"It’s not just, like, 'You’re an idiot, and I’m mad at you for your opinion.' It’s: 'I hate you because you are in a space that I don’t want you in. I come to sports to get away from women. Why don’t you take your top off and just make me lunch?'"
From a NYT article "Female Journalists Fight Venom by Facing It on Camera," which features a video by radio sports commentators Julie DiCaro and Sarah Spain, who sit and listen as mean comments are read to them. The readers of the comments are men, and something that's oddly unspoken is the assumption that the mean comments come from men.
The quote above is from Spain, and the writer of the article — Juliet Macur, herself a sports journalist — says something similar: "Men got mean notes, too, I was told. But as far as I can tell, none of the notes my male colleagues have ever received are laced with sexual connotations."
Could you be a little scientific about this?! Count something systematically, perhaps? I cannot believe that the hate comments sent to men are free of sexual material. (And I also don't believe the hate comes only from men.)
The writer considers the possibility of ignoring the ugliness that arrives through social media but says that's difficult because part of the sportswriter job now is to do social media and do it well and Twitter can be "a hostile place" where cruel assholes "can hide in anonymity and strike in a millisecond."
That seems to be a foundation for a legal argument, that when the employer makes social media — establishing a presence on Twitter, etc. — part of the job, there's a disparate impact on female employees and the employer should be held responsible for the sex discrimination.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
@Ann: Your proposal would be a good idea if the objective is to reduce opportunities for women in sports reporting.
It's all nagging, including the hostile work environment laws.
Nagging is the female move in the battle of the sexes.
The answer to an accusation of incompetence is competence.
Not trying to blame the victim here but what did they expect from SPORTS fans.
Women as a group seem to be more sensitive to this sort of abuse than men. It's like they have an extra abuse receptor that gets triggered.
She's obviously not familiar with the jock way of busting. If she thinks guys don't face statements about the size of their equipment, ability to satisfy their own wives and how much better the speaker might be able to do the job, she doesn't know much.
Often I hear about these kinds of complaints and think, yeah, they're treating her like one of the guys. She doesn't know how to take it and sees it at harrassmentz when actually it's equality, at least in the speakers eyes.
There's a constant push on the left to genderize and racialize bad behavior without solid evidence to back it up--that is, to show the bad behavior isn't the same that white men face. Maybe women do get treated worse on the Internet--but if so, show your work. Show that, for example, a poorly reasoned stream of claptrap on Jezebel got a lot of flack because the writer was female and not because it was a poorly reasoned stream of claptrap. Show that, for example, sexually-laced comments towards women are not approximately matched by comments challenging a man's manhood. And no apples to oranges comparisons (say, comparing comments directed at a ridiculously trollish Jessica Valenti bleating to comments directed at a typically bland Dan Balz article).
Pointless, negative, trolling comments suck--they (and the spammers) are the backwash of comment sections. But there's not much you can do besides curate or ignore them, or otherwise stop all comments and lose the back and forth that makes internet commentary unique from print journalism.
Hostile comments from Twitter?! Ermagerd! Tha innanets, they let anyone talk in there?
Sara Spain's in total control of her "context" and is playing the victim card.
RH - Why - you're not a nag at all! with all your nagging about the horrors of the female kind.
Let's face it, many women sports reporters are hired because they would look good with their tops off. True? Probably. Tank drives his wife and kids crazy by watching a lot of sports with the sound off. Try it. You'll understand just as much 95% of the time.
For us men, we generally get comments about our Mom's sexual performance with the commenter the night before. Apparently, our Moms are more adventurous than we suspect.
Wow, mean people say mean things. And, surprise, surprise, the mean things they choose to say are chosen to upset the person they are saying them to. Women are sexually objectified because it upsets them. Men are not sexually objectified because it doesn't upset them. They would take sexual objectification as either a joke or a compliment.
Why does this remind me of Erin Andrews and her obviously staged "oh you caught me in the nude on camera and I wasn't even aware wink-wink' ploy that made her famous?
There is a lesson there.
I am Laslo.
What a revelation, the internet is dark and full of terrors. People are mean if they think they can't be traced and held accountable. Oh my!
Tank said...
For us men, we generally get comments about our Mom's sexual performance with the commenter the night before. Apparently, our Moms are more adventurous than we suspect.
Well, I don't know about our moms, but yours certainly is...
RH - Why - you're not a nag at all! with all your nagging about the horrors of the female kind.
Female nag happens within the battle of the sexes.
It's an analysis.
The guys' reaction is an eye roll, the countermove.
The most solidly-liberal bloc of writers at any newspaper are found on the sports page. Been that way for about the last 20-25 years.
It must be awful to be a woman (especially pretty women) and they have to live longer than men too which just means, on and on the abuse continues.
Why don’t you take your top off and just make me lunch?
Male sexism: it always comes back to sandwiches?
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Tank said...
For us men, we generally get comments about our Mom's sexual performance with the commenter the night before. Apparently, our Moms are more adventurous than we suspect.
Well, I don't know about our moms, but yours certainly is...
This is the best !
We should have a women's studies department do that kind of scientific study. As soon as we find one where no man's opinion has ever been belittled or marginalized because privilege.
Why pay attention to sports "reporters" of any kind to start with?
What causes resentment is not so much that women move into men's spaces (although they all too often do so even while declaring female-exclusive spaces) but that when they do so they then demand that whatever goes on there simply must change, because it's not female-friendly enough.
Could you be a little scientific about this?!
I'ts been done...sorta.
Count something systematically, perhaps?
Pew
"@Ann: Your proposal would be a good idea if the objective is to reduce opportunities for women in sports reporting."
I didn't make a proposal. I observed that others were laying a foundation.
I'm in the ignore it camp. And outweigh the haters with your own greatness... or quit hoping others should be listening to you and withdraw to a gentler place.
Sid Rosenburg took down Suzy somebody on female sports reporters, saying they're hired for looks.
There's a 300 pound woman in a bar he knows who can break down football plays better than anybody, but nobody listens to her. She's ugly.
I just wish my mom wouldn't keep having satisfying sex with all these commenters! But at least they seem to like my sandwiches as they keep asking me to make them.
The NYT upped the ante by improving the headline. It now reads, "Social Media, Where Sports Fans Congregate, and Mysogyny Runs Amok." I think mysogyny does run amok on social media. Have you ever seen any of the comments that Michelle Malkin gets from the SJW hate-mob? They start with Filipino skank and go on from there.
This is why Twitter and Facebook are a total waste of time. As my mother used to say regarding television, you can always turn that thing off.
Seems to me that the Phillies are about one or two steps away from Single-Mothers-Bring-Your-Kids-To-The-Park night.
Maybe it'll by sponsored by Coke and the Phanatic will be giving out free soda.
Women are sexually objectified because it upsets them. Men are not sexually objectified because it doesn't upset them. They would take sexual objectification as either a joke or a compliment.
Total agreement. When you're in a verbal engagement, you seek the soft spots in the armor. For many women, that soft spot is all about gender.
Ignorance is right. Commenters go sex based because it hits a nerve. Bullies are always looking for a soft spot. I am so annoyed with this whole, "we're women! We can do anything! Except call me bad names!! Don't do that. I'm fragile!" Ignore or mock, but don't become a victim.
On fb, one time I had a friend of a friend call me a few choice words that start with c and t. I took a screen shot and posted it for all to see with the comment that I thought liberals were supposed to be the tolerant ones. His attack had little to do with gender.
There is a phenomenon in some fields where a subset of "women in X", who don't appear to be all that interested in actually doing X, attempt to carve out a career niche for themselves about "being women in X". Don't know if that happens in fields like sports reporting.
"... but I think the context of it is quite different for women."
Shorter: We don't give a fuck about men.
When someone receives inappropriately sexual emails they should publish the email with the address. They don't owe their correspondents any privacy, and there's no excuse for this sort of thing.
DiCaro said there needed to be more diversity in sports media.
This is not a solution and shows how pablum prevents people from thinking clearly. The problem is a small percentage of the public, but we're going to pretend changing the composition of sports commentators slightly will change this segment of the public? Ridiculous.
Ann Althouse said...Could you be a little scientific about this?! Count something systematically, perhaps? I cannot believe that the hate comments sent to men are free of sexual material. (And I also don't believe the hate comes only from men.)
Why, Professor? What does the objective reality of the situation have to do with anything? As you've repeatedly reminded us over the last few weeks what matters is the perception (the "feeling" if you will), and that perception is a problem, remember, whether it's based on a fact or not. Why ask for facts or fact-based reporting now? She FEELS like men aren't attacked in the same qualitative manner. Her FEELING is what's important--that perception is what's important and what must be addressed. Right?
Why does this remind me of Erin Andrews and her obviously staged "oh you caught me in the nude on camera and I wasn't even aware wink-wink' ploy that made her famous?
Laslo, are you trolling? You are aware that the guy that filmed her was sentenced to 30 months in the slammer?
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/erin-andrews-stalker-sentenced/story?id=10105251
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't voluntarily go to jail if ratting out my co-conspirator would get me out of it.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
As you've repeatedly reminded us over the last few weeks what matters is the perception (the "feeling" if you will), and that perception is a problem, remember, whether it's based on a fact or not.
Aren't misperceptions a problem where the appropriate resolution is better understanding reality? Saying a perception is a problem is not the same thing as saying we have to resolve the misperception as if it were factual.
Aren't misperceptions a problem where the appropriate resolution is better understanding reality?
No on college campuses, apparently.
Paco Wové: "It's like they have an extra abuse receptor that gets triggered."
Excellent. And to all on this thread, some great stuff here.
I have to think that Prof. Althouse, having trolled so successfully, can now return to harbor with the hold full of Fresh Snark.
But as far as I can tell, none of the notes my male colleagues have ever received are laced with sexual connotations."
Oh, I'm sure they get notes laced with sexual connotations. Just different sexual connotations. Less of the "you will get raped" variety and more of the "you are impotent."
Pew did a report on this. Some key findings:
Young women, those 18-24, experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels: 26% of these young women have been stalked online, and 25% were the target of online sexual harassment. In addition, they do not escape the heightened rates of physical threats and sustained harassment common to their male peers and young people in general.
and
Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
If she's a sports reporter--as she claims to be--she's obviously been deaf to the line of patter about gays, twinks, maricons etc. Seems like she's not up to the job if she missed that.
Who else is watching the draft tonight? I'm making corn chowder for dinner. I should have bought some chicken wings, but alas...
"This is why Twitter and Facebook are a total waste of time. "
Not if you control them, which you can do. Unlike what's put on television or in newspapers, where the powers-that-be determine what you see and what you hear and tell you what's good for you.
The pro sports leagues can police the players but not the fans. The sports networks like ESPN can go full SJW and lose viewers and advertising $$ but not subscription revenue because Congress won't allow unbundling of services.
Two comments [from a woman]: First, I don't think women should be doing men's sports. I happen to be a sports fan. The obligatory bimbos out on the field with their microphones don't add anything to the game. In my opinion, female broadcasters in men's sports sound incongruous, even if they are skilled professionals. Secondly, I agree with those who deem women more sensitive [hypersensitive] to verbal abuse, both real and imagined. An early feminist, I nonetheless must admit that things have gone too far in the illogical pandering we see today.
Birches said...
Who else is watching the draft tonight?
I will be. April is a great sports month, the best outside of football season, with the NCAA basketball championship, the Masters, MLB opening, NBA and NHL playoffs, and the NFL draft.
The key to the top ten is San Diego. If they take Tunsil the defensive players push down. But if SD takes defense the Cowboys and Jags are also so the later top tens have to take a tackle or reach for a second tier defensive player.
The underlying implication is, as ever, that our lives are now too complicated and fraught with potential harm to be left to our own living of them.
We cry out for a god of heaven on earth.
Rick said...Aren't misperceptions a problem where the appropriate resolution is better understanding reality?
That sounds reasonable, Rick, but the answer is no. Changing the perception by pointing out that the perception is based on a poor understanding of reality isn't a solution under the Professor's framework--commenters suggested that, but the answer was no. Taking that approach involves questioning the individual's feelings/perception, and doing that is an attack on the person (well, on their feelings) and that's out of bounds. When the subject was the perceived racism UW students talked about and some of the examples given were...suspect, let's say, the Professor asserted that even if the people's perception was unreasonable (based on some objective judgment about whether something was racist or not) the perception itself was a problem and that problem existed whether the perception was reasonable or not.
So, unfortunately, no--"correcting the flawed understanding of reality that led to a perception of sexism" is not an allowable line of advance. I would guess trying to do so, in fact, would be classified as either "ignoring women's complaints of sexism" or "attacking/blaming the victim."
I'm not interested in hearing commentary from people who haven't played the game. That often means no women and, superficially, it's because they are women, but it also means not most men.
Yep. I agree Rick. The defensive players are going to be way more interesting. Though I'm not a Browns fan, I'm happy they removed themselves from a fruitless qb sweepstakes this year.
This year's qb class feels like there's some Blaine Gabbert level reaching
Birches said...I'm happy they removed themselves from a fruitless qb sweepstakes this year.
I don't like either of the trades up. They're only worth it for an elite QB and neither of these guys is overwhelmingly likely to be good much less elite.
I'm hoping one of the defensive players falls to Baltimore at 6 (Buckner is the one with the best chance). But I suspect they will end up with Tunsil or Stanley after the 3 premium defensive players go 3-4-5. Maybe Baltimore trades back and picks Hargreaves.
I like listening to the Dan lebatard show sometimes. One of their schticks is to read the hate tweets they get. They are far worse than "take your top off and make me a sammich." Stugotz also keeps Dan from spending a lot of time on racism and other whiny garbage and gives voice to what the vast majority of listeners that are thinking about that subject.
Sometimes I am driving and I turn on sports radio and these two are on. I guarantee their ratings are garbage. They barely talk about sports and there is constant whining. ESPN would have cut the show by now if there wasn't an agenda and/or threat of lawsuit.
I am going to point out that while not verbalized the threat of lawsuit is a major factor in my hiring decisions.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
commenters suggested that, but the answer was no.
I don't remember Althouse saying that. Left-activists don't agree but when you're discussing what is actually appropriate for society they're not a party to the conversation - adults only.
The best interviewer working now in NBA Tv coverage is Roz Gold-Onwude. By a long stretch.
Good thing men don't have this problem.
https://youtu.be/MkxO8L0IaRY
"Journalists like Lisa Olson, who had been with The Boston Herald. In 1990, she said she had been harassed in the locker room while covering the New England Patriots. What followed her accusations was brutal: Death threats. Slashed tires. Naked blow-up “Lisa” dolls tossed around the stands at games. Her apartment was burglarized. In the end, she had to move to Australia to get away from the abuse."
Jeez, Boston team fans are the worst. As a Patriots fan I'll readily admit that we can be an insufferable bunch.
We still have some redeeming qualities though, unlike some Cowboys, Eagles, and Washington Foreskin fans.
I would venture to guess that few, if any, of the people who responded to this post actually watched the video. The female reporters are threatened with rape and extreme violence. One of them who was raped is subjected to repeated comments about hoping she gets raped again or threatening to rape her again. As they point out, the have no way of knowing whether the men (yes Ann, men) who send this stuff are in the audience or at a game while they are just trying to do their job.
Male sportscasters get criticized by morons all the time. But it is an entirely different level of threat to women. We need to call these people out, not ignore them.
lawyapalooza said...But it is an entirely different level of threat to women.
Dictionary: Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
You're asserting that female reporters are subjected to an "entirely different level of threat." Your evidence for that assertion is that female reporters are threatened with violence. You agree that male reporters are also criticized...and I suspect you'd agree that male reporters are also threatened with violence. So what's the basis for your claim of an "entirely different level of threat?"
Let's stipulate, arguendo, that female reporters are threatened with sexual violence more frequently than male reporters. Is that enough to qualify as an "entirely different level?" Let's say male reporters get 100 death threats and female reporters get 50 death threats and 50 threats of sexual violence. Still an "entirely different level," or just a qualitatively different kind of threat at the same (quantitative) "level?"
To actually make a judgement you'd want to know 1. do women receive more threats over all? 2. are the kinds of threats women receive different from the kinds men receive? 3. is any difference in the number of threats received explicable by something other than gender (visibility, airtime, etc) and 4. is any difference in perception (that women receive a "different level of threat") caused by something other than the actual/objective number of threats received?
I assume 2. is yes--I'd bet women really do get more threats of sexual violence than name do. I'm not sure about 1. - female reporters may get more threats overall or they may just report more of the threats they receive, etc.
You haven't really presented any evidence one way or the other, though, so at the moment you're just begging the question. In fairness to you, of course, the article itself offers no evidence or anything beyond anecdotal (interested) reports, either--the author actually writes "Men got mean notes, too, I was told. But as far as I can tell, none of the notes my male colleagues have ever received are laced with sexual connotations." so she's very up front with the fact that this is all "as far as I can tell" and based on her own guess/hunch.
One way to avoid mean comments is to avoid obnoxious opinions. I think it's worth noting that DiCaro achieved her notoriety and drew the commenters' ire with a column in which she shamed people for expressing doubts about the woman who accused Patrick Kane of rape -- the woman who was shown to be running an elaborate hoax, complete with a fake rape kit in a stolen and planted evidence bag, and who had none of Kane's DNA below her shoulders.
That doesn't mean it's right to wish her dog dead or call her a bitch, but it's also not right to call Kane a rapist.
That seems to be a foundation for a legal argument, that when the employer makes social media — establishing a presence on Twitter, etc. — part of the job, there's a disparate impact on female employees and the employer should be held responsible for the sex discrimination.
@Althouse, you clearly don't get it. The people hurling abuse at the sports journalists attack their targets at their most vulnerable point. The men pride themselves on their knowledge of the game, so they get stuff like "you couldn't hit a wiffle ball with a fungo." The women pride themselves on being more than just a pretty face and hot bod, so they get attacked using sexual imagery.
Women should quit whining about being a woman. Be tough enough, or stay home with the kids and darn socks.
One reason that men don't constantly complain about death threats and other violent tweets is that they're fully aware that the number of people who have been raped or murdered or beaten after being threatened with rape and murder and beatings on Twitter approaches zero. I have been threatened with death for pointing out how bad Derek Jeter was on defense. Still alive. It's literally not worth being bothered about.
Drama queens and professional victims don't feel this way.
Men get sexual comments all the time. They take different forms from those aimed at women. Those aimed at men can be classified into
Your mom
Your wife
Your kids
You're gay
You're impotent/small
Far more likely a danger than whatever is tweeted about someone, is the likelihood that one will be fired, and have ones career derailed, for something posted on the internet.
Those most at risk are men in positions of responsibility.
One can of course be fired for all sorts of things posted in public, some would have been firing offenses in the pre-internet ages, and some not, from Anthony Weiner's pictures to Brendan Eichs political contributions - but in any case, it is mostly people in this category (and most of those several levels below them in the hierarchies) that are in danger.
Why are the risks to these people not considered of greater moment than the trivial risk to those complaining?
Megan McArdle on women and the internet. Good stuff.
And lawyapalooza, I'm guessing Althouse doesn't assume it's men because one of her biggest harassers is, I believe, a woman.
"Lisa Olson, who had been with The Boston Herald. In 1990, she said she had been harassed in the locker room while covering the New England Patriots."
Clearly a lack of diversity!
Where are we at with male reporters in female locker rooms?
I suspect those beach volleyball locker rooms are terribly lacking in diversity.
...
You're gay
You're impotent/small
or a rapist:
" I remember quietly saying “help” as two guys ran by, laughing, and took a picture."
"Lisa Olson, who had been with The Boston Herald. In 1990, she said she had been harassed in the locker room while covering the New England Patriots."
The obvious solution here is to have women players.
They should stop discriminating against women in professional sports.
Integrate the NFL now!
Women sportswriters should be in the lead on this.
This was being discussed on sports radio yesterday morning. I cringed listening to the tweets, but Twitter is a cesspool of this stuff. You're bound to expect it. I had no patience for the whining. These sports gals can't demand access to locker rooms (and all that goes on/is said) on one hand and then play the soft, feminine, delicate flower card on the other.
Women on the sidelines/in the stands during a sports event annoys me. Let's face it we all know why they stick the chick to the coach at half-time: because he won't ignore or say something dismissive to her on national television as they might with a guy sideline reporter. If that isn't pandering I don't know what is. Isn't that a type of devaluation right there? Interestingly, two female sports reporters who I would not include in this sweeping indictment are Jackie MacMullan of ESPN and Karen Guregian of the Boston Herald. Jackie is probably one of the preeminent sports journalists out there on a national level, and Karen has covered the Patriots beat for at least 20 years. CMIIW but I think Karen was at the Herald and in the Patriots locker room when the whole Lisa Olsen thing blew up. The fact that she's still there and is respected by both the players and other beat writers says a lot to me.
This is right up there with the Michelle Fields situation. I heard at least two women reporters take Ms. Fields to task for her behavior, saying, in effect, if you're going to get yourself in the middle of a scrum at a political event like that, you'd best be prepared.
Kinda like wearing your most firm girdle when you visit Rome so you can't be pinched in the bum!
What proportion of whining women must a workplace reach before the male employees have a disparate impact claim?
"Far more likely a danger than whatever is tweeted about someone, is the likelihood that one will be fired, and have ones career derailed, for something posted on the internet. "
Most people don't use their real identities while tweeting or commenting online. The mask of anonymity gives people an excuse to behave like assholes.
"The obvious solution here is to have women players.
They should stop discriminating against women in professional sports.
Integrate the NFL now!
Women sportswriters should be in the lead on this."
The obvious solution here is to be a honorable and decent person. I think the golden rule is a good maxim to live by. Besides, Katie Nolan is way better at her job than BS hot take artists like Skip Bayless or Jim Folsom- http://bleacherreport.com/articles/694994-carolina-panther-cam-newton-is-the-worst-nfl-draft-pick-ever.
"In five years, when Tebow is leading Denver into the playoffs and Cam Newton is riding someone's bench, remember this article."
Yeah, right.
What the hell is so important to sports fans that it requires reporters of any sort and cameras in the locker room? Most of what comes out of the athlete's mouths at that point is pretty pointless.
What the hell is so important to sports fans that it requires reporters of any sort and cameras in the locker room? Most of what comes out of the athlete's mouths at that point is pretty pointless.
I agree. Geez, let them shower in peace and privacy. In fact, interviewing players and coaches before, during and after the game is largely pointless. Wait for the post-game press conference.
The truth is that, in every sports coverage, the commentators just want to get on camera. Hey, let's show the guys in the booth! Far more interesting than the activity on the field/court/golf course.
"The obvious solution here is to be a honorable and decent person."
No it isn't. You have to be honorable and decent in a particular way, to avoid annoying only certain people. In other words you have to agree with them. Brendan Eich is THE example here.
He said nothing. He didn't have to. Ask me what this has done to political contributions, from a certain class of person, in CA.
As for integrating the NFL - I think the teams should be integrated, with a quota for women quarterbacks for instance.
That would perfectly and equitably solve the locker room problem.
I am truly sorry. But while reading this, I accidentally got an image of the good pefesser topless fixing me a sammich.
I am so sorry.
But...
@ Rick
No Tunsil for the Chargers. I'm betting no Tunsil for anyone tonight.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा