By now you've probably heard plenty about the White Sox blow-up doll controversy, a stunt by the players which Sun-Times reporter Carol Slezak labeled as sexist, lewd and offensive.
As many some my dad and Fornelli know, this female sports fan took serious exception to Slezak's column in a post here at FB.
To my surprise, Slezak sent me an email responding to my post and has graciously agreed to let me share it with you:
[Panger], as I wrote, it isn't about me (or my tolerance level). It's about all of us. I don't care what they do with their dolls in their spare time. But they don't belong in the workplace -- and that's what a locker room is when the doors open to the media. The Sox know this, Major League Baseball knows this. And as you can see from Kenny Williams' and Paul Konkero's comments yesterday, they know the display had no business being there.
Would you have found it funny if the Sox players had erected a racist shrine? I hope not. Why, then, do you think it's appropriate for them -- or anyone -- to demean women, intentionally or not? When women start being paid equally and promoted equally in the workplace, then we can all say it's no big deal. But until that day, I think it's important that we recognize the connection between such behavior [ie, the shrine] and the fact that women are still treated as second-class citizens in many important aspects of life. Unfortunately, by looking the other way, or trying to impress the guys that we're cool, and can hang with that, we're only perpetuating the problem. It wasn't that long ago that we weren't even allowed to vote.
Kudos and thanks to you, Carol, for taking the time to elaborate on your position. I am deeply appreciative.
That said, I couldn't disagree with you more.
I don't care what they do with their dolls in their spare time...
Based on what you wrote, you firmly believe this act by the Sox players showed disrespect towards women
per se and points to systemic inequities that saddle our gender. Yet you think it's okay if men are disrespectful and sexist behind closed doors? Which is it? Either it's wrong or it's not. (And we wonder why guys are so damned confused.)
...But they don't belong in the workplace -- and that's what a locker room is when the doors open to the media.
It's a workplace
before the doors are open to the media... just not
yours. Yes, reporters are doing a job but they are invited guests and can have their invitations revoked at any time. (See:
Hiroki Homma.)
What other place of business in America grants reporters unfettered access to its employees, much less the right to watch as its workers drop trou and shower? Hell, I'd love to take notes while playing "pass the TP" in the stall next to Mariotti but can't get past the security at the
Sun-Times front door.
You're concerned that female reporters might be made uncomfortable by the display of a blow-up doll. What about a player's discomfort at having strangers with notepads staring at his junk while asking about that botched double play in the third inning?
Lest you claim women reporters stick to business, let me direct you to
the very first paragraph of sportswriter Jane Leavey's autobiographical novel,
Squeeze Play:
"You see a lot of penises in my line of work: short ones, stubby ones, hard ones, soft ones. Circumsized and uncircumsized; laid back and athletic. Professionally speaking, they have a lot in common, which is to say they are all attached to guys, most of whom are naked while I am not, thus forming the odd dynamic of our relationship."
An odd dynamic, indeed. Can you imagine a male reporter getting away with that? "You see a lot of vaginas in my line of work. Waxed, shaved, bushy, Brazilian, French bikini.... "
But that will never happen because the WTA, WNBA, LPGA don't allow male reporters inside their clubhouses except under tightly controlled conditions.
Talk about a double standard.
Nevertheless, I think they've got it right. I've never understood why anyone is allowed in the clubhouse after a game, male or female. It makes no sense to me. Athletes should have a right to some privacy. They should have a right to blow off steam, relax, enjoy a good laugh and have some harmless fun, which is precisely what I believe the blow-up doll "shrine" was. (Oh yeah, and you might want to call it something other than a "shrine" which, by definition, is an object of worship and veneration.)
As a woman, I have the right to decide for myself if something or someone is sexist. To me, these locker room antics were juvenile and incredibly lame. They were also trivial, instantly forgettable (were it not for your column), and lacking any ill intent. Most important, I experienced not one whit of suffering or uneasiness as a result of exposure to them.
There may be a reason why I feel this way and you don't, and it's not a desire to impress the guys or be cool. As you wrote,
When women start being paid equally and promoted equally in the workplace, then we can all say it's no big deal. But until that day, I think it's important that we recognize the connection between such behavior [ie, the shrine] and the fact that women are still treated as second-class citizens in many important aspects of life...It wasn't that long ago that we weren't even allowed to vote.
And it wasn't that long ago men were hanged for rustling cattle. Welcome to the 21st century.
In urban areas, women are now earning more than men. As of this year, nearly 60% of all college students are women. Half of all law school and med school students are women, though many law schools are seeing a drop in female applicants because there are so many opportunities available for women now in other fields. Less than one hundred years after getting the vote, there's a woman who has fallen just 200 delegates shy of the being the Democratic nominee for president.
American women are like the second place car in a NASCAR race driving with a full tank of gas and just three laps to go against a leader who's running on fumes.
As long as we stay on the track, we've got this won.
Look at the facts. We live in a world where men still genitally mutilate millions of women, murder them in "honor killings," force them into arranged marriages or prostitution, take them onto soccer fields and shoot them for adultery, set them on fire for not having a large enough dowry...
Yet here, in just the last fifty years, American men have done something no other group in modern history can claim: they have bloodlessly (albeit reluctantly and hamhandedly) ceded large chunks of their power over to women.
Their reward? We get our La Perlas in a twist because some ball players pull a schoolyard prank in the locker room.
Is this really a matter worthy of column inches? Or is this just the gender version of the flag pin controversy?
I'm not a fool: there's still rampant sexism and injustice out there that we must actively resist. Evolution is a messy business. But we risk making further progress when we women fail to distinguish between the trivial and the significant. How can we enlist both genders to rectify true injustices when we're too busy rapping men's knuckles with rulers over a harmless joke?
American men are getting way more right than wrong. Columnist Cynthia Hemel summed it up well over twenty years ago:
During the feminist revolution, the battle lines were again simple. It was easy to tell the enemy, he was the one with the penis. This is no longer strictly true. Some men are okay now. We're allowed to like them again. We still have to keep them in line, of course, but we no longer have to shoot them on sight.
So what do ya say, Carol, let's dispense with the absolutism, cut the boys some slack, and have a laugh. We have the power now, we can afford to.
How wisely will we use that power? Well, that's another matter entirely.
Like I said, evolution is a messy business.
