Lisa Olson on #metoo

This is an excellent point, and largely where I stand. This thread alludes, constantly, to a factor that can't help but be part of any hiring process. Companies are looking for the best person to fill a position, or the one they think fits that bill. If a role requires knowing sports, being able to talk sports, and, because of the fact you're on camera, being comfortable and presentable in that medium, then they are going to hire someone they think fits the main criteria, and then, if they also look good, and are articulate and likeable, etc., on camera as well -- well, then all the better.

If that's the case, it's very hard to prove that a person was hired just for their looks. It becomes part of the package, and can't, and probably shouldn't be, argued otherwise. That doesn't mean it's harassment, and doesn't even necessarily take away from their hiring.

The situation is actually very similar to when people argue that minorities are only hired to fill quotas. The prospective employees may have that qualification (all the better), but it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't qualified otherwise, or that they shouldn't have been hired for the job in the main.

 

In the world of office politics, I'm not sure that last part is good enough. When a boss comes to a subordinate and asks "Would you be comfortable with x," that is at best a mixed signal. The fact that the boss is asking indicates that x is what the boss would like to be done. In my experience, it would be an extraordinary circumstance that no would be an acceptable response. Bosses - and this isn't limited to sportswriting or newsrooms - need to be coached toward the mentaility that if they have to ask "would you be comfortable with," they should assume the answer is no and refrain from asking in the first place.

 

That’s a bridge too far, because it requires mind reading and may deny any employee - a man or a woman - an opportunity to decide on their own.

 

Nah. There needs to be (and is) room for respectful discussion in industries in which you are, by mutual agreement, selling and capitalizing on sexuality. And let’s make no mistake, that is the case in the entertainment industry.

 

So after 24 hours of ducking the post, you come back with more lies. Even Stoney, who can't stand me, told you that you are full of shit on that one. You lied. We all know you lied. Doubling down with a ridiculous personal attack on me doesn't change the fact that you lied.

It's not about me disagreeing. It's about your lies and the disrespect you showed the women who disagreed with you on this thread. This may be a new low, even for you.

 

You didn't just disagree, Rick. You dismissed Lugnuts in a rude and disrespectful manner.

You also whined that men shouldn't be telling us what is and is not sexual harassment, then when women started chiming in but dared to disagree with you, their opinions weren't worthy, either.

 

Here are the relevant quotes, which will show you how wrong Rick is in claiming I don't stand by what I post.

What I said is that ridiculous views like Rick's can make things harder on real sexual assault victims. I never said I wouldn't take them seriously. Rick made that up and now he's sticking with his lie.

The last quote by Rick was his way of dismissing Lugnuts, basically saying she doesn't know any better and that is why she isn't agreeing with him. That was rude and disrespectful, perhaps even sexist. He then went on to lie about what I'm saying on the subject.

Now let's see if Rick has the integrity to admit to any of it. I'm betting he doesn't.

 

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!

 

Nice while it lasted, I'll say that.

 

I didn't think it was possible to call someone a liar five times in one post. I'm reasonably certain it's not necessary.

 

I don't see Chris Berman being asked to show off the guns.

 

So?