Since I'm all for rehashing things that have been beaten to death, I enjoyed Bill Simmons' take on this:
Bill Simmons wrote:I'd compare Week 1 to the overblown Ines Sainz controversy, which -- coincidentally -- happened during Week 1. Yeah, something definitely happened. (In this case, a sexy woman who finagled a media credential and pretends to be a reporter -- someone who once walked around a Super Bowl media day having a "Measure Your Biceps" contest, and who once allowed herself to be photographed on the shoulders of Colts players like they were showing off a deer's head -- attended a Jets practice and caused a few horny football players to act like Neanderthals.) Yeah, there are a few conclusions to be drawn. (In this case, "Don't build your sports reporting career around the 'I WANT SOME ATTENTION, I AM ATTRACTIVE, LOOK AT HOW I'M DRESSED!!!' platform, then act indignant when the good-natured attention you got wasn't exactly what you wanted," as well as "Just because an attractive reporter with no real credentials happens to be standing on your sideline doesn't mean you have to boorishly hit on her like Don Draper after five drinks.") But did we really learn anything?
Women should dress and act professionally if they want to be taken seriously as sports journalists? We knew that already.
Professional football players have the capacity to become hooting construction workers while in the presence of someone clearly striving to be a sex symbol and not a reporter? We knew that already, too.
Translation: We learned nothing. That didn't stop some from making it seem like we DID learn something -- for every measured, thoughtful piece from writers like Ashley Fox and Jemele Hill -- there was someone turning InesGate into Lisa Olson, The Sequel. As Fox wrote, "If you're going to dress like you're going to a bar, then guess what? You might get treated like you're at a bar." Blame both sides, don't make it into something bigger than it was and don't say you learned anything. Because you didn't.
Art Vandelay wrote:I'm a HUGE Dave Chappelle fan, but that is one of the very few truly stupid things he's said during an act, and it certainly doesn't apply to a professional journalist doing her job. It's no surprise, I guess, than even in 2010 a woman can't do her job without being sexually harassed, and even less surprising is the "she was asking for it" defense that everyone immediately flies into.
At some point I think what a "reporter" decides to wear becomes a factor. Whether that's fair or not. I really don't feel bad for her if it was just a few lewd comments. If she wanted to be taken seriously, she wouldn't wear what she was. Why doesn't she skip the whole charade and just wear a bikini? If asking for "it" means drawing attention to herself for something other than her reporting skills, then yes she was asking for it.
What a sexist douchebag thing to say. If she wears jeans she deserves harassment?
It's not the jeans. It's the boobs. If she has boobs, she deserves...ah never mind.
knapplc wrote:Art, do you put any onus at all on the female in this situation, or does she have carte blanche to do whatever she wants, and the players must react like choirboys?
Exactly. The Jamele Hill article says Ines had been feeling players biceps at the Super Bowl in the "Strongest Player" contest she ran (or something like that). If she's objectifying the players in this instance than she is likely doing it in other instances and therefore turnabout should be expected.
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.
Yo Art, you're hitting this argument up pretty hard. Did you mix up the viagara and estrogen pills or something?
lastingsgriller wrote: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.