Thursday, September 21, 2006
Little Help
Yankees clinch division. At least they did it after losing. And on a weeknight. And on the road.And I'm glad we have something else to think about on this night. The fact that for the first time in most of our lifetimes, a Red Sox player has hit fifty homers in a season. And who better to achieve it, as well as the Sox record, which one more dong will give him, than David Ortiz. Maybe he'll get number 51 on the day we're eliminated from playoff contention. Papi's always thinkin' of us, I tell ya.
Terrible job by the AP headline writer: "Ortiz hits 50th; Red Sox help Yankees." This was used in multiple papers, including the Boston Globe. Had the Red Sox beaten the second-place team tonight, causing the Yanks to clinch, the headline would be accurate. Fill in the blank: "The Yanks lost, but got help from ____." That's right, the team who beat the last team alive in the race. It was the Twins who helped the Yanks. How do these people get jobs? You'd only say the Sox "helped" the Yanks in a mocking way, like how we fans would say it. Like when I say "Timlin tried hard to blow this one." The newspaper headline after that wouldn't be "Timlin Fails At Attempt To Blow Game," it would be "[Other Team] Comes Up Short."
Now let's move on to A-Rod news. There's a huge article in SI by Tom Verducci about Alex. I had so much fun reading this. I love how everything this guy does makes him look worse. The guy can't win, he doesn't deserve to, and I love it. Why would he even agree to do this article?
It should be called, "Just to clarify, A-Rod is a big phony." It's really good stuff. I recommend reading the whole thing immediately.
That's really all I'll say about the man for now. The article needs no further setup. And I'm getting tired. But I will point out three things about the article:
Jason Giambi says that he told A-Rod, "I'll look to drive in runs when they pitch around me, go after that 3-and-1 pitch that might be a ball. But if they're going to walk Bobby and me, you're going to have to be the guy."
Bullcrap, Giambi, you're lookin' for a walk every time, even on a hitter's pitch like 3-1. I'm wacthing you, steroid-boy.
Funny, the next line of the article is:
"(Asked about Giambi's pep talk, Rodriguez said he could not remember what was discussed, though he added, "I'm sure we had a conversation.")"
What a phony.
Speaking of huge phonies, Reggie Jackson is in this article. (By the way, I'm still baffled and pissed, frankly, about him using Lou Gehrig's famous words in his Hall of Fame induction speech. That's like the guy after John Hancock also signing his name really big.) Anyway, Mr. Center Line* told Verducci about this:
"On the night Jackson hit three home runs in the 1977 World Series, he played a routine double into a triple because he'd been stricken with fear that he'd screw it up"
Okay, maybe the writer copied it down wrong. Maybe retrosheet has it wrong. (Verducci did earlier in the article correct a stat that A-Rod had given him, so it's not like he didn't check his facts.) But, according to retrosheet, there was one triple in that game, but it was to left field, and Jackson was in right field. There weren't any doubles by the Dodgers, so it's not like Reggie meant "single into a double." My guess is it's just another bullshit story out of the mouth of Reggie Jackson, the man who claimed a few years ago that he'd never heard of Trot Nixon, using the hilarious line, "what's that, a horse?"
Another thing about this article just has to do with society in general. I hate it when websites or articles or whatever are seemingly made for a straight, male audience. I mean, if you do something that is intended for a certain audience, go ahead and tell us up front. But there seems to be the assumption, especially in the sports media, that the reader or viewer is a straight, macho white boy. For example, I'm reading the A-Rod article, and I come across this:
"He began to wait long enough on pitches to drive them hard to centerfield and rightfield, the satisfying confirmation for a righthanded hitter, like a wink from a pretty girl, that life is good."
Okay, what if I was a straight female reading this? This line implies that a "wink from a pretty girl" confirms for all of us that life is good. Why didn't he specify that he meant for himself, or for straight males? Or say "girl or boy"? Because it sounds stupid? Well, make it sound good, you're getting paid to be a damn writer.
This also happens whenever some website or TV show puts up a picture of a half-naked man. There's always this big funny apology about it. While pictures of female swimsuit models are shown as if it's normal, and what we all want to see. I'm pretty sure there are people who would want to see naked men and wouldn't want to see naked women. Is there some rule I missed that says you have to have a penis to enjoy sports? There might as well be a "no women allowed" warning at the top of most of these media outlets. Terrible job.
*On the episode of The Baseball Bunch hosted by Reggie Jackson, he did a segment where he explained the importance of a player's appearance on the field. He said your jersey should be tucked in, specifically with the buttons matching up exactly with your pants' zipper, hence creating a "center line." All I have to say about that is: 2004. A world championship full of crooked, jagged lines.
Comments:
<< Home
Adios to you. And I will enjoy watching your bullpen prevent any hint of post season success. Wait and watch.
Jere, All you'll ever have is 2004. At least the Yankees have something to play for....you are stuck with your Theo blowup doll. Good luck trying to find something to do in October. I can't wait to hear more conspiracy theories from you. Then when the Yankees win it all, it'll be about the payroll. You can keep making excuses or you can accept reality.
Also, I'm not a marketing major but I would be willing to bet that commercials that are on MTV are targeted to teenagers and kids in their early 20's, so if Verducci made a comment that you think is slanted towards males then that's because the majority of males watch sports. That's reality. Nothing against women, but that's a fact. Your idealism is truly amazing sometimes. It's a miracle you haven't brought into the "no child left behind" theory, it fits right in line with your kind of thinking. So, if you are so worried about women then there are women that are in love with Jeter and are offended that your writing is only slanted towards Red Sox Nation and that you constantly go off on Jeter - their hero. You should try and be more acceptable to others, to all Yankee fans, and to all of mankind. Don't throw stones my man....sorry...we shouldn't point out gender, my fellow human being is more acceptable. It's funny that there's a direct correlation to people's writing and the EXPECTED target audience. The New Yorker doesn't expect a person with GED to be reading their magazine, though it could happen but that does not represent the majority. The same way Verducci doesn't expect to have a 50-50 split on women and men. It's probably more 80-20.
BTW, when you are busy screwing your Theo blowup doll....tell him thanks for Damon.
Also, I'm not a marketing major but I would be willing to bet that commercials that are on MTV are targeted to teenagers and kids in their early 20's, so if Verducci made a comment that you think is slanted towards males then that's because the majority of males watch sports. That's reality. Nothing against women, but that's a fact. Your idealism is truly amazing sometimes. It's a miracle you haven't brought into the "no child left behind" theory, it fits right in line with your kind of thinking. So, if you are so worried about women then there are women that are in love with Jeter and are offended that your writing is only slanted towards Red Sox Nation and that you constantly go off on Jeter - their hero. You should try and be more acceptable to others, to all Yankee fans, and to all of mankind. Don't throw stones my man....sorry...we shouldn't point out gender, my fellow human being is more acceptable. It's funny that there's a direct correlation to people's writing and the EXPECTED target audience. The New Yorker doesn't expect a person with GED to be reading their magazine, though it could happen but that does not represent the majority. The same way Verducci doesn't expect to have a 50-50 split on women and men. It's probably more 80-20.
BTW, when you are busy screwing your Theo blowup doll....tell him thanks for Damon.
Talk about being negative. The last time I looked.....wait a second, I want to make sure. OK, what was I saying? Oh, I know. The last time I looked, this blog is created and sustained by a nice person named Jere. This is his space...if you don't like what he writes, what his feelings are, then go away. You're Yankee fans. We're Red Sox fans. We're all fans of baseball, of varying intelligence. So shuttie. Enjoy your one week of post season baseball. I'll be watching. You see, and I'll repeat this.... I'm a fan of the game.
Obviously these two dudes are kind of being douches, but I gotta be honest- we deserve our lumps today. They made it, we didn't.
The Theo blow-up doll, however, is a myth. It does not exist. You'll just have to trust me on this one.
The Theo blow-up doll, however, is a myth. It does not exist. You'll just have to trust me on this one.
"I hope to god the Yanks win out big towards the end of the season and the Sox are out by a Yankee clinch."
When Yankee fans are praying to deities for merely division championships, all is right with the world.
When Yankee fans are praying to deities for merely division championships, all is right with the world.
Jere, I thought this was supposed to be MY week to keep the Theo blow up doll???
Man!!!
But seriously, WTF is wrong with Yankees fans? Your team won. Again. Good for you. Too bad it won't extend past the first round. But you beat the Red Sox for the division and, as we all know, that's all you care about anyway.
And speaking as a woman who knows more women than men who are seriously interested in sports, thank you Jere. Nice to know not every male sports fan is a mouth-breather like these Yankees fans who comment here.
(I knew that anyway, but it needed to be emphasized today.)
Man!!!
But seriously, WTF is wrong with Yankees fans? Your team won. Again. Good for you. Too bad it won't extend past the first round. But you beat the Red Sox for the division and, as we all know, that's all you care about anyway.
And speaking as a woman who knows more women than men who are seriously interested in sports, thank you Jere. Nice to know not every male sports fan is a mouth-breather like these Yankees fans who comment here.
(I knew that anyway, but it needed to be emphasized today.)
And as usual, I will trust that my smart readers will see how completely off-base these Yankee fans' comments are, and how assuming the audience is all male is WAY differrent than writing for ALL people, as I do. It's a different thing to read someone's writing and have a different opinion than them, than it is to read something and realize the writer had put it out to the public, but assumed you wouldn't read it because you happen to be the "wrong" sex.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Okay, what if I was a straight female reading this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What if? You don't think that straight females are comfortable with the notion that a wink from a girl (purely as a hypothetical, mind you) is "a sign that all is right with the world," in the lighthearted, fanciful sense that the line was written? Not to mention that it's an article written by a male, about a male, for a ~90% male audience.
There's no implication in the allusion- it's a simple turn of phrase. It has no exclusive suggestion to it. Look at it again-
He began to wait long enough on pitches to drive them hard to centerfield and rightfield, the satisfying confirmation for a righthanded hitter, like a wink from a pretty girl, that life is good.
It's a simple, obvious analogy. Just like hitting to the opposite field with power is a sign that life is good (though not, obviously, for every human), so is a wink from a pretty girl (though no, obviously, for every human). Pretty tame.
If there is a male overtone to all sports coverage and advertising (and ther likely is), it's because sports and advertising are businesses and they realize that spending money addressing females would be a waste of their money. There is no jock itch adverts on the Lifetime channel. Or Oprah. Or on most daytime soap operas. That's a broader issue however, as this line from the article is a poor example of even this.
Its just my opinion, but you're applying entirely too strict and sensitive a criteria to this stuff.
Okay, what if I was a straight female reading this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What if? You don't think that straight females are comfortable with the notion that a wink from a girl (purely as a hypothetical, mind you) is "a sign that all is right with the world," in the lighthearted, fanciful sense that the line was written? Not to mention that it's an article written by a male, about a male, for a ~90% male audience.
There's no implication in the allusion- it's a simple turn of phrase. It has no exclusive suggestion to it. Look at it again-
He began to wait long enough on pitches to drive them hard to centerfield and rightfield, the satisfying confirmation for a righthanded hitter, like a wink from a pretty girl, that life is good.
It's a simple, obvious analogy. Just like hitting to the opposite field with power is a sign that life is good (though not, obviously, for every human), so is a wink from a pretty girl (though no, obviously, for every human). Pretty tame.
If there is a male overtone to all sports coverage and advertising (and ther likely is), it's because sports and advertising are businesses and they realize that spending money addressing females would be a waste of their money. There is no jock itch adverts on the Lifetime channel. Or Oprah. Or on most daytime soap operas. That's a broader issue however, as this line from the article is a poor example of even this.
Its just my opinion, but you're applying entirely too strict and sensitive a criteria to this stuff.
If you're advertising a product or something, like, okay, a jock itch spray or a feminine powder or smething, the audience immediately knows who it's for. There are differences between sexes, so certain things absolutely are for the consumption of strictly one or the other.
But to say that the thing that makes life good is a thing that ONLY males would appreciate IS totally sexist, in my opinion.
I'm not saying females wouldn't know what the guy means by saying that. But what if you were reading that article, and all of a sudden the author said, "like the stroke of a strong man's muscular hand along your cheek, I was comforted by the sweet swing of Derek Jeter...", wouldn't you, as a dude, say "Whoa, that's not comforting"? Well, that's how females feel in so many parts of society that cater strictly to men, which I think is horrible.
But to say that the thing that makes life good is a thing that ONLY males would appreciate IS totally sexist, in my opinion.
I'm not saying females wouldn't know what the guy means by saying that. But what if you were reading that article, and all of a sudden the author said, "like the stroke of a strong man's muscular hand along your cheek, I was comforted by the sweet swing of Derek Jeter...", wouldn't you, as a dude, say "Whoa, that's not comforting"? Well, that's how females feel in so many parts of society that cater strictly to men, which I think is horrible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
"like the stroke of a strong man's muscular hand along your cheek, I was comforted by the sweet swing of Derek Jeter...", wouldn't you, as a dude, say "Whoa, that's not comforting"? Well, that's how females feel in so many parts of society that cater strictly to men, which I think is horrible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I absolutely would not think that, because as with any written device, there is human acknowledgement. I'd understand the idea behind it immediately. Really, what's there to be offended about? That my sensibilities weren't catered to specifically? Why is this offensive, especially in the instance of an analogy?
What you've stated is NOT the way the sentence was constructed, additionally. The reference was to ARod's going the other way is for a right handed hitter- ie, someone in ARod's position- a sign that life is good. Just like a wink from a pretty girl- ie, someone who would find this pleasant- is as well.
This is not an example of the writer catering to anyone or thing but his simple analogy. Taking an intentionally narrow view of things like this is when a good thing- political correctness- is taken to a destructive end. There is nothing derogatory, insulting or hurtful about this analogy whatsoever.
What if he said, "he was hitting the ball to RF with power which, like candy canes on Christmas morning, is a sign that life is good." Should a Jewish person be offended by this? I definitely don't think so. I think there is an obvious acknowledgment of what the statement is trying to make, with no exclusionary intent unless it's being looked for.
Look, are there instances of overly masculine mores being a destructive part of our culture? Yes, and I think it happens more than your average person would, as well. But this is simply not the case here. There's nothing excessively macho or male about it.
"like the stroke of a strong man's muscular hand along your cheek, I was comforted by the sweet swing of Derek Jeter...", wouldn't you, as a dude, say "Whoa, that's not comforting"? Well, that's how females feel in so many parts of society that cater strictly to men, which I think is horrible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I absolutely would not think that, because as with any written device, there is human acknowledgement. I'd understand the idea behind it immediately. Really, what's there to be offended about? That my sensibilities weren't catered to specifically? Why is this offensive, especially in the instance of an analogy?
What you've stated is NOT the way the sentence was constructed, additionally. The reference was to ARod's going the other way is for a right handed hitter- ie, someone in ARod's position- a sign that life is good. Just like a wink from a pretty girl- ie, someone who would find this pleasant- is as well.
This is not an example of the writer catering to anyone or thing but his simple analogy. Taking an intentionally narrow view of things like this is when a good thing- political correctness- is taken to a destructive end. There is nothing derogatory, insulting or hurtful about this analogy whatsoever.
What if he said, "he was hitting the ball to RF with power which, like candy canes on Christmas morning, is a sign that life is good." Should a Jewish person be offended by this? I definitely don't think so. I think there is an obvious acknowledgment of what the statement is trying to make, with no exclusionary intent unless it's being looked for.
Look, are there instances of overly masculine mores being a destructive part of our culture? Yes, and I think it happens more than your average person would, as well. But this is simply not the case here. There's nothing excessively macho or male about it.
"with no exclusionary intent unless it's being looked for."
But I wasn't looking for it, it just hit me right away. It's not like the guy was bashing the Red Sox, so I was trying to find negatives. On the contrary, I loved reading this awesome anti-A-Rod piece! And I saw that line, and it totally struck me as someone assuming only males would be reading, like you had to be in the man club to enjoy the article. "This is not for women," that said to me. And a LOT of writing is like that, and I don't think that that makes it okay.
Yes, I did think about it in terms of, "Well, to a right-handed hitter." But women can play baseball, too. A right-haned woman who plays in a baseball league does not think of "a wink from a pretty girl" as onle of life's joys.
If you were saying, "I always think great thoughts when I think of candy canes on Xmas morn," well, I wouldn't have a problem with that, because it's YOUr memory. But if someone says that "good=Christmas," well, they're excluding a huge percentage of the entire world.
If this all just lies in semantics, well, I think fixing issues in language is a good place to start in making our world a better place for everyone.
But I wasn't looking for it, it just hit me right away. It's not like the guy was bashing the Red Sox, so I was trying to find negatives. On the contrary, I loved reading this awesome anti-A-Rod piece! And I saw that line, and it totally struck me as someone assuming only males would be reading, like you had to be in the man club to enjoy the article. "This is not for women," that said to me. And a LOT of writing is like that, and I don't think that that makes it okay.
Yes, I did think about it in terms of, "Well, to a right-handed hitter." But women can play baseball, too. A right-haned woman who plays in a baseball league does not think of "a wink from a pretty girl" as onle of life's joys.
If you were saying, "I always think great thoughts when I think of candy canes on Xmas morn," well, I wouldn't have a problem with that, because it's YOUr memory. But if someone says that "good=Christmas," well, they're excluding a huge percentage of the entire world.
If this all just lies in semantics, well, I think fixing issues in language is a good place to start in making our world a better place for everyone.
I'm late to the party here, but let me just say I'm [I]shocked[/I] to see the Yankee trolls show up here like clockwork this morning to once again demonstrate their pathological, 24/7 obsession with, and hatred of, the Boston Red Sox and their fans. I guess Jere really should be flattered that they choose of their own free will to keep coming back and reading this blog, and to show off their all-consuming, burning hatred, rather than read Yankee blogs.
And as Jere notes, it's really sad that gloating about their team buying division titles, and hoping rather than expecting that the team win the WS, is what they're reduced to. Nine straight, huh? That's great...another five in a row, and they'll be the Atlanta Braves...at a 230% higher payroll, of course.
Zero rings in this century for the New York Chokees. Five straight post-season choke jobs, including the only collapse from a 3-0 series lead in the history of baseball. Two proven steroid-using greaseballs on their roster. Mystique, Aura, Human Growth Hormone. $210 million just doesn't buy what it used to.
And as Jere notes, it's really sad that gloating about their team buying division titles, and hoping rather than expecting that the team win the WS, is what they're reduced to. Nine straight, huh? That's great...another five in a row, and they'll be the Atlanta Braves...at a 230% higher payroll, of course.
Zero rings in this century for the New York Chokees. Five straight post-season choke jobs, including the only collapse from a 3-0 series lead in the history of baseball. Two proven steroid-using greaseballs on their roster. Mystique, Aura, Human Growth Hormone. $210 million just doesn't buy what it used to.
//I think fixing issues in language is a good place to start in making our world a better place for everyone.//
This is coming from someone who constantly belittles Yankee fans, the team, and any accomplishments they make throughout the course of a season. However, now you want to go off on people for what you perceive to be their sexist overtones in their writing but yet you don't want to change your own hateful tone. You are such a hypocrite. You are hardly the arbiter of what should be right in the world.
This is coming from someone who constantly belittles Yankee fans, the team, and any accomplishments they make throughout the course of a season. However, now you want to go off on people for what you perceive to be their sexist overtones in their writing but yet you don't want to change your own hateful tone. You are such a hypocrite. You are hardly the arbiter of what should be right in the world.
Keep on showing off your bitter, all-consuming hatred of Sox fans, there, DYW. Shouldn't your handle really be "DaaaaYankeesWin, except for in the playoffs, when they choke"?
Zero rings in the 21st Century.
Zero rings in the 21st Century.
As for the SI article, Slappy Rodriguez may be a phony, and he sure as hell has no clue when to shut up, but he comes off better in that piece than his teammates, in particular HGHiambi. Where does a greasy, fat-headed, cheating, steroid-bloated sack of shit like Giambi get off criticising ARod, or frankly anyone else in baseball? He's never won a damn thing either despite his massive paycheck, and isn't half the ballplayer that ARod is....you could make a damned good case that Giambi is one of the worst defensive first basemen in the history of baseball, if not the worst (next to Dick Stuart, of course). He also let his teammates down when he sat out Game 5 of the '03 World Series, and when he was useless during his post-steroids, pre-human growth hormone 2004 season. Also notice that he hasn't hit a homer in a month...this must be a chemical downcycle for him.
BTW, Jere, I have to agree with BSM that the 'wink' line in the article is 'just a simple turn of phrase' with 'no exclusive suggestion to it'. Sorry
BTW, Jere, I have to agree with BSM that the 'wink' line in the article is 'just a simple turn of phrase' with 'no exclusive suggestion to it'. Sorry
DaaaYankeesWin: Everything you're saying about me is wrong. I tried ignoring you, but you're obviously not going away. So you're done. You've said horrible things about my girlfriend, and instead of coming on here to debate, just repeatedly called me stupid, and then acted like you did nothing wrong and acted all fake-polite. You said something a while ago about me having comments for the reason that anyone can comment. That's true. But there's also a reason I have a delete button.
I don't belittle all Yankee fans, just the horrible ones like you, and almost every other Yankee fan who's found this blog, who, instead of trying to argue their points, called me stupid, told me to go kill myself, etc.
I see by the number of times you've come to my blog, even while on vacation, that you are starved for attention. So, you win, here it is. In exchange I ask you not to come back.
Sure, you'll get some shots in at me at 3 AM, before I can delete it the next day, but every time people see a "this comment deleted by blog administrator," they'll know it was another pathetic attempt by you to say "You're stupid!" on some random dude's internet site.
I'd say "I truly wih you good luck in your future endeavors," or something, but I don't get into that phony shit. So, just go away. Please.
I don't belittle all Yankee fans, just the horrible ones like you, and almost every other Yankee fan who's found this blog, who, instead of trying to argue their points, called me stupid, told me to go kill myself, etc.
I see by the number of times you've come to my blog, even while on vacation, that you are starved for attention. So, you win, here it is. In exchange I ask you not to come back.
Sure, you'll get some shots in at me at 3 AM, before I can delete it the next day, but every time people see a "this comment deleted by blog administrator," they'll know it was another pathetic attempt by you to say "You're stupid!" on some random dude's internet site.
I'd say "I truly wih you good luck in your future endeavors," or something, but I don't get into that phony shit. So, just go away. Please.
About the "wink," line--which, by the way, can we at least all agree it was a really cheesy line?--
If the writer had said something like my earlier suggestion, i.e. the "female" version of what makes life good, don't you think that would be a huge deal? Seriously, if that article was written exactly how it is now, but you switched "girl" to "boy," that would be actual headline news: "Dude reporter must be gay or something! Answers sought by all!"
Because the "male" version of, well, of everything in society, is the "default" version. Right down to the uses within the English language: "mankind," using "his" when referring to any person ("a person will always take care of himself first," instead of him OR herself), etc.
And I just happen to thing that's a bad thing. But that's just me.
If the writer had said something like my earlier suggestion, i.e. the "female" version of what makes life good, don't you think that would be a huge deal? Seriously, if that article was written exactly how it is now, but you switched "girl" to "boy," that would be actual headline news: "Dude reporter must be gay or something! Answers sought by all!"
Because the "male" version of, well, of everything in society, is the "default" version. Right down to the uses within the English language: "mankind," using "his" when referring to any person ("a person will always take care of himself first," instead of him OR herself), etc.
And I just happen to thing that's a bad thing. But that's just me.
"About the "wink," line--which, by the way, can we at least all agree it was a really cheesy line?--"
I agree, it's cheesy, and pretty lame writing. To be honest, the whole article was bizarre. I have no idea why ARod agreed to give all those quotes...I have to think he has a publicist who should have the good sense to realize how ridiculous his (or her) client sounds. I think Manny really has the right idea about the media.
I agree, it's cheesy, and pretty lame writing. To be honest, the whole article was bizarre. I have no idea why ARod agreed to give all those quotes...I have to think he has a publicist who should have the good sense to realize how ridiculous his (or her) client sounds. I think Manny really has the right idea about the media.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But if someone says that "good=Christmas," well, they're excluding a huge percentage of the entire world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm sorry, but I just think this is flat-out wrong. No one is excluding anything- I find it hard to believe anyone could interpret that familiar image used in a simile to be exclusionary.
YOU'RE assuming there's an exclusion by omission, but in reality, a writer can't include every subset of humanity in a clause like that. A simile is drawn to relate an idea to one more commonly relatable to a reader. So not only is that (the SI example) appropriate for a reader who is close to 90% more likely to be a male, it's a fairly benign idea- the opposite sex likes me. This is nice.
"Sports Illustrated" is clearly a magazine aimed at males- witness the swimsuit edition, the profile of ads contained, and the fact that mostly men like sports. Just like "Ms." is a magazine aimed at women, and in that magazine, the line would have read...
"In June, Gloria Steinem was being asked to appear at nearly every feminist convention, the satisfying confirmation for a feminist author that, like getting a wink from a cute guy, all is right with the world."
There's no problem there, either (besides the obvious humor of the simile). If I read that article, I'd not feel excluded- I'd perceive the point of the analogy pretty easily with regards to the context of the article, author, subject and place of publication.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I did think about it in terms of, "Well, to a right-handed hitter." But women can play baseball, too. A right-haned woman who plays in a baseball league does not think of "a wink from a pretty girl" as onle of life's joys.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First of all, as for the last sentence- of course they do. Just because it's not something they find arousing, etc- every single functioning human would recognize this as intended- "one of life's joys." Failure to personally find something personally appealing does not preclude a reader from understanding the intent, much less being offended by it.
Moreover, your example of if this male writer changed that gender specifics, it would cause confusion/ uproar- ignoring the hyperbole of the uproar part, it WOULD be confusing given the context of the author, subject, and magazine. But if it was an article in the Advocate? It would make perfect sense, and not be insulting at all. If O Magazine wrote the SAME exact article about A-Rod and said "confirmation that, like a wink from a guy, life is good," it wouldn't be any different. Context.
Unless you're arguing that SI isn't/ shouldn't be aimed at men. It is, and "should" according to what makes them the most $$.
Also- women don't play professional baseball because they simply cannot physically compete with their male counterparts.
Is that sexist? Incorrect?
Not all acknowledgments of gender difference or gender division is bad, of course.
Also, DaaaYankeesWin- there's no correlation between what Jere and I are debating and the Yankee Red Sox universe. Please- stop. It's embarassing.
But if someone says that "good=Christmas," well, they're excluding a huge percentage of the entire world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm sorry, but I just think this is flat-out wrong. No one is excluding anything- I find it hard to believe anyone could interpret that familiar image used in a simile to be exclusionary.
YOU'RE assuming there's an exclusion by omission, but in reality, a writer can't include every subset of humanity in a clause like that. A simile is drawn to relate an idea to one more commonly relatable to a reader. So not only is that (the SI example) appropriate for a reader who is close to 90% more likely to be a male, it's a fairly benign idea- the opposite sex likes me. This is nice.
"Sports Illustrated" is clearly a magazine aimed at males- witness the swimsuit edition, the profile of ads contained, and the fact that mostly men like sports. Just like "Ms." is a magazine aimed at women, and in that magazine, the line would have read...
"In June, Gloria Steinem was being asked to appear at nearly every feminist convention, the satisfying confirmation for a feminist author that, like getting a wink from a cute guy, all is right with the world."
There's no problem there, either (besides the obvious humor of the simile). If I read that article, I'd not feel excluded- I'd perceive the point of the analogy pretty easily with regards to the context of the article, author, subject and place of publication.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I did think about it in terms of, "Well, to a right-handed hitter." But women can play baseball, too. A right-haned woman who plays in a baseball league does not think of "a wink from a pretty girl" as onle of life's joys.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First of all, as for the last sentence- of course they do. Just because it's not something they find arousing, etc- every single functioning human would recognize this as intended- "one of life's joys." Failure to personally find something personally appealing does not preclude a reader from understanding the intent, much less being offended by it.
Moreover, your example of if this male writer changed that gender specifics, it would cause confusion/ uproar- ignoring the hyperbole of the uproar part, it WOULD be confusing given the context of the author, subject, and magazine. But if it was an article in the Advocate? It would make perfect sense, and not be insulting at all. If O Magazine wrote the SAME exact article about A-Rod and said "confirmation that, like a wink from a guy, life is good," it wouldn't be any different. Context.
Unless you're arguing that SI isn't/ shouldn't be aimed at men. It is, and "should" according to what makes them the most $$.
Also- women don't play professional baseball because they simply cannot physically compete with their male counterparts.
Is that sexist? Incorrect?
Not all acknowledgments of gender difference or gender division is bad, of course.
Also, DaaaYankeesWin- there's no correlation between what Jere and I are debating and the Yankee Red Sox universe. Please- stop. It's embarassing.
If there is a male overtone to all sports coverage and advertising (and ther likely is), it's because sports and advertising are businesses and they realize that spending money addressing females would be a waste of their money.
When sports merchandising is geared specifically toward women, it's pretty successful. It started with one pink hat. It's now a huge part of the merchandising revenue. What I find interesting about this is that there really isn't a lot of advertising thrown out there for this shit. It sells itself. So, I am a little baffled as to why they don't try to gear more of their sports advertising toward women. At least in this part of the country. I'm not saying that most of us respond to big sales on pink hats, however, there are a lot of rabid female Sox fan moms who would love to get their hands on Red Sox cookie cutters, dish towels and general crap like that.
But, yeah, as a woman, on the whole, I have felt like an excluded party listening to EEI and their advertisers.
The wink line is pretty harmless, but it is funny how when you turn the tables and simply switch out one word and change it to "boy," it would totally blow up. I would pay big bucks to experiment with something like that. Just to prove how many people would waste valuable energy and time complaining it and how twisted everyone's priorities are.
When sports merchandising is geared specifically toward women, it's pretty successful. It started with one pink hat. It's now a huge part of the merchandising revenue. What I find interesting about this is that there really isn't a lot of advertising thrown out there for this shit. It sells itself. So, I am a little baffled as to why they don't try to gear more of their sports advertising toward women. At least in this part of the country. I'm not saying that most of us respond to big sales on pink hats, however, there are a lot of rabid female Sox fan moms who would love to get their hands on Red Sox cookie cutters, dish towels and general crap like that.
But, yeah, as a woman, on the whole, I have felt like an excluded party listening to EEI and their advertisers.
The wink line is pretty harmless, but it is funny how when you turn the tables and simply switch out one word and change it to "boy," it would totally blow up. I would pay big bucks to experiment with something like that. Just to prove how many people would waste valuable energy and time complaining it and how twisted everyone's priorities are.
An also, I understand that the SI magazine people view their magazine audience as male primarily, but I think the complaint is more about the "why" as to questioning whether or not this is so. I wonder if their mission statement says "something something to provide all sports loving men with something something." The title of the mag suggests that it's about sports, whereas the title of Ms. is pretty distinctive.
But, on the other hand, there's "Good Housekeeping," which, by this logic, ought to start to make a shift toward a more male audience. Why should we assume that all of America's housekeepers are women? Also, I notice that "Real Simple" is a magazine that, by it's cover and title suggest that it is a good resource for people looking to simplify their lives. But, check out the fashion spreads. Nothing but women's clothes. So, I guess that there are still lots of strong stereotypes out there. You want to say that it is based on lots of market research, but wouldn't this alter a little if the other sex was targeted? If Real Simple started having male-focused features that paired equally with the female-focused ones?
But, on the other hand, there's "Good Housekeeping," which, by this logic, ought to start to make a shift toward a more male audience. Why should we assume that all of America's housekeepers are women? Also, I notice that "Real Simple" is a magazine that, by it's cover and title suggest that it is a good resource for people looking to simplify their lives. But, check out the fashion spreads. Nothing but women's clothes. So, I guess that there are still lots of strong stereotypes out there. You want to say that it is based on lots of market research, but wouldn't this alter a little if the other sex was targeted? If Real Simple started having male-focused features that paired equally with the female-focused ones?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But if someone says that "good=Christmas," well, they're excluding a huge percentage of the entire world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I'm sorry, but I just think this is flat-out wrong."
But I said if they said it like that, as opposed to "good (for me)=Christmas." That's all I'm talking about.
Like, WC says the wink line is harmless. I'd agree if he said that a wink from a pretty girl TO a straight dude, that would be completely, totally fine. But to say point blank that to all people (all right, right handed hitters, who can be of either sex) "pretty girl winking=life is good" is so proposterous and blatantly sexist and saying to the world that males are the "real" people, and no one else matters.
And I think the way we use language really affects the way we all think.
If they want to market it to men, why don't they call it "Men's Sports Illustrated"?
But all humans like to move around and play sports. Just because a female hasn't made the majors--yet!--doesn't mean females can't totally watch and love and participate in sports.
Twitch made a good point, saying that since women are basically forced into softball, they're learning totally different skills that baseball players, so of course their chances of ever getting to the highest level are diminished.
yes, they've got a swimsuit issue, and they gear stuff toward men. That doesn't mean I support it! I think it's just as ridiculous to put pictures of naked women on your magazine that's purportedly about "sports" as it is to assume that every person, male or female, thinks of a wink from a girl as a life-affirming moment.
WC: Good points about marketing and stuff. And about being excluded: I seriously think about that everytime I hear some stupid shock jock show or anything like that. It's just assumed the listener is male. Go ahead and say it if you want your station to be "for males only." (Not that I would respect that notion.)
I think the major argument or whatever here is how I'm just saying that "sports," to me, isn't a "thing males do." Just because sports played by males get all the attention, doesn't mean females shouldn't be allowed to be an integral part of the whole thing.
But if someone says that "good=Christmas," well, they're excluding a huge percentage of the entire world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I'm sorry, but I just think this is flat-out wrong."
But I said if they said it like that, as opposed to "good (for me)=Christmas." That's all I'm talking about.
Like, WC says the wink line is harmless. I'd agree if he said that a wink from a pretty girl TO a straight dude, that would be completely, totally fine. But to say point blank that to all people (all right, right handed hitters, who can be of either sex) "pretty girl winking=life is good" is so proposterous and blatantly sexist and saying to the world that males are the "real" people, and no one else matters.
And I think the way we use language really affects the way we all think.
If they want to market it to men, why don't they call it "Men's Sports Illustrated"?
But all humans like to move around and play sports. Just because a female hasn't made the majors--yet!--doesn't mean females can't totally watch and love and participate in sports.
Twitch made a good point, saying that since women are basically forced into softball, they're learning totally different skills that baseball players, so of course their chances of ever getting to the highest level are diminished.
yes, they've got a swimsuit issue, and they gear stuff toward men. That doesn't mean I support it! I think it's just as ridiculous to put pictures of naked women on your magazine that's purportedly about "sports" as it is to assume that every person, male or female, thinks of a wink from a girl as a life-affirming moment.
WC: Good points about marketing and stuff. And about being excluded: I seriously think about that everytime I hear some stupid shock jock show or anything like that. It's just assumed the listener is male. Go ahead and say it if you want your station to be "for males only." (Not that I would respect that notion.)
I think the major argument or whatever here is how I'm just saying that "sports," to me, isn't a "thing males do." Just because sports played by males get all the attention, doesn't mean females shouldn't be allowed to be an integral part of the whole thing.
"I understand that the SI magazine people view their magazine audience as male primarily, but I think the complaint is more about the "why" as to questioning whether or not this is so"
I wrote my last comment before seeing your new one, with the above quote. You beat me to it!
I wrote my last comment before seeing your new one, with the above quote. You beat me to it!
"You want to say that it is based on lots of market research, but wouldn't this alter a little if the other sex was targeted?"
Eactly. The old, "sure they only eat fish, if that's all ya give 'em" excuse. Or something.
And to continue from before, yeah, Good Housekeeping, it's thought of as a "women's mag" whereas SI is thought of, I guess, by some people, as a "men's mag." So it depends first on the individual's point of view on the mag. If they think it's for all people, then, to them, it would be bad to hear something written toward ONE sex, as if you were supposed to know that before you opened it.
Eactly. The old, "sure they only eat fish, if that's all ya give 'em" excuse. Or something.
And to continue from before, yeah, Good Housekeeping, it's thought of as a "women's mag" whereas SI is thought of, I guess, by some people, as a "men's mag." So it depends first on the individual's point of view on the mag. If they think it's for all people, then, to them, it would be bad to hear something written toward ONE sex, as if you were supposed to know that before you opened it.
Exactly, not eactly. Ess-actly.
And what's the Brady joke? I know he had 49 homers that year. But I still don't get it.
And what's the Brady joke? I know he had 49 homers that year. But I still don't get it.
Actually, he hit 50 hrs on the nose in 1996. I hope BSM was just being sarcastic, and not implying that Papi is a one-year wonder, or that's he's on steroids the way everyone assumes Brady was.
"A wink from a member of the opposite sex" just doesn't sound right. I think it's a bad simile because I'm not quite sure what driving the ball has in common with flirtation. If you're going to charge SI with sexism, a better start wold be the yearly Swimsuit Issue, not some throwaway line in an article about A-Rod.
Witchy - maybe Jay Mariucci will try your experiment with the word "boy" in his next Ozzie Guillen article. Also, I'm sure at some point anyone with a brain has felt like an excluded party listening to EEI. I so wish that the Red Sox had started their own station and ditched those guys.
PS Just to liven this up, there was an "SI For Women" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Illustrated_for_Women
BSM - I'm pretty sure we went to the same high school, but if you are younger than Chris Drury, I graduated before you.
Witchy - maybe Jay Mariucci will try your experiment with the word "boy" in his next Ozzie Guillen article. Also, I'm sure at some point anyone with a brain has felt like an excluded party listening to EEI. I so wish that the Red Sox had started their own station and ditched those guys.
PS Just to liven this up, there was an "SI For Women" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Illustrated_for_Women
BSM - I'm pretty sure we went to the same high school, but if you are younger than Chris Drury, I graduated before you.
STJ: So that's why I don't recognize your name, even though you're from Ridgefield--you went to Prep. (?)
Drury: town--Trumbull, HS--?
BSM: town--Fairfield, HS--F. Prep
Me: town--Ridgefield, HS--RHS
STJ: town--Ridgefield, HS--F. Prep?
Anyway, I addressed the issue of it "not sounding right" in my piece. And we talked about the swimsuit issue in the above comments.
Drury: town--Trumbull, HS--?
BSM: town--Fairfield, HS--F. Prep
Me: town--Ridgefield, HS--RHS
STJ: town--Ridgefield, HS--F. Prep?
Anyway, I addressed the issue of it "not sounding right" in my piece. And we talked about the swimsuit issue in the above comments.
I LOVE this game! Your best bet is late at night. Then Peter will see it in the early AM, followed by a me deletion a little later.
"Drury: town--Trumbull, HS--?
BSM: town--Fairfield, HS--F. Prep
Me: town--Ridgefield, HS--RHS
STJ: town--Ridgefield, HS--F. Prep?"
AJM: town--Trumbull, HS--Trumbull High (for some strange reason, chose to go to THS over Fairfield Prep)
And I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but Chris Drury's dad interviewed me for college at Chez Drury back when Chris was just a toddler. I'm old.
BSM: town--Fairfield, HS--F. Prep
Me: town--Ridgefield, HS--RHS
STJ: town--Ridgefield, HS--F. Prep?"
AJM: town--Trumbull, HS--Trumbull High (for some strange reason, chose to go to THS over Fairfield Prep)
And I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but Chris Drury's dad interviewed me for college at Chez Drury back when Chris was just a toddler. I'm old.
If STJ is right about going to the same HS as BSM, then Drury went to prep. I think. Anyway, yeah, that's right, the Drury dad connection. I forgot you were a Trumbull guy.
You'll be in the next edition of ARSFIPT commentors' high schools monthly!
You'll be in the next edition of ARSFIPT commentors' high schools monthly!
<< Home
Post a Comment
If you're "anonymous," please leave a name, even if it's a fake one, for differentiation purposes.
If you're having trouble commenting, try signing in to whatever account you're using first, then come back here once you're signed in.