ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take

Postby thedude » Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:54 pm

Art Vandelay wrote:is it only reporters who have to dress according to someone else's ridiculous standards of what's appropriate?


Everyone who works in a professional field is expected to dress "professional." How would you feel if you showed up to court and your lawyer was wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and flip-flops? Do you think that the judge or the jury would take that lawyer seriously? Or would you start looking around for a new lawyer?

That said, she should NOT have been harassed. Expecting someone to dress professional is one thing, but it is no excuse for sexual harassment.
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
thedude
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 8413
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Good Life

Re: ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take

Postby Art Vandelay » Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:55 am

thedude wrote:Everyone who works in a professional field is expected to dress "professional." How would you feel if you showed up to court and your lawyer was wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and flip-flops? Do you think that the judge or the jury would take that lawyer seriously? Or would you start looking around for a new lawyer?

What does that have to do with anything? She's not a lawyer in a court of law, she's a reporter who has pretty much always dressed this way. It's either required, requested, or at least allowed by her employer, it was allowed by Jets officials who let her work all day despite her "unprofessionalism" and it appears to have helped her career and probably the ratings of the station she works for, which is arguably more important than any perception of "professionalism."

There's a lot of buts in this thread. Everyone wants to say she shouldn't have been harassed, but is quick to add a caveat. There is no caveat. She should not have been harassed. Full stop. It doesn't matter if she was wearing a berka or a string bikini. What someone is wearing is never, under any circumstances, an excuse or a reason for sexual harassment.
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take

Postby StlSluggers » Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:02 am

Art Vandelay wrote:
thedude wrote:Everyone who works in a professional field is expected to dress "professional." How would you feel if you showed up to court and your lawyer was wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and flip-flops? Do you think that the judge or the jury would take that lawyer seriously? Or would you start looking around for a new lawyer?

What does that have to do with anything? She's not a lawyer in a court of law, she's a reporter who has pretty much always dressed this way. It's either required, requested, or at least allowed by her employer, it was allowed by Jets officials who let her work all day despite her "unprofessionalism" and it appears to have helped her career and probably the ratings of the station she works for, which is arguably more important than any perception of "professionalism."

There's a lot of buts in this thread. Everyone wants to say she shouldn't have been harassed, but is quick to add a caveat. There is no caveat. She should not have been harassed. Full stop. It doesn't matter if she was wearing a berka or a string bikini. What someone is wearing is never, under any circumstances, an excuse or a reason for sexual harassment.

She's unbelievably hot. She deserves to be harassed until she gives it up to at least one of them.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. :-?
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Re: ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take

Postby knapplc » Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:09 am

Art Vandelay wrote:
thedude wrote:Everyone who works in a professional field is expected to dress "professional." How would you feel if you showed up to court and your lawyer was wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and flip-flops? Do you think that the judge or the jury would take that lawyer seriously? Or would you start looking around for a new lawyer?

What does that have to do with anything? She's not a lawyer in a court of law, she's a reporter who has pretty much always dressed this way. It's either required, requested, or at least allowed by her employer, it was allowed by Jets officials who let her work all day despite her "unprofessionalism" and it appears to have helped her career and probably the ratings of the station she works for, which is arguably more important than any perception of "professionalism."

There's a lot of buts in this thread. Everyone wants to say she shouldn't have been harassed, but is quick to add a caveat. There is no caveat. She should not have been harassed. Full stop. It doesn't matter if she was wearing a berka or a string bikini. What someone is wearing is never, under any circumstances, an excuse or a reason for sexual harassment.

Sorry, not "full stop."

Your failure to grasp that this is not a black-and-white situation is irrelevant. The law does not look at it this way, and continuing to stick your head in the sand about it doesn't support your argument. It most certainly is relevant what she was wearing, and how she was acting, and her reaction to the behavior, etc.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7870
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Re: ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take

Postby Art Vandelay » Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:31 am

Since when are we talking about the law? This isn't a criminal matter. It's not like anyone has been fired or fined or threatened with a lawsuit or anything else. It's about human decency and people's inability to grasp the fact that someone's clothing shouldn't make them a target for harassment. It is black and white. Sexual harassment is wrong. Always and everywhere.
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take

Postby knapplc » Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:38 am

Art Vandelay wrote:Since when are we talking about the law? This isn't a criminal matter. It's not like anyone has been fired or fined or threatened with a lawsuit or anything else. It's about human decency and people's inability to grasp the fact that someone's clothing shouldn't make them a target for harassment. It is black and white. Sexual harassment is wrong. Always and everywhere.

Sexual harassment is a legal matter. The fact that she hasn't pressed charges (perhaps "yet") does not obviate that fact.


EDIT - and I'll repeat, since you seem to be having trouble with this concept: Her clothing, her behavior, her reaction, her feelings, etc. are all 100% relevant to this discussion. Repeating over and over that it isn't doesn't make you right, it makes you wrong oftener. Stop being wrong.
Last edited by knapplc on Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7870
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Re: ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take

Postby lastingsgriller » Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:39 am

again.. I can't believe this thread is still going on.

from what I've read someone told the beautiful lady that she is beautiful (en espanol). obviously someone told her, or she was clever enough to think of on her own, that if she made a big deal of it, people would talk about her and look at pictures of her. She would gain exposure and since she is hot, this would be very good and positive exposure for her. now everyone in America knows who she is and that she is smoking hot. good for her, she is clever.
Follow me on the twit! @chadmiller16
lastingsgriller
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe Ranker
Posts: 3868
(Past Year: 181)
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: ..skipping the light fandango.

Re: ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take

Postby knapplc » Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:41 am

lastingsgriller wrote:again.. I can't believe this thread is still going on.


It is still going on because people seem to be more interested in perpetuating the hysteria of the situation rather than looking at it rationally. Apparently people are starved for entertainment.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7870
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Re: ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take

Postby thedude » Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:36 pm

Art Vandelay wrote:
thedude wrote:Everyone who works in a professional field is expected to dress "professional." How would you feel if you showed up to court and your lawyer was wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and flip-flops? Do you think that the judge or the jury would take that lawyer seriously? Or would you start looking around for a new lawyer?

What does that have to do with anything? She's not a lawyer in a court of law, she's a reporter who has pretty much always dressed this way. It's either required, requested, or at least allowed by her employer, it was allowed by Jets officials who let her work all day despite her "unprofessionalism" and it appears to have helped her career and probably the ratings of the station she works for, which is arguably more important than any perception of "professionalism."

There's a lot of buts in this thread. Everyone wants to say she shouldn't have been harassed, but is quick to add a caveat. There is no caveat. She should not have been harassed. Full stop. It doesn't matter if she was wearing a berka or a string bikini. What someone is wearing is never, under any circumstances, an excuse or a reason for sexual harassment.


By editing put your quote which I was commenting on, you missed the point of my words. Read my YOUR quote:

Art Vandelay wrote:is it only reporters who have to dress according to someone else's ridiculous standards of what's appropriate?

Then read my words.

You took issue with the fact, that some one might have an opinion on how a reporter dresses and implied that no one should tell a person doing a job how to dress, and that no one tells any other professional how to dress? Yet now you seem to admit that it is ok to require lawyers to wear suits, and that no one would take a lawyer seriously if they did not wear a suit.

I would have no problem with the Jets revoking the media credentials of any reporter (male or female) if they feel that person is not dress appropriately. If you want to be taken serious, dress serious. That is my point. I do not have an opinion on whether Ms. Sainz was not dress appropriately.

What someone is wearing is never, under any circumstances, an excuse or a reason for sexual harassment.


I agree with this 100%. The player's should not have harassed her. No matter how a person dresses, they should never be harassed. The attire of woman is not an invitation to harassment. There is no caveat.
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
thedude
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 8413
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Good Life

Re: ESPN's Jemele Hill on First Take

Postby Art Vandelay » Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:45 pm

thedude wrote:By editing put your quote which I was commenting on, you missed the point of my words. Read my YOUR quote:

haha...what? Are you drunk? You're right though, I was hasty to lump your comment at professional attire in with the rest of this discussion when it didn't belong. Mea culpa.
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Jul. 25
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

St. Louis at Chi Cubs
(4:05 pm)
Toronto at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
Arizona at Philadelphia
(7:05 pm)
Washington at Cincinnati
(7:10 pm)
Boston at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
San Diego at Atlanta
(7:35 pm)
Oakland at Texas
(8:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
NY Mets at Milwaukee
(8:10 pm)
Cleveland at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Miami at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Pittsburgh at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
Detroit at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)
Baltimore at Seattle
(10:10 pm)
LA Dodgers at San Francisco
(10:15 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact