Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    re .0, maybe men believe these things so readily because they've seen
    their male friends do things like this before many times and realize
    it's likely to be true.
    
    Lorna
    

    
>    It seems many males are unwilling to ever show any loyalty or trust for
>    their fellow males, and that many males always seem willing to believe
>    anything that any female has to say about any male.
    
Instead of generalizing, you might want to relate the whole story so 
that people can make up their minds about this particular case.  I'm 
sure that there are instances when men should band together and stick 
up for one another.  However, from everything I've read about this 
story, this is not one of those instances.  I will not support men in 
the unaccepetable behavior of sexual harrassment.

The Patriot players noticed a Boston Herald female sports reporter
hanging around the locker room longer than the other reporters.  They
brilliantly deduced that she was hanging around only to gawk at the
players naked bodies.  (In fact, she was waiting for Andre Tippet to
get out of the trainers office; he was getting an injury taken care
of.)   The next time she interviewed people in the locker room, six of 
these guys surrounded her, made sexual innuendos to her, and refused 
to let her go.  All this in front of her peers, other sports 
reporters.  

This female sports reporter did NOT report this incident in the 
Herald.  In fact, a MALE reporter from the Boston Globe reported the 
story of the harrassment.  (The Herald bitterly alleged that the Globe 
should have stayed out of it and should have allowed the Herald to 
take care of matters discreetly, out of the paper's columns.)  The 
Globe reporter said that the sexual come-ons were so lewd that they 
couldn't be reprinted in the paper.

That woman was doing her JOB, and she was viciously harrassed by men 
who are, by all odds, a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier than 
most men in this Notes file.  Their behavior was appalling, and I 
think that these men deserve no support from their fellow men.  In 
fact, I think that these men are contributing to giving men in general 
a bad name, and I think that other men should ask these bozos to 
publicly apologize.

This is NOT a case of a woman making false accusations and trying to 
turn men against men.  This is a case of a woman asking to do her job 
in peace, without harrassment.  This is a case so appalling that the
other sports reporters in the locker room couldn't believe it was
happening, who found it so revolting and _wrong_ that they felt a duty
to report on it. 

							--Gerry

 I completely agree with Gerry. (Thank God I'm sitting down. :-)

 I think that .0's premise with regard to this particular incident is so
completely off base that I question the propriety of even entering it in the
first place.

 Gerry's account of the incident was very accurate as has been reported by
numerous printed and electronic media.

 I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the men involved. Unable to do
their own jobs even reasonably well in their field, they felt the need to
denigrate a woman who was only trying to earn her pay. How incredibly macho.

 My respect for Victor Kiam has dropped considerably since his moronic
comments following the incident.

 And I absolutely refuse to side with anyone who thinks that it is proper for
men to behave in this manner. .0 is bothered by the number of men who sell
each other out. Well I am bothered by the number of men who blindly cling
to old and tired stereotypes and support each other's unacceptable behavior.

 I am somewhat heartened by the fact that the media in general has stood up
for Ms. Olson in this matter. 

 Anyone who has watched the Pats for as long as I have recognizes this pattern
though. Unable to make news on the field, the Pats resort to making news off
the field. Makes you long for the team of 85/86... at least they could play
football.

 The Doctah, disgusted

    As I recall, there was court order that stated the women reporters MUST
    be allowed into the locker room. THIS is the real problem. If the court
    ordered that men HAD to be allowed into the female locker rooms...I can
    hear the hows of protest.
    
    What they did was wrong. What the court did was wrong long before that.
    Any female disagreeing please state that YOU would allow me into such a
    setting with you being the one undressed. No you say, it is different,
    they can cover up, etc. In the Constitution of the US it states nowhere
    that YOUR privacy shall be forfited for the sake of equal rights of a
    female reporter. Get real!
    
    Steve

    .0
    
    In one way I strongly agree with you:  Men do indeed sell each other
    out and do not support each other and do not trust each other in our
    culture, in general.  It is pervasive.  HOWEVER, and this is a big
    however, I don't see where your example of sexual harrassment is in any
    way related to the ways in which men do not support/trust other men.
    
    Sexual harrassment, as well as child molestation, runs rampant in
    our society.  I think there is much more of it going on than is
    reported.  And it isn't a male vs. female thing.  That is, I think
    there is JUST AS MUCH female-on-male abuse as there is male-on-female
    abuse.  JUST AS MUCH sexual harrassment in the workplace, and just as
    much child molestation perpetrated by WOMEN.  Much of this is not
    reported, because we as men (and as boys too) are supposed to "like" it
    and "welcome" it.  If we call women on these things, then we are
    somehow not "real men."  You guys know what I am talking about.
    
    But to address the sexual harrassment incident you bring up, I would
    simply say that sexual harrassment should not be tolerated, regardless
    of who perpetrates such abuse.  If this incident is true, and I believe
    it is, then these guys in the locker room are essentially no better
    than *pigs* for harrassing this female reporter.  There is NO excuse for
    this behavior, regardless of how you might feel about the
    females-in-the-locker-room issue.  I personally feel men and women
    should be allowed their own sexual privacy -- that there must be
    another way of solving the news-access dilemma experienced by female
    sports reporters.  (I say this having once been a news journalist myself.)
    Somehow society seems to believe that men do not value their sexual
    privacy as much a women do; a lot of female attitudes regarding
    women among naked men in locker rooms seems to be "Oh so, what.  It's 
    no big deal."  Believe me, if the tables were turned, these same women 
    would consider it a big deal indeed.
    
    So there are many, many areas in which men need to support each other
    -- and not necessarily to defend themselves against women.  (See topic
    505 for some insights.)  Sexual harrassment and child molestation is a 
    very serious problem in our culture, and it is more widespread than 
    people realize.  And it invovles BOTH genders -- men AND women.  And we 
    ought to admit that, in these areas, we are a very, very sick society.
    
    My two cents,
    Paul    

    RE: .6  Steve, gotta agree with you on this one. If there were such
    a thing as women's professional sports teams (football, basketball,
    etc.), how far does anyone believe the average *male* sports reporter
    would be allowed into the locker room ??? I'd venture a guess - not
    within 100 feet. I do not condone the alleged sexual harassment, but 
    I feel women reporters have no right to be allowed into the mens'
    locker room; any more than a woman reporter would be allowed into a
    men's rest room to persue an interview.
    
    Paul C.
                                                       

    in re .6
    
    Steve,
    
    Then how would you solve the problem of male reporters getting an
    edge on female reporters with the locker room interviews?
    
    Ban both sexes from the locker rooms?
    
    Give women a handicap as sports writers?
    
    Ban women sports writers?
    
    in re .8 
    
    Paul,
    
    Should *men* be allowed in men's locker rooms to conduct interviews?
    Should *women* be allowed in women's locker rooms to conduct
    interviews?
    
    and as I said above what is your reply to the male/female reporter that
    finds their opposite number getting a better story because of locker
    room access and complains?
    
    it is my understanding (I'm not big on sports) that the reporters
    started going into the locker rooms because the players were avoiding
    the more formal interviews set up after the games. Shall we *require*
    all players to hold interviews once they have changed to prevent
    this situation?
    
    Bonnie
    

    re .9
    
>    Steve,
>    
>    Then how would you solve the problem of male reporters getting an
>    edge on female reporters with the locker room interviews?
>
    
    Don't know, BUT you don't violate someones basic rights 
    because of a problem like this.
    
    Suppose you had female reporters that reported from the delivery room
    on births of the (UK) royal family. How would you handle male
    reporters? There may be instances where you cannot be fair to a person
    in their job because their gender interferes with someone elses basic
    right to privacy.
        
>    Ban both sexes from the locker rooms?
    
    Maybe    
    
>    Give women a handicap as sports writers?
    
    No. It wouldn't work anyways.
    
>    Ban women sports writers?
    
>    Bonnie
    
    No, but see description above.
    
Steve    

    Banning the women from the locker rooms would give them a handicap
    in re good stories.
    
    From what I've seen, the interview areas are not the shower/toilet
    areas, but are areas where the men can be dressed and private as
    they wish. 
    
    A man writing in another file mentioned that the managers issued
    bathrobes to the players so that they could wear them when women
    reporters were present and the men chose not to wear them.
    
    As far as I am concerned it should be equal access or no access,
    whether it is reporting on the delivery of a baby or on the
    thoughts of sports stars.
    
    It is unfair to handicap a person doing their job solely on the basis
    of sex or race etc. If A is banned then B should be, if A is allowed
    in, B should be.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .9  Bonnie, I think there would be far less problems if only
    men reporters were allowed in the mens dressing rooms. Although there 
    are no women's professional sports teams, currently, I do not believe
    male reporters are allowed into the locker room after a women's pro
    tennis match, for example. 
    
    Maybe a slight disadvantage to the few women reporters covering the
    male-dominated world of professional team sports ??? Maybe. But the
    women reporters would obviously scoop the male reporters by being able 
    to interview the women tennis players in the women's dressing room.
    Fair enough ???
    
    
    I do not believe anyone can *require* any professional sports player
    to submit to an interview, either before or after that player has 
    hit the showers. 
    
    So, it may not be 100% fair to women reporters to ban them from the
    locker room, but how is it any different in the fact that women cannot 
    follow a male into the mens room for an interview ???
    
    Paul C.

The point about the propriety of women in the locker rooms of male 
teams is a moot point when viewing the sexual harrassment.  I find it 
very telling that men in here want to shift the focus of the 
conversation to that topic.  Why are you more interested in shifting 
the focus, here?  Is it because you refuse to take a strong stand 
against sexual harrassment?  Is it more important for you to feel 
righteous about her "not belonging there in the first place?"

For the record regarding the "do they belong issue," I'm not sure how
I feel about women/men in locker rooms of professional sports teams. 
I think that heterosexuals tend to make too big a deal out of this
kind of thing.  I'm attracted to men, I play basketball and other
sports, and I've never had a problem conducting myself properly in a
locker room.  If any adjustments need to be made, the considerations 
that Bonnie brought up need to be looked at (will male reporters scoop 
female reporters if you remove women from the locker room?).

Also, what is the proper way to _address_ the issue of privacy and
opposite-sex reporters in the locker room?  Is it to lodge a
complaint?  Is it to organize a protest?  Is it to talk about it in a
Notes file?  Or is it to physically, aggressively, and sexually
harrass a journalist of the opposite sex?  Regardless of the issue of
who belongs where, the Patriot's chosen method of "communication" was
totally unacceptable, and THAT issue needs to be addressed separately
from the issue that they were trying to comment on. 

It's like me getting upset at my boss for him breaking a Digital
policy, and me beating him up for it.  It is not appropriate for me to
commit a crime to point out someone else's wrong doing.  And sexual
harrassment is a crime (at the very least, a breach of most company's 
policies). 

							--Ger

>    men reporters were allowed in the mens dressing rooms. Although there 
>    are no women's professional sports teams, currently, I do not believe
>    male reporters are allowed into the locker room after a women's pro
>    tennis match, for example. 

From everything I've read, no interviewing takes place in either male 
or female locker rooms for tennis.  Tennis players are required to 
show up to a post-match interview.  Also, players are interviewed on 
TV right after they leave the court.  (I remember Chris Evert's 
classic smirking line, "Nice PANTS, Bud!")  I do believe that players 
can be fined for not appearing at the post match "meet the press."

This, obviously solves the problem that Bonnie pointed out, that 
reporters of one gender would scoop the other.  It also provides the 
players with more privacy than football, basketball, or baseball 
players have.

>    Maybe a slight disadvantage to the few women reporters covering the
>    male-dominated world of professional team sports ??? Maybe. But the
>    women reporters would obviously scoop the male reporters by being able 
>    to interview the women tennis players in the women's dressing room.
>    Fair enough ???

Nope.  Economically speaking, tennis isn't in the same league as 
baseball, basketball, hockey, and football.  I would say that, to 
establish good career credentials (instead of as a one-sport 
specialist), a sports journalist would have to establish himself or 
herself in one of the major sports.  (Read: one of the sports that 
makes the most money and draws the most fans.)

I don't see this as a fair swap, when viewing the career path of the 
woman sports journalist.

>    I do not believe anyone can *require* any professional sports player
>    to submit to an interview, either before or after that player has 
>    hit the showers. 

I'm pretty sure that the USTA requires it.  I'm pretty sure I've read 
about players being fined for refusing to the interview.


							--Ger

RE: .0

	Grrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

	This was  soooooo  out-of-touch  that  I  want  to  scream!!!!  It  was
	*sickening*  to read that.  You obvious have had NO(!!!) involvement in
	women's  issues  or especially sexual assault work.  How could you even
	*say* those things - it was so IGNORANT!!

>    America has deteriorated to the point where males have
>    been sent to prison and legally hassled simply because some woman
>    claims she was raped. 
>
> There have been numerous cases of women
>    who, eventually, admit they lied about the rape - after the damage
>    was done to the male.
>
>  Sadly, male police officers, male jury
>    members and male judges are all too quick to sell out their fellow 
>    males - perhaps out of fear they'll be considered sexist if they don't.
>
>   I wonder how many men are in prison today because male judges, male
>    police officers and male members of juries sold out the rights
>    of fellow men and believed the lies of females.
>
>    All a woman has to do is claim a male parent is sexually abusing
>    the child and, even if the courts find the woman is not telling
>    the truth, there are hundreds of people, including other males,
>    who are willing to immediately believe what has been said by the
>    woman, and to help the woman illegally keep her child from the father. 

	WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! 
 
	I CAN'T SCREAM ANY LOUDER, WRONG!!!!!

	I am  so  mad  at the above I can't even go into how terribly WRONG you
	are  here.   RAPE  IS  COMMON!!! It is NOT rare! Do you know how *MANY*
	rape  cases  there  are  per evening! Do you know how *FEW* of them are
	even  reported.   Do  you know how even *FEWER* are falsely reported!!!
	*ONE*  false  rape  case, it gets national media attention.  *ONE* case
	and  everyone  is  happy - "See, it doesn't really happen.  Those women
	always lie." 

	The system   *ALREADY*  IGNORES  RAPE.   *ALREADY*  believes  the  MEN.
	*ALREADY*  assumes the woman (or male victim) is lying.  *ALREADY* puts
	her through so much hell that most do not press charges.  Likening RAPE
	(or   even  the  possibility  of  it)  to  'hassling'  a  male  suspect
	legally???? Grrrrrrr!!!!

	All I  can say right now is GO VOLUNTEER FOR A RAPE CRISIS HOTLINE.  Go
	for  just one evening.  Do that and then come back and say those things
	again...   those  TERRIBLE  lines of yours which displayed contempt for
	women,  which  say  over  and  over and over again, rape doesn't really
	happen,  men  are  just  innocent victims, and the women lie.  WRONG!!!
	Come  back  and have the first thing you say when a woman mentions rape
	"Hey,  haven't  their  been  'NUMEROUS CASES' were women just lie about
	rape anyway?" This is denial!!!

	AND this comes from being involved with men's issues.  This is not male
	bashing. It is calling you on being totally ignorant in issues of rape.
	GET A CLUE! Realize how MANY rape victims you are hurting!

	-Erik (I  feel  sorry for the one false case in millions, but damned if
	I'd  let  this  dreadful  piece  of  male denial of rape get by without
	comment after what I witnessed as a volunteer working for a rape crisis
	hotline center)

    
    Mike Z.....
    
    The description given by Ger seems correct according to what
    I've read on it. Bottom line, Ms. Olson was sexually harrassed
    by some Patriot players. Their conduct was unprofessional,
    degrading to Ms. Olson, and completely uncalled for.
    The Patriots owner showed that he too belongs in their class
    with his subsequent remarks.
    
    The players should be fired, as far as I'm concerned.
    
    							Hank
    
    

    re -1
    
    
    
    While she was interviewing Maurice Hurst, several of the Patriots
    players approached her naked, positioned themselves inches away from
    her face (she was sitting down) and dared her to touch their private
    parts.  Things were said.
    
    

    In regards to the harrassment issue, be it mild, strong, or whatever,
    the athletes should *not* have done it.  It was highly unprofessional
    and the Pats aren't good enough to want negative press, believe me. :)  
    
    To address the further issue of women in men's locker rooms, etc., my
    thoughts are:
    
    a) if locker rooms are to be THE place to interview, and no one wants
    to change this, then men should also be allowed in women's locker
    rooms, and no one should scream about it.  Equal rights goes both ways.
    
    b) the more ideal and "comfortable" way to settle things is to have a
    press room for all sports, football, baseball, etc.  The players could
    retreat, get cleaned up, etc. and then give their words of wisdom to
    the press as a whole (the press, that is, not the team).  I suppose if
    a player really doesn't want to give an interview, they don't have to,
    but to give both men and women reporters an equitable chance at a scoop
    or interview, and to make the players comfortable in their locker
    rooms, this is the logical alternative.  If the team wants to hide, why
    not have a press room they must go to before going to showers?  (I'll
    cite tennis as another example -- players give interview right after
    the match, no matter how unphotogenic they look, then usually another
    one after they've been allowed to tidy up a bit). 
    
	
    I fail to see why this is still an issue.  Why hasn't the NFL, NBA,
    etc. figured out an equitable solution yet?
    
    kim
    

    
    re 6 & 8
    
    If I were playing a sport I would have no objections to a man being
    in the locker room.  In fact, it had happened a few times in college
    while playing soccer.  It was no big deal.  Of course, most of us
    were dressed.  I think there is a big difference in how things happen
    in a female locker room vs a male locker room.  Sure the emotions are
    the same, but very few of us would walk around without at least a
    towel on.  Regardless, that really is not the issue here.
    
    The issue is that this woman was sexually harrassed by these players.
    It was not because there was a court order that states that woman
    reporters must be allowed into the locker room.  It was because these
    players were immature idiots.

    I can't believe how many of you are skirting the issue.  I don't
    believe this issue has anything to do with a woman's presence in
    a mens' locker room - not before the players themselves used that
    excuse.  There are so many ball players who feel that football
    and baseball (note: this is a rare incident in hockey and basketball)
    should be reported by a man - not a woman.  How dare she hang out after
    the game to interview a player.  How dare other female reporters ask
    hard-nosed journalistic questions as to their performance on the field,
    lack of discipline, etc!!!  Why, a ball player may just have to come
    back with a sneer like that from the 22 year old pitcher of the 
    Detroit Tigers regarding his refusal to ever talk to a woman unless
    he's on top of her or on top of him.  
    
    What I'm hearing is this incident, as well as other incidences, is
    completely acceptable because YOU and some players feel women do not
    belong in the locker rooms???  And then you woke up!!!  Does this mean
    if I were a cleaning women in a men's bathroom/locker room a man would
    have the right to come up to me and flash his genitals in my face???
    Ya'll are trying to rationalize this behavior just as the players
    themselves did.  The players, as well as ol' Vic, should be fined all
    the way down to their jock strap and cruex!!!   FYI - isn't it funny
    how so many articles state the area was not THE actual
    changing/showering area??  
    
    This is like rationalizing an attack because a woman's clothes were too
    suggestive, which many men do, I might add.  What's far from a scream??
    Get into SOAPBOX and notice the note on what type of clothing some men
    find attractive.  Description wise these sound like what some men might
    deem *suggestive* (ie rape).  Crazy .... then get into HUMOR and see
    how callously rape is treated.  It's not so funny anymore .... even the
    moderator told me to lighten up .... to have a sense of humor.  I do but
    NOT about something like this.  Never!
    
    If this is how some men have to prove their masculinity?? Well, let's
    say I know why some woman remain celibate.
       
    /gcb
                                                   

re: Paul Cormier

>    RE: .9  Bonnie, I think there would be far less problems if only
>    men reporters were allowed in the mens dressing rooms. 

 That is unfair and illegal. The crux of the matter is "equal opportunity."
When the pols start talking about AA, we say "Why not just provide equal
opportunity?" Well, equal opportunity is not a privilege; it is a right.
The "far less (sic) problems" you speak of relate to incidents of sexual
harrassment of females by males. The legal problems would be greater, if such
a discriminatory policy were enforced. The number of problems would be far fewer
if the players acted like adults. :-)

>Although there 
>    are no women's professional sports teams, currently, I do not believe
>    male reporters are allowed into the locker room after a women's pro
>    tennis match, for example. 

 The situation is NOT analogous. Nobody is allowed into the locker rooms
of either men's or women's pro tennis.

>    Maybe a slight disadvantage to the few women reporters covering the
>    male-dominated world of professional team sports ??? Maybe.

 If it were your chosen method of putting bread on your table, you wouldn't
stand for such a disadvantage if it applied to you (or you'd starve.)

>But the
>    women reporters would obviously scoop the male reporters by being able 
>    to interview the women tennis players in the women's dressing room.
>    Fair enough ???

 No, it's not fair enough and it's not obvious because it doesn't happen the
way you say it does.

>    So, it may not be 100% fair to women reporters to ban them from the
>    locker room, but how is it any different in the fact that women cannot 
>    follow a male into the mens room for an interview ???

 It is not policy to allow men to follow men into the men's room for an 
interview either.

re: Kim Apodaca

>    a) if locker rooms are to be THE place to interview, and no one wants
>    to change this, then men should also be allowed in women's locker
>    rooms, and no one should scream about it.  Equal rights goes both ways.

 This is true iff women are allowed to interview women in the locker rooms.

re: in general

 This is one of the VERY few times in which I have completely agreed with
Gerry. No reservations. This tendency to mitigate the magnitude of the
negative behavior by shifting the focus onto 'why was she there in the first
place?' is despicable. I certainly can understand that the issue is relevant
and important, but it is secondary to the incident in question. Answer the
primary question first, THEN deal with the larger question of the propriety
of interviewing athletes in the locker room.

 The Doctah

    RE: .21  /gcb....where did you read that any contributors to this file
    encourage the sexual harrassment being discussed ??? I stated several
    replies back that *I* do not condone what went on there. BUT - the
    bottom line is the incident was able to happen at all because women 
    are allowed by law in the mens' dressing room. Where do you get the
    far flung (imo) idea that anybody is skirting the issue by raising
    the query if/why women should be allowed into mens's locker rooms and
    vice versa ???
    
    Soapboxing/preaching (a la fire and brimstone) isn't really necessary
    here. We can hear you just fine.
    
    Paul C.

    RE: 22...doctah  OK forget the tennis analogy...I was only trying to
    think of some sport women play on a professional level. Are there any??
    
    It would seem that in the interest of fair play, the idea suggested
    previously sounds best. Since it would be illegal and immoral to bar 
    women from themens locker rooms, bar 'em all. Keep all the reporters 
    out of the locker room, until the players have showered and dressed. 
    They can then meet the male/female press (if they desire to do so at 
    all) for the post-game interview. No lawsuits, no opportunity for any 
    type of sexual harassment, and every reporter will be allowed his/her 
    God-given right to make a living and put bread on their table.
    
    Now all we have to do is get the NBA, NHL, AL-NL, NFL & AFL to agree to
    it. I'd venture a majority of the players would back it.
    
    Paul C. 

    PauL
    
    I really feel that this discussion is skirting the real issue. The
    football players were guilty of sexually harassing a woman who 
    was doing her job. So your solution to the problem is to blame
    her for doing her job. Or at least so it appears to me.
    
    I was interested that only one other author picked up on the
    distortions in the basenote about rape, for example. Further
    very little attention has been paid to the totally out rageous
    behavior of these men.
    
    No, the focus in this discussion has been to 'blame the victim'.
    i.e. "she got what she deserved because she didn't belong there".
    
    I'm disappointed in this reaction.
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    Many of the responses to this note completely prove the thesis in
    the base note ... i.e., if a woman CLAIMS sexual harassment, rape,
    sexual abuse of their children by the father, or that she's a better
    parent than the husband she's divorcing; immediately there's all
    sorts of people - including other men - who are quite willing to
    believe the charge.  
    
    In Wellsley there was a report of a young black man (a Boston Celtic's
    draft pick) being hassled by the police because someone felt he looked 
    like another black who had robbed a bank a few days earlier.
    According to the logic of some of the noters in here, such 
    action by the police was fully appropriate because, afterall,
    the person being hassled was black, and black people do rob banks.
    According to the logic of other people in this note, those who dare
    question whether or not the black man should have been hassled are
    obviously in favor of bank robbery.
    
    It's interesting that in the case of the police hassling the black
    man many folks have spoken about the situation and whether or not
    the police actions were appropriate, but our society has matured
    to the point where no one has even thought of suggesting
    that those who feel the action by the police was unjustified are
    therefore in favor of bank robbery.
    
    Yet, when it comes to males in our society, all sorts of people
    seem to believe that a male who has been accused of something by a
    woman, must be guilty.  As bad as this presumption of guilt is,
    it's equally sad that men who question whether or not
    the accusations are justified, are subject to illogical abuse and
    illogical people who suggest that anyone questioning whether or
    not a man is guilty of sexual harrasment (or rape, or sexual abuse,
    or being a poor parent) must - therefore - be supportive of the 
    acts of sexual harassment (or rape, or sexual abuse, or being a
    poor father.)
    
    Our society is at a point where any woman can accuse any man of
    any terrible action, and lots of unfair and illogical people - 
    and, sadly, many men are included in these - 
    are more than willing to believe the accusation .... Things are
    apparently so bad that anyone who questions whether
    or not the accusation is just or reasonable is declared by these
    same illogical people of being in favor of the terrible action.
    
    When a woman is being perceived as being unfairly hassled 
    or unfairly treated, there are all sorts of groups and other 
    women who will jump to their defense.
    
    When blacks are perceived as being unfairly hassled or unfairly 
    treated, there are all sorts of groups and other blacks who 
    will come to their aid.
    
    Who comes to the aid of the father deprived of his child because
    of the anger or lies of a vindictive woman, who comes to the aid
    of the male prisoner in jail because of some sick woman's accusation,
    who comes to the aid of the American boy dying in some god forsaken
    place, because our laws allow 50% of our population to avoid the
    draft, and who comes to the aids of a group of males who might -
    just might - have been wrongly accused of sexual harassment.
    
    Sadly, it's often not other males.
                                   

>Keep all the reporters 
>    out of the locker room, until the players have showered and dressed. 
>    They can then meet the male/female press (if they desire to do so at 
>    all) for the post-game interview.

 That's a perfectly reasonable solution to the general problem. If it is such a
big deal that female reporters are present in locker rooms where men change,
then ban all but the team. I really don't think that is such a big deal, myself.
I think people are way too sensitive about their bodies, but that is another
meta-problem in and of itself.

 I think that part of the problem that Bonnie, and Gerry, and I (What a fricken
motley crew. :-) have with this string is that there exists an immediate 
tendency to ignore the specific incident and attack the more general problem.
It's bothersome because it tends to take away the attention that ought to
be brought to bear on some very unacceptable (and totally voluntary) behavior
and instead expending it on why the opportunity for such behavior exists. I
think this is dangerous, as it tends to lessen the impact of freewill and 
choice in the behavior process.

 The Doctah

	I am disturbed, and saddened, that the unacceptable actions
	of a few have, in my perception,  been translated into and 
	accepted as evidence that "men (in general) are beasts".

	Please keep your criticisms to the individuals involved and
	refrain from sexist stereotyping.  Thank you.

	Bob_who_has_mush_to_say_to_responses_in_this_topic_but_
	had_better_chill_out_before_he_has_to_delete_his_note

    > Many of the responses to this note completely prove the thesis in
    > the base note ... i.e., if a woman CLAIMS sexual harassment, rape,
    
    Get a clue, silly person.  That reporter didn't claim anything.  Other
    reporters saw the incident and covered it for a RIVAL PAPER.  It was
    NEWS.  It was SEXUAL HARASSMENT.  Don't blame her, she didn't say a
    friggin' word about it.
    
    And Erik spoke for me.  You seriously need to spend an evening as a
    volunteer at a rape crisis center.  
    
    DougO

>    Many of the responses to this note completely prove the thesis in
>    the base note ... i.e., if a woman CLAIMS sexual harassment, rape,
>    sexual abuse of their children by the father, or that she's a better
>    parent than the husband she's divorcing; immediately there's all
>    sorts of people - including other men - who are quite willing to
>    believe the charge.  

Wrong.  A woman did not "claim" to be sexually harrassed.  Her male 
collegues reported on how repulsed they were to be first-hand 
witnesses of what they call obvious sexual harrassment.  If I am 
reading the articles correctly, the woman and her employers wanted 
to keep the situation out of the press and handled behind closed 
doors.

This is a case of men making the charge against other men, with the 
woman giving consent to use her name.

It does not match the thesis in .0.

>    In Wellsley there was a report of a young black man (a Boston Celtic's
>    draft pick) being hassled by the police because someone felt he looked 
>    like another black who had robbed a bank a few days earlier.

Dee Brown is his name.

The common denominator in both cases is that a certain group of people 
refuse to call racism "racism," and some people refuse to call "sexual 
harrassment "sexual harrassment."  In one case, sexism causes people 
to shift emphasis away from sexual harrassment and toward "she doesn't 
belong there anyway."  The Patriot's owner dismisses an illegality by 
his players by saying, "I'm sure [the incident] looms large in Lisa's 
life, but I can't get excited about it.  It's a flyspeck in the 
ocean," and by calling her a "classic b*tch" in front of other 
journalists in the locker room.

With Dee Brown, racism causes two bank employees and seven police 
officers holding a *picture* of the suspect to mistake a brown-eyed, 
very dark skinned, very young man, for an older, light skinned, 
hazel-eyed man, and it causes the police to refuse to apologize when 
the wrong had been discovered.  Instead, the police want to talk about 
how it is standard procedure to draw guns, and have the man cuffed and 
placed on his knees.  Racism caused the mis-identification and the 
total mis-reading of the scene, and the police want to fall back on 
standard operating procedure.

>    Yet, when it comes to males in our society, all sorts of people
>    seem to believe that a male who has been accused of something by a
>    woman, must be guilty...
>    Our society is at a point where any woman can accuse any man of
>    any terrible action, and lots of unfair and illogical people - 
>    and, sadly, many men are included in these - 
>    are more than willing to believe the accusation .... 

Again, they were accused by male eye witnesses.  And I refuse to buy 
your implication that we should justify clearly illegal and offensive 
behavior by other men just because men don't support white men in 
custody cases.  Don't you think that the solution would be for men to 
be more supportive of each other in custody cases in which they are 
being wronged?  Instead of ignoring blatantly illegal behavior by men 
against women?

I'll leave with a quote from today's Globe:

From Michael Madden's column, "These Shots are off Target":

"...Frankly, folks, I'm not the story.  The story is that a group of 
Patriot players, with premeditation, advanced toward a Herald reporter 
doing her job, intimidating her.  They said vile things, they were 
obscene.  It was the worst incident of sexual harassment in sports 
reporting that I--or many others that I have talked to--could recall.  
If this happened on the Red Line, there'd be five charges of sexual 
assault."

The male journalists who witnessed this act aren't even _trying_ to be 
diplomatic.  They seem pretty certain of what they saw.  And I don't 
see any reason as to why they would lie, especially when they will 
have to go back to that lockerroom as part of their jobs.

I agree that men need to support each other more.  That's why I did 
all the work I did with the ZKO Men's Forum, setting up men's support 
groups and men's core groups.  But I don't think that we should use a 
case of sexual harassment to rally around men's rights.  I think that 
this is a pretty clear case in which men should withdraw our support 
of other men.  Human dignity and justice need to take a higher 
precedence in this case.  


							--Gerry

    re:  .30
    
    Don't MISS .26's point.  In the case, the accusations may be true, but
    don't miss his point.  
    
    		-dwight

    RE: The Dee Brown incident....According to last evening's news, the
    Wellesley police were given the info that the bank teller had made
    a *positive* ID on the subject sitting in a car in front of the post
    office. This was in error in translation between the bank mgr (who
    actually was on the phone with the police, the teller, and the
    dispatcher). The teller said he/she was fairly certain it was the
    robber. The dispatcher relayed "positive ID".
    
    ger - how can you claim this to be racism ??? Do you know for certain
    that neither the bank mgr, the teller, nor the dispatcher were black ??
    
    Given the circumstances (told of positive ID and the fairly high 
    probability that any bank robber could be armed) I see the Wellesley
    PD's actions as justified. It's amusing to see all the armchair critics 
    of the police out there. How many of you out there put your lives on the 
    line every day ??? It's easier to apologize (as they have done) than to
    have to attend (or be the guest of honor at) a funeral.
    
    Paul C.  

    
    	Just a reminder since I'm hearing "those females lying again" and
    	"those females just CLAIM to be raped" [talk about steroetypes Mr.
    	511.28], realize....
    
    	It is the WOMAN who is the one who must PROVE that she was violated.
    	The man does NOT have to prove his innocence. The burden of proof is
    	entirely on the traumatized victim. [IE, they ALREADY believe the man].
    
    	And btw Mr. 511.28, admitting that some men rape is nowhere near
    	"sexist stereotyping" and 'translating into accepted evidence that
    	ALL men are beasts'.  The only person who mentioned anything about
    	men being beasts is you. SOME men vs ALL men. It's a BIG difference!
    
    	Go volunteer at a shelter for battered women some time. Tell me how 
    	many women you see there who are just 'claiming' to be any of things 
    	that brought them there.... 
            
        -Erik (do you think male rape victims lie too?)

    Okay Paul  .... let's face it - ALOT of men are skirting this issue
    by stating women shouldn't be there in the first place.  Does that
    make this situation any different??  No but to some men it does.
    These folks are trying to rationalize what these players did.  Plain
    and simple.  Some of you replying to this conference may very well
    agree that this incident, as well as others like it, is a disgusting
    act but listen to what others are saying (men outside DEC and those not
    participating in this conference).  These men ARE trying to rationalize
    this, just as ol' Vic and the rest of his so-called 'entourage' are.  
    How about the comment made by the pitcher of the Detroit Tigers?  I've
    heard quite a few men retaliate by stating that same ol' statement.  
    Whether you care to agree with me or not - it's not any different when
    a female politician was talking to a reporter and a male collegue, an
    opponent, made sexual comments about her and the reporter.  It's 
    disgusting and shouldn't be tolerated but some men just shake it off
    and *rationalize* the situation.  Those who reply to this conference 
    or any other for that matter, don't represent all of the general public   
    How many men do you think understand how 'HUMILATING' this type of act 
    is???  Not many.  Some of us know how it feels since it's happened to
    us on an occasion or two.  The feeling of a man using his size & his
    strength to overpower a woman is what happened here.  They had to prove
    their masculinity - which they have very little. 
    
    Female sports reporters have a job to do - that's the point.  They have
    the right to be in the just as men do.  These individuals cannt perform
    on the field so they have to prove themselves in the locker room. 
    Answer this question:  Why is it that basketball and hockey players 
    refrain from this type of power play.  YOU are rationalizing the
    situation too!  You said it, point blank, loud and clear 'I don't
    condone their actions BUT this happened because women are allowed, by
    law, in the locker rooms..'.  And that makes SO much of a difference 
    doesn't it??  I guess you might as well rationalize if a black person was
    at a bar/club with only white patrons then he should be prepared for the
    derogatory treatment he may receive because of his color.     
    
    This woman, as well as other female sports journalist, have a job
    to do and they shouldn't be hindered by ignorance.
    
    
    /gail

    RE: The original described incident-Is disgraceful, and the player
    should be reprimanded and issue an apology.
    
    RE: The racism scenario-this (as I have stated many times before) is
    unrelated to sexism.  
    
    RE: Women in mens locker rooms-It shouldn't happen.  Maybe a mandatory
    press room is the solution.  These players ge paid enough that they
    should be able to stick around for this.
    
    RE: The original topic-Whether it is unfortunate that men who are
    falsely accused are victims of both females and males jumping on the
    bandwagon.  Yes, it is unfortunate however, these cases are much
    rarer then the instance of rape or sexual harrassment that do happen. 
    Does that make it right? No, but until find something to do with these
    animals who commit these offenses, it is going to be an unfortunate
    byproduct.  I have the solution, but alas it deals with bringing
    prayers and values into the school system and our every day lives, so
    it'll never work.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

    RE: .35  gail, what do you mean by "Why is it that basketball and
    hockey players refrain from this type of power play." A few lines
    previous to that, you made some reference to a Detroit Tigers pitcher
    saying something. Is there some connection ???
    
    I do not feel that anyone in this conference (I cannot comment on
    worldwide male sentiment) is skirting the issue. It is an opinion on
    the overall issue of media coverage. Geez, can't someone have an
    opinion on one subject without having all types of assumptions and
    accusations made about another semi-related subject thrown at them ???
    
    I interpert your (and that of several others) line of thinking to be:
    "Since you don't feel women should be allowed in locker rooms, you feel
     feel it is OK to sexually harrass them". WRONG-WRONG-WRONG, whether
    you choose to believe it or not. 
     
    Just because *I* do not feel women should be allowed in locker rooms, 
    does *NOT* mean I condone/support the sexual harrasment of those women 
    who have a legal right to be there. Just because I *personally* do
    not like a certain politician, for example, should you correctly assume 
    that I favor someone putting a bullet in their head ??? 
    
    Get it ????
    
    The lines of my previous response you quoted were meant to state that
    this incident would never have happened had some judge not declared 
    women access to locker rooms. But he/she did. So, I am one of the many
    to jump on the "condemn the accused players" for their sexist, immoral,
    illegal, hateful actions. 
    
    Since it's an all or nothing world, I would be in favor of banning 
    *ALL* (male & female) reporters from the locker room. Let all the
    media wait outside in a press room. Give the players some time after
    the game to celebrate a win, think over a loss, without a bunch of
    bozos sticking cameras and microphones in their faces. After showers,
    etc.,  those players who wished to talk to the press could do so. 
    Then all the press could do their job on an equal basis.
    
    Fair enough ????
    
    Paul C.  

    It's so simple to say "women shouldn't be in locker rooms, then it
    won't happen.", and "women shouldn't be out at night, that way they
    won't get raped" and "women shouldn't wear skirts, that way they
    won't look attractive and be raped."  Rape is a crime of hate and
    violence, not a crime of lust and sex.  Rape is a crime of control.
    
    And isn't it EASY to mete out justice, and decisions, and judgement
    when it will NEVER happen to you.  A woman shakes her whatever in a
    man's face - he's not going to be mortified and if it does anything to
    his credibility it may well increase it.  A man claims he had 8 women
    the previous night, he is applauded not ashamed.  A woman claims she
    was gang-raped and her life crumbles around her either via the way her
    own self esteem disappears, or her friends disappear, or men taunt her,
    or the jury doesn't believe her......
    
    It's so simple to stand on a pedestal and loudly proclaim it's all the
    women's fault - they ask for it - they get what they deserve.  Oh sure,
    it might have been a bit embarassing, but maybe she secretly enjoyed
    it, right?  
    
    I only hope such men live to reap what they have sown.  I pray the flip
    side of the coin somehow, through some twist of reality, comes your
    way.  
    
    -Jody

    
>    I interpert your (and that of several others) line of thinking to be:
>    "Since you don't feel women should be allowed in locker rooms, you feel
>     feel it is OK to sexually harrass them". WRONG-WRONG-WRONG, whether
>    you choose to believe it or not. 

This is my line of thinking:  Since .0 incorrectly stated that "some 
woman made a claim of sexual harassment" and stated that this was 
another case of men not supporting men when they should, I replied 
that his skewed analysis, over generalization, and lack of concern for 
a clear-cut case of sexual harassment was sexist.  I also claim that 
this is a clear case in which men should withdraw our support for 
other men; they are giving us a bad name.  (I'm not sayng "condemn 
them to death!", I'm saying, "Don't support this in any way!")


						--Ger

Re: <<< Note 511.34 by CYCLST::DEBRIAE 

>    	It is the WOMAN who is the one who must PROVE that she was violated.
>    	The man does NOT have to prove his innocence. 

	Geesh - sorry that our system of justice assumes innocence 
	until proven guilty.  Are you saying that this standard should
	be rescinded for rape cases?

>    	And btw Mr. 511.28, 

	Excuse me, I do have a name, thank you.

> admitting that some men rape is nowhere near
>    	"sexist stereotyping" and 'translating into accepted evidence that
>    	ALL men are beasts'.  The only person who mentioned anything about
>    	men being beasts is you. SOME men vs ALL men. It's a BIG difference!

	Excuse me - but say what?  I put forth my perception that all
	men were being bashed for the actions of a particular five.  
	What does this have to with rape?  What's your point?

	Bob

    RE: .39 (I think) Jody,
    
    I agree with most of what you say in your note until you get to the
    bottom.  Please don't paint with the broad brush, as some men have
    experience with rape as well.  No, the man wasn't raped, but someone
    they care about was and this has a profound effect on them  (no not
    that their property was soiled).  Someone they love was hurt in a way
    that will be with them for the rest of their lives.  
    
    FWIW-If all but one female put their whatever in my face, I would turn and
    walk the other way.  There is truly only one person in the world who
    REALLY gets me going.  I attribute this to the fact that we are soul
    mates, and anything else would be an empty physical experience.  Sorry,
    but I am totally, in love with, infatuated with, consumed by, and thank
    God every day for Him bringing my wife and I together.   (Sorry for the
    longwindedness of this last part.)
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike 

    re .42, men who do not enjoy "empty physical experience"s are by far in
    the minority, so I definitely do not think you speak for most men.  I
    think most men love "empty physical experience"s.  (much less scary
    and less trouble than emotional experiences.)
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

RE:< Note 511.43 by WRKSYS::STHILAIRE "Food, Shelter & Diamonds" >
                   -< at least that's been my impression... >-

   > re .42, men who do not enjoy "empty physical experience"s are by far in
   > the minority, so I definitely do not think you speak for most men.  I
   > think most men love "empty physical experience"s.  (much less scary
   > and less trouble than emotional experiences.)
    
    
Here's another man who does not enjoy, or desire, "empty physical experiences".
I have never been able to, nor desired to, have a physical relationship with a
woman without emotional involvement.  And I do not believe "most" men are able
to either.



Jim
    
    
    

Re:       <<< Note 511.43 by WRKSYS::STHILAIRE "Food, Shelter & Diamonds" >>>

>    re .42, men who do not enjoy "empty physical experience"s are by far in
>    the minority, so I definitely do not think you speak for most men.  I
>    think most men love "empty physical experience"s.  (much less scary
>    and less trouble than emotional experiences.)

	Well, exxxcccuuusseeee me!

	How can you say this?  Are you "most men"?  Have you personally
	interviewed "most men"?  Can you report on authoritative
	research that says "most men enjoy empty physical experiences"?

	I'm obviously peeved at this male bashing.

	I know from my own experience my view of sex and making love has
	evolved over time.  When I was in my teens, sure, I thoroughly
	enjoyed sex without emotional commitment.  Time and experience
	however have brought me to a different place.  Today, in my
	30's, I find sex without emotional attachment to be unrewarding.
	Making love, however, with someone I care about and to whom I
	am attached is a whole different story.

	Bob

    The whole issue of people in sports locker rooms is ridiculous to
    begin with.  Both sexes (unless they are players) are banned
    from almost all professional woman sport locker rooms.  The
    athletes are normally interviewed outside the locker in or
    another area.
    
    Unprofessionalism is Unprofessionalism.  I can't imagine after
    giving a great presentation one of my male or for that matter
    female counterparts following me into the ladies rooms to discuss
    post-presentation issues.  There is a time and place for everything.
    
    If what is being done now (interviewing players in locker rooms---
    both sexes) isn't working, than change it.  I find it hard to
    believe that any male athlete is going to stand up in court and state "No,
    I like having male reporters interview me while I am naked, its
    the females I can't handle!"   Things have to change.  There was
    a short period of time long ago when it was difficult for black athletes
    to be in the same locker room as white athletes.  Some players had
    come to the field dressed to play to avoid harrassment.  Was this
    right?  Things change.
    
    It bothers me when certain men complain about society and how
    woman have more rights, or are protected.(re: base note--
    why aren't woman in the draft?)  We live in a society that
    was created by males, 4 out of every five judges are male,
    male presidents, male dominated senate, congress, etc.  You
    can only blame your ancestors for things you don't agree
    with.
    
    Those players were extremely unprofessional.  If this is a small
    showing of what the calibur of maturity/intelligence/security
    and professionalism is of this team.  The team will always
    be a "loser"!   
    
    
    
    

    
    For years we've been hearing, that"men have to be sensitive, to women's
    needs", but, hey, I think it's about time women tried a little
    sensitivity training. Rough housing, lewd and crude behavior is what
    locker rooms are all about, and if you dont like it, or you don't
    understand it- STAY OUT! MALE BONDING IS NOT A PRETTY SIGHT! But our
    manhood demands a can of whip-ass every once in a while- both giving
    and taking. If you demand to be in the middle, dont go crying to
    the media, when your feelings get hurt. If women really wanted
    equality, we wouldn't have these type of incidents. Miss Olson is just
    another pretentious female barking at the moon. And then her owner
    complains when somebody hits her with a shoe...
    
    						Jim

    re .48, give me a break.  Your reply is a joke.  They stuck their
    genitals in her face.  Is that what you call male bonding?
    
    Lorna
    

RE:< Note 511.48 by CRISTA::MAYNARD "Atlas Shrugged" >
                                 -< Phhhhht! >-

    
   >    understand it- STAY OUT! MALE BONDING IS NOT A PRETTY SIGHT! But our
    
        If this BS is what male bonding is all about I want no part of it!

    >  and taking. If you demand to be in the middle, dont go crying to
    >the media, when your feelings get hurt. If women really wanted
    >equality, we wouldn't have these type of incidents. Miss Olson is just
    >another pretentious female barking at the moon. And then her owner
    >complains when somebody hits her with a shoe...
    
    "Miss" Olson did not go crying to the media.  This incident was brought out
 by a male member of the media.  And if she had THERE IS NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER
 FOR THIS BULLSH*T.  NONE. 



Jim

>Rough housing, lewd and crude behavior is what
>    locker rooms are all about, and if you dont like it, or you don't
>    understand it- STAY OUT! MALE BONDING IS NOT A PRETTY SIGHT!

 Ms. Olson has never had a problem with male bonding, rough housing or lewd and
crude behavior. But that isn't what this was. Have you been following along,
or are you coming into this conversation cold?

>If women really wanted
>    equality, we wouldn't have these type of incidents.

 That is a false statement. Sticking ones genitals in someone's face has nothing
to do with equality.

>Miss Olson is just another pretentious female barking at the moon.

 You just don't get it, do ya, guvnah?

 How about a few of us guys stroll into your office and drop trou, and stick
our genitals in your face, asking you if you want to touch them and saying
"this is really why you come to work." And you tell me if it's just a little
"whip-ass" and male bonding. Bond this.

 The Doctah

    My openion:  Ban *everyone* from the locker room.  The players too have
    a right to some level of privacy.  I'm not shy by any means, but I 
    too get a bit uncomfortable when men *or* women come gawking through
    the shower room.  Yes, they get paid a lot of money and are public
    figures and all that,  but women usually get paid for parading
    buck-naked in public.  Covering up and being able to complete the
    buisness you need to becomes difficult when someone plants themselves
    in the middle of things in order to "wait for an interview".  Are
    we really sure the *reporter's* intentions in all of this are wholly
    *professional*?
    
    This is not intended to be in any way a defense of any unprofessional
    behavior on the player's part.
    
    fred();

    re .32, Dwight-
    
    Don't miss his point?  His 'point', such as it was, arose from what I
    see as a blatant misreading of not only the facts in this case, but
    every other case he mentioned as well.  He talks about the draft not
    applying to 50% of the population, well, where has he been?  There
    isn't a draft anymore!  They're all volunteers, and women are in it as
    well as men.  He talks about 'all sorts' of people leaping to the
    defense of women and blacks like thats a bad thing, and laments that
    nobody defends the poor, unfortunate guy accused of rape.  Well, tell
    you what, Dwight; when we start getting more than 3 out of 10 rapes
    REPORTED, when the society is defensive enough of the rights of rape
    victims to start convicting more than 4 out of a hundred rapists, when
    rapists do hard time for 20 years instead of three, THEN, the very few
    cases of false accusation MIGHT deserve as much attention as he claims. 
    Until then, he's part of the problem.  Miss his point?  Rather, refute
    the half-a**ed assumptions he used to 'make' it.
    
    DougO

Re: Empty physical whatevers.

Heard a survey on the radio. An attractive member of the opposite sex walks up
to you and asks you for sex.

75% of the men in the survey said "Yay!", compared to none of the women.

I know, I know, its only statistics, and considering 20% of the sample were 
probably gay it sounds a bit dubious, but still implies theres a lot of it 
about.

    RE: -1  I don't buy it for a minute.  Sounds like alot of bullshirt to
    me, but then again I cannot believe half the stuff I read these days.
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike (Who must be way out in left field)

	I can't BELIEVE how much anger and spite there is in this note.

	I'd like to reply, but it don't think it's even worth it.  If you
	don't want to open your eyes to work *with* each other to gain
	equality....what use is it even TALKING with you?  ("you" used
	in the generic sense........not pointed at anyone in particular,
	but rather just "attitudes" in this string of notes)


	kath

    
    re 48
    
    "Male bonding is not a pretty sight!"
    
    Five guys flashing their private parts in a woman's face is male
    bonding?  Interesting concept.
    
    Ms. Olsen was not the one to go "crying" to the media.  It was
    her MALE counterparts.  These individual MALES thought that what
    they had witnessed first hand was sexual harrassment.
    
    Get your story straight.
    
    Michele

    
    re 52
    
    Fred,
    
    "but women usually get paid for parading buck-nacked in public."
    
    Where where where???
    
    I haven't seen any women doing such a thing.  If you are referring
    to the smut magazines sure these women get paid.  They are doing
    a job.  What is your point?
    
    Michele

    re .59
    
    >"but women usually get paid for parading buck-nacked in public."
    
    >Where where where???
    
    >I haven't seen any women doing such a thing
    
    I believe they're called "exotic dancers".
    
    BTW:
    
    I have an idea to get some free tv time and advertisement for Digital.
    Have all employees shower after work and conduct interviews with 
    the press stark naked and dripping wet. (I'd draw a smily face here,
    but the other situation is just as rediculous).
    
    fred();

    
    re -1
    
    Fred,
    
    I still don't see your point.  The players are not paid to
    be parading around naked.  The women ("exotic dancers") are
    paid to do so.  So what?
    
    The locker room is not an exotic dancing club.  The folks
    that are present know that some men are going to be naked.
    Big deal.  Yet when one goes to a private place where
    there are exotic dancers, they are there for the purpose
    of seeing these women parade around naked.  How does this
    correlate?
    
    
    Michele

>    re .42, men who do not enjoy "empty physical experience"s are by far in
>    the minority, so I definitely do not think you speak for most men.  I
>    think most men love "empty physical experience"s.  (much less scary
>    and less trouble than emotional experiences.)

I enjoy them.   However, I find that it is much like candy.  It tastes 
good once in a while, but I don't stay healthy if I make a steady diet 
of it.


							--Gerry

    re .61
    
    >I still don't see your point.  The players are not paid to
    >be parading around naked.  The women ("exotic dancers") are
    >paid to do so.  So what?
    
    The point is that the *PLAYERS* *are* required as part of their
    employment to shower and dress in an area where anyone with a
    press pass can come and oogle them.
    
    fred();

RE: Why 20%...I'd heard that was a reasonable estimate. Always thought it
was ridiculous.

    
    re 63
    
    Agreed that anyone with a press pass can come in and "oogle"
    (love that word!!) over the players.  Still what difference
    does that make to what happened here?  
    
    Let's say for example that she was there just to oogle them,
    and the only reason she got in was because she had a press
    pass.  It still does not change the fact that she was
    sexually harrassed.  It does not change what the men did
    to her while she was there.  Or does it????
    
    Michele

    re .66
    
    I do not agree one iota with what the players did.  Howerver, I do
    not hear *any* hue and cry about what is happening to the payers in
    the name of *equal rights*.  In fact I think it was you who said 
    that it is "no big deal". 
    
    I do not agree with what they did about it, but I *can* see how they
    may have been fed up with the reporter in question parking herself
    in the middle of the locker room in order to "wait for an interview",
    and how they *may* have come to the wrong conclusion about her motives.
    (No one said that intelligence was a requirement for being an NFL
    football player).
    
    BTW:  does anyone know where I can get a press pass for the Dallas
    Cowboy's Cheerleaders' locker room.  There's at least one or two
    of *them* I wouldn't mind "interviewing" as they come out of the
    shower.  Come on--equal rights now.  ;^).
    
    fred();

    
    re 67
    
    Isn't the reason you are not hearing any hue and cry about what is
    happening to the players in the name of equal rights due to the
    fact that the NFL decided that all reporters should have access
    to the locker rooms?
    
    Surely the players had some say in the matter when the ruling
    was being debated.  These guys have mouths and minds of thier
    own.  If they honestly feel that thier privacy is being invaded
    isn't it up to them to do something about it?  Was there a big
    uproar from the players before the ruling was put forth?  Or did
    they just accept it willingly?  
    
    re it being no big deal.  I have participated in organized sports
    since I was four.  I have been in locker rooms before.  I have
    even been in men's locker rooms (boyfriend's hockey team).
    I do not think it is a big deal to see a naked person.  Yet 
    if someone had asked me to leave due to them being uncomfortable
    I would have gladly done so.  No one ever said anything to me.
    Most of the players knew who I was, and I was not the only women
    in the room at the time.
    
    
    Michele

    re .68
    
    >Surely the players had some say in the matter when the ruling
    >was being debated.  These guys have mouths and minds of thier
    >own.  If they honestly feel that thier privacy is being invaded
    >isn't it up to them to do something about it?  Was there a big
    >uproar from the players before the ruling was put forth?  Or did
    >they just accept it willingly?  
    
    If my memory serves me correctly, there was no debate.  The NFL
    owners just stated that they "could not afford" a separate interview
    area, and reporters said that they were afraid that players would 
    not make themselves available in an "interview room".  I recall that
    there was some response from the players, but most kept their mouth's
    shut for fear of being called "whimps" (men are *supposed* to
    *like* this sort of thing arent they).  In fact the story on CBS
    last night stated "Men who don't mind strutting their stuff on the
    field seem to be a little shy in the locker room".
    
    I also recall the the reporter in question didn't say anything herself
    either.  Should that also be considered a sign that what happened to
    her is "no big deal".
    
    fred();

    
    Mayby in the name of *equal rights* all news reporters who enter a
    locker room must first strip naked and shower.  Interviews could
    only be done if the reporter is also naked and dripping wet and
    trying to keep from slipping on a wet floor.
    
    fred();

     
    
    "should that also be condidered a sign that it is "no big deal""
    
    Fred I don't understand what you are trying to get at by this
    statement.  Could you explain.
    
    BTW Ms Olson did say something.  She reported the incident to
    the folks at the Herald.  You must remember one thing, that in
    the case of sexual harrassment, the victim (most often a woman)
    is typically accused of being the reason for the assult.  She had
    good cause not to go ranting and raving about this to whoever.
    Her career is going to be affected by this incident regardless of
    whether she wants it to or not.  If something happened to you
    that was going to alter your career wouldn't you try to work
    things out in the best manner possible without seriously jeapordizing
    your career/job?  By her trying to keep this out of the public,
    she was attempting to head off all of the uproar this has created
    and the negative publicity it has given her.  So you fault her for 
    trying to stop this from ruining her career?
    
    Michele
    
    PS.  in my original note about the no big deal thing, it was
    referring to the act of men walking around naked in a locker
    room as being no big deal.  Afterall, isn't that something that
    is a common occurance in men's locker rooms?  

    Excuse me Fred but .... would you care to elaborate on that
    *no big deal theory*???   
    
    Thank you.
    
    
    RE:  Men being wrongly accused of rape???
    
    Like I've stated before, some men make me sick!!!!!!!!  They bitch
    and moan how they'd like women to dress but find little wrong with
    the concept that a woman, who dresses this way and is attacked,
    provoked the act of rape.  Are you trying to tell me that this is justice?? 
    There are thousands of rape cases every day that occur to older woman,
    grandmothers/mothers - is this provoked???  When the majority of rape
    cases are not even reported??  When teenage girls are forced to have
    sex with their dates (this has been going on since chaperones were
    eliminated) and it's considered *their* fault because they were THERE.
    Shame, shame on them!!!  How many of those cases do you think get 
    reported.  One??  You bet and that story was made into an afterschool 
    (ABC) special.  
    
    Where do we get some of these ideas??   Why .... from the TV!!!!! 
    Isn't THAT just special.
    
    If ignorance was bliss alot of folks must be in an absolute state of
    ecstasy - let me tell you.
    
    
    I wouldn't want my worst enemy to be raped .... or know how it feels.
    
    
    /gayle

    re .71
    
    
    >Fred I don't understand what you are trying to get at by this
    >statement.  Could you explain.
    
    You implied that what is happening to the players was ok because
    they hadn't said anything themselves.  Ms. Olson did not say anything
    herselfe either.  It was other reporters in the locker room that
    raised the stink.
    
    >She had
    >good cause not to go ranting and raving about this to whoever.
    >Her career is going to be affected by this incident regardless of
    >whether she wants it to or not.  If something happened to you
    >that was going to alter your career wouldn't you try to work
    >things out in the best manner possible without seriously jeapordizing
    >your career/job?  By her trying to keep this out of the public,
    
    Could this also be the reason why the players haven't said anything
    about their situation?
    
    >room as being no big deal.  Afterall, isn't that something that
    >is a common occurance in men's locker rooms?  
    
    Not necisasarily with women present.  I accidently walked into
    a girls locker room back when I was in high school.  I escaped
    with my life, but my hearing was imapaired for a few days. ;^).
    
    I'm still waiting for my press pass tot he Cheerleaders' locker room.
    ;^).
    
    fred();

    re -1
    
    "you implied that what is happening to the players was ok...."
    
    What "is happening to the players"?  Are you referring to the
    press doing their jobs?  
    
    
    I agree that the players involved in the assault are not saying
    anything because it may very well jeapordize thier careers,
    though given the attitude of the Patriots I doubt it would.
    
    But if you mean that the players who do not like to have 
    women in the locker room are not complaining because they
    may put their jobs in jeapordy, then I must disagree.  IMO
    I seriously doubt that that would be cause for dismissal.
    I don't think that if a man were modest and wanted other folks
    to know that, his job would be somehow affected.  Aren't these
    guys grown men with minds?  Can they handle a peer expressing
    his own views?  Or are they expected to act like clones and
    follow one image?  So what if one of them is considered a wimp?
    Would that honestly jeaopordize that person's career?  As long
    as he was a good player and was performing well on the field what
    difference would it make if he did not want to have anyone else
    see him naked?  Is there some code of football mentality at work
    here that the non-football folks do not know about?  
    
    
    I do not agree with your statement that men are supposed to
    want to walk around dripping wet and naked.  I don't think
    that anyone would particularly like to do this, but some 
    I'm sure revel in it.  
    
    
    And contrary to what you would like to believe, she did indeed
    say something about the incident.  It was a colleague at the 
    Globe who made the story public fodder.
    
    Michele

    
    
    Hey Fred,
    
    Sorry about the Dallas press pass.  Don't know anyone in that
    organization.  Could get you into the Bruins locker room if you'd
    like.
    
    Michele

Zarlenga>	The number's closer to 10%.


	Actually, with all the closeted gays, no one really has ANY idea
	of the percentage.


	As a random guess, I would place it higher than 10% .....


	kath

There have been so many outrageous things said in this topic, I
don't know where to begin to respond.  Irrespective of the fact
that the action of those Patriots players was indeed *piggish* and
totally unwarranted, I think a very negative, unhealthy portrait of
men is being painted in general in this topic.  And it seems to
be coming from those on both sides of the issue -- both those
who condemn these players and those who come to their defense.

Re:  .43:

    men who do not enjoy "empty physical experience"s are by far in
    the minority, so I definitely do not think you speak for most men.  I
    think most men love "empty physical experience"s.  (much less scary
    and less trouble than emotional experiences.)
    
Oh?   Is that a fact?   What is your definition of an "empty" physical
experience as well as a meaningful "emotional" physical
experience?  As a man, I resent this sweeping characterization.  
Some people think that *any* sexual experience before marriage is
an "empty" experience while other people consider a sexual
experience after the third date a meaningfully "emotional"
experience.  What ingredients does one need to transform an
"empty" experience into an "emotional" experience?  Why are you
extending your own personal standards of what constitutes "empty"
and "emotional" to the rest of the human race?  I got a hunch
that you and a lot of other women believe that any physical
experience that falls short of the criteria found in romance
novels is "empty."  (How's that for a sweeping statement?  I
thought I was entitled to one too.)
    
Much less scary and troublesome?  Not any more scary and
troublesome than it is for "most women" to admit that they are
are only human in that they get physically attracted and  
sexually aroused a great looking guy.  "Most women" never get
horny, right?  That's the stereotype we're given, isn't it? 
"Most women" never get physically attracted to men; they're 
attracted only to a meaningful, emotional bond that is
created through a lifetime commitment.  It's much less scary and
troublesome, right?  (Why not throw in a few more sweeping
generalizations?)

    
     Re:  .48:
    
     Rough housing, lewd and crude behavior is what locker rooms are
     all about, and if you dont like it, or you don't understand it-
     STAY OUT! MALE BONDING IS NOT A PRETTY SIGHT! But our manhood
     demands a can of whip-ass every once in a while- both giving and
     taking.

You do not speak for me and a lot of other men;  and in no way is
your idea of "manhood" shared by a lot of other men.  Guys who
have such abusive ideas about "male bonding" make it difficult
for the rest of us men to be ourselves and to get close to and
support each other in ways that don't involve destructive "lewd
and crude behavior," that don't hurt someone else, and that are
not at someone else's expense.   Those of us who do not wish to
flash our genitals in someone else's face and heavily lace our
vocabulary with profanity in order to get close to other men --
those of us who wish to "bond" with other men in more healthy,
constructive, and caring ways -- often have a rough time trying
to do so, since we are considered wimps by men who share your
point of view.  Because you apply pressure on other men in
general to conform to your concept of "real man."  

Why do you feel that inflicting pain/hurt/humiliation on other
people is a prerequisite for men getting close to one another?

Male "bonding" will occur when men master the fine art of
supporting each other with a open hand instead of a closed fist.  
Contrary to what you may believe, men can get close without
having to demean, degrade, humiliate, or otherwise harm each
other or women.

Acting crazy and silly with other men is a great vehicle for male
"bonding."  I enjoy rough housing every once in a while too.  But
it is not the only way men can "bond" -- AND -- AND -- it doesn't
HAVE to involve abuse of another human being.  


    Re:  .74

    But if you mean that the players who do not like to have 
    women in the locker room are not complaining because they
    may put their jobs in jeapordy, then I must disagree.  IMO
    I seriously doubt that that would be cause for dismissal.

Oh no?  Then you do not understand the male condition in our
culture.  The pressure to be a "real man," -- in this case, not
to be modest about your sexual privacy -- has been pervasive
among men for generations.  

    I don't think that if a man were modest and wanted other folks
    to know that, his job would be somehow affected.  Aren't these
    guys grown men with minds?  Can they handle a peer expressing
    his own views?

It is more difficult than you know for a lot of boys/men to do
their own thing, to be themselves, in the face of peer pressure
and societal expectations.

    Or are they expected to act like clones and
    follow one image?  So what if one of them is considered a wimp?

Boys are raised in our culture with enormous pressure to be this,
to be that -- always, always the pressure to live up to and
conform to someone else's expectations and concept of what being
male is all about.  Pressures from society, pressure from other
men, pressure from women.   This pressure leads to isolation of
feelings and desires.  You learn not to voice certain inner
feelings, desires, fears, or whatever, for fear that it would be
frowned upon by others.  You get to the point where you think
that YOU are the only guy feeling the way you do about certain
things, that no other guy feels the way you do, that no other guy
has ever experienced what you have experienced.  And the
isolation deepens, because men have not been able to share things
on a personal level.  (If you don't believe any of what I am
saying is true, go read reply .48.  That's peer pressure in
action.)  In some of the mens workshops & support groups I have
attended during the last couple of years -- where a safe space is
provided to open up and share some personal aspects about the
American "male experience" -- the isolation begins to shatter,
since men hear other men sharing similar
feelings/stories/experiences.  

    Is there some code of football mentality at work
    here that the non-football folks do not know about?  

The issues involved here run deeper than the parameters of
football.  The "mentality" is found across the board in life,
wherever and whenever men are expected to live up to certain norms.
    
    I do not agree with your statement that men are supposed to
    want to walk around dripping wet and naked.

Believe it, sister.  Believe it.  Just like men are always
supposed to want to say "yes" to having sex with a woman,
just like boys are supposed to like getting sexually abused by
adult women, and so on and so forth.

Paul  

    Re: .78
    
    According to yesterday's Nashua Telegraph, the accusation that Ms.
    Olson went into the Colts' shower room was unfounded.
    
    				Steve

    Al, why are you trying so hard to place blame on Lisa Olson?  Does it
    somehow make what the players did ok?
    
    If instead of being sexually harassed, one of the players had instead
    cut her with a knife, would she be dragged onto television and asked
    to defend herself?  Would this note even have been started?
    
    				Steve

FYI, number of gay people:

I'd go with the Kinsey estimate of 10%.  In the Kinsey study, that was 
the percentage of men who had spent at least 2 years of their life 
living a totally gay lifestyle.

							--Ger

    
    re .81
    
    Steve,
    
    I usually don't disagree with what you say, and I don't think I do
    here.  I just think you are only half right.  The other half of the
    equasion is the Players.  Is not Ms. Olsons presence in their locker
    room a form of sexual harassment of the Players?  I am certain
    that my presence in a women's locker room would be.  Were the players
    *really* expecting her to perform sexual acts with them or were they
    just sick and tired of her setting around oogling them?   
    
    I think that the bulk of this note only goes to prove the point that 
    .0 was trying to make--Ms. Olson's presence in the locker room is 
    *PRESUMED* to be *professional*, and the players protest of her 
    presence ( albeit an idiotic one in my openion) is presumed to be 
    sexual harassment and not a freedom-of-speech protest of her sexual 
    harassment of them by continually intruding into their locker room.
    
    Yes, we then get into *equal access* and all that, but that's why I say
    that the NFL should then ban *all* reporters from the locker rooms.
    
    fred();

    
>    I do not agree one iota with what the players did.  Howerver, I do
>    not hear *any* hue and cry about what is happening to the payers in
>    the name of *equal rights*.  In fact I think it was you who said 
>    that it is "no big deal". 
>    
>    I do not agree with what they did about it, but I *can* see how they
>    may have been fed up with the reporter in question parking herself
>    in the middle of the locker room in order to "wait for an interview",
>    and how they *may* have come to the wrong conclusion about her motives.

Fred, I think that what is appalling to some of us here is that we 
feel that there should be no rationalization or "I can see how they 
might have..." when it comes to sexual harassment.  I think that some 
of us would like to see the day when there are no ifs, ands, or buts 
about any process that would produce repugnant results like shaking 
your penis in front of a woman who is trying to do her job.  

I find it interesting and very telling that you and most men are not
saying, "Although I can see where there are valid privacy issues that
we need to work out, those men are dead wrong and should be punished."
Instead, I hear, "Although what those men did was wrong, I can see
where their privacy is not being considered."  It's very clear where
your priorities are (protecting the men's privacy), and it is not on
the side of abolishing sexual harassment.  I am questioning your 
commitment to fairness in regard to sexual harassment; and your 
commitment seems to be pretty weak.

If the football players were upset about their privacy (and I don't
think they were, I think they were more interested in power and "who's
boss in this locker room"), then they could have gone to their
management, petitioned, created a dialogue, brought the case to the
media, any number of things that would not include the physical,
sexual intimidation of someone who the NFL says has every right to be
in that locker room. 

If they have a problem, work to change the rules.  Don't sexually 
harass someone.  


							--Gerry

    re .84
    
    My priorities are for equal rights---for *everyone*.
    
    I have *REPEATEDLY* stated that I do not agree or support in any
    way what the players did.
    
>I find it interesting and very telling that you and most men are not
>saying, "Although I can see where there are valid privacy issues that
>we need to work out, those men are dead wrong and should be punished."
>Instead, I hear, "Although what those men did was wrong, I can see
>where their privacy is not being considered."  It's very clear where
    
    I fail to see any difference in the two statements.
    
    What I am hearing from *the other sider of the argument*, is 
    "NFL players are animals and to h**l with what they feel and think.
    
    fred();

    re .86
    
    I think *both* situations deserver *equal* priority.  I'm sorry if
    my notes have not indicated that, but I feel a very strong indication
    of some replys here that Ms. Olsons problem is the *only* problem
    here.  It is not.  One action does not justify the other.  Both
    situations are equally repugnant to me.
    
    fred();

    re  .86
    
        "It seems to me the attitude, clearly supported in that
         locker-room, that led a man to conduct himself in such a 
         manner is related to the bigger problem of how society
         views and treats women."
    
    Do you have an equal concern for how society views and treats men?
    
    Seriously, putting aside this incident for the moment, don't you think
    that abuse-related issues, such as sexual harrassment, child
    abuse/molestation, and domestic violence, are problems that BOTH men
    AND women need correcting/improvement on?  Women perpetrate a great deal 
    of abuse in our society as well.   There is SO MUCH abuse out there, and 
    we as a society are very sick.  Therefore, to categorically imply that 
    one gender (males) has "attitudes" and "problems" -- that abuse is 
    exclusively a "male problem" --  while categorically implying that the 
    other gender (females) are virtuous non-offenders, is really 
    counterproductive and divisive.  
    
    Paul      

    
       I knew this topic would spark an endless amount of replies. !!!
    
         I don't think women should be the the male locker rooms.
         I don't think men should be the the female locker rooms.
    
     Giving someone the title of reporter shouldn't change this simple
    idea.   It not a question of equal rights !
    

    re: .81 Steve
    
    I never said that!  I even went as far as to state that I didnt condone
    what they did.  I was merely stating that they werent the only
    "&*^&^$" here.....

    Re: .91
    
    Well, Al, I could hardly tell that from reading your .78.  It sure
    looked as if you were trying to make the Pats out to be the victims
    here.
    
    				Steve

    Why don't we give the players 20-25 minutes after the game where NOONE
    is allowed in the locker room.  This way they will have enough time to
    shower and dress before anyone is allowed in to ask questions.  The
    players know the timeframe and can plan their personal grooming
    activities accordingly.  
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

    .94 offers a suggestion that is too reasonable and simple for
    implementation.  No opportunities for lawyers, zealots, or politicians
    to make pugnacious points on eachother.
    
    besides it would rob large men who knock eachother down for a living of
    the opportunity to attempt to intimidate small people of the opposite
    sex
    
    
    
    
    
    (OK, I admit I don't like football.  But I'd be angry at _any_ man who
     used his bulk to intimidate any small person.  Especially a woman.
     Especially sexually.)

    
    	This "No one allowed" time exists now.  However, I think it is
    	just ten minutes or so and is used as "cool down" time, rather
    	than shower time.
    
    	It would be trivial to make the period longer.
    
    		-rjc-

I've read through all the replies to this topic, and to the related topic in
the other notes files where this is discussed.  What struck me is the way some
noters entries speculated about how the locker room/shower/workout areas are 
arranged.

I spent a season working at Patriots home games, before women reporters were
allowed in.  I spent alot of time in the locker room area, and I think I can 
provide some info relevant to this discussion.  The last time I was in the 
locker room was two seasons ago, I'm assuming that the area is still the same
arrangement.  

Outside of bringing his clothes into a bathroom stall, there is no place for a
player to change into street clothes privately, that I can think of.  I think 
the reporters should not be allowed in as soon as they are, if at all.  They are
kept out just long enough for the coach's talk, a team prayer, and to get the 
field equipment off the field into the equipment room.  If the reporters were 
kept out long enough to give all the players time to dress after being worked 
on by the team trainer, they would scream bloody murder, I'm sure.  The locker 
room is an open room with the lockers around the walls, there is no players 
locker that isn't visible from every part of the locker room.  The "lockers" 
are open closets with no lockable compartments, personal valuables are checked 
and locked up in another place.

I'm very biased by my own experience watching the reporters at work, I found 
them to be, by and large, unnecessarily obnoxious.  The locker room is a 
madhouse after they are let in.  It's no wonder in my mind that many players
are reluctant to talk to them, I wouldn't want to, either.

If what was reported was indeed what happened, the players involved were, in
my opinion, very much in the wrong.  Based on my own experience, I'd be more
inclined to accept it as gospel if I heard it confirmed by someone I know
personally, which I haven't.

As moderator:

Please refrain from calling Ms. Olsen (or anyone else, for that 
matter) rude names.  I have SET NOTE/HIDDEN  the note in this string 
so that I can check with other moderators about this action, but I'm 
pretty sure our use of the word "bitch" outside of a direct quote is 
libelous, rude, and devaluing.

Please stop, or your notes will be hidden/deleted.


							--Ger

    
    SO... Miss O gets an apology from Kiam,(1) in a full page newspaper
    ad, (2) on national television, (3) and in person. She gets an
    apology from Zeke Mowatt, and she gets a full scale investigation by
    the NFL headed by a man who was involved in the Watergate
    investigation. She should be satisfied, by any standards- or will
    she only be satisfied with a job with the N.Y. Times? Can Victor
    deliver?- Film at 11...
    
    				Jim

    .98
    
    I think there is a big difference between Ms. Olsen and anyone who
    participates in this notes conference.  Ms Olsen is a public figure,
    just like the patriots players.  Calling public figures names is hardly
    libelous.  Like calling Governor Dukakis a 'jerk.'  As you recall, I
    called the Patriots players "pigs" (twice) and that reference was not
    hidden from our eyes, was it?  Do you think they deserve to be called
    "pigs"?   For all we know, Ms. Olsen may or may not be, in truth,  
    a b____.   Does anyone know her?
    
    Personally I like the idea of an independent counsel investigating this
    incident.  The players and the media and the public are now much too
    emotionally involved to rationally uncover the facts.
    
    Paul

Re: .100

I really doubt that Lisa Olson (at least get her name right) is a female
canine.  And no, I don't consider her a "public figure", any more than you
or I am.

The Patriots are in the entertainment business.  Without media coverage, they'd
have no reason for existence.

					Steve

    Re: .101
    
    "Olson" vs. "Olsen"
    
    See, that's how much I read the Herald!  Actually, I was using Gerry's
    spelling.  ;)
    
    Media organizations are also in a sense in the entertainment business;
    selling their product, especially sports coverage, which, unlike news, 
    has a entertainment component -- just like covering a play or concert
    -- is similar to the way Patriots sell their product.  You know that
    the media likes to sell its personalities as well as their newspapers
    or television broadcasts.  Newspapers usually require their
    reporters/personalities to be part of a public-speaking circuit, where
    they are made available to the public (for fees) to speak on any given
    subject.  Brochures with their pictures and biographies are even handed
    out.  In a big city, such as Boston, where sports is so popular, I
    think it is fair to say that reporters of the major Boston news
    organizations are "public figures."  Having once been a journalist of
    sorts, I don't think there is anything more innately sanctimonious
    about people in the media, any more than people in government or sports 
    or entertainment or any other walk of life exposed to the public eye.
    
    Paul

    Whether the media are public figures is another topic altogether.  What
    makes me squirm is when a station uses the thoughts of an anchorperson
    as input from an expert.  There is an agenda that the media has and you
    can tell it by how much editorialization goes into news broadcasts
    today.  Is Walter Cronkite a public figure, or how about Tom Browkaw,
    then we have Sam Donaldson and Connie Chung.  Hmmmmm, I don't know.
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

    Some interesting info from USA TODAY 10/3/90:
    
    LOCKER ROOM ACCESS BY SPORT:
    
    Male Sport:
    National Football League - Open Locker Rooms
    Major League Baseball    - Open Locker Rooms
    National basketball Ass  - Open Locker Rooms
    National Hockey league   - Open Locker Rooms
    Professional Golfers Ass - Open Locker Rooms
    University of Miami      - Open Locker Room
    Notre Dame University    - Female reporter have 1st choice of players
    			       brought to an interview room. If that is not
    			       satisfactory the locker room is closed.
    Big East Conf.	     - Equal Access
    Atlantic Coast Conf      - Open locker or equal access (no rule)
    University of Oregon     - Closed Locker Rooms - separate interview
    			       area
    Ass of Tennis Professionals - Closed Locker Rooms. Separate Interview
                                  area.
    
    
    Olympics                 - Closed Locker Rooms. Athletes brought to 
                               interview area.
    
    Women's Sports:
    
    Ladies Proffesional Golf Ass  -  Closed Locker Rooms - Women brought to
                                     media
    Women's International Tennis  -  Closed Locker Rooms - Players required 
                                     to interview in separate area
    
    ============================================================================
    Another story developing:
    
    Cincinnati Bengal Head Coach Sam Wyche denied access to the Bengals 
    locker room to USA Reporter Denise Tom after the Bengals loss in Denver 
    on Monday night. He stated that a female without a notebook stood in the 
    locker room after the Patriots/Bengals game in New England the previous 
    week. He also stated that some of his players complained that they had no
    privacy. The League fined Wyche $3000 last year for denying access to 
    female reporters and for closing his locker room to all reporters. 
    
    ============================================================================
    Wives and girlfriends of players are complaining that women should not
    be allowed into the locker rooms. Reggie White of the Philadelphia
    Eagles, who is also an ordained minister has stated that it puts a
    strain on the relationship of the players with their wives and
    girlfriends. Other players have stated that they often will be naked
    and trying to dress quickly in the 10 minute "cooling off" period
    following games when they are literally pinned naked against their
    lockers by a crush of reporters. Some have stated that their underwear
    have been at their knees and they have been unable to pull them up to
    their waist for lack of space.
    
    I work out 4-6 times a week at a local gym. I undress completely and
    put on a jock strap and shorts and a an old ripped up shirt. I'm 30 lbs
    overweight. When I complete my exercise, I return to the locker room
    and shampoo and shower. In my lifetime, I have played football,
    baseball, ran track, competitively swam. I have always found that when
    men are naked, there is an uncomfortableness, maybe a vulnerability
    is a better word that causes us to get quickly to a shower. I also
    notice that most men tend to turn away from each other while undressing
    for small amount of privacy. Even the bodybuilders who can't get out of
    the mirrors, tend not to flex in the large mirrors of the locker room.
    There seems to be an unwritten, yet understood protocol that one is
    allowed privacy for those moments without ridicule or "sizing up"
    stares or whatever.
    
    I personally feel that all sports have to deal with this issue in a
    better manner. Locker rooms should be closed prior to any sporting
    event. This allows for team bonding and concentration. Same for during
    the events. After the game/event the locker room should be closed for
    30 minutes after all players are in the locker room. This would allow 
    the players to "blow down", bitch, argue, shower, shampoo, shave and 
    go to the bathroom (how would you like to be standing at a urinal or
    sitting on a toilet and having some jerk stick a mike in your face?)
    in peace. They would have enough time to get dressed and the attendents 
    could begin to clean up. Reporters (male and female) could then have free 
    access to the locker rooms and the players. 
    
    Ken	
    

    
    Re .99
    
    The apologies are the least she should expect.
    The investigation is good news.
    But I don't think she should be fully "satisfied" before the findings of the
    investigation are out.
    
    Announcing an investigation is not an end in itself....although by the time
    the investigation is concluded the whole business will be "cold" from
    a media point of view, so unless it's findings are spectacular it'll
    only get a tiny column inch on the 5th page somewhere....
     
    I hear a lot of people saying "We're SORRY the boys did wrong".
    I don't hear any statement yet saying "And this is how we're going to
    make them know that they did wrong and stop them doing it again"....
    
    But then, being in the UK, I don't hear that much about this anyway....
    ;-)
    
    

    re: .104 (Ken)
    
    Thanks for the info. I also agree with the rest of what you wrote.
    Nice note.
    
    						Hank

Sorry for misspelling Lisa's name (Olson).  Spelling is not one of my 
strong suits, nor is remembering people's names. 

As moderator:

Also, if the use of the word "pigs" to desribe the Patriots is used in 
reference to their maleness, then I will set the note hidden, since it 
is devaluing of men (or toward football players, or toward some group 
of people). If your use of the word "pigs" is in reference to 
some personal experience that you have with those people, then I will 
not set it hidden.  If you have problems with this policy, please 
contact the moderators, and we will talk about it.


						--Gerry

    
    P= Pride
    I= Integrity
    G= Guts
    
    The world needs more pigs- go Pats!
    
    						Jim
    

    The guys WERE WRONG and presumably will be punished when this is over.
    
    But HAVING to shower and dress infront of females  IS WRONG PERIOD!
    
    If you turned this situation around it WOULD sexual harrasment..
    
    
    Suppose Judge Souter goes into a mens room to use a urinal, Suppose Sam
    (the obnoxious) Donaldson follow him in to get a story. Does Connie 
    Chung have a right to go in to? Suppose you joe Q public are in there using
    urinal...?
    
    
    Suppose Judge Sandra Day O'Connor goes into a womans room.......(see
    above)?
    
    It IS funny that some people cannot see a privacy issue here. It shows
    how impersonal, uncarring, or blind some people can/will be when it
    comes to equal rights. 
    
    Lets make a rule. All womens sports have to have open locker rooms.
    Equal rights you know. Fair is fair.
    How good are its chances? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
    
    

    	RE: .110  

    	> Lets make a rule. All womens sports have to have open locker rooms.
   	> Equal rights you know. Fair is fair.

    	The NFL was not forced to allow interviews in the locker room on a
    	regular basis (for male OR female reporters.)  They chose this
    	route.  If the players don't want to be interviewed in the locker
    	room, they should tell their employer to hold interviews elsewhere.

    	As for your rule, the EQUAL RIGHTS way would be:

    		"If a women's sports team holds interviews in the locker
    		room, they must give both female and male reporters equal
    		opportunity to do their jobs there."

    Saw in the paper Sunday where 'ol Zeke Mowatt (sp?) passed a very
    lengthly (about 4 hours) lie detector test concerning the 
    incident in question. His summary was there was none of the alleged
    (remember, there's been no trial yet) physical assault/harrassment/
    intimidation (whatever you wish to call it).
    
    Also Mz Olson has left the country for a week or so due to death 
    threats she's received via phone and mail.....sick....
    
    Paul C.

    Unfortunately, Zeke's trial has been in the media ... and the media has
    pronounced him guilty.
    
    One thing about this whole incident I don't understand.  Perhaps some
    women tuning in can enlighten me on this ... But I find it a bit
    uncanny that so many people -- women especially -- completely write off
    the possibility that Ms. Olson, or any other woman in a place where
    naked young men strut to and fro, could and would resist the
    temptation to stare at, and get aroused by, said bodies.  
    
    Not that there is ANY excuse for sexual harrassment.  And if these
    charges are true, then indeed it WAS sexual harrassment by the players.
    
    But, why are women in general thought of as "superhuman," in the sense
    that they are allegedly immune to feeling horny in the presence of, or 
    at the sight of, attractive naked young males?   Maybe this ought to be the
    subject of another topic.  But I have a lot of female friends who never
    seem to admit to me that they get sexually aroused or physically turned
    on by attractive men.  They say they are aroused by non-physical
    things like "a nice sense of humor" or "a deep sensitivty."  However,
    when I overhear these same women speaking among themselves, I can't believe
    my ears.  They talk about a guy's "cute buns" and they share among
    themselves other things that turn them on, sexually.  Is a woman's
    conditioning -- the way girls are brought up -- so powerful in the area
    of sexuality that women in general, under no circumstances, would allow
    men to know they get horny?  Do that many women feel less than womanly
    when they admit to such things?  I know that men will say certain
    things only in the company of other men, and that women will say things
    only in the company of other women.   Are a woman's sexual desires one
    of those things?    Just curious.
    
    Paul

    Paul, the issue of whether Lisa Olson or any other woman is turned on
    by naked male bodies has absolutely nothing to do with the situation
    reported on.  Ms. Olson was in the Patriot's locker room to perform her
    duties as a sports reporter, not to ogle bods.
    
    If you, and others, are so concerned about the ogling that might, or
    might not, be taking place, why aren't you expressing similar concern
    about allowing gay sports reporters into the locker rooms?
    
    (The above is not to be construed in any way to mean that I believe
    women and gay men should be barred from legitimately performing their
    duties in any profession they want and are qualified for.)
    
    Now, to answer your question, at least from my point of view: yes, I
    enjoy looking at an attractive (to me) male form.  That form need not
    be naked for me to do my best ogling; in fact, I find equal
    satisfaction in looking at a neatly turned tush in tight jeans, the
    ripple of muscles beneath a plaid flannel shirt, and (blush) the bulge
    in the tights of a ballet dancer.  Would I try to get into a men's
    locker room to do my ogling?  Heavens, no.  The one-on-one fantasy has
    so much more meaning for me than a room full of overdeveloped, sweaty,
    muddy, and brutal male hulks.  There's just no titallation there.
    
    I believe you'll have to look elsewhere to discern Ms. Olson's motives
    for being in a locker room.
    
    Karen
    
         

.114

Karen, thanks for your very candid reply.  I appreciate it. 

    Paul, the issue of whether Lisa Olson or any other woman is turned on
    by naked male bodies has absolutely nothing to do with the situation
    reported on.

Agreed, and I think I've said over and over again here in this
topic that there is NO EXCUSE for what I view as piggish,
intimidating, sexual harrassment on the part of the players, if
those charges turn out to be true.  How can I be more clear than
that?

    Ms. Olson was in the Patriot's locker room to perform her
    duties as a sports reporter, not to ogle bods.

Well, maybe she was there for both?  This, as far as I can tell, has 
not been established.  Some of the players say that she at times had a
proclivity for showing up in the locker room at peculiar times
and for staring at naked bods instead of taking notes.  Maybe
it is true and maybe it isn't.  I don't know.  Just because
someone is a repoter doesn't mean she or he acts in a
professional manner all of the time.  In fact, I KNOW, having
once been a journalist, that some reporters DO occasionally
act unprofessionally.   What if it were proven, during the
process of proving the players guilty or innocent, that she was
indeed ogling bods?  How would you feel about Ms. Olson then?  
    
    If you, and others, are so concerned about the ogling that might, or
    might not, be taking place, why aren't you expressing similar concern
    about allowing gay sports reporters into the locker rooms?

How are you going to determine which reporters are gay, which
ones are straight, and which ones are bi?  What about gay/bi players?
Do you hand out questionnaires about their sexual histories?  How 
many gay sports reporters would "come out" and place their livlihoods 
at risk?  Not too many, I don't think.  And if gay sports reporters ever
ogled at or came on to professional male athletes -- not that
Ms. Olson did ... we don't know yet if she did or didn't -- then
you would certainly HEAR about it from the players and/or team
management.  Also... in terms of sexual privacy issues, gay/bi men seem 
to have the same anatomical forms as "straight" men, and this may be
another additional factor in answer to your question.
    
    Now, to answer your question, at least from my point of view: yes, I
    enjoy looking at an attractive (to me) male form.  That form need not
    be naked for me to do my best ogling; in fact, I find equal
    satisfaction in looking at a neatly turned tush in tight jeans, the
    ripple of muscles beneath a plaid flannel shirt, and (blush) the bulge
    in the tights of a ballet dancer.

Your candidness is real gutsy.

    Would I try to get into a men's
    locker room to do my ogling?  Heavens, no.  The one-on-one fantasy has
    so much more meaning for me than a room full of overdeveloped, sweaty,
    muddy, and brutal male hulks.  There's just no titallation there.

Hmmm.  I would imagine that many females do like, what you describe as
the "overdeveloped, sweaty, muddy, and brutal males hulks."

Paul

>                      <<< Note 511.113 by JOKUR::CIOTO >>>

>    One thing about this whole incident I don't understand.  Perhaps some
>    women tuning in can enlighten me on this ... But I find it a bit
>    uncanny that so many people -- women especially -- completely write off
>    the possibility that Ms. Olson, or any other woman in a place where
>    naked young men strut to and fro, could and would resist the
>    temptation to stare at, and get aroused by, said bodies.  

    I was discussing this at lunch with a group of women.  Most of
    us came to the conclusion that we don't find the male body, in and
    of itself sexually stimulating in the least.  We talked about going to
    the Chippendale's shows and things like that and how we were basically
    "turned off" by guys dancing around twirling their accessories.

    The conclusion that we came to what that none of us felt that seeing
    a male body nude was sexually stimulating.  But rather, the times we
    DID find a male body sexually stimulating was at those times when the
    setting was sexually stimulating (ie, when it was someone that we were
    romantically interested in and the setting was a prelude to making
    love).


>    But, why are women in general thought of as "superhuman," in the sense
>    that they are allegedly immune to feeling horny in the presence of, or 
>    at the sight of, attractive naked young males?

	Because, basically we don't.  Don't get me wrong, there are women
	that get mega horny at the sight of a nude male body, but for the
	most part women operate differently inside.  We are stimulated
	by different visual/emotional stimuli than men are.

	This is not a "superhuman" feat, but rather a simple fact that
	men and women are not going to react the same way in a given
	situation!


>.  But I have a lot of female friends who never
>    seem to admit to me that they get sexually aroused or physically turned
>    on by attractive men.  They say they are aroused by non-physical
>    things like "a nice sense of humor" or "a deep sensitivty."

	Maybe you should start believing them instead of ASSUMING that
	they are just not willing to "admit it."  I'll say it right here
	and right now.  I am VERY RARELY (if ever) turned on sexually
	by a nude male body.  Nor am I turned on sexually by a gorgeous
	guy with great buns, awesome pecs and fantastic hair.  I might
	find him ATTRACTIVE, but I can't think of one time that the thought
	of sexual arousal ever crossed my mind.

	Saying someone has "cute buns", a "fantastic smile"  and great
	pecs is a LOT different than sexual arousal.

	Admiration != Sexual arousal.

	I RARELY, if ever, think of a man in a sexual sense.


	kathy

    RE: .113 staring at and being aroused by nude bodies...

    	There are plenty of people who are able to separate nudity
    from sexuality.  Naturists certainly do it - though a person may
    be nude he/she is still a *person* first, not just a body or a
    sexual creature.  Artists who draw nudes...to them, the body is
    art; again, not necessarily sexual.

    	I would think that if someone's work required them to be in 
    situations where people would be nude, they would learn to handle 
    it professionally.

    	amy

>   <<< Note 511.118 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "camouflage this for me, willya?" >>>

>	Well, SOME women must be getting off on watching naked or near-
>    naked men strutting their wares, no matter what they say when asked.
>    A strip club in Providence just started a ladies' night, and
>    Chippendales is still in business (not to mention their calendar
>    and card sales which seem to be pretty brisk at Christmastime).

	Well, I've been to plenty of male-reviews in my lifetime.
	And, while some of the women there were all over the dancers,
	for the most part a large percentage of the women sat there and
	laughed.

	How many male strip joints do you see on the streets of your
	town in comparison with the female-strip joints, Mike?


	I'm not saying 100% of the women are like that......but a hell of
	a lot large percentage than men, I would guess.

	And if it's a woman's job to be in the locker room interviewing,
	don't you think it would become "old hat" seeing it all the time?

	Of course, not all men are sex-craved lunatics either.

	kath

    There may be a perfectly obvious explanation for the small numbers of
    female-oriented strip clubs compared to male-oriented ones; or for the
    impression Kathy reports of her friends, that naked male bodies aren't 
    as arousing in general to many women, as naked female bodies are
    arousing to men, in general.
    
    That obvious explanation is that our media and advertising industries
    have spent decades conditioning men to slaver at the sight of female
    shapes, covered and uncovered; they haven't spent nearly as much money
    conditioning the same response into women.  So women don't get the same
    response in a locker room of naked guys, as would a guy in a room of
    naked women.  
    
    DougO

    Why not have the reporters strip bfore they go into the locker room?
    :')
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

>    I was discussing this at lunch with a group of women.  Most of
>    us came to the conclusion that we don't find the male body, in and
>    of itself sexually stimulating in the least.  We talked about going to
>    the Chippendale's shows and things like that and how we were basically
>    "turned off" by guys dancing around twirling their accessories.

	I know a lot of women who DO like the sight of a naked body! I have
many friends who LOVE going to see them strip! True, they don't go every night
of the week as after a while it will get to be old hat, but the point is that
there are women who do like to go, are women who do like the sight of naked
male bodies. There's nothing wrong with liking or not liking naked bodies.
They're always going to be there.


>	Because, basically we don't.  Don't get me wrong, there are women
>	that get mega horny at the sight of a nude male body, but for the
>	most part women operate differently inside.  We are stimulated
>	by different visual/emotional stimuli than men are.

	Really? Interesting. Can you explain this a little more?



Glen

    well Kath I agree with you.  It's not the physical object, it's who it
    is and where we are and how I feel about that person.  Now I might think
    that some man I don't even know (Kevin Costner, for ex!) is
    exceptionally, um, interesting, but my interest is not stimulated by a
    pinup, or a calendar, or a swimsuit issue; rather by a rather nebulous
    (sp?) idea of who he is.  I wish I could remember just how Dave Barry
    put it in a column: the mere sight of certain female physical aspects,
    even clothed, is enough to kick in the drool-oogle-circuit of any man
    who sees her (the preceeding gives the sense of his column, but is an
    extremely rough paraphrase!) to the extent that thought processes go
    poof.  Now I'm no Garbo but I've been on the receiving end of enough of
    these reactions to know that DB is not making this up.  It is my belief
    that as a general rule, women do not react this way to the mere sight
    of a man's body.
    
    Sara

    re: .123
    
    	You're WRONG, Women (I'm not saying all, but the majority that I
    talk with) *DO* get the drool-oogle syndrome when they see a Naked or
    Nearly-naked man.  Go to the beach sometime, or go to an amusement park
    where the guys walk with their skimpy shorts or next-to-nothing tank
    tops, and watch the women nearly fall over their tongue looking at the
    guy.  Don't tell me they don't do, I've seen it.  One of them actually
    ran into me because she wasn't paying attention to where she was going. 
    She should have had a white cane, then maybe someone would help her
    while she picked her eyeballs up off the ground.
    
    re: .124
    
    	Mike,
    
    	I agree with you 100% (surprising, isn't it!)
    
    /p

    This discussion of if women reporters find the naked men attractive
    is another side-track.  Haven't most people been attracted to one
    of their co-workers at some point?  Did it stop you from doing your
    job?  Is it a reason for segregating working environments?
    	Linda

    re speaking up for themselves.
    
    Last night's news report said that the NFL players association is 
    asking that locker rooms be *closed* to *all* and a separate interview 
    room provided.
    
    fred();

    
    
    RE -.1
    
    
    Well we may have fixed that (NFL or sports) problem. But how come
    nobody has attacked this problem mentioned in .110 This could be the
    next problem along the 'reporter doing their job' line.
    	If you stop and think about how some of the media act, than this is
    NOT far fetched at all...
    
    
    
    
    Suppose Judge Souter goes into a mens room to use a urinal, Suppose Sam
    (the obnoxious) Donaldson follow him in to get a story. Does Connie 
    Chung have a right to go in to? Suppose you joe Q public are in there using
    urinal...?
    
    
    Suppose Judge Sandra Day O'Connor goes into a womans room.......(see
    above)?
    
    
    Steve

Re: .128

It is part of the NFL players' contract that they must allow the media to
interview them in the locker room.  There is no such agreement with
Supreme Court judges that I am aware of.  If the players manage to change
the arrangements so that there are separate interview rooms, more power to
them.


Re: previous

I am appalled at some of the responses which try to put Ms. Olson on trial.
It is just as irrelevant and wrong to ask if Ms. Olson liked to look at
men's naked bodies as it is to ask a rape victim if she "enjoyed it".  It
is just as irrelevant and wrong to ask about her motives for going into
the locker room, or to speculate about her "hanging around" at other
times as it is to ask a rape victim why she happened to be strolling through
the park at night.

				Steve

    re .125
    I'm not talking about girls, I'm talking about women.  I allow teens of
    either sex a great deal more lattitude in the slavering-dept (after all,
    impulse to excess is a trait of teens) than I would adults, who are
    supposed to be somewhat more mature.
    
    I have observed, and not only here, that men have a hard time believing
    what women say about this subject.  I guess they are so sure they know
    what women think and feel that they need not consult women.
    
    After all, doesn't a real man know just what a woman wants?  It's what
    a man defines!
    
    'nuf said.

    re .124, Michael-
    
    I love it when you do that.  Two independent clauses making up a
    thesis, and you just chop it up into pieces and miss the indisputable
    comparison which was the point of the thesis.  I wasn't saying that men
    are lemmings or brainless lumps of flesh; I said advertisers spent a
    whole heckuva lot more money towards one gender than the other.  If you
    can't follow along, don't bother to reply.
    
    DougO

Re:  .116  Kath,

    I was discussing this at lunch with a group of women.  Most of
    us came to the conclusion that we don't find the male body, in and
    of itself sexually stimulating in the least.

I find this very hard to believe, that women generally do not
find a male body "sexually stimulating in the least."  Maybe some
women don't, but, my experience with women shows me that a lot of
women do.  Not that they talk about their sexual desires openly
in mixed company.  (And bodies don't have to be "naked" to be
sexually stimulating, either.  That's not the issue.  Sexual
arousal doesn't necessarily mean the presence of naked bodies.) 
As I explained, many of my female friends, when they talk among
themselves, openly discuss those things about male anatomy that
turns them on -- physically, sexually.   

    We talked about going to
    the Chippendale's shows and things like that and how we were basically
    "turned off" by guys dancing around twirling their accessories.

Really?  Shows and "things like that" are usually mobbed.  I know
many women who enjoy watching men "strut their stuff" in such
settings.  Personally, I think this is healthy.  It used to be,
back in the 50s and early 60s that women were not allowed by
society to openly appreciate a man's body in a sexual/physical
way.  Women hid their feelings, basically because they would have
been branded (by men and other women) as not-nice girls, as
nymphomaniacs.

    But rather, the times we
    DID find a male body sexually stimulating was at those times when the
    setting was sexually stimulating (ie, when it was someone that we were
    romantically interested in and the setting was a prelude to making
    love).

So, when women see a great looking guy -- clothed or unclothed --
they don't get turned on at all until there is some sort of romantic
commitment?  Again, this is hard to believe.  Though you are certainly
entitled to that way, I think most women might disagree.  I know
lot of women would get turned on at the sight of a great looking guy.

	Because, basically we don't.  Don't get me wrong, there are women
	that get mega horny at the sight of a nude male body, but for the
	most part women operate differently inside.

Generalizations?   How do "the most part" feel about this alleged
minority that gets "mega horny"?  Are they made to feel ashamed?

        We are stimulated
	by different visual/emotional stimuli than men are.

More generalizations?  In the same way that many women have
difficulty openly admitting/discussing their horny feelings and
sexual/physical turn-ons, I think a lot of men have difficulty
admitting and openly discussing that they not turned on by just a
great looking body, in and of itself.  Men are supposed to enjoy
going to strip shows, aren't they?  I think there is a lot to be
said by societal and peer pressure for men and women alike to
live up to certain standards/expectations/roles.

	This is not a "superhuman" feat, but rather a simple fact that
	men and women are not going to react the same way in a given
	situation!

Is that a fact?  A lot of women get horny at the sight of great
bodies, just like a lot of men are romantically oriented.  To say
that women in general do not ogle at great looking guys --
secretly or openly, in the locker room or elsewhere -- is silly.

                >.  But I have a lot of female friends who never
                >    seem to admit to me that they get sexually aroused ...

	Maybe you should start believing them instead of ASSUMING that
	they are just not willing to "admit it."

You didn't include the second half of what I said.  When these
friends of mine are not in the company of males, when I overhear
their discussions among themselves & other women in general,
then, YES, they DO openly discuss what arouses them sexually, and
they go into great detail.  That's why I asked about why it seems
that many females in our culture still refrain from exposing
their desires openly ... the way a lot of men refrain from
admitting they don't always want it, aren't always read for it,
and aren't always aroused.

        I'll say it right here
	and right now.  I am VERY RARELY (if ever) turned on sexually
	by a nude male body.  Nor am I turned on sexually by a gorgeous
	guy with great buns, awesome pecs and fantastic hair.  I might
	find him ATTRACTIVE, but I can't think of one time that the thought
	of sexual arousal ever crossed my mind.

Well, good for you.  However, I think a lot of women would
differ.  

	Saying someone has "cute buns", a "fantastic smile"  and great
	pecs is a LOT different than sexual arousal.

	Admiration != Sexual arousal.

Call it what you want.  However, it seems you have this urgent
need to rationalize or justify or explain the parameters of
certain sexual feelings.  So what if a lot of women openly admit
to being sexually aroused.  What's the big deal?


Re:  .119  Kath,


	How many male strip joints do you see on the streets of your
	town in comparison with the female-strip joints, Mike?
	I'm not saying 100% of the women are like that......but a
        hell of a lot large percentage than men, I would guess.

Hmmm.  The more you get exasperated trying to reassure us that
women are "like that" or "like this," the more it seems you are
implying there is something "dirty" or "unladylike" about a woman
getting downright horny.

	And if it's a woman's job to be in the locker room interviewing,
	don't you think it would become "old hat" seeing it all the time?

This reminds me of an experience long ago, in one of my
Northeastern newswriting classes.  A female television sports
reporter was a guest speaker for our class.  Among other things,
she was asked, "How do you feel about interviewing male athletes
in their locker room when they are walking around naked?"  She
replied, "Well, I've walked past the shower room a few times and
I've looked in, and I saw the guys showering, naked, and it's no
big deal!"  The female students thought she was a real strong
woman.  However, I, and several other men in the class got very
angry and resentful, simply because our society at large -- and a
whole lot of women -- think that men in general do not value
their sexual privacy, the way women value THEIR sexual privacy. 
This leads to a lot of women believing they have a free license
to get away with doing pseudo-sexual things to men -- like
staring and pinching and other things that are universally
considered "wrong" for men to do. The idea that men don't mind
women looking at them in a locker room, or don't mind sexual
come-ons by women in the workplace is bull.  I've been in the
working world for almost 20 years, and I've had roughly six
different jobs during that time.  And, in each one of those jobs,
women have made sexual advances toward me.  One common way a
woman comes onto a guy in the workplace is by pinching a guy in
the rear;  I've discussed this with other men, who also have been
pinched in the rear by women -- that is, men who are willing to
admit such things; we men are always supposed to like it, ya
know.  And we feel a certain amount of amazement at how these
women harbor such a "so-what, big deal" attitude when they are
called on it. 

	Of course, not all men are sex-craved lunatics either.

Just most, right?

Paul

    re .133, Michael-
    
    That's twice.  You just can't seem to focus on the second half of the
    thesis, can you?  Can't compare the second independent clause with the
    first.  Since you can't follow the thought, go ahead, follow a rathole.
    
    DougO

    .132
    
    .Right, Mike.  I agree.  Many, many women do ogle at nice looking guys
    -- at the beach, in the workplace, and in many other walks of life. 
    I've seen it with my own eyes (and I've got pinched in the rear often
    enough to know).  It's mere human nature.  However, the way women talk 
    sometimes about how most women do not "get stimulated in the least at 
    the sight of a male body" is ridiculous.  The words do not match up with 
    reality.  Why do you think women, as a whole, have so much difficulty 
    owning up to their sexual feelings?
    
    Paul
    

    That's thrice, Michael.  Too bad you don't also *look* like a mule.
    
    DougO

>        <<< Note 511.125 by CLO::FORNER "Frank, let's go to Cheers!" >>>
    
>    	You're WRONG, Women (I'm not saying all, but the majority that I
>    talk with) *DO* get the drool-oogle syndrome when they see a Naked or
>    Nearly-naked man.




	Interesting that a MAN is telling me that I, a woman, is wrong
	about what the majority of women feel.

	Pray tell, when did you become so knowledgeable about women
	and the way they feel.


	I'm going to say this one more time....perhaps you'll get it
	this time.

	THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPRECIATING A NICE BODY FOR THE
	WAY IT LOOKS AND VIEWING IT IN A SEXUAL WAY!!!!!

	I find the male body nice to look at, however I do not find it
	SEXUAL in the least (unless it's a sexual setting and I'm with
	someone special that I WANT to find sexually appealing).



	And have you ever thought that person the women that you hang
	around are not exactly the women that *I* hang around?  I am
	not WRONG simply because YOU have different experiences.  I think
	that as a woman I'm just a little more "privvy" to the way the
	the woman's mind works, don't you?

	Have you ever thought that perhaps they are telling you they're
	oogling simply to "boost your ego" a little?  (Don't laugh...it
	happens quite often).  After all, perhaps they don't want to
	see you "pouting."


	Don't tell me I'm wrong wrong, buster....I'm no more WRONG in my
	experiences than you are in yours.  Your mileage might vary and
	so will mine.  Until you get that thru your little head you aren't
	going to get ANYWHERE.....except perhaps a lower respect level
	for your condescending behaviour.

	kathy

>                      <<< Note 511.134 by JOKUR::CIOTO >>>


	I quit reading after a couple screens.  I don't read 100+ line
	replies, nor do I feel the need to respond to them, but I do
	have one comment about what you wrote.


>You didn't include the second half of what I said.  When these
>friends of mine are not in the company of males, when I overhear
>their discussions among themselves & other women in general,
>then, YES, they DO openly discuss what arouses them sexually, and
>they go into great detail.  That's why I asked about why it seems
>that many females in our culture still refrain from exposing
>their desires openly ... the way a lot of men refrain from
>admitting they don't always want it, aren't always read for it,
>and aren't always aroused.


	Are you implying that you covertly listen in on women's
	discussions when they feel they are alone?



	Listen.  I would FREELY admit here if I felt "turned on"
	by the male body.  But I don't--I'm a naturist, I don't FIND
	the mere fact that a body is unclothed to be SEXUAL in any
	way.

	I am also recounting what the majority of MY friends and the
	women I've talked to have said....that basically they get
	very little if any sexual stimulation from viewing the male
	body.


	I just have two questions for you.   Why are you listening in
	on women's private conversations?  And how is it that you seem
	to know MY friends and my experiences better than I do?




	This argument is not worth the time I'm spending on it.


	kath

    
    RE: .134
    
    Paul, excellent job there! I think you have a very even keel regarding
    men's issues. I still don't have time to answer your question to me
    about my feelings with Bly, but I haven't forgotten and will get to
    it as soon as I have time to organize my thoughts on it into ascii.
    
    Just some quick points here...
    
    - This 'do women oogle men?' string has nothing to do with the Lisa
    Olsen case. I think it belongs in a topic of its own. Partially because
    it deserves it but also to separate issues of sexual harassment from
    issues of women's sexuality and arousal, since the two have nothing to
    do with each other. [IE, a woman oogling a man does not justify in any
    means the man sexually harassing her].
    
    - Some of the replies I have read here seem to follow in the tracks of
    repressed female sexuality, ie, "good girls don't", sex is bad, sex is
    dirty, only male pigs do it, etc, etc. Women are every bit as sexual as
    men. How they deal with it or if they were raised in a repressive
    environment is another story.
    
    - Everyone is different. Several men I know are almost thirty and are
    still virgins. Other men I know think sex is repungnant in various ways
    (pre-maritial, etc). Some women I know have exactly the same feelings.
    People deal with sexuality differently. And while I think that society
    has given women more hang-ups about sex than I think it has to men, I
    very strong believe women are as sexual as men. Whether the men they
    are with *help* make it an enjoyable experience for the *both* of them
    is another story too. There are sexually repressed men and sexually
    repressed women, sexually liberated men and sexually liberated women,
    and there are people obsessed with sex in *both* genders.
    
    WOMEN ARE NOT LESS SEXUAL THAN MEN. Not with the right partner(s). Not
    in a nurturing environment which de-programs the effects of a
    repressive society. [I loved an interview they did about the NC-17
    banned film at Dedham cinema the other night. They had a *classic*
    bitter elderly women, "If it has anything to do about *sex*, I DON'T
    LIKE IT!! <head shake>" It was just too funny! :-)] Sex is a healthy
    and very important part of a relationship, and of life. Some love it,
    others don't. But no GENDER owns any natural sexual attitudes, IMHO.
    
    -Erik   
    
       

    Can I suggest that if people want to discuss the subject of
    whether women like looking at men, that A SEPARATE TOPIC BE
    CREATED?

    It has nothing, NOTHING, whatsoever to do with this topic.

Paul, Mike et al. -

    I really don't understand the argument that because some women enjoy
    the sight of naked male bodies, that means they're getting horny.
    Kath is right; that's *just* *not* *it*.

    When you see a nice sunset, or a masterful painting, you look, right?
    You might even go to the beach or a museum just to view one.  But do
    you get horny at the sight?  No.

    Sure, women may _look_ at men's bodies (do you really expect them
    to go to a strip tease show and advert their eyes?), but this does
    not, usually, equate to them getting horny.  Put differently, the
    ogling is on an aesthetic level, not on a sexual one.  It is possible
    for a woman to admire a male body for "nice buns, muscled chest, high 
    cheekbones, hot pink kneecaps, whatever...", and still be *repulsed* 
    when its owner propositions her.

    Not only was the Patriot who harassed Lisa dreadfully out of line,
    he obviously doesn't understand some aspects of women very well.

	Sharon

    I have created a new topic for this discussion -- topic 523.
    
    Paul
    

    RE: .145
    
    > I have created a new topic for this discussion -- topic 523
    
    	Thanks Paul.
    

    	While all of this accusing and counter accusing and moaning and
    growning has gone on, not much is allowed to be said on behalf of Zeke
    Mowatt because everyone "knows" he's guilty. Some thoughts have come to
    mind.
    
    1. Was there joking, fooling, comments said by either side before this 
    incident? I mean the harmless stuff that eventually gets someone in
    trouble?? Is it possible that Lisa had joked around etc. "with the
    guys" previous to the alleged incident.
    
    2. Though she claims have seen Mowatt prior to the incident, she
    actually claims not to have seen who the person was.
    
     
    
    I'm not trying to put Lisa Olson on trial. I'd like to know if maybe she
    had had a tough day and was sort of pushed by the Globe into this whole
    situation that got outta hand. I still feel she became a pawn to her
    employer (Herald) once the story broke. The paper played this to the
    hilt. They pushed the NFL to act etc. At one point, Lisa had met with
    Kiam and Sullivan and had received apologies, but her boss, Sports
    Editor Bob Sales, wouldn't accept the apologies. Wasn't that her
    decision? Pretty soon, alot of people got tired of the story. I counted
    the number of days the Herald kept it as a headline on the back page or
    the front page...11. 
    	The Herald used the incident to push papers. They pushed it to the
    point where Lisa "had" to appear on TV and radio. The Herald squeezed
    every penny they could out of the story, and I feel, with total
    disregard for Lisa's feelings.
    	Now her colleges are beginning to feel shunned by the players. If
    it continues, will they then turn on her?? Now that the Herald has used
    its pointed stick, are they going to send her off to cover something
    else seemingly to see if the incident can cause a stir in the Celtic
    locker room?? 
    	has this incident and the Bengals' coach response caused the
    players to say that the locker room is "their's"? 
    
    	If any player, or group of players, planned and acted this scenario
    out, even as a joke, it was wrong. If it was done by one or more
    players as a means of embarassment to Lisa, it was wrong.
     
    	I think that before we hang Zeke Mowatt (who incidentally, has not
    spoken with the press for 8 years),  he should be allowed a fair trial.
    
    Ken

    
    	I was curious about this as well when I heard Zeke was making a
    	lawsuit in the case.
    
    	While I don't doubt Olsen's story for a minute, I think it would
    	be hard for her attorney to prove that Zeke was the person who
    	actually did it since Olsen herself said she didn't turn around to
    	look at him.
    
    	The case would have to rely on the witnesses there... it could get
    	messy.
    
    	It was still frightening to see the textbook sexual assualt lesson
    	about the victim always being the one to be put on trial actually
    	happening with men here and elsewhere. It sent shivers down my
    	spine. I guess part of me had always hoped things had gotten better
    	nowadays with today's men (and women). I was dead wrong. 
    
    	-Erik
    
     

>     <<< Note 511.140 by SELECT::GALLUP "Drunken milkmen, driving drunk" >>>

>	Interesting that a MAN is telling me that I, a woman, is wrong
>	about what the majority of women feel.
>
>	Pray tell, when did you become so knowledgeable about women
>	and the way they feel.
>	
  GET OFF IT KATH.  Maybe if you'd stand back a little instead of
gazing at your image of self-importance, you'd see that just because I am
of the MALE gender that I just might have some insight into the female
populous?  I have lived with a family of sisters ever since I was born, so
I think that I can accurately account the female side of it.  That is when
I became so KNOWLEDGEABLE about women.  Besides, I'm a MAN! That gives me
the right to analyze the other gender. 

>	I'm going to say this one more time....perhaps you'll get it
>	this time.

I think that you can probably put the trash in the garbage anyday now, it
is just going to smell worse.

>	THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPRECIATING A NICE BODY FOR THE
>	WAY IT LOOKS AND VIEWING IT IN A SEXUAL WAY!!!!!

I agree.  But most of the women out there (You excluded, you don't like it
this way) will almost trip over themselves gawking at the guy.  You could
even see this if you were blind.  Half the women out there upon seeing a
*GORGEOUS* hunk of flesh, will begin to sound like NIAGARA FALLS.  Age does
play a factor, meaning that the younger ones (I'm not talking about
PRE-teens) will display this behavior, whereas the older populous (HMMMM)
doesn't display such attitudes (Yeah, that's it).

>	I find the male body nice to look at, however I do not find it
>	SEXUAL in the least (unless it's a sexual setting and I'm with
>	someone special that I WANT to find sexually appealing).

see above.

>	And have you ever thought that person the women that you hang
>	around are not exactly the women that *I* hang around?  I am
>	not WRONG simply because YOU have different experiences.  I think
>	that as a woman I'm just a little more "privvy" to the way the
>>	the woman's mind works, don't you?

Oh, Please.  From the sound of it, I wouldn't want to hang around the women
*YOU* hang around with.  If I hang around with such a unique group, then I
must really be an all-over kind a guy, considering I've traveled state to
state and see the same thing over and over and over again.

>	Have you ever thought that perhaps they are telling you they're
>	oogling simply to "boost your ego" a little?  (Don't laugh...it
>	happens quite often).  After all, perhaps they don't want to
>	see you "pouting."

I don't have the feeling that I need an ego boost.  It doesn't happen that
often to me.  Either that or I just don't see it.  I get enough attention
as it is.  I don't need the women out there drooling over me (not that I'm
gorgeous, I'm not, but I'm not an eyesore either).  Pout?  POUT THIS!

>	Don't tell me I'm wrong wrong, buster....I'm no more WRONG in my
>	experiences than you are in yours.  Your mileage might vary and
>	so will mine.  Until you get that thru your little head you aren't
>	going to get ANYWHERE.....except perhaps a lower respect level
>	for your condescending behaviour.

I find that it is my job to point out stupidity wherever I see it.  If I
see something WRONG, I'll say that it is wrong.  I think that I'm more
right than wrong.  If I had your mileage, I'd trade the car in.  I'm no
more condescending than you.  Maybe if you'd get out every now and again
and get a real life, that you'd wake up and smell the coffee and see what
really was out there worth living.

Paul

C'mon folks, please calm down.....  and at least move the discussion about
"ogling" to the other topic.

			Steve

    RE: .152
    
         Behave, Michael!

    --a few thoughts
    
    one> why did her fellow reporters look on and take notes while she
    was being sexually harassed??  Their lack of action on her behalf is as
    disgusting as anything else I've heard so far in this 'case' 
    (if this is not the case then I offer my apoligy to all those
    involved).
    
    two> for those of you who keep touting that there is nothing wrong
    with the human body, do you mean ALL PARTS of the human body or just
    the ones you select? I would assume then that you also mean that 
    u-no-wuts are just 'part of the human body--no big deal'. So then (by
    your open mindedness, what did they do that was wrong? Waving body
    parts in front of someone can't be bad if there is nothing wrong with
    body parts. (feel free to jump all over this one...I just love to point
    out to "why are you so hung up on the naked body-folks" that we ALL
    have our hangups about the naked body, otherwise one parts the same as
    the next. :-)
    
    three>if we operate under the basic premis that harrassment is in the
    eye of the receiver, then did Ms. Olson feel that she was being
    harrassed? MY POINT HERE IS: if someone tells me a dirty joke that YOU
    find offensive, am *I* being harrassed? Maybe Ms. Olson KNOWS these
    guys....maybe she hangs out with them after work...maybe she puts up
    with their "teasing" all of the time.....(I AM NOT IN ANY WAY SAYING
    THAT SEXUAL HARRASSMENT IS TEASING SO LIGHTEN UP). I'm simply saying
    that if SHE says it was harrassment then they should be at the mercy of
    the courts. If she doens't think it was harrassment, then it was NOT.
    WHAT DOES SHE SAY???????      
    Maybe this is another way of saying that we all assume that the men are
    guilty because the act HAPPENED. Only SHE can judge if there was a
    'crime' or not. Until she talks about it (maybe she has and no one has
    mentioned it here yet) then we have no right to judge to men who did
    it....as we have no right to call the dirty joke teller a slime if his
    audience found nothing offensive in his jokes. 
    
    ******PLEASE DO NOT insult me by implying that I'm saying ANYTHING to
    do with SHE ASKED FOR IT or rape victims ask for it or maybe she liked
    it or women who are raped liked it. THAT IS NOT MY INTENT NOR MY
    OPINION...PLEASE JUST LISTEN TO MY INTENt***** (the following was in
    self defense in light of all of the
    'everyone-who-has-a-differant-opinion-than-mine' bashing that I've seen
    so far.  :-)
    
    
    
    
    
     
    

> why did her fellow reporters look on and take notes while she
> was being sexually harassed??  Their lack of action on her behalf is as
> as anything else I've heard so far in this 'case' 

	Could it be that they didn't think it was sexual harassment?

    
>    two> for those of you who keep touting that there is nothing wrong
>    with the human body, do you mean ALL PARTS of the human body or just
>    the ones you select? I would assume then that you also mean that 
>    u-no-wuts are just 'part of the human body--no big deal'. So then (by
>    your open mindedness, what did they do that was wrong? Waving body
>    parts in front of someone can't be bad if there is nothing wrong with
>    body parts. 

	I AGREE 100%! If it's ok to go into the locker room, if there is no
hang-ups over a naked body, why can't the men take showers and prance around
naked if they want? Why? Could it be out of respect (maybe not everyone on the
team holds the same respect, but the management tries to make it happen). It's
fine for women to go into the locker rooms. There's nothing wrong with that at
all. I feel though, if this does occasionally happen, live with it. What
happened here I'm sure was done to many men in the past. People can get
extremely pissed after a loss like the one they suffered that day. She may
have asked the wrong thing to the wrong person. He gets pissed and reacts.
Now, all of a sudden it's sexual harassment! Somehow I can't see this. It's
bound to happen. People blow off steam all the time. Some can handle it better
than others. No one ever said that they even liked this woman. Is that wrong? I
don't think that you have to like everyone. There are going to be people who
piss you off. You have to learn to deal with it! I DO think that women should
be allowed in the locker room (as previously stated), but let's not cry
everytime someone does something. Remember, it is the locker room, there are
going to be naked bodies in there. If he had made a pass at her, that's one
thing. Blowing off steam is another! Let's not make this any worse than what it
is! What if it were reversed? What if a woman did that to a man in the locker
room when he went in to interview her? What would your reaction be? How many
(truthfully now) would say he probably enjoyed it for your first gut reaction?
You'd think it was a joke, wouldn't you? Or, would you get behind this man and
toot your horns as much as you have for this woman? Is this just a man vs.
woman issue or is it more?


    
>    I AM NOT IN ANY WAY SAYING
>    THAT SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS TEASING SO LIGHTEN UP). I'm simply saying
>    that if SHE says it was harassment then they should be at the mercy of
>    the courts.     
>    ******PLEASE DO NOT insult me by implying that I'm saying ANYTHING to
>    do with SHE ASKED FOR IT or rape victims ask for it or maybe she liked
>    it or women who are raped liked it. THAT IS NOT MY INTENT NOR MY
>    OPINION...PLEASE JUST LISTEN TO MY INTENt***** (the following was in
>    self defense in light of all of the
>    'everyone-who-has-a-differant-opinion-than-mine' bashing that I've seen
>    so far.  :-)
    
    
 	DITTO!   
    
    
     
Glen
    

    on the news this morning,
    
    The Remington Shaver Comany, owned by Victor Kiam who also owns
    the Patriots, announced today that sales of Lady Remington shavers
    for the fall quarter have been running *substancually* higher
    than predicted.
    
    fred();

    Hehehehe... so much for the Molly tactic eh???
    
    

Re: .156

	"The Remington Shaver Comany, ... announced ..."

Consider the source.

	-- Charles

    	RE: .155  Glen

    	> What happened here I'm sure was done to many men in the past.
    	
    	Really??  I didn't realize that a man shows anger to another man
    	by shoving his penis in the other man's face.  

    	>  He gets pissed and reacts. Now, all of a sudden it's sexual 
    	> harassment! Somehow I can't see this. It's bound to happen. People 
    	> blow off steam all the time.

    	Wait - shoving a penis into someone's face is now just "blowing off
    	steam"???

    	Since when?

    	> No one ever said that they even liked this woman. Is that wrong? I
	> don't think that you have to like everyone. There are going to be 
    	> people who piss you off.

    	They don't have to like everyone.  They just need to keep their
    	penises out of other people's faces.  Not much to ask, really.

    	> I DO think that women should be allowed in the locker room (as 
    	> previously stated), but let's not cry everytime someone does 
    	> something.

    	Lisa Olson didn't cry about it.  The male reporters who witnessed
    	did the crying.

    	> If he had made a pass at her, that's one thing. Blowing off steam 
    	> is another! 

    	You've got to be kidding.  Putting a penis in someone's face in an
    	intimidating way can be as (or more) offensive than a pass, unless
    	you're talking about physical assault or rape.

    	> Let's not make this any worse than what it is!  What if it were 
    	> reversed? What if a woman did that to a man in the locker
	> room when he went in to interview her? What would your reaction be? 

    	Well, I would say that the man had every right to be offended, but
    	I don't see how a woman could possibly do the equivalent move in a
    	way that would be as threatening as these big guys must have looked
    	to Lisa.

    	> How many (truthfully now) would say he probably enjoyed it for your 
    	> first gut reaction?  You'd think it was a joke, wouldn't you? 

    	It wouldn't have the same threatening affect as a group of big
    	men with penises in someone's face, but I would support his
    	being offended by it.

    	No one should be entitled to treat someone this way.

I agree with Suzanne, it seems that some men have a hard time comprehending
just how threatening the players' actions were to Lisa Olson.  Keep in
mind that the players probably had 12-18 inches in height and 100-150 pounds
in weight over her.  I'm a big guy myself (not quite in a football player's
league), and I've seen how some small women have been afraid just because
I came too close to them.  The closest I can come to a analogy for men is
if you were sitting down on a bench (as Ms. Olson was) and suddenly found
yourself surrounded by a group of 8-foot, 400 pound gorillas who started
crowding in around you and made threatening noises.  I know I'd sure be
afraid!

This has nothing to do with "letting off steam".  The players deliberately
intimidated a woman who was permitted to be in the locker room and was
simply doing her job.  This was harassment plain and simple.

					Steve

    I think I have to agree with Suzanne here. If one guy did it, maybe
    burlesque sort style from a distance, maybe. But being surrounded by 
    N number of large males obviously in a taunting, if not angry/hostle 
    way is different. 
    
    The fact that she has been threatened (assuming this is true, you know
    it might just sell some more papers) makes it even worse.
    
    It is interesting that the Globe (male) reporter reported this 1st. Is
    there something else here? Did she?
    
    1.	Think it was 'no big deal' and not consider it harrasment?
    2.	Fear what this sorta controversy would/could to her career and
        ability to perform her job in the future?
    
    BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT
    
    I STILL think the players privacy WAS violated by this sexist ruling!
    
    Steve

    
    	RE: .161  Steve Keith
    
    	The players' privacy was violated by allowing reporters in the
    	locker room in the first place.
    
    	When the ruling came up about the practice of allowing women
    	equal access to players (which was the only fair thing to do)
    	- it should have been a hint to the NFL that the practice of
    	interviewing these guys nude was questionable in the first
    	place.
    
    	There's no way they could have kept women away from the players
    	during the "main" interviewing time, though.  It would have
    	excluded women from jobs as sports reporters, etc.
    

    	> What happened here I'm sure was done to many men in the past.
    	>  	Really??  I didn't realize that a man shows anger to another man
    	>by shoving his penis in the other man's face.  

	EXACTLY! Throughout EVERY confrontation of man vs women, it comes out
that woman is pissed at man for not treating them as equals. Now, if this
happened to a man, no big deal. BUT, seeing it's the woman, it's different. If
you want to be in the locker room, then you have to accept ALL of the things
that can happen. Or, does it mean that it's only a man vs woman until man
treats her like a man, then it's back to treating her like a woman? Come on
now, it should be one way or the other, not a double standard!


    	>  He gets pissed and reacts. Now, all of a sudden it's sexual 
    	> harassment! Somehow I can't see this. It's bound to happen. People 
    	> blow off steam all the time.

>    	Wait - shoving a penis into someone's face is now just "blowing off
>    	steam"???

>    	Since when?


	Again, if it happened to a man there wouldn't be a single problem with
it!

>    	You've got to be kidding.  Putting a penis in someone's face in an
>    	intimidating way can be as (or more) offensive than a pass, unless
>    	you're talking about physical assault or rape.


	Again, if it happened to a man it's no problem. If woman are to be
treated as equals to men, then they should expect things happening from time to
time. It's all part of life!

    	> Let's not make this any worse than what it is!  What if it were 
    	> reversed? What if a woman did that to a man in the locker
	> room when he went in to interview her? What would your reaction be? 

>    	Well, I would say that the man had every right to be offended, but
>    	I don't see how a woman could possibly do the equivalent move in a
>    	way that would be as threatening as these big guys must have looked
>    	to Lisa.

	Still, what would your GUT reaction be? Also, are you saying that women
can't be intimidating towards men? BULL


Glen

    	RE: .163  Glen

    	Nah - I don't buy the idea that surrounding a man and shoving sex
    	organs into the guy's face in an intimidating way is a normal part
    	of lockroom behavior.  
    
    	What do you suppose a football player would do if an angry teammate
    	took off his clothes and pressed his private parts into the guy's face?
    	Most likely, the consequences of such an action would be a LOT worse
    	than other teammates reporting it (which is what happened in Lisa's
    	case when other reporters brought the incident to light.)

    	> Now, if this happened to a man, no big deal. BUT, seeing it's the 
    	> woman, it's different. 

    	Right.  You see what happens on the football field when one man
    	simply SHOVES another.  Just imagine the fight that would break 
    	out if a man did what the Pats players did to Lisa.

    	No big deal, alright.  Some men would be seriously injured or dead.  
    	Others would spend their lives in jail, most likely.

    	The Pats got off easy by shoving their organs into a woman's face.

    	> If you want to be in the locker room, then you have to accept ALL 
    	> of the things that can happen. 

    	First off, you're dead wrong with these insinuations that Lisa was
    	the one who complained about all this.  She didn't.  MALE reporters
    	complained.  Please get this through your head.

    	> If woman are to be treated as equals to men, then they should expect 
    	> things happening from time to time. It's all part of life!

    	As long as male reporters are allowed in locker rooms, football 
    	players better get used to the fact that these males will tell the
    	media when players shove their sex organs into women's faces.  It's
    	part of life.

    	> Still, what would your GUT reaction be? Also, are you saying that 
    	> women can't be intimidating towards men? BULL

    	Sure women can be as threatening.  Lisa could have pressed a .44
    	up to their genitals - I bet they'd have been pretty intimidated.

    	Unlike the Pats, Lisa would have been arrested for it.

    	Keeping one's genitals out of reporters faces isn't a lot to ask,
    	Glen.  If these guys can't handle this (as a minimum requirement
    	while on a job that pays up to millions of dollars,) then the NFL
    	should find someone else to fill their positions.
    
    	In the case of the Pats, they should find some guys who can play
    	football, while they're at it.

    in re .163
    
    I'd be interested to know if there is a man in this file would regard it
    as 'no big deal' if they were sitting on a bench and a group of
    nude men who were much bigger than them came up to him, waved
    their penises in this face and asked him if he'd like to place it
    in his mouth?
    
    Bonnie 

>	EXACTLY! Throughout EVERY confrontation of man vs women, it comes out
>that woman is pissed at man for not treating them as equals. 

Maybe the problem lies with this underlying assumption.  From what I 
have seem, women are not asking to be treated--across the board, and 
without regard to context--as "equals," or, "the same way that men are 
treated."  

In my experience, they are asking to be treated with respect and
dignity, and they are asking to be free from physical violence or the 
threat thereof.  Sometimes, depending on the context, that will mean 
being treated exactly as men are treated.  Sometimes, that will mean 
being treated differently.  Sometimes, that will point the ways in 
which, perhaps, men could be treated differently as well.

Just to tip my hat to what a few other people have said, it is my 
experience that, in the high-school varsity locker rooms, boys did 
wave their penises in front of other boys faces.  They also tried to 
whip each other penises with towels.  (I just recently joined a 
health club, and I noticed that, when I changed, I faced my locker,
and kept my body very close to it.  I also felt defensive.  After some
reflection, I remembered that that was a habit I got into to prevent
my penis from getting whipped with towels [and other attacks] in high
school.) 

The use of sex as a violent weapon, often in a "Are you gay???"
fashion, was kind of common.  For more information, check out the
recent articles in the Boston Globe on High School hazing. 

In general, instead of turning these things around on women and 
taunting, "I thought you wanted to be treated *equally*!!!", maybe we 
can see this as an opportunity for men to be treated more decently.

						--Gerry

    
>    I'd be interested to know if there is a man in this file would regard it
>    as 'no big deal' if they were sitting on a bench and a group of
>    nude men who were much bigger than them came up to him, waved
>    their penises in this face and asked him if he'd like to place it
>    in his mouth?
    
From my experience, it wasn't that it was "no big deal."  Contrary to 
that, it's something that carries over into my behavior today, even
though it happened in high school.  However, it was most definitely
something that a lot of us had to shut up about and deal with.  It had
a lot to do with power, cliques, hierarchy, and wanting to "survive"
the locker room so that I could play varsity basketball.   The basic
idea was to melt into the background, don't challenge the seniors,
take any abuse you were unlucky enough to get, shut up about it, and
wait until you were a senior (which meant that no one could mess with
you). 

I think that a lot of men learn this "get used to it; get over it" 
attitude, and are apt to apply it to the lisa Olson case.  



							--Gerry

 I went to an all-boys high school, and I never experienced nor observed nor 
heard about an occasion when a group of boys surrounded anyone and flaunted
their genitals and made sexually suggestive comments. It simply did not occur 
and I am loathe to describe such an act as a normal or acceptable experience.
I do not think that Gerry's experience was very common, otherwise I assume 
others (especially the "Shut up, Olson" variety) would have proclaimed "It 
happened in my locker-room and it was no big deal." 

 The acts in question were reprehensible. Having not been there at the time, I
must rely on news reports, but given the fact that not a single man who was
a part of the news crew in the locker room has said that Lisa Olson bears any
fault or responsibility whatsoever, and their unanimity in condemning the 
juvenile actions of Zeke-babes and his buddies, I cannot help but reach the
conclusion that I would have been outraged had I witnessed the event first hand.

 That people continue to engage in conjecture which for the most part puts a 
more positive spin on the event with respect to the perpetrators galls me. It
does not take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out when someone has behaved 
inappropriately. Why does it seem like it would take an act of congress to get
some people to admit that what happened was wrong? Why is there always the
juxtaposition of the issue with that of "why was she there in the first place?"
It's downright humiliating to be a man who tries to be even handed wrt the
sexes, and to refute assertions made by feminist/separatist/lesbian females
about how terible men are and how they stick together when they are doing bad 
things, and then to have a sparkling example of what these women are talking
about appear out of nowhere. My arguments of "that doesn't really happen 
anymore," "it must be an isolated incident," etc are all worthless. This is
a pretty cut and dried case to anyone with even one eye open. That there is
debate about the behavior astounds me.

 The Doctah

    .168, .169
    
    Ger,  thanks for you thoughts here.  I agree completely.  To say that
    Lisa should "take it" because "men take it" is like saying that it's OK
    for men to perpetrate such things against other men in locker rooms
    and in other settings -- whipping each other's penises with towels, 
    shoving genitalia in faces, and other forms of sexual and physical
    intimidation/humiliation.  True, this behavior happens a lot, especially 
    in high schools.  And tragically, boys/men who don't like engaging in 
    this type of behavior have to shut up and put up with it, simply because 
    society and peer pressure dictate that "that's the way men ought to be 
    with each other."  In other words, there is an unspoken rule that this
    is a "normal" and "healthy" way that boys are initiated into manhood 
    in our society, that it is THE way that men relate to each other.
    And that's baloney, IMHO.
    
    Way back in this topic some guy suggested that male bonding is, by 
    definintion, lewd and crude -- "male bonding is not a pretty sight!" -- 
    and if you don't like it, then you don't belong there, among other men.  
    I categorically reject this way of thinking.  There are many, many other 
    ways in which men can relate; it doesn't have to involve lewd/crude 
    intimidating behavior.  And who says that says such behavior
    should be tolerated.
    
    Just a few more cents,               
    Paul    

    Re:  .170  FWIW, drawing from my own experiences from high school and
    junior high school, this sort of behavior is indeed common among boys
    in the locker room.  (I'm talking about the late 60s and early 70s. 
    Maybe back then it was considered "normal" behavior and "no big deal"
    between males.)
    
    Paul
    

    > That people continue to engage in conjecture which for the most part
    > puts a more positive spin on the event with respect to the perpetrators 
    > galls me.[...]  It's downright humiliating to be a man who tries to be 
    > even handed wrt the sexes, and to refute assertions made by feminist/
    > separatist/lesbian females about how terible men are and how they stick 
    > together when they are doing bad things, and then to have a sparkling 
    > example of what these women are talking about appear out of nowhere. 
    
    Hear, here.
    
    > My arguments of "that doesn't really happen anymore," "it must be an 
    > isolated incident," etc are all worthless. This is a pretty cut and 
    > dried case to anyone with even one eye open. 
    
    And this is just notes.  Think of how much more hidebound things are
    out in real life, Mark.  Thanks for calling yourself on it.  I haven't
    even participated in this debate because of the yahooism you've so
    accurately delineated here.
    
    DougO

Well, I also went to an all-male high school and incidents like this DID take
place.  It was just as offensive then as it is today. 

				Steve

    Hmmm.  When I said that I DID experience this kind of behavior among
    boys in locker rooms, I failed to specify that I went to a co-ed (mixed
    boys/girls high school).  Maybe it happens more in mixed high schools
    than in all-male high schools?  Just a thought... I have no way of 
    confirming if this is true or not.
    
    Paul
    

I went to a co-ed, public school, in a lower-middle-class neighborhood 
in Connecticut.

...and, even if the actual act of putting penises in front of people's 
faces didn't occur, didn't you guys see any cases of physical 
intimidation that involved nudity?  It was just so incredibly common.  
Grabbing (younger) guys in the shower and turning the water on 
scalding, snapping towels, trying to throw naked freshmen outside the 
lockerroom, snapping jock straps, surrounding younger guys--while 
naked--and confronting them about misbehaving on the court, shoving 
jock straps on people's faces, throwing clothed people into the 
showers, and other stuff.

Some of the stuff is definitely "boys will be boys."  However, there 
was often a sexual element to it (confronted by nude, older boys; or 
being confronted when you were nude), and it was often accompanied 
with taunts about your manhood (ie, "Are you a fag, or something," 
with verbal, sexual taunts, like the ones Lisa Olson heard).

Maybe my high school was atypical.  But there must have been other 
high schools like it.

							--Gerry

             "Maybe my high school was atypical.  But there must have been
              other high schools like it."
    
    Yes, there were -- like mine.
    
    Paul
    

>...and, even if the actual act of putting penises in front of people's 
>faces didn't occur, didn't you guys see any cases of physical 
>intimidation that involved nudity?

 Yes, but to me at least, jamming sexual organs in front of someone's face
coupled with fierce intimidating sexual provocation is on another level 
entirely.

 The things you described and characterised as being in the same league as what
happened to Lisa Olson happened in my school as well, but to me it's as 
different as slapping someone's face and beating the xxxx out of them such
that they end up being hospitalized. Similar directions, different magnitudes.

>Grabbing (younger) guys in the shower and turning the water on 
>scalding, snapping towels, trying to throw naked freshmen outside the 
>lockerroom, snapping jock straps, surrounding younger guys--while 
>naked--and confronting them about misbehaving on the court, shoving 
>jock straps on people's faces, throwing clothed people into the 
>showers, and other stuff.

 None of this stuff has the same level of seriousness as the incident in 
question IMO.

 The Doctah

    > None of this stuff has the same level of seriousness as the incident
    > in question IMO.
    
    Unless one has been the victim and felt the fear; that of wondering,
    "where will it end?  how far is it going to go?"  The acts in and of
    themselves are not the only problem; the psycological damages caused
    can be far more severe.  People can come out of such incidents with
    lifelong scars to their psyches.
    
    DougO

 The actions described are generally over in a few short seconds. However
distasteful they may be at the time, they are not generally the cause of
massive emotional scarring. I've been through that sort of stuff, and I'm
<twitch> just <twitch> fine <twitch>. :-)

 The Doctah

>>Grabbing (younger) guys in the shower and turning the water on 
>>scalding, snapping towels, trying to throw naked freshmen outside the 
>>lockerroom, snapping jock straps, surrounding younger guys--while 
>naked--and confronting them about misbehaving on the court, shoving 
>>jock straps on people's faces, throwing clothed people into the 
>>showers, and other stuff.
>
> None of this stuff has the same level of seriousness as the incident in 
>question IMO.

There might be some violent agreement going on here, Mark.  I agree 
with you that most of this stuff is just not in the same league.  
However, some of it--from the feelings generated from my direct 
experience--was indeed in the same league.  

Being surrounded in the showers by large, older boys, and being held
while others try to turn up the heat on the water, all the while
vulgarisms being directed at me and my manhood, felt violent and
personally violating.  Also remember the physical difference between 
14 years old and 18 years old (a possible age span).  

It was a physical intimidation, with sexual implications, with foul
language about sex acts.  It felt as if rape or beating (or both) were
around the corner; not in the present, but possibly lurking in the
future if I didn't respond the way they wanted me to respond. 

Again, I'm trying to describe how the intimidation "felt" to me, not 
what those boys actually had in mind.  I also need to point out that, 
since I was 6' 5", I didn't get picked on that much.  A lot of these 
feelings came about when I watched it happen to smaller boys.

...and I wonder why I'm afraid of men today.


							--Gerry

>> None of this stuff has the same level of seriousness as the incident in 
>> question IMO.
    

	Mark, I realize this is only your opinion, but I can't even begin
	describe how angry this comment makes me.  Any act which has as its
	intent humiliation and/or intimidation of some person is, in my
	opinion, one of the most despicable acts one human being can
	inflict on another.  The only thing worse is when that act leads
	to violence.

    
>>    Unless one has been the victim and felt the fear; that of wondering,
>>    "where will it end?  how far is it going to go?"  The acts in and of
>>    themselves are not the only problem; the psycological damages caused
>>    can be far more severe.  People can come out of such incidents with
>>    lifelong scars to their psyches.

	Thank you!    




>>There might be some violent agreement going on here, Mark.  

	Yup!

>>...and I wonder why I'm afraid of men today.

	Yup!

	

		Greg


							--Gerry

I just wanted to tip my hat a little bit more to what Mark was saying 
before I get out of this discussion.

Did you ever see something happen and then see the people involved 
go through an interview?  One person might have felt traumatized.  One 
person might have felt a little bit uncomfortable.  Another might have 
felt nothing much at all.  Another person might have felt content or 
happy with what happened.  All these responses coming from people who 
experienced the *same* event.

I was thinking on the way home for work, yesterday, that there might 
be a good reason why I felt "physically and sexually threatened."  I 
was a gay kid who was denying my attraction to other boys with every 
breath.  My denial was so strong that I had no clue that I was gay.

So, from the perspective of that very scared young man, what would 
have been the "worst" thing that could have happened to me?  Maybe a 
group of older boys surrounding me in the shower--naked--touching me, 
taunting me, and accusing me of what I was terrified of acknowledging: 
that I was gay.  

No wonder why I felt violated.

I'm not saying that vicious locker room hazing is the fault of the 
person being victimized.  For example, some of the things described in 
that recent Boston Globe article on hazing were so appalling that I 
thought the boys should have been brought up on criminal charges.  
However, I can see how one boy might come out of a "light" hazing 
incident with a "near rape" feeling, and another boy might have just 
felt mildly irritated.


							--Gerry

    RE intimadation in locker boys rooms:
    
    Natick High School 64-66  NOPE.
    
    Of course I was not on any team
    
    Steve

    The Winnepeg Blue Bombers have banned all reporters from their locker
    room (male and female).  Several female sports reporters have
    threatened to take the CFL to the Canadian Human Rights Commission,
    charging that they are being prevented from doing their job because
    of their sex even though the ban on reporters is being upheld
    regardless of the sex of the reporter.
    
    Go and figure...
    
    Kris

    RE: -1   Good for them (the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, that is).....
    
    You're right Kris, ya just can't please some people.
    
    Paul C.

    New England Patriots player Zeke Mowatt was given a $12,500 fine, while
    Michael Timpson and former teammate Robert Perryman were each fined $5,000.
    The team was also ordered to pay $25,000 for instructional materials on
    responsible dealings with the media.
    
    The NFL fines came as result of counsel Phillip Heymann's 60 page report
    of the incident.  NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue concluded, based on
    Heymann's report, that the team's management failed to comply with NFL
    policy on equal media access "in that the club did not adequately invest-
    igate and resolve a serious incident of misconduct in the club's locker
    room and appeared to condone the misconduct of the Patriots' players."
    
    Let this be a lesson to us all.
    
    LArry

    
    Vance Johnson, wide receiver of the Denver Broncos and one of the
    "Three Amegos", has filed suit aganst HBO for showing films of him
    totally nude in the locker room.  The suit charges that the broadcasts
    have caused him at least $50K in buisness opportunities and has
    caused public humiliation.  Vance was accidentally filmed during
    an interview with Denver Coach Dan Reeves.  HBO had been warned that
    then films contained sceens that would likely be embarrasing to 
    Johnson and should be edited before airing.  HBO chose not to
    edit the filems and aired them to the world.  In an interview with
    Johnson's lawyer on Denver radio station KOA last evening, Johnson's
    lawyer said the Johnson had suffered a great deal of humiliation at
    the hands of Denver media and radio disk jockies and that is was
    difficult for Vance to appear in public without derogatory remarks
    being made about the films.
    
    fred();