OT: DFW sports anchor rant re: Michael Sam
Dale Hansen, the Dallas-Ft Worth ABC news affiliate sports anchor, went on a rant that has gone viral. He went off on the NFL and the hipocracy regarding Sam's qualifications and the perception the NFL is left with regards to his draft stock.
Like or hate him, he makes some very strong points.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:37 PM ^
Is that where it is related to peoples' jobs, there are a number of situations in modern society in which people are exposed to the types of genitals that they would gravitate towards in their personal/social lives, but those people can nevertheless be mature and adult about such exposure because they are adults.
For example, women breast feed in public, and occasionally a nip will slip. Some people flip out, but for the most part people can be mature because it is not a huge deal.
Now, if I have a daughter, I won't be fine with her being around heterosexual males EVER, for any reason. But that's a different story.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^
And none of what you've listed is really close to an NFL locker room.
Again, the concern of straight players in this scenario is mirrored by that of women who feel ogled by men. Not a single person on this site scoffing at NFL players for being concerned about gay men in the locker room would ever tell a woman it wasn't a big deal that men were staring at her in a gender-abolished locker room. Not a single person would tell her to get over it.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
There is a demonstrated history and socially encouraged pattern of straight men acting as sexual aggressors toward women. There is no similar history or pattern of gay men acting as sexual aggressors toward straight men. This is a false equivalency.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:10 PM ^
Are you now saying that we can judge 100% of heterosexual men based on the actions of a small number of heterosexual men?
Also, to act as if men haven't been raped by other men (yes, outside of prison), is ludicrous.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:15 PM ^
patterns and even a little statistics inferred.
He is not drawing conclusions, or at least none that I saw.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:20 PM ^
No, I'm not saying that at all. And when I say "sexual aggression," I'm not talking exclusively about sexual assault or rape. I'm talking about the fact that, taking a broad view of society, straight men are expected to be and usually are the initiators and pursuers of sexual relations with women. As a matter of purely descriptive social anthropology, I don't think that's a terribly controversial point. Meanwhile, there is no similar social expectation or pattern with regard to gay men sexually pursuing straight men. Of course male-on-male sexual assault happens; I can't imagine a plausible reading of my comment that denies that. That wasn't the point.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
Let them know that there are already gay men in their locker rooms, and they have already seen their junk. A gay man will almost certainly see their junk again this year, even if Michael Sam is 3000 miles away.
The issue isn't "a gay man will see me naked." The issue is "I will KNOW that a gay man has seen me naked." And that is a bullshit issue when compared to the rights of a gay man to do a job he is fully capable of doing.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:21 PM ^
But, what you are saying is if a heterosexual male feels uncomfortable about being naked in a locker room with KNOWN gay male, then that is his problem.
On the other hand, if a heterosexual female feels uncomfortable being naked in a locker room with a KNOWN heterosexual male, then it is societies problem.
Just making sure I understand your Opinion.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:52 PM ^
where players regularly walk around naked in front of female reporters
February 13th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^
that gay men are attracted to other gay men. You sir, are safe. [If you've ever spent time in a locker room, you certainly know what other men's "junk" looks like].
February 13th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^
if I could.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:06 PM ^
So you're saying its straight women writing all that homoerotic fan fiction starring straight Hollywood star X?
Gay men don't think Jon Hamm, George Clooney or Will Smith are attractive and simply would not be attracted to them because they are straight?
I'm not sure if anyone posting here has actually ever interacted with a gay person other than that episode of Ellen they caught a few Wednesdays ago.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^
much?
February 13th, 2014 at 2:00 PM ^
You made a comment that makes zero sense. I'm pointing out how its obviously wrong.
Like I said: It would appear that almost no one on this site has any gay friends or interacts with any gay people at all. That's why people think a post that says "Gay men are only attracted to gay men" makes sense.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^
Agreed, it's like saying heterosexual men can't find a lesbian attractive. Nonsense.
February 13th, 2014 at 9:29 PM ^
I suspect most everyone on this Board has more gay friends and interactions than thou--including, almost certainly myself. I will pass your thesis on to them---and wait for hilarity to ensue.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:08 PM ^
So, to respond to the old "What about the daughters?!" question:
If you had daughters, I guess you would not be fine with other guys seeing their knees? How could a guy avoid "taking a peek" at the sight of a naked female knee?! Every straight guy who has ever been 14 knows for a fact that this kind of thing happens a great deal.
Nevertheless, unless you're really unusually repressive, your daughters can wear shorts nowadays when 200 years ago it would've seemed outrageously titillating. What matters is not what anyone could conceivably have a sexual thought about, but what is the accepted norm.
Here's another question for those who think that a person's sexual interests make all the difference in how you could be comfortable with them seeing you. Would you be uncomfortable wearing a leather jacket around a guy who is open about incorporating leather into his sexual practices? What about a woman who is more turned on by a man in a suit than a naked man? Should such women, if they are open about this, be excluded from workplaces where men commonly wear suits?
February 13th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^
Another deflection, another hypocrite.
February 14th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
At least you recognize the weakness and hypocrisy of your stance. Good for you, sir. +1
Next time, though, you should actually articulate your deflection, instead of leaving it to our imaginations.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^
So fucking what?!!!
Seriously, so an athelete might think sexually about his teammate? Who cares.
jdon
February 13th, 2014 at 12:21 PM ^
So you believe that we don't need seperate locker rooms for men and women in gyms? You can say I'm putting words in your mouth, but its the same concept: I could be in a woman's locker room (along with millions of other men) without incident. But if I started a crusade to be allowed to use it, the concerns of women would trump my need for whatever catchy title I came up with in my pursuit of gender equality.
Would you tell a woman it really isn't a big deal if a guy looks at her ass for a few seconds? Do you think that would fly?
Saying you can control your urges to stare at your female employee iin the next cubicle is one thing. This is different and you know it.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^
This is one of those false equivalence arguments that crop up in gender contexts all the time. Being a gay male surrounded by straight males cannot be neatly analogized to being a straight male surrounded by straight women. For one thing, gay males live their entire lives in situations in which (1) they are surrounded by straight men, and (2) they know that any sexual advances toward those men would be not only unwelcome but potentially safety-endangering. The same thing cannot be said of straight men interacting with straight women, in which context society tells us that sexual objectification is not only natural but expected. If anything, it would be the gay male who feels most uncomfortable in the presence of naked straight men because he's socially conditioned to suppress any and all sexual feelings toward his straight male friends and peers. I cannot emphasize enough how glaringly different this is than the conjectural "straight dude in a room of naked ladies" comparator.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:17 PM ^
But we're not talking about sexual assault. We're talking about feeling comfortable in a locker room, in a setting where it is okay for you to be. Straight NFL players are fine being around female reporters, but if one wasn't (and in the past this has cropped up), you're saying he has no reason at all to complain and that if he does, he's being femalephobic (or whatever name they've come up with). Perhaps its because females are not viewed as a threat or as outsiders, there in a capacity that is outside the team.
But hey! Let's all laugh at the idea of male rape because its one of the few subjects dealing with gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. that the tolerance police can still find humorous!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-de-buitleir/male-rape-the-resilient…
February 13th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
Um... I wasn't discussing sexual assault at all, and I'm certainly not denying that male rape happens (or diminishing it in any way). This is about what types of sexual pursuit are socially encouraged and what types are not.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:04 PM ^
Right, but we're now at a point where homosexuality has been normalized and therefore that "pursuit" is socially encouraged.
Once we get past all the hand-wringing about "society" and get right down to it, its the same thing: Some people are going to feel uncomfortable with other people staring at them in a locker room. You can freely admit you're a hypocrite in saying that you would take a female's concerns seriously, while scoffing at a straight male's concerns. That's fine and your opinion is actually the norm. It doesn't make it any less hypocritical.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:13 PM ^
"Homosexuality" is not equivalent to gay males initiating sexual contact with straight males. And subjective discomfort alone, without objective evidentiary validity, has never been sufficient to justify discriminatory behavior. There were a lot of white players who were "uncomfortable" playing alongside African-Americans when pro sports were first integrated; that was baseless, we recognized it as such, and equality of treatment prevailed. A female's discomfort at sexual objectification by straight males is grounded in a history and pattern of gendered sexual aggression. Since there is no equivalent history or pattern of sexual aggression by gay men toward straight men, any distinction on the basis of sexual orientation is similarly baseless, and equality of treatment should prevail.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:49 PM ^
Male and female coworkers hook up constantly, even when it is forbidden by the rules or culturally frowned upon. People don't have a swtich that they can use to turn off their sexuality in a professional atmosphere. Some people are obviously more adept at maintaining that professionalism than others, but sexual attraction always exists, regardless of sexual orientation.
February 13th, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^
but he spent 4 years at Mizzou with no reported problems. High school with no reported problems. Assuming that Sam, or anyone else in his shoes, would have acted upon urges or what they saw is not an indictment of their sexuality, but on their character.
February 13th, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
what's creepier: being peeked at by a gay man or by a straight man?
February 13th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^
have a problem with men sharing time in their locker rooms and there isn't a second thought given about segregating the sexes. Something,... can't put my finger on it.
February 13th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^
Schools and gyms don't have "straight women" and "lesbian" locker rooms.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^
non-sequitor address what I said?
February 13th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
...by pointing out that we already don't separate people based on sexual orientation, and it works pretty well. We could. We could have four locker rooms for straight men, straight women, gay men, gay women. We could have have extra rooms for transgendered people of various types. We could have nothing but one-person locker rooms to protect anyone from being looked at by anyone else. But we don't, mostly because it's impratical. And we get along pretty well by separating the genders but nothing more. That's not necessary "right" in any profound sense, but it's proved to be a fairly functional solution.
I'll add this: Women, for various reasons, generally live in a much different world than men as far as the likelihood of being sexually assaulted. I can't begrudge them for not wanting men around when they're changing clothes.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:26 PM ^
...is why we have separate bathrooms for men and women?! I think not.
I'm not saying I disagree with you. Also, I can say that while some very malicious males have conducted sexaul assault, its such a small portion of the male population (probably less than 0.001%). I don't like how people inflate politcal rhetoric (i.e. men are sexual assaulters, white people are racist, etc) to drive an agenda.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:31 PM ^
I don't believe - and I didn't say - that all men do, because that would be nonsense. Unfortunately, though, you can't distinguish by seeing someone at a gym a couple of times per week.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:42 PM ^
perfectly
February 13th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
Have you ever been to a locker room at a gym, high school, etc in your life? If so, you have changed and/or showered with a gay man. Not directing it at you personally, but the theory of "shower time."
February 13th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
completely agree
February 13th, 2014 at 11:46 AM ^
Its is very arrogant of people on here to call others ignorant just because they don't share your opinion, but this is the internet and everyone is allowed to "talk smack". The real problem for those that may be uncomfortable with him (not that I would be, but I can understand that people don't want to feel like they are sexual object), is they DO know he is gay. I am sure in all the locker rooms I have showered in someone was gay, however i didn't know it and they didn't announce it.
There is a difference, remember "Don't ask, Don't tell."
February 13th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^
It is ignorant. It assumes that gay people are oversexualized. Just because I'm in the shower with Roseanne doesn't mean I'm going to get a boner. DADT is the modern equivalent of "seperate but equal".
February 13th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^
"don't ask, don't tell" as if its some sort of societal requirement. Remember, that saying is attributed to the military. I'm not totally disagreeing with your post, but saying that someone feels like a sexual object just because a gay man is in the room is very egotistical. As if some gay man is going to assault you for his gratification or try to convert you. Get over yourselves. (not you, mind you...the collective "they")
February 13th, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^
...because it asked people to hide who they were.
Here is where the ignorance comes in, and I genuinely don't offer this as some sort of slam: You would find by being around openly gay people - even showering in a locker room with them - that nothing bad is going to happen (at least not any more often than with straight people).
February 13th, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^
Really up in arms about this aren't we. Okay let me try to put this another way, calling people names because they feel uncomfortable in certain situations does not help. I tried to explain it before but maybe this is a better example.
I understand that some woman would be uncomfortable around me in a shower naked. Therefore I would not want these woman to feel uncomfortable so I will take a countermeasure, and not shower in the same shower with them.
Some how you want to believe this is a different situation, because of gender. If Equality and Deversity is really what you strive for, then all sides should be able to be understood, and met on common ground.
Okay off my soap box.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^
having a strong and well supported opinion means "up in arms."
Don't worry about being on a soap box, its why I posted this story...to get people's opinions. I agree that the name calling should be avoided in the expression of our opinions, too.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:18 PM ^
I am mostly ignorant of what life is like in Beijing. I've never been there. I'm not insulting msyelf by saying I'm ignorant of the situation. I simply am.
The uncomfortable person, as I said, is quickly going to find out that Michael Sam isn't a problem (I base this on his time at Missouri). We could imagine a different gay guy who does cause a problem by leering at people, but that guy would and should be dealt with in the way that players who cause other locker room problems are and should be dealt with.
If someone is uncomfortable even with Michael Sam, who is apparently an exemplary teammate, they just need to get over it. I don't particularly like seeing naked old dudes of any sexual orientation in locker rooms at gyms, but I know I'm likely to see that if I go to a gym, so I just have to deal with it.
The men's/women's locker room comparison doesn't quite add up, because we don't have "straight men's," "straight women's," "gay men's," and "lesbian's" locker rooms now. I suppose we could, but who would make sure that the right people were using the right locker room? And what a pain in the ass to add two extra locker rooms to every facility in the country.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:08 PM ^
Reply to griff32: I think there is an important distinction when trying to use the "man in a woman's" locker room comment as a corollary to a gay man in a men's locker room. In general, in society, and historically, women feel more vulnerable to a male physical presence in a sexually vulnerable position (referencing being nude in a shower environment, nothing dirty). I don't know the stats, but I know men raping women is still a huge problem in our society. There are countless exceptions to the rule that can be pointed out, but doing so, is simply arguing to justify one's point.
In a locker room with equally strong people, such as a football locker room, that concern should not be as great.
I have been in a locker room with a known gay man and I did not feel threatened because I knew I was physically equal. I have also been in a public restroom when women have been walking in and out while I was standing there taking a piss. Again, I did not feel vulnerable. You put me in a locker room full of 6'4" 250 lbs physically fit people, male or female, and I would feel vulnerable because I am 5'11" 170 lbs.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:44 PM ^
Very well stated and its hard not to agree with you, however if you believe that people shouldn't be forced into uncomfortable situations, why is it so hard to believe that someone may be uncomfortable in a situation where you are not threatened.
This happens everyday in society, and everyone is fine, however, we have decided as a society that heterosexual males as a whole are not to feel uncomfortable about be naked around gay males.
The man in the womans arguement may be weak, but it doesn't make it wrong.
Most people will assume that IF someone feels uncomfortable being naked around a gay male, they are a bigot. When in truth they may (rightly or wrongly) just feel vulnerable.