OT: DFW sports anchor rant re: Michael Sam
I SY a GRAMMAR NAZI ALERT!!!
Jon Stewart had a similar great rant also.
I have not seen that one, but found a news story on it. There's no video posted on youtube about it yet, but here's a link:
video on the daily shows website
i wouldn't characterize this as a rant.
Its about as much of a rant a guy that age is capable of.
You've obviously never been caught walking on my neighbor's lawn.
(Agreed that it's not a rant - I'd be surprised if it wasn't mostly scripted. Well done all-the-same.)
To start out with I am rooting for Sam and hope he gets drafted by the right team. I really can't see how there would be any character concerns with a guy who could come out from the background he did and still have the courage to be who he is. It is very admirable.
That said, these type of rants are exactly why teams have reservations about drafting him. Let's say he gets drafted and doesn't perform well and therefore isn't a good candidate to make the team, which GM in his right mind is going to cut Sam knowing the firestorm that will cause? Combined with the pressure that in order to succeed in today's NFL you have to hit on a high proportion of draft picks, you'd better be damn sure Sam is a fit in the locker room as drafting him kills your flexibility. You also can't be honest and put your name behind those statements as you'll get crucified in the media.
So good for these announcers for staking their claim to the moral high ground (/s), I just hope they know they're not strengthening Sam's case.
but its such a double edged sword to want to support Sam and rally to his cause (by calling out the NFL regarding its hipocracy) but at the same time not want to create more artificial obstacles. It is a difficult path already.
Good points, Mr Rabbit.
pound desks and scream moral high ground when it's not your ass on the line. These talking heads need to STFU. Not one single person is going to be swayed on their stance because of what these assbags yell.
The thing that's going to kill him is the spectacle. There's 20 other egos in that locker room that want some media time and all it's going to be is Sam, Sam, Sam. Right or wrong and PC don't mean shit when faced with reality.
The team that cuts him will be the same team that DRAFTED him. Who is going to give shit to the team that valued him most highly on draft day if they subsequently cut him?
"Gee, the Lions must be really homophobic because they knowingly drafted the first openly gay player and then cut him."
People are perfectly capable of being irrational. They are also likely to remember the most recent bad thing you did rather than all the good things you did previously.
Is it really hard to imagine people concluding that a team is gutless because they fired a guy the minute there was conflict in the locker room that they didn't forsee?
Tough for some when the world progresses....
your argument loses any weight when you mindlessly throw in the PC reference. It suggests, as I am sure you mean to do, that those who disagree with you are not genuine in their opinions--but are only saying what they say because they want to be PC. You do appreciate that because of the anonymity of boards like this posters have little reason to be PC. It is that very anonymity that empowers some to expose their racism, homophobia and the like---and let me be clear, I am most definitely not including you in those groups.
These talking heads are all getting out and throwing around their Strong Take on this subject. It's no coincendence they're towing the PC line. Whether they agree with it or not they're getting their kudos in for supporting Sam.
My point is it does not matter one iota what these guys say. You really think a bunch of dudes in a locker room are going to reevaluate their stance either way becasue of what Bob Costas or Drew Sharp or Brian Williams says on the matter?
They are fanning the media shitstorm flames. That's what's going to make teams hesitate more than the actual thought of sharing a locker room with a dude who likes dudes.
No--you simply reinforced it--"towing the PC line".
Although you may be right about the spectacle of it all affecting his ability to find success in the NFL, I think you are underestimating the effects that taking a stance/pounding the desk in moral indignation might have on the anchor and overlooking the fact that he is also operating in a world where his ass is on the line. If he takes a stand in support of Sam and critical of the NFL, he might be alienating his viewers and if he alienates enough of them-or his superiors or whoever owns the station-then he will face real consequences. Additionally, he is going to have to answer to hundreds of people who he interacts with normally who might not appreciate his viewpoint. Obviously it's easier to preach from a soapbox, but his soapbox might not appreciate the consequences of his advocacy and he might suffer the consequences.
Also, I think you underestimate how his perspective might change how people think. One of his main points was criticism of the NFLs hypocrisy when it devalues responsibility or moral/human/family values for fiscal and team success. Instead of allowing people to focus the debate on whether this is right or wrong or whether he will negatively impact the locker room, he expands the conversation by analyzing how the NFL has reacted to scenarios that raise similar abstract moral or team concerns in the past. He seems to be trying to expand how people look at the situation.
I was thinking more along the lines of people who don't agree with the gay lifestyle are not suddenly going click the light on and embrace it because of these guys. It didn't occur to me that they might lose viewer or readership.
The gay thing isn't a hot button issue with me so it wouldn't occur to me to do that. There are plenty of talking heads I don't listen to because of other political views but this one is not one of those views that moves my needle either way.
And you're probably right that many if not most people who do not support the homosexual lifestyle or homosexual rights aren't going to come to the light, so to speak, because someone on TV is talking about it. Nonetheless, the hope is that expanding the dialogue about the situation can often be helpful in getting people to think about things differently, especially about how the NFL, or more specifically NFL GMs and executives, handle the situation. I can't speak for how locker room a or nfl players will react to this situation and they might not be swayed by the media fixating on it, but you never know. And if we are already going to be bombarded by asinine sports journalists debating all manners of sports in massive generalities, in completely unsupported opinions, and passing off highlights and fluff pieces as actual journalism, I don't mind a few more talking heads focusing on it. When so many other parts of American culture seem either 100% okay with a homosexual lifestyle or at least indifferent to it, it raises the question as to why it's such a hot bed issue in the NFL.
This is some terrific desk-pounding and screaming, especially because it is desk-pounding and screaming in outrage that people are calmingly or humorously making excellent points without pounding desks or screaming.
Not one single person is going to be swayed on their stance because of what you yell.
my reply is that it would be weird for a team (GM, owner, coach) who would cut someone for being gay would sign him in the first place. My guess is that he's a fourth round pick. I hope its the Colts, who,have an owner who would back this guy, a team with the right combination of leadership and personality (Pat McAfee) to do this, and--most importantly, I'd hope-- a need for depth at 3-4 OLB.
There will always be unreasonable people, but I think most would realize that - as you say - you don't draft a guy who you know is gay and then cut him because he's gay. There would also presumably be game film (from the preseason, if nothing else) if Sam were cut. You could then point to on-field results.
about whether a guy should be cut.
"You could then point to on-field results."
I see your point, but I just don't see the benefit of the doubt being given, even to a team drafting him. The argument in my mind would be something along the lines of, "You drafted him to get the headlines and then used him, but you weren't really confortable with his orientation and so you cut him for it." with the accompanying proliferation of "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions. It's a situation that I think all teams want to avoid and it is a consideration as drafting him does cause a loss of roster flexibility.
Again, I hope he gets drafted by the right team and is judged by his merits on the field, but there is a little bit of the animal farm "more equal than others" aspect to this story and you can't blame GM's for being leery of it.
<damn double posts>
Just like it took character and guts for Sam to get to this point, it will take equal character and guts for a GM to make that pick knowing the situation as you described it. But I bet there are some out there that will have what it take to stand in front of a camera and say "we drafted him because we thought he could help us on the feild and we didn't care about his private life, and we cut him because he just wasn't good enough at football"
It is going to be very interesting no matter how it plays out.
of signing a gay football player to, you know, actually being one, but I see what you are saying. I am sure that there are teams out there who wouldn't sign him for being gay, but I am also pretty sure that there are some organizations hoping that he slides a bit and they can pay a lower price for a quality talent.
You missed the point. If he can't play and cut him, then equality is attained. Right now, people want to see him treated as equaly as others: let his play dictate how important he is, and his play says he is the SEC co-defensive player of the year. The last few have all been in the first round. Now granted, measurables are different between Sam and the others, yet facts say he can play. And regardless of the locker room, if the lockerroom argument isn't an issue for murders, drug abusers, HGH users, women-abusers, etc...then why would this all of a sudden be an issue for Sam?
When the draft comes, where do you think he will go?
If he goes in the beginning of the fifth round, you are saying there are <120 players better for the NFL than the SEC co-defensive player of the year...unlikely.
If college awards really mattered in regards to NFL success, then Eric Crouch would have been an all-pro.
(That being said, I do think Sam could be a really good pick-up for some team)
The last seven Defense Players of the Year in the SEC have gone in the 1st round.
I think this article might anser why he would go in the fourth or fifth rounds:
Not an exact correlation but any team that drafted or signed Tim Tebow potentially had a similar negative PR situation and he's been cut plenty of times.
"Let's say he gets drafted and doesn't perform well and therefore isn't a good candidate to make the team, which GM in his right mind is going to cut Sam knowing the firestorm that will cause? "
=> Tim Tebow
And notice how Tebow is no longer in the league, arguably due to the travelling circus that followed him around.
I think being a bad QB and refusing to change positions is also why he's out of the league. If the you help win games, teams will put up with the baggage.
It's a different type of discomfort. The comparison to African Americans is the closest to this, but is still not a valid comparison. I think it's more ignorance than anything. The detractors think that Sam is going to be all "hey, it's shower time...who's getting naked first?" With someone that's gay in locker room, this strikes at their fear of being sexually harassed by another man. However misguided this feeling is, I think these people legitimately feel this way and it can't be completely discounted.
Like I said, it's ignorance, but that doesn't change the fear.
just because there's a gay man in the area, what makes you think he's attracted to YOU? You're absolutely right though, the ignorance is astounding. I'm certain that Sam and/or people like him don't look at a locker room as a "singles bar" type of situation.
I can imagine a 20 year old who's never been aware of knowing a gay man thinking that there might be a problem in the locker room. The fact that Sam was not just accepted but was a leader at Missouri speaks volumes, though, and I think players who get to know him will quickly realize that they have nothing to worry about.
so you're in a locker room full of naked volleyball players everyday and you don't take a peak? It's not possible. Gay people are human just like the rest of us.
Many men manage to work with women - admittedly without showering together - without sizing them up sexually.
ok so you can't answer my question.
It would merely be a matter of extending the self control that I (and millions of other men) already exert at work to another situation...Also, would it really be so bad if a gay guy looked at your junk for two seconds?
One, I doubt you're naked at work. Two, if there's a hot girl at work you would never look? I'm calling bs.
Would it really be so bad if a gay guy looked at your junk for two seconds? I've had guys who I knew were gay check me out, so to speak. I survived just fine.
There are thousands of heterosexual female doctors (including ER docs and urologists), and more than a handful of male OBGYNs. And let's just say you'll get WAY more than a passing glance from them. And the universe seems to continue to function.
So if you had daughters, you'd be fine with them sharing a locker room with heterosexual males? You'd be cool with your wife attending a gym that freely allowed men and women to frequent the same locker room?
I mean, I personally wouldn't care. I just think its absurd we act like this shouldn't concern some people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
patterns and even a little statistics inferred.
He is not drawing conclusions, or at least none that I saw.
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.
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.
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.
where players regularly walk around naked in front of female reporters
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].
if I could.
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.
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.
Agreed, it's like saying heterosexual men can't find a lesbian attractive. Nonsense.
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.
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?
Another deflection, another hypocrite.
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.
So fucking what?!!!
Seriously, so an athelete might think sexually about his teammate? Who cares.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
I never said he put his hands on anyone I'm talking about taking a peak.
what's creepier: being peeked at by a gay man or by a straight man?
Schools and gyms don't have "straight women" and "lesbian" locker rooms.
...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.
...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.
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.
it's ignorance. They've been in locker rooms/showers for years, almost certainly with someone that's gay somewhere in those years.
I think we agree.
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."
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".
"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")
...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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the key issue is the difference between feeling uncomfortable vs. feeling vulnerable. Those two words take on very different meanings when there is a situation where one person feels physically or sexually weaker than the other person involved. Being uncomfortable implies there is minimal to no threat where as being vulnerable implies there is a definite threat.
There is no right to not feeling uncomfortable, or even to not feeling vulnerable if that feeling is fully unjustified. The aim is not and cannot be eliminating discomfort. It is not disputed that somebody might end up feeling uncomfortable if they end up sharing a shower with an openly gay man. The question is whether that discomfort is valid, in the sense of representing a reasonable feeling of endangerment.
Many are arguing here that it is not. As I gather, the argument to the contrary seems to revolve around the legitimacy of feeling discomfort because of the vague possibility of unreciprocated sexual thoughts, as if that is the sole reason why we choose to segregate locker rooms by gender.
These are the same people who show their junk to female reporters in the locker room:
Its okay for them to harress women, but all of a sudden....a gay guy might want to eye hump me. Hypocrisy
and all the other talking heads think? People will accept or not accept a person regardless of what they say.
Opinions are formed in perfect vaccums, and can NEVER benefit from outside reasoning.
(or political ads) are just worthless gestures?
Does he know for a fact that, allegedly, CRAIG JAMES KILLED 5 HOOKERS WHILE AT SMU.
Not surprising coming out of Texas. Steers and Queers.
It's a poor attempt at humor using a line from Full Metal Jacket. Excellent movie. Amazing monologue, but definitely not the right time to reference it.
more of a play that a Texan is out in full force defending an openly gay man, though I've heard the DFW is more socially liberally, economically conservative than the small towns.
What you say is true in Dallas. Not so much in Fort Worth. They are very different places, socially and otherwise. To your point, Fort Worth is much more socially conservative than Dallas.
The towns are farther apart than A2 and Detroit, geographically and socially.
you mean that line from a primus song?
should take some advice from the immortal Richard Sherman: quit bitching and fuckin adapt. It's the 21st century, man.
And neither do I think people have to accept something they've never accepted before. But I do think that we should all accept each other's rights to equal opportunity in the marketplace and each other's privacy and private property.
And what I find offensive in my private dwelling may be something you do routinely, in the privacy of your home. And as long as you aren't harming others or destroying the general air, food and water and we share on planet earth, then I shouldn't be allowed to restrict what you do in the privacy of your home or dwelling.
So in that sense, I agree, we need to join the 21st century of liberty and privacy rights. And public spaces we should promote free ideas and free people, along with equal opportunity.
And you can blame the media more then anything - more then "bigots" and more then "ignorance" and more then "tolerant owners". Look at the "bullying" last year on the Dolphins. Now imagine a firestorm 4 times worse with Michael Sam and rumors of disgusting jokes directed at him or bullying or hazing or whatever.
Let's say the Washington Redskins draft Michael Sam (Oh - wouldn't that piss off the PC liberal crowd! The awful, racist Redskins with the first gay NFL player!) . I can promise you the local and national media will descend on their training camp like few have seen. The pressure will be immense to play Michael Sam. The activists will be out in force at Preseason events. The harcore right will be out in force. You'll see an absolute crap show at some of their events.
Then the rumors start (Washington DC media loves to float rumors). Such and such said this. Michael Sam did this. Michael Sam was spotted in Dupont Circle with a man. Michael Sam isn't starting. He's not playing. Why is the coach a bigot? What are the coaches doing?
Look - I want this guy, like all rookies to succeed. He seems like a solid citizen who came from a tough life. And he's gay. So what? But the disgusting, idiotic media/political establishment of this country won't give his team peace and that is why he won't get drafted until later. The best option for him, I think, is a small-market squad up North or even the Patriots. They figure out ways to beat the media at their own game.
You don't think that the cultural diversity in New York wouldn't be accepting of him?
but dissenters always shout louder than supporters.
You lose all crediblity with your PC rants. The name is literally about the skin color of an ethnic group, a term that was derogatory for generations. The guy who helped pick the name was one of the most outspoken and virluent racists of his time. I don't get how being opposed to it is anything short of common sense.
I guess you must equate rants with what the sportscaster did in his monotone voice on the video that started this thread. I mentioned PC in exactly one sentence.
Look - the PC crowd is out to "ban" certain words. But what they fail to recognize is that you can NEVER ban words. You might make them socially unacceptable in settings, but you can never ban them. And most of the time when you ban them in what you think are "social settings" you just make them that much more powerful and give people reasons to demagogue the issue.
The Washington Redskins aren't changing the name anytime soon.
But you can sure as hell punish their use. For example, people who drop the f-bomb around here (not fuck, you can say fuck) are Bolivianed or worse. "Redskins" is a racist anacronism that will go away sooner or later.
We need to ban the "Fighting Irish", "Cleveland Browns" and the "Washington Nationals". Nationals, to me, implies that undocumented people aren't invited. In Washington DC we give undocumented immigrants driver's licenses. So we need to ban the name - it isn't inclusive enough. It makes a select group of people feel uncomfortable.
Cleveland Browns, to me, implies a brown population of Cleveland. Never mind the history of it. To me it is offensive. And Fighting Irish - where do we begin? It is some immoral and disgusting to equate the Irish with fighting. It has its roots in racism, right? We need to ban and change these names immediately.
Do you agree?
Browns are very obviously a reference to Paul Brown, seeing as (a) it is an objective fact, and (b) there is absolutely no evidence that it has ever been taken otherwise by any rational person ever.
The Washington Nationals is a reference to the fact that Washington is, in fact, the seat of power of our "nation".
The "Fighting Irish" is a little racist/jingoist/etc, but we didn't systematically kill the Irish, rape their women, take their land, and destroy their culture, and then name a team the derogatory slur to which we referred to them as we systematically killed them, raped their women, took their land, and destroyed their culture. So, I guess that's a difference.
Mascots can make a "select group of people" uncomfortable and be within the bounds of good taste. I'm not sure everyone likes the Vikings mascot. But there is a line of decent taste, and HOLY SHIT IT'S 2014 AND WE STILL CALL A TEAM THE REDSKINS.
Hey I'm Irish!!
Its crazy how the world opens up for you when you stop seeing yourself as a victim.
Do soemthing about it?
It's not as if it's just white people ridden with guilt who have no relation to the Indian people are up in arms about the Redskins. Numerous Native Americans from all different tribes and groups have been vocal about their opposition to the name.
When the group you're applying the name to says "Stop, this isn't cool and it's offensive" generally you stop. As far I've learned, there's been no such movement surrounding those of Irish descent or the Fighting Irish name/mascot. Literally, the only time I see it brought up is as a counter-'argument' (and that's being generous) and as sort of a 'gotcha' moment against removing the Redskin name b/c the PC treehuggers will fight to save the Redskins but not the Irish, look at how hypocritical they are.
Lastly, the treatment of the Irish, while dispicible and deplorable, pales in comparison to the treatment of the natives of North and South America by Europeans. It was a literal genocide. I think the comparison is rather dubious. A lot of the anti-Irish sentiment had to do with the anti-Catholic sentiment in the nation at the time.
As someone of BOTH Native American AND Irish heritage, you can't out-flank me on this one. The Irish were treated poorly by the British, and were treated poorly by modern standards in the late 19th century/early 20th century. However, the treatment of Irish people is, by historical standards, LIGHT YEARS beyond the treatment of Native Americans, African Americans, and a bunch of other groups.
There is also a big difference between attributing a moderately undesirable quality to a group and just flat out naming your team after a slur. If they were the "Notre Dame Fightin' Micks," or the "Notre Dame Shamrock-F***ers," you'd have a better case.
on the graves of my Irish ancesters that from this day forward I will ONLY refer to Notre Dame as the "Shamrock F***ers".
You're managing the rare feat of being intentionally dense and unintentionally dense at the same time.
Redskin is a racial slur. The others you're just pulling non-sensical connections out of your ass. Would you be cool with, for example, the Washington Ni***rs?
And another thing: people are actively offended by the Redskins name. I'd love for you to even try and find anyone actually upset at "Nationals" or "Browns."
Fighting Irish is a complement bro...
And now that image is stuck in my head for the rest of the day.
"I have no desire for you to think of me as an out of control raging leprechaun."
Not to worry. No one thinks the leprechaun part fits. ; )
Named after Paul Brown, an Ohio native and coaching legend. The colors used, orange and brown, we're brought to the organization by Brown from BGSU. I'm not sure where you got your information..
though we might haggle over what should be considered soon
There are openly gay women in the WNBA. Fans don't organize and protest when an openly gay woman is benched for a straight one. People are capable of understanding that a gay person may simply not perform well.
The NFL is a media juggernaut. Where do you think activists (on both sides of the issue) are going to go to be seen and create a scene?
I see your point - but again, the WNBA is literally a subsidized league that not a lot of people are die-hard fans of.
But - I sincerely hope you are right about Michael Sam and the media. I think it would be awesome if they DIDN'T make a scene.
I think you may be underestimating the ability of gay fans to understand that a gay guy may just not play well, but you're right that an NFL game is much more likely to draw someone like the Westboro Baptist Church. Having lived in Kansas, though, I can tell you that it's hard to do much of anything big without drawing the Westboro Baptist Church. No one is going to say military familes shouldn't have funerals for their fallen soldiers, but the WBC crowd shows up to protest those funerals. People like that come and go, and you just have to ignore them. Otherwise they win.
There is no question the cultural and social diversity in NYC and surrounding would be very open to having Michael Sams, and they would celebrate him - at least on draft day. But come week one of the preseason and Michael Sam doesn't play until 2 minutes in the 4th qtr?
And then imagine the media in New York!!! They love their rumors and page-six stuff worse then other places too. I can see the New York Daily publishing all kinds of decrepit stuff. They love to dig into player's personal lives. They love to have coaches engage in warfare and they love to create controversy where there is none.
Maybe I am wrong - in fact I hope I am wrong. And maybe Michael Sam can meet up with Derrick Jeter and get some tips on avoiding their cameras. But I just don't see NY or DC as great places for him. Somewhere like Buffalo (which is basically an international franchise lol) or even New England would work.
Is infowars.com your most frequented website?
Want to accuse me of going to infowars? How about brietbart? Better yet - I'll save you the trouble. I view and read all of them -- even Mother Jones and Daily Kooks (whoops, I meant Kos), which I am guessing you frequent.
But instead of questioning me - why don't you address my positions? Why don't you make a salient argument? Can you really deny that the media destroys reputations and forments demagogues (on all sides)?
And why do you think the Redskins are being pushed to change their name now? What about 5 years ago? There were crickets 5 years ago. Even 10 years there was NADA on this issue. They have success for one season with RG3 and then the PCs come out of the woodwork.
Factually untrue considering there were attempts since the late 80s and the infamous Redskins lawsuit was filed in the early 90s. You can read about it here
Also don't read any of those sites. Prefer NYT and WSJ. Don't really care about your media argument -- I just find the loonies who rave about the MSM to be funny and wanted to make a snide comment.
I remember Dale from the Pony Excess 30 for 30.
Good for him; he makes great points pretty much all around. And good for him calling out all the NFL players who are celebrated which have done actually bad things. The only criticism I have of his soliloquy is that Sam is/was a 3rd-5th round pick, even before public ally coming out, because he's like 6'2" and 260 lbs as a DE. There is well established precedent for the NFL to shy away from non-ideal size and/or position switchers as SAM may have to do to play LB. Other than that, spot on.
"Sam is/was a 3rd-5th round pick, even before public ally coming out"
The SEC is gonna be PISSSSED about this...
This Michael Sam thing is still news? Somebody please make it end and bring back my Tebow 24/7 coverage!
"Why is this still a story?" - the new "no place in the league for this".
Maybe the sooner people like you stop whining, it won't be.
I mean it was OK to hear about it the first day, you know when I said good for him and that's awesome.
Now it is still the topic on espn day 5. just give me some sports people.
Great commentary by Mr. Hansen. I'm a new fan.
These ignorent GMs should retire like Al Campanis.
But most (not the Browns lol) are creating a product that they want to see win and fill up stadiums. If the media descends on Michael Sam, creates a huge firestorm and then causes division in the franchise, the team and the fan community -- is that worth the pick? I don't know. And don't act like it couldn't happen. It has happened.
Witness Atlanta and Michael Vick. AND PLEASE NOTE - I am not equating the two in terms of behavior. Michael Sam is a human being and Michael Vick aided criminal and inhumane activity. But I am equating the two in terms of the potential (yes - POTENTIAL) media firestorm. The season Michael Vick's dog-running came up - ATL's season went down the tubes.
You can't dismiss that so easily. And I sincerely hope it doesn't happen this way because it will bring out the worst in all sides of the issue.
This is a terrible excuse for not doing what is right. Your making exactly the same argument that was made when Jackie Robinson joined MLB. Is that any reason to take away a man or woman's rights. It's interesting that even Al Campanis was one of the biggest proponents of Robinson playing. That puts comments like yours to the right of even Al.
To be accurate, Al Campanis resigned (I assume, given what happened, it was of the corporate "please resign or we will fire you" variety) two days after this interview. I have to say, this still probably ranks as one of the most mind-blowingly embarrassing ways that anyone has destroyed their career, at least in the age of the television interview. Koppel gave him opportunities to clarify too, but Campanis continued to dig the hole with patently racist and stereotyped remarks.
Yes true, and a bit sad as well. Because it turns out that despite Al's racist views, he was one of the biggest proponents of furthering the rights of minority players, starting out with Jackie Robinson as his roommate. Fortunately he was at retirement age so it didn't destroy his career. But his legacy is a bit sad given he'll be remembered for his Koppel interview and racist views and not for his previous actions. The silver lining is that as a result of his interview, the league put in a number of policies that accellerated the opportunities for minorities in management positions. I don't think we'd be where we are today if it wasn't for Al's unfortunate downfall.
And I believe Sam, by coming out and starting a national discourse, has decided that there is a similar opportunity today.
A serious question: If you scoff at the notion that having gay players in the locker room (something that I personally don't care about) causing any kind of discomfort for straight players, do you also believe that we no longer need separate locker rooms based on gender? What about bath rooms? And if women have any problem with this, would you just tell them to grow up or stop being so whateverphobic or get over it?
I get it: You get to brush off straight people being concerned about anything because they are straight and anything that doesn't fit your worldview is instantly some kind of -ist or -istic. But try thinking about it from the standpoint of a victim group (RE: Women in the same situation as straight men in this case) and get back to me.
So you are saying that straight men are a victim group?
No, I'm saying the opposite. Straight men are not considered a victim group and thus their concerns do not matter to anyone, despite in this case having a valid point.
Answer one of the hypotheticals I've posed: In a scenario where gender-based locker rooms were abolished, would you look a woman in the eye who has complained about males looking at her while showering and tell her to "get over it"? Tell her that its her problem, not the men? Because that is what we are doing to the players who are voicing any concern over this issue.
I'm not even saying they are right. I'm saying they have a right to their concerns and their concerns can be considered valid and they shouldn't just be brushed off as homophobic for voicing their opinion, which is what many, many people on this blog are doing in their effort to stumble over one another to grab the torch labelled "MOST TOLERANT HUMAN EVAAA".
I'm sure you'd feel the same way if a man was ogling your daughter. You'd just tell her to toughen up and live with it.
And everyone deflects from the question because they know they are being hypocritical.
I've been reading your drivel for over an hour and it makes no sense.
I get it: you obviously have embraced the "Everyone else gets to be a victim and get special treatment so why can't I" mentality and are using it to play some kind of faux devils advocate.
I don't like seeing 90 yr old men in the men's locker room. I deal with it.
I look like Al Borges & I'm sure some people may be uncomfortable with me. THEY can deal with it.
I've always known there were gay people in my locker room (perhaps, but doubtful they were checking me out) I deal with it.
I don't care if if locker rooms are co-ed because I'm a funtioning adult.
Neither I NOR my wife & daughters would have a problem with it either as long as there some basic safeguards.
My wife is bisexual and my best friend is gay (no really) and it may be amazing to you, but neither have been thrown out of locker rooms for excessive oogling nor arrested for blood curdling sexual assaults . . . Should they take turns changing in the broom closet?
They male female locker room system has been the standard for thousands of years because Men & Women are biologicaly different, and the vast majority of people are straight.
You keep asking how people would feel,? Well, Id feel fine, and so would all genders in my family. There are uncomfortable situations we face every day that we don't feel the need to cry to the world about.
What kind of answer are you looking for? Do nothing? build 16 types of locker rooms?
Hold the hand of every poor NFL millionaire that feels "icky" in the shower now?
what is your damn point?
actually answered his question. nailed it.
Do you really think that some gay man in your locker room is interested your ugly ass? HaHaHa.
Women constitute half the population - or more, actually. We have separate locker rooms due to that fact. If the female population were equivalent to the gay population, I bet there would be many more co-ed locker rooms, and who cares? I have three daughters and would have no problem whatsoever were that to be the case. The reality is that there are only single locker rooms for professional sports teams and given that reality any notions of "discomfort" should be completely irrelevant to anything.
is that there already are women in NFL locker rooms. They're already walking around naked in front of straight women, there's also a near certainty that they've done the same with gay men before.
I haven't been in an NFL locker room and I certainly didn't ask out loud but from being in a couple NHL locker rooms (as a minor, by the way) the guys that are walking around naked don't give a shit who sees them.
The main issue with men and women sharing a locker room is primarily that women can become actively, very reasonably frightened by big dudes (who could easily overpower them) checking them out naked.
The last woman alone in the locker room would be understandably scared by sharing it with a bunch of guys.
No such issue exists with Michael Sam. He's obviously not going to try to sexual assault his teammates, but he really wouldn't be able to anyway. There's no fear of harm. I find the discomfort pretty weird - you know there's some straight dudes taking a peek for the sake of comparison. I wouldn't feel any added discomfort naked around a guy because that guy was gay.
So now you're judging all men by their appearance (i.e., bigger and stronger than females)?
Let's just arrest all white men with glasses and tucked-in checkered shirts who drive vans as pedophiles every time they get close to a playground. Because it might make other people uncomfortable because that's the stereotype.
It's biology and physiology. Human males are generally bigger and stronger than human females.
So you're saying that smaller, physically weak males should be allowed to shower in the women's locker room?
I said that males were bigger than females. Males are bigger than females, and it has nothing to do with equating weak males with females.
Smaller, physically weak males should be allowed to shower at home. If there are NFL players afraid that some gay player might see their junk, the NFL should repeal the prohibition on changing in a stall in the locker room bathroom, and should repeal the requirement that players must shower in the locker room showers rather than at home.
Two simple rule changes (I assume these are NFL rules, or else your argument is fucked) would solve the whole problem, and no NFL player could argue that they were forced to allow gays to check their junk.
Is this a joke?
In a general sense, men are bigger and stronger than women. This can lead to problems: look up rape statistics, and you'll be amazed to find that it's usually men attacking women as opposed to men on men or women on men.
Lots of women would feel uncomfortable being naked around random men because, on a general level, there's the possibility of sexual assault. That isn't really the case in an NFL locker room.
Let's see what delighfully incoherent place you take this next.
Westward, you and others apparently think that some amorphous notion of "discomfort" is relevant to anything having to do with Sam's hiring and employment. My god, the same amorphous arguments were made about women in the workplace and blacks, other minorities, etc., etc. A person's subjective discomfort has no place in a discussion about whether someone should be hired. Many are uncomfortable with straight men "looking at their junk" and it would be no different with gay men. Women in the military have no privacy in the field and in many places (e.g., Israel) there is no problem. Discomfort, whatever that means, does not equate to sexual harassment - which is prohibited by policy and law.
finding any empathy for millionaires feeling uncomfortable about showering around an openly gay man.
You don't have a right to not be uncomfortable.
I almost hope he comes to the Texans and absolutely dominates. I think it would do wonders for the rainbow barrier that still exists in this town (despite Houston having a very large gay community).
I say "almost" because it's selfish to expect the guy to spear head gay rights or do anything but play football.
Not a rant - just an extremely well thought out and articulated descruction of the "we're just not comfortable with it" bullshit arguement. I wonder why the same players who "arent comfortable" around Sams ARE comfortable around players who cheat on their wives, father children out of wedlock, do large amount of recreational drugs, "make it rain" at strip clubs and beat women. THOSE dudes are A-Ok but not a gay man - oh heavens no.
That makes some folk "uncomfortable". "Hey NFL - 1957 is on the phone - they want their bigotry back"
Completely agree and upvoted.
uofmfan_13 has actually gone and answered the impossible to answer question of "Who is the biggest f'nig idiot on this entire site". I didn't think that was actually possible. I guess I know now how to get -30,000 points.
I missed a digit. Didn't know you could even go that low.
you know why he didn't publically announce he was gay before the season eventhough he told his teammates and coaches? because of the media attention it has garnered and Mizzu didn't want to deal with it. I wholeheartedly believe he and his teammates were counseled to not say anything to the media, lets get through this season and we he does announce we will say how proud we are of him. this quote from the espn article about how his teammates supported him is why I made the above statement.
The next day, Pinkel asked Sam how he wanted to handle coming out to the rest of the world, asking him, "We have to talk about, 'Now what do you want to do? Do you want this to come out now? Do you want to after the season? After the NFL draft? What are you thinking here, Mike?'"
After discussing the ramifications of Sam's decision with the athletic department's public relations staff, Sam thought about it overnight before deciding to postpone any announcement until after the season, Pinkel said.
Pinkel said Sam told him, "I do not want to have any distractions for our football team. We've got to concentrate on football, and I'll [come out] at another time."
All of a sudden he (Sam) went from it being all about football and not wanting distractions to now potentially inviting them? I don't think so. He wanted to himself in college and couldn't (well at least not to the public).
I bet you Michael Sam gets drafted right around where he's supposed be and preform's as if he was a straight male in the same situation.
All the political BS (both elephants and donkeys) has really turned a non-issue into a certifiable situation.
is common, not an exception. The root cause of all of this "controversy" is fear. And it has been an irrational and debilitating fear for decades preventing collective advancement.
In the past people would respond dismissively: "Yeah, gee, that's too bad (about the bigotry)".
Now the response fromn the younger generation seems to be: "Just what the hell is wrong with you, dude/lady?".
I'm pleasantly surprised by the societal attitude adjustment on thhis Michael Sam story. Plus I find that the trolling and ridicule of unfounded intolerance makes for great entertainment.
This is the most refined, thoughtful rant I've heard in a long time. Mike Valenti would have just exploded in a pile of goo.
that a smart GM might be able to get good value for Sam because he will go below market value. Good drafting is all about getting more value for your pick than you should. If he slips past where his true value is, then someone should grab him. If their team is really so immature that the locker room can't handle having a gay guy in it, well they aren't going to win s*** anyway.
This person is different than me through no fault of his own, BANISH HIM!!!
The sooner this type of news doesn't result in a 150+ post thread, the better.
Arguments that change will cause distraction can be used to defend any form of discrimination or backwards thinking that has ever existed. The Jackie Robinson analogy that a previous poster made was a great one, but just one of a near infinite number. Arguing that Sam is not worth the sideshow is nothing more than a rationalization that one needs because he cannot just come out and say he doesn't like gay people.
The most cowardly version of this defense is the front office guys that won't even admit that they're the ones with the problem: "Gee, I would love to have him on my team because I am just SO open minded and tolerant. But you know, football culture, the guys in the locker room, you know... some other mean people that are not me would have a problem with it. So much as I'd love to see progress on this issue, aww shucks, what can I do as a multi-millionaire that is otherwise accustomed to making big decisions and controlling a major sports franchise?"
So what if the first openly gay pre-draft player was someone like Andrew Luck or Adrian Peterson? How major would the "locker room" issues seem then?
Is that five threads dealing with the same non-story? The guy is gay. He's good at football. What exactly is interesting about that? Does he have a really cool pretend dead boyfriend? Because THAT would be a story. 100% of this discussion consists of feigned shock about how backward everyone else is while everyone pats themselves on the back for how very tolerant and open minded they are.
This story could have gone away 3 or 4 days ago.
1. Some may feel uncomfortable with him in the locker room, but this is not an issue that Sam should have to concern himself with. Those players will have to find a way to avoid the situations that lead to the discomfort, or just learn to accept the discomfort (like the discomfort they likely feel knowing that playing football causes brain damage).
2. Sam should be commended for coming out before the draft because A) it gives teams who don't want a gay player the opportunity to not draft him and B) this way his sexuality will not surface in the middle of the season, which would certainly be a major team distraction.
3. The attention he has and will receive is not his fault. The man did not want to live a lie (trust me, it's not fun) and the commotion that has follows is not his doing.
4. I can assure you that Sam would be more than happy to live his life as a gay man without all the extra attention. Unfortunately that is not the society in which we live.