually natured favors. Which is typically what sexual harassment. I've been to my Nationwide Insurance "social" classes...


You should take those classes again.....just because you don't want to have sex with the fat intern...doesn't mean it's not harrassment to have that in your view....and with management being aware. If it creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment, you are ripe for a lawsuit. The Sox liability is not with the players....it's w/ their idiot manager approving of it to be left there once the clubhouse was 'opened' to reporters.

CrackerJack
05-06-2008, 10:03 PM
Baseball players acting like frat boys? Oh my lord, when did this start? I guess I assumed they just sipped wine and discussed geo-politics back in the clubhouse. Perhaps they need sensitivity training so they can resume singing kumbya and writing poems. Next thing you'll tell me they say naughty words infront of the ladies.

Sarcasim aside, it's their clubhouse, if they want to decorate it in poor taste that's their deal. That doesn't give them liscence to post child-porn or grope people (which are illegal anyway) but if you step into their world you ought to expect to see things that may not sit well with you. Almost like visiting a friends house and they have a painting that bothers you. You wouldn't stomp your feet and demand they take it down. Within reason you conform to your friends way of doing things, not force them to bend to your will.

I am suprised, however, that the White-Sox management allowed this to go on. Why open yourself to horrable PR, potential litigation and just plain looking like jerk-weeds? Baseball players acting like dolts, that I expect. But management should have known much better and put a halt to things pronto. While it's the players clubhouse, management is the land-lord that can demand you mow your yard when the grass is too deep. On the sliding scale from downright offensive to mearly tacky I'd say what the players had was closer to tacky, but why management thought this would be a good idea to have on display in front of reporters is a mystery.

I don't think anyone's "surprised" they would do or think of such a thing, just surprised they're stupid enough to put something like that up in a professional, open clubhouse.

vaticanplum
05-06-2008, 10:05 PM
First of all, i will state my opinion on this situation which is that these guys didn't break any rules, and they can do what they want within the confines of their clubhouse and within the confines of the rules, and frankly I think the media fuss over it hurts things more than it helps anything. Sports needs to save its sexism battles for places where they're really needed, and it is my opinion that giving such attention to situations like this muddles them with situations that involve actual harrasment. I don't think anyone should be punished and I don't think anyone should be forced to apologize. I do think it's gross, I do think it's callous, I do think we wouldn't see this from a lot of other teams, I think it would be nice if someone apologized of his own accord, and I certainly think that slapping the "boys will be boys" label on it devalues all of the wonderful, classy, respectful men who populate the world and its sports. It's my opinion that if no one ever said this phrase to their kids, this would be a more confident, happier world.

That behind me...


If this was a WNBA team and they did something similar with a male blowup doll, cardboard cutout, whatever, would this even be a story? Nope.

Right. Great logic there, my friend They get away with murder and rape in certain corners of the world and it never even makes the news. Why should it be a story here? That's an extreme example, but just a reminder that two wrongs never make a right.


And the amount of "groupies" that throw themselves at professional athletes should be much more degrading than this. To be quite frank, there are quiet a few number of women who have very little self respect and sleep with these guys when they know little or nothing about them.

Why isn't Carol writing an article about that?

Maybe because that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS SITUATION. What about all those baseball players throwing themselves at the women? Does that degrade your sex? How any public figure and his or her "groupies" behave and the decisions they make after hours is of no public concern of ours unless someone breaks the law. Exactly how many "groupies" have you quizzed about their level of self-respect? They're adults making their own decisions, and they may be great decisions for them or they may be decisions that cause them regret in their own futures, but that's no concern of yours or the public's, and lumping them all into one generalized category degrades no one but yourself. Not unless you apply the label to everyone on earth who makes any kind of similar decisions, which means you've just classified a huge section of the population, both sexes, as lacking self-respect simply for making their own decisions. I see no way in which this relates to this situation whatsoever. There's a group of men carting a blow-up doll around a clubhouse and having her do lewd things, and a blow-up doll is only ever one thing -- a sexual representation of a woman (hey, girls will be girls, right?) -- and the group you're targeting as lacking respect is a group of theoretical women not involved in the situation? Well done.

reds44
05-06-2008, 10:10 PM
First of all, i will state my opinion on this situation which is that these guys didn't break any rules, and they can do what they want within the confines of their clubhouse and within the confines of the rules, and frankly I think the media fuss over it hurts things more than it helps anything. Sports needs to save its sexism battles for places where they're really needed, and it is my opinion that giving such attention to situations like this muddles them with situations that involve actual harrasment. I don't think anyone should be punished and I don't think anyone should be forced to apologize. I do think it's gross, I do think it's callous, I do think we wouldn't see this from a lot of other teams, I think it would be nice if someone apologized of his own accord, and I certainly think that slapping the "boys will be boys" label on it devalues all of the wonderful, classy, respectful men who populate the world and its sports. It's my opinion that if no one evers said this phrase to their kids, this would be a more confident, happier world.

That behind me...



Right. Great logic there, my friend They get away with murder and rape in certain corners of the world and it never even makes the news. Why should it be a story here? That's an extreme example, but just a reminder that two wrongs never make a right.


[And the amount of "groupies" that throw themselves at professional athletes should be much more degrading than this. To be quite frank, there are quiet a few number of women who have very little self respect and sleep with these guys when they know little or nothing about them.

Why isn't Carol writing an article about that?

Maybe because that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS SITUATION. What about all those baseball players throwing themselves at the women? Does that degrade your sex? How any public figure and his or her "groupies" behave and the decisions they make after hours is of no public concern of ours unless someone breaks the law. Exactly how many "groupies" have you quizzed about their level of self-respect? They're adults making their own decisions, and they may be great decisions for them or they may be decisions that cause them regret in their own futures, but that's no concern of yours or the public's, and lumping them all into one generalized category degrades no one but yourself. Not unless you apply the label to everyone on earth who makes any kind of similar decisions, which means you've just classified a huge section of the population, both sexes, as lacking self-respect simply for making their own decisions. I see no way in which this relates to this situation whatsoever. There's a group of men carting a blow-up doll around a clubhouse and having her do lewd things, and a blow-up doll is only ever one thing -- a sexual representation of a woman -- and the group you're targeting as lacking respect is a group of theoretical women not involved in the situation? Well done.
No, it doesn't degrade my sex at all. Did the White Sox do anything illegal? Nope, so why should it anyone care what they do in THEIR clubhouse? This isn't the reporters clubhouse, it is the players. The same clubhouse in which players shower, and in the past (not sure if they do it anymore) walk around naked. It isn't like you are walking into a church and see this.

And please, does anybody honestly think the White Sox were going tehehehehehe women are just objects and nothing more? No, of course not. There are many players in that clubhouse who have wives, daughters, and I know they all have mothers.

It was something stupid, that is getting way blown out of perportion.

Always Red
05-06-2008, 10:10 PM
The clubhouse is actually a very public place- all kinds of folks in and out of there, at specified times, of course.

It's a PC world now, which is why this is such a big deal. I'm sure Billy Martin, Whitey Ford and The Mick did the very same thing, but it's not 1957 anymore, either (for better or worse).

All in all, this is just incredibly bad PR for the White Sox, was just plain stupid, and is in poor taste. The guys could have set it up in the trainer's room (which is strictly off limits IIRC) and none of this would have seen the light of day.

Ozzie Guillen is really losing it; he has not learned a single thing from any of his mistakes.

vaticanplum
05-06-2008, 10:13 PM
No, it doesn't degrade my sex at all. Did the White Sox do anything illegal? Nope, so why should it anyone care what they do in THEIR clubhouse? This isn't the reporters clubhouse, it is the players. The same clubhouse in which players shower, and in the past (not sure if they do it anymore) walk around naked. It isn't like you are walking into a church and see this.

I wasn't referring to this situation. I was asking you about the other side of your completely inappropriate analogy and trying to point out the serious flaws in a generalist argument such as "boys will be boys".

For the record -- and I've stated that I don't think they did anything against the rules and this has been blown out of proportion -- but that clubhouse doesn't belong to the players. The players are guests there. it belongs to the White Sox organization, and if they have problems with anything the players do there, it's their call on how to set the rules.

Reds Nd2
05-06-2008, 10:18 PM
Sports needs to save its sexism battles for places where they're really needed...

I'd start with why doesn't Kim Ng have a general managers job?

Crosley68
05-06-2008, 10:20 PM
Wow........I am not shocked by the players' display as much as I am from some of the neanderthal defense being displayed in this thread.

flyer85
05-06-2008, 10:22 PM
It's classless.
and juvenile. They ought to be embarrassed ... but they aren't, I can hear the snickering.

smith288
05-06-2008, 10:26 PM
You should take those classes again.....just because you don't want to have sex with the fat intern...doesn't mean it's not harrassment to have that in your view....and with management being aware. If it creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment, you are ripe for a lawsuit. The Sox liability is not with the players....it's w/ their idiot manager approving of it to be left there once the clubhouse was 'opened' to reporters.

If it creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment, you are ripe for a lawsuit.

Offensive and hostile, yes perhaps. Harrasment? No. I know what sexual harassment is and what you are saying it is is not that. What you are saying it is is overly sensitive PC bull especially for a all male locker room.

"an employee policy or acquiescence in a practice of compelling female employees to submit to the sexual advances of their male superiors." 552 F. 2d 1032 of the civil rights act.

How the white sox weak attempt at humor is the same as the above is beyond me. Perhaps you can sift that out for me?

For the record, I think this is a stupid thing to do. I would never condone to this even in the worst of testosterone filled locker rooms. Its just stupid as an idea. I would be embarassed to be associated to such a dumb act.

Falls City Beer
05-06-2008, 10:30 PM
My good looks make me a walking talking breathing sexual harassment case. Errbody thinks I'm da babydaddy.

smith288
05-06-2008, 10:32 PM
Wow........I am not shocked by the players' display as much as I am from some of the neanderthal defense being displayed in this thread.
Well, if you are referring to the people defending the right for the White Sox management to be brain dead morons with little couth, you got me, im darn near a cave man.

But I don't drag my wife by the hair, if that's what you are trying to elude to...

Reds Nd2
05-06-2008, 10:43 PM
Did the White Sox do anything illegal? Nope, so why should it anyone care what they do in THEIR clubhouse?

I wouldn't be too sure about that. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DE1539F93BA15751C0A9649582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) BTW, the shrine wasn't in "THEIR" clubhouse. It was in the visitors clubhouse at the Rogers Centre; located in the heart of the entertainment district of downtown Toronto.

VR
05-06-2008, 10:44 PM
Offensive and hostile, yes perhaps. Harrasment? No. I know what sexual harassment is and what you are saying it is is not that. What you are saying it is is overly sensitive PC bull especially for a all male locker room.

"an employee policy or acquiescence in a practice of compelling female employees to submit to the sexual advances of their male superiors." 552 F. 2d 1032 of the civil rights act.

How the white sox weak attempt at humor is the same as the above is beyond me. Perhaps you can sift that out for me?

For the record, I think this is a stupid thing to do. I would never condone to this even in the worst of testosterone filled locker rooms. Its just stupid as an idea. I would be embarassed to be associated to such a dumb act.


Here ya go.




What is Sexual Harassment?
Sexual harassment at work occurs whenever unwelcome conduct on the basis of gender affects a person's job, It is defined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

submission to the conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, or
submission to or rejection of the conduct by an individual is used as a ,basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
the conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
The U.S. Supreme Court has simplified matters somewhat by explaining that there are two basic types of unlawful sexual harassment. The first type involves harassment that results in a tangible employment action. An example would be a supervisor who tells a subordinate that he or she must be sexually cooperative with the supervisor or he or she will be fired, and who then indeed does fire the subordinate for not submitting. The imposition of this crude "put out or get out” bargain is often referred to as quid pro quo ("this for that"). This kind of unlawful sexual harassment can be committed only by someone who can make or effectively influence employment actions (such as firing, demotion, and denial of promotion) that will affect the victimized employee.

A second type of unlawful sexual harassment is referred to as hostile environment. Unlike a quid pro quo, which only a supervisor can impose, a hostile environment can result from the gender-based unwelcome conduct of supervisors, co-workers, customers, vendors, or anyone else with whom the victimized employee Interacts .on the job. The behaviors that have contributed to a hostile environment have included:

unfulfilled threats to impose a sexual quid pro quo.
discussing sexual activities;
telling off-color jokes;
unnecessary touching;
commenting on physical attributes;
displaying sexually suggestive pictures;
using demeaning or inappropriate terms, such as "Babe";
using indecent gestures;
sabotaging the victim’s work;
engaging in hostile physical conduct;
granting job favors to those who participate in consensual sexual activity;
using crude and offensive language

smith288
05-06-2008, 10:49 PM
I wouldn't be too sure about that. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DE1539F93BA15751C0A9649582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) BTW, the shrine wasn't in "THEIR" clubhouse. It was in the visitors clubhouse at the Rogers Centre; located in the heart of the entertainment district of downtown Toronto.
Canada has incredibly aggressive laws against free speech in the area of social behaviors of certain groups that would make the ACLU weap (and I loathe the ACLU).

The White Sox won't and shouldn't be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian justice system. Now the management of the Roger's Center could be theoretically but doubtful. There will likely be a very stern education on their laws etc.

WMR
05-06-2008, 10:54 PM
Canada has incredibly aggressive laws against free speech in the area of social behaviors of certain groups that would make the ACLU weap [sic] (and I loathe the ACLU).

The White Sox won't and shouldn't be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian justice system. Now the management of the Roger's Center could be theoretically but doubtful. There will likely be a very stern education on their laws etc.

When were traveling baseball clubs granted diplomatic immunity when outside America's borders?

Reds Nd2
05-06-2008, 10:56 PM
The White Sox won't and shouldn't be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian justice system.

Why not? The team was in Canada when this happened after all.

Reds Nd2
05-06-2008, 10:59 PM
Canada has incredibly aggressive laws against free speech in the area of social behaviors of certain groups that would make the ACLU weap (and I loathe the ACLU).

White males?

pahster
05-06-2008, 11:00 PM
The White Sox won't and shouldn't be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian justice system.

Hahahahaha! By that logic I outta be able to go abroad and commit whatever crimes I want. I'm an American; foreign laws don't apply to me! :p:

savafan
05-06-2008, 11:00 PM
I'm sick and tired of people who go out of their way to look for something to be offended by. You don't have a right to not be offended. It's not written anywhere, and it isn't proclaimed over you at birth. Quite frankly, if someone is offended, then maybe they're the one with the problem. After all, it's their mind's interpretation...to others, it could be considered a work of art.

Offended people offend me. I think I'll sue.

smith288
05-06-2008, 11:00 PM
Here ya go.




What is Sexual Harassment?
Sexual harassment at work occurs whenever unwelcome conduct on the basis of gender affects a person's job, It is defined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

submission to the conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, or
submission to or rejection of the conduct by an individual is used as a ,basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
the conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
The U.S. Supreme Court has simplified matters somewhat by explaining that there are two basic types of unlawful sexual harassment. The first type involves harassment that results in a tangible employment action. An example would be a supervisor who tells a subordinate that he or she must be sexually cooperative with the supervisor or he or she will be fired, and who then indeed does fire the subordinate for not submitting. The imposition of this crude "put out or get out” bargain is often referred to as quid pro quo ("this for that"). This kind of unlawful sexual harassment can be committed only by someone who can make or effectively influence employment actions (such as firing, demotion, and denial of promotion) that will affect the victimized employee.

A second type of unlawful sexual harassment is referred to as hostile environment. Unlike a quid pro quo, which only a supervisor can impose, a hostile environment can result from the gender-based unwelcome conduct of supervisors, co-workers, customers, vendors, or anyone else with whom the victimized employee Interacts .on the job. The behaviors that have contributed to a hostile environment have included:

unfulfilled threats to impose a sexual quid pro quo.
discussing sexual activities;
telling off-color jokes;
unnecessary touching;
commenting on physical attributes;
displaying sexually suggestive pictures;
using demeaning or inappropriate terms, such as "Babe";
using indecent gestures;
sabotaging the victim’s work;
engaging in hostile physical conduct;
granting job favors to those who participate in consensual sexual activity;
using crude and offensive language
Dude... you might as well throw me and my whole friggin company in guantanamo.

It appears to meet the requirements of making it hostile if it wasnt a freaking locker room. It being typical for it to be a collective man zone, this should be a small reprimand and a warning to keep the environment considerate for females. Offensive language is common as well as sexual encounters, gestures or any mixture of your list.

This wasn't an accountant's firm or a newspaper office. It's a locker room and that makes this slightly different than an office environment.

WMR
05-06-2008, 11:01 PM
Hahahahaha! By that logic I outta be able to go abroad and commit whatever crimes I want. I'm an American; foreign laws don't apply to me! :p:

:D

cincrazy
05-06-2008, 11:03 PM
I wasn't referring to this situation. I was asking you about the other side of your completely inappropriate analogy and trying to point out the serious flaws in a generalist argument such as "boys will be boys".

For the record -- and I've stated that I don't think they did anything against the rules and this has been blown out of proportion -- but that clubhouse doesn't belong to the players. The players are guests there. it belongs to the White Sox organization, and if they have problems with anything the players do there, it's their call on how to set the rules.

Amen.

VR
05-06-2008, 11:05 PM
Dude... you might as well throw me and my whole friggin company in guantanamo.

It appears to meet the requirements of making it hostile if it wasnt a freaking locker room. It being typical for it to be a collective man zone, this should be a small reprimand and a warning to keep the environment considerate for females. Offensive language is common as well as sexual encounters, gestures or any mixture of your list.

This wasn't an accountant's firm or a newspaper office. It's a locker room and that makes this slightly different than an office environment.

Trust me, the judge doesn't care. The law is what it is...laid out pretty clearly. Again, the major problem is 'management' not nipping this in the bud.

It happens in all companies....a lot. But no one should mistake it is shark infested waters, especially if you are a supervisor or above.

smith288
05-06-2008, 11:07 PM
When were traveling baseball clubs granted diplomatic immunity when outside America's borders?


Why not? The team was in Canada when this happened after all.


Hahahahaha! By that logic I outta be able to go abroad and commit whatever crimes I want. I'm an American; foreign laws don't apply to me! :p:

Shouldn't the management of Roger's be held responsible for the environment? Im not 100% sure, but I always thought the management of the property is ultimately responsible of a company breaking some sort of law that occured on said property. I figure this is a case of a corporate entity breaking some law, not a specific player.

smith288
05-06-2008, 11:09 PM
Trust me, the judge doesn't care. The law is what it is...laid out pretty clearly. Again, the major problem is 'management' not nipping this in the bud.

It happens in all companies....a lot. But no one should mistake it is shark infested waters, especially if you are a supervisor or above.
So who is the "company" here? Roger's? White Sox? MLB?

VR
05-06-2008, 11:14 PM
So who is the "company" here? Roger's? White Sox? MLB?

Yes, the Sox.

dougdirt
05-06-2008, 11:15 PM
I'm sick and tired of people who go out of their way to look for something to be offended by. You don't have a right to not be offended. It's not written anywhere, and it isn't proclaimed over you at birth. Quite frankly, if someone is offended, then maybe they're the one with the problem. After all, it's their mind's interpretation...to others, it could be considered a work of art.

Offended people offend me. I think I'll sue.

Winner of the best post in this thread. This is a family friendly board, so I won't say what I feel about the topic at hand, but this is the closest to how I feel in the thread.

WMR
05-06-2008, 11:18 PM
My area of expertise is American law, so I'll speak from that standpoint: If such a suit was brought in an American courtroom, they'd likely sue Guillen, the White Sox, the Arena, as well as MLB. IF the suit was successful--which I highly doubt it WOULD be, at least in an American court--it'd be about assessing percentages of blame to each party along the "chain of wrongdoing."

I would bet Canadian law is fairly similar, however, as stated, they have freedom of speech/expression laws much more draconian than those found in America.

I do know that if you break a law in Canada, you'll be held liable for it in that country, within the appropriate jurisdiction wherein the offense occurred.

reds44
05-06-2008, 11:22 PM
Winner of the best post in this thread. This is a family friendly board, so I won't say what I feel about the topic at hand, but this is the closest to how I feel in the thread.
Oh I would love to see how you really feel, but I agree with Sava as well and that was my original point. It's like she was looking for something to be offended by.

dougdirt
05-06-2008, 11:24 PM
Oh I would love to see how you really feel, but I agree with Sava as well and that was my original point. It's like she was looking for something to be offended by.

It was more about a situation I was going to refer to that would display a very strong point, but I can't explain it on this site.

cincrazy
05-06-2008, 11:28 PM
Oh I would love to see how you really feel, but I agree with Sava as well and that was my original point. It's like she was looking for something to be offended by.

It's not hard to look for something offensive when it's right in front of you my friend.

Hooligan
05-06-2008, 11:29 PM
I guess now we have to be careful not to offend blow up dolls!?!?!?!?!?!

VR
05-06-2008, 11:31 PM
My area of expertise is American law, so I'll speak from that standpoint: If such a suit was brought in an American courtroom, they'd likely sue Guillen, the White Sox, the Arena, as well as MLB. IF the suit was successful--which I highly doubt it WOULD be, at least in an American court--it'd be about assessing percentages of blame to each party along the "chain of wrongdoing."
.

Good points WMR.

savafan
05-06-2008, 11:33 PM
It's not hard to look for something offensive when it's right in front of you my friend.

I could find this post offensive. I don't, because I use my mind for sound judgement and rational thinking, but I could.

Reds Nd2
05-06-2008, 11:34 PM
So who is the "company" here? Roger's? White Sox? MLB?

It isn't going to be Rogers Communications Inc., or the Rogers Stadium Limited Partnership.

Me thinks *somewhere in the White Sox organization is* where the ultimate blame lies.

Razor Shines
05-07-2008, 12:05 AM
Winner of the best post in this thread. This is a family friendly board, so I won't say what I feel about the topic at hand, but this is the closest to how I feel in the thread.

Seconded.

cincinnati chili
05-07-2008, 12:09 AM
Two comments:

1. If this is the first incident, the plaintiffs would not win a sexual harassment suit in any jurisdiction in the U.S. Non-quid-pro-quo Harassment must be "severe or pervasive" to be actionable. So if this the first time this is happened, it's not "pervasive." Second, I would argue that unless it was targeted at a particular individual (i.e. if they' written a female reporter's name in black magic marker on the blow-up doll), it doesn't meet the legal definition of "severe."

The problem for the White Sox is that if they ever do have a bona fide sex harassment complaint in the organization, this gives the plaintiff ammunition to establish a pattern, therefore a hostile work environment.

2. Lawsuits aside, it's a huge deal that this display was open to the public. I realize this goes on behind closed doors in male locker-room culture (I interned with an MLB organization and there was an incident that never saw the light of day that was much worse), but you don't want to show the sausage consumer what goes on in the sausage factory. There are plenty of people in metro-Chicago who are on the fence about baseball (e.g. soccer moms trying to stretch their dollar). Those people don't want to see this. Those people can take their kids to the movies or a Cubs game or just stay home.

It's likely that the the display was done out of ignorance (and trying to be funny), rather than misogyny. But it's not uncommon for brutal sexual assaults on women to involve baseball bats. By comparison, if a reporter walked in on a display of a black blow-up doll in a noose, I think there would be much less debate here.

So I'm glad we've kept things civil so far, but I think that those of you who are justifying this are way, way off.

*BaseClogger*
05-07-2008, 12:12 AM
So I'm glad we've kept things civil so far, but I think that those of you who are justifying this are way, way off.

As an observer so far, I haven't seen anyone "justify" the actions of the White Sox. They just think the author is overreacting...

VR
05-07-2008, 12:23 AM
Two comments:

1. If this is the first incident, the plaintiffs would not win a sexual harassment suit in any jurisdiction in the U.S. Non-quid-pro-quo Harassment must be "severe or pervasive" to be actionable. So if this the first time this is happened, it's not "pervasive." Second, I would argue that unless it was targeted at a particular individual (i.e. if they' written a female reporter's name in black magic marker on the blow-up doll), it doesn't meet the legal definition of "severe."

The problem for the White Sox is that if they ever do have a bona fide sex harassment complaint in the organization, this gives the plaintiff ammunition to establish a pattern, therefore a hostile work environment.

2. Lawsuits aside, it's a huge deal that this display was open to the public. I realize this goes on behind closed doors in male locker-room culture (I interned with an MLB organization and there was an incident that never saw the light of day that was much worse), but you don't want to show the sausage consumer what goes on in the sausage factory. There are plenty of people in metro-Chicago who are on the fence about baseball (e.g. soccer moms trying to stretch their dollar). Those people don't want to see this. Those people can take their kids to the movies or a Cubs game or just stay home.

It's likely that the the display was done out of ignorance (and trying to be funny), rather than misogyny. But it's not uncommon for brutal sexual assaults on women to involve baseball bats. By comparison, if a reporter walked in on a display of a black blow-up doll in a noose, I think there would be much less debate here.

So I'm glad we've kept things civil so far, but I think that those of you who are justifying this are way, way off.


Nice Chili.

Next on Redszone....the great sausage factory debate. (and people thought it would be boring around here w/o game threads!)

*BaseClogger*
05-07-2008, 12:25 AM
Coke or Pepsi? ;)

dougdirt
05-07-2008, 12:26 AM
Coke or Pepsi? ;)

Coke, no doubt.

Johnny Footstool
05-07-2008, 01:17 AM
I think the best response would have been for the offended parties to ask the White Sox to take down the display. That is, if they were really all that offended.

But I doubt this really offended anyone. I'm sure those reporters started salivating, not at the thought of the blow-up dolls, but rather at the idea of breaking a controversial story about Car-azy Ozzie Guillen and his sexist baseball team.

cincinnati chili
05-07-2008, 01:32 AM
As an observer so far, I haven't seen anyone "justify" the actions of the White Sox. They just think the author is overreacting...

That's a fair point, with the possible exception a poster or two. I'm just getting a "boys will be boys" vibe, which I think we need to be careful to steer clear of in the professional world.

It takes a lot to "offend" me, but I can definitely see why a person might be offended and why a woman might feel threatened by a blow up doll whose crotch is being speared by a piece of wood.

Jpup
05-07-2008, 03:25 AM
nothing to be excited about. it's just another in a long line of classless acts for Ozzie Guillen. OTOH, I wish they would not allow reporters in the clubhouse. Ozzie Guillen should be fired for being himself, he an idiot.

redsmetz
05-07-2008, 03:52 AM
Canada has incredibly aggressive laws against free speech in the area of social behaviors of certain groups that would make the ACLU weap (and I loathe the ACLU).

The White Sox won't and shouldn't be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian justice system. Now the management of the Roger's Center could be theoretically but doubtful. There will likely be a very stern education on their laws etc.

Frankly, you ought to get down on your knees and thank God for the ACLU; the only organization that seems to give a hoot about preserving the Constitution. I wouldn't loathe that at all.

As for the other question, while in Canada, they don't need to obey their laws? That's just absurd.

HumnHilghtFreel
05-07-2008, 05:33 AM
I better not call a press conference to be held in my bedroom:eek:




:D

redsmetz
05-07-2008, 08:29 AM
I better not call a press conference to be held in my bedroom:eek:
:D

It's been done!

http://beatlesnumber9.com/yoko5

bucksfan2
05-07-2008, 08:43 AM
I read a little bit of this article and just kind of laughed. Here are my thoughts on the matter. It is the locker room. It is not a coed locker room, rather an all male professional baseball team's locker room. I would imagine it serves as a sanctuary for most players. A place to get away after a game or before a game or just to get away from the crowd. IMO a writer is privileged to be able to enter the locker room. The main reason reporters are allowed to be in the locker room is to interview the players in order to write a story. I for one wouldn't want a PC locker room. I would want a place where I can go and kick back and relax. The blow up could just have been a gag gift. It could be something to lighten the mood for the 25 players.

Would this writer walk into the local Hooters and expect to see fully clad women? If she did would she throw a fit because the women wear skimpy outfits. What would she do if she walked into a bar and saw posters of women in bikini's? Walk into any mens locker room and the chat is geared towards guy stuff. Get over it. You are there to cover the team not what is in the locker rooom.

Chip R
05-07-2008, 10:30 AM
What's wrong with bein' sexy?

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:jeB3P9D7NkYdYM:http://kevinremde.members.winisp.net/images/Nigel_20Tufnel.jpg

Unassisted
05-07-2008, 03:27 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/935358,soxdoll050608a.article#


No punishment expected over White Sox dolls

May 6, 2008

BY CHRIS DE LUCA

Officials from commissioner Bud Selig's office contacted the White Sox on Tuesday to discuss the team's controversial display of two inflatable dolls in their clubhouse over the weekend in Toronto, but no punishment is expected to be handed down, according to team and Major League Baseball sources.

Stopping short of an apology, Sox general manager Ken Williams expressed disappointment over the display.

"I will assure Major League Baseball that the doll was not violated in any way, shape or form," Williams said. "In all seriousness, it is a little bit of a disappointment because we have proactively tried to -- and just did so this spring training -- organizationally, we brought in some people to discuss a better work environment, whether it's gender issues or racial issues.

"I don't know what a formal apology on behalf of the club is going to do, other than me assuring everyone we are on top of it and we addressed the issue." Williams had lunch with manager Ozzie Guillen and said Guillen and his coaches would be left to deal with the matter.

Guillen, who stressed he was not behind the display, stood his ground a second consecutive day, insisting he won't apologize to those who were offended.

"If people feel that way, I respect that," Guillen said. "If people think we did something wrong, wow. I'm not going to apologize, I'm not going to say I'm sorry. I don't know what to say. I can't come up with the words because as soon as I say that, that means I'm guilty of something. I'm not guilty." Before the Sox played the Blue Jays on Sunday, two inflatable female dolls -- one with a bat inserted in its backside, reportedly to prop it up -- were observed in the clubhouse. A "Let's Go White Sox" sign adorned one doll, and the other wore a sign reading, "You've Got to Push," playing off the rah-rah phrase popularized during spring training by third-base coach Jeff Cox. Bats were pointed at the dolls, a move designed to snap the team's offensive slump.

Speculation has centered on outfielder Nick Swisher being the driving force behind the display. Asked if he regretted the move, Swisher shot back: "Why are you saying I did it?" Later, he said: "It was totally meant in a fun way. ... It probably was wrong, but if anybody was offended by it, we sincerely apologize." It was taken seriously enough in New York for the commissioner's office to contact the Sox.

"We are looking into it," MLB spokesman Pat Courtney said. "We're talking to the club." The fallout was clearly a hot topic in the clubhouse Tuesday. Third baseman Joe Crede equated the incident to other ways teams try to snap out of slumps.

"It was in the same sense as guys going up to the bat rack and beating the crap out of the rack," Crede said. "Obviously it doesn't come out that way.

"We were just trying to wake everybody up in here." Said captain Paul Konerko: "We know it's never boring around here."

WMR
05-07-2008, 03:29 PM
Sounds like an idea George Costanza would come up with.

Ltlabner
05-07-2008, 03:41 PM
I think the best response would have been for the offended parties to ask the White Sox to take down the display. That is, if they were really all that offended.

But I doubt this really offended anyone. I'm sure those reporters started salivating, not at the thought of the blow-up dolls, but rather at the idea of breaking a controversial story about Car-azy Ozzie Guillen and his sexist baseball team.

Agree 100%

Thank you for putting into words what I was thinking but couldn't spit out.

Roy Tucker
05-07-2008, 03:53 PM
I can't think of any place of business where this is appropriate or excusable.

And the locker room of a profesional sports team is a place of business.

vaticanplum
05-07-2008, 03:54 PM
I can't think of any place of business where this is appropriate or excusable.

And the locker room of a profesional sports team is a place of business.

No way dude, it is a boys' hangout!

Super_Barry11
05-07-2008, 04:08 PM
I've got to be honest, as a female fan, this story sickened and disappointed me. As a female working her tail off in graduate school with the goal of eventually working with this population, it made me wonder whether or not I'm going to be respected in my future career.

redsrule2500
05-07-2008, 04:17 PM
hahaha....it's funny. I don't see why people are so uptight about stupid things like this, but I guess the media tries for any way possible to get negative attention of course!

savafan
05-07-2008, 05:49 PM
I can't think of any place of business where this is appropriate or excusable.

And the locker room of a profesional sports team is a place of business.

Do all places of business require employees to spend months away from their family, long hours on the road, nights spent in different cities and hotels, long hours keeping your body in shape, and fighting through the stress and wear and tear on said bodies? Do all places of business get scrutinized by the national media? A major league baseball locker room is not just like any other place of business.

cincrazy
05-07-2008, 06:06 PM
Do all places of business require employees to spend months away from their family, long hours on the road, nights spent in different cities and hotels, long hours keeping your body in shape, and fighting through the stress and wear and tear on said bodies? Do all places of business get scrutinized by the national media? A major league baseball locker room is not just like any other place of business.

Us fans, and the media, are why these guys get their paychecks. Without the coverage, without the hype, they're nothing. It's their clubhouse during certain hours. But during media time, it's everyone's clubhouse, and rightfully so.

savafan
05-07-2008, 06:12 PM
It's not my clubhouse. I've never been in there...never even been invited, and I wouldn't presume to enter it. I don't see too many baseball players coming into my office and telling me what I can or can't have on my desk either.