Stupid Lugo. Remember that inning yesterday when we got a guy on, then we bunted him over, and then Lugo grounds to the left side? Terrible job. This guy's average is headed for the .100s. I felt so bad for Timlin--I held my breath on his throw to first, knowing it was his first game back, and sure enough, he fires it the outfield. The only good thing about us not scoring any more runs is that maybe he won't feel so bad, since those runs turned out to be insurance.

In the ninth, I would've pinch hit Papi for either Lugo or Coco. What were they waiting for? You can't hit him for Youk or Manny anyway, get him up there, extend the rally, give us a chance.

Someone (who has a great blog) said in my comments that they thought Amalie Benjamin was in way over her head. Do I agree? Ehhh, no, Peg.

I've been following Amalie's reporting since this past off-season. I was probably late in discovering her, actually. But, honestly, I'm not that big on following what newspapers like the Globe say about the Red Sox. I did come across her stuff online, though, and kept reading because I thought she did a great job with her reports about the Red Sox. They were refreshing, like a York Peppermint Pattie blowing through my hair or something. Her voice (in print) sounded like that of a real person for a change. I'm happy to see that she's since made it into a more prominent role--an on-air, pre-game NESN reporter--while still giving us reports on the Extra Bases blog. From her on-camera reports she makes after coming from the clubhouse, I haven't seen anything that's suggested she's in over her head.

But this brings up a much-debated topic. I can't say "I like Amalie Benjamin" without the thoughts of the reader going to: "Does he just think she's pretty?" Now, I hate that we're living in this male-dominated society where this is even an issue. And I hate that the "sports culture" is dominated by males as well. I wish that people could do their jobs and no one would ever think about anyone differently because of their sex. (Or color, sexual orientation, etc, but I'm just focusing on male/female right now.)

Of course you're going to see someone and either find them appealing or not, but the point is, a man can get an on-air job without having to worry about that. That's what's not fair.

I liked Amamlie from the time I started reading her stuff. I'd never seen her face. She could've been a wart-covered ogre-woman, it really didn't matter. But, as a music critic said about Joanna Newsom, "I wish she'd been ugly." Because then her work would be what people focus on. But like Joanna, Amalie turned out to be pretty. Which leads to talk of her only getting attention because of her looks. Which only happens because men control the world, and definitely the world of sports. It's a shame. Because Amalie is good, I think. Of course, both men and females will wonder, any time a woman is in a position of visibilty, if she got the job thanks to her looks. That's where you'll find equality. But if females had half the jobs in sports, instead of a tiny percentage, it wouldn't be as big of a deal.

Recently there was a story on ESPN about sports radio. They talked about how it's as much "guy radio" as it is "sports radio." Again, I really hate this. A woman who wants to follow sports is told "sorry, you have to deal with this crap if you want to hear about sports." They say they have to talk about "guy stuff" (which apparently means "objectifying females") because the audience is mainly guys. Well, how about saying, "We're only gonna talk about sports because the entire audience is tuning in to hear about sports"?

I could go on forever about this (and I could probably start to make a little more sense a few years into that "forever" period), but I'll leave it at that for now. I'm just sick of everything about sports being a "men only" thing. You see it on sports websites all the time.

An example of this came the other day on UniWatch. I hate to pick on that site, since I read it every day and love it. But there was a guest writer, who sometimes fills in for Paul, on there, and he wrote this column. At one point, he mentions women's beach volleyball:

"Having concentrated on, um, other aspects of women’s beach volleyball, it didn’t occur to me until lately that they were wearing temporary tattoos on their arms. Having not watched any men’s volleyball [...]"

We get it. You're totally not gay. See what I mean? This is written to straight males only. Why? Women and gay people are reading your piece about tattoos in sports, too. Also, does he think if he doesn't specify that he's never watched half-naked men play volleyball on TV, even for a second, that people would think he's gay? Or that if doesn't make sure to interject that while he may have been looking at pics of scantily-clad women for research purposes, he was mainly ogling their bodies, that people would think he's less of a man?

At the end of his piece, he says

"Another gallery of athletes and their tattoos here (6 and 10 are personal favorites)."

Is there any doubt in your mind what sex the people in "6 and 10" are? I didn't even have to check. He's once again reminding us that he enjoys looking at the bare skin of females. Can you tell I'm just as pissed about the predictability factor as I am about the sexism and homophobia?

If you like looking at women's bodies more than men's, and you're a straight male, that's perfectly natural. But A. we already know and B. people who like to look at men instead of women are allowed to do that, too, and they are reading your piece. If you want to write a straight-male-only column, fine, but say that's what it is (and, preferrably, put it on a site made specifically for those people--"sports" doesn't mean "straight males only.")

I've talked about this before, so, I guess now's the time when we all have the exact same conversation about it in the comments as we did before....