The article at Women's Sports Media Foundation says that:

The lot of the female sports reporter is much better today than it was two decades ago, when women took their first steps into the locker room, tiptoeing through a minefield of jockstraps and naked men. Nonetheless, the female sports reporter is still not competing on a level playing field. She still encounters obstacles and frustrations her male colleagues do not.Yeah, she is not allowed to go between naked men as male reporters are. Look, should she be allowed to enter the gents too to talk to them while they are sitting on the toilet?

A decade before Boivin's unfortunate encounter with a sweat-drenched bit of men's athletic apparel, Sports Illustrated reporter Melissa Ludtke had a run-in of her own. When Major League Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn prohibited Ludtke from interviewing players in the locker room during the 1977 World Series, SI publisher Time Inc., filed a lawsuit. The following year, a U.S. federal judge ruled that male and female reporters should have equal access to the locker room.What about the female locker room, moron? Eeer... I mean, your honour?

Players howled in protest "We're not a nudist colony putting on an exhibition," insisted NBA rookie Toby Knight, "and the locker room did not change overnight."Yeah, what about those men's rights?

Nonetheless, several of these women learned that, while they were allowed into the locker room, they were not welcomed there. "Changing the rules doesn't necessarily alter attitudes," Ludtke observed.Am I blind or what? Does equality now extend to give you a right to be liked? Hahah, a right to be welcome. Good joke. Go to a law school one day, idiot.

"I have had athletes either ask me out or make inappropriate suggestions sexually. It's a horrible position to be in because you have to keep writing about these men after you have rebuffed them, and often they are not very understanding about the reason you say no."What else do you expect when you enter a room full of naked men who are first of all wondering what the hell you are doing there? Is it proper for you to look at their packages but not proper for them to ask if you want to go a step further? Gee... where did you grow up?

The rest of that is here (http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/media/article.html?record=852).

Well I like the way they have it in Finland. Reporters are not allowed in to the locker room period. In some rare occations such as in case a team wins the championships in some sport the reporters are let in to the lockerrooms to film the action there, and in those cases the players are not very bohtered by the cameras since they are too busy celebrating their victory. ;)

The locker rooms are considered a sacred place in here and there is no chance in hell a reporter is ever going to get in to the locker room when a team has lost their match or during brakes.

Daaaamn, I gotta become a reporter at the womens' beach volleyball touraments :D :cool:

I'd like to volunteer to cover the showers for the WNBA. Maybe then the Judge would see how indecent that is. It's not just indecent, but stupid too.

And just as I was getting over my issues with myopic feminism*...

Once again, common sense is left behind as people attempt to legislate or court-order what they want to be able to do as a "right". How about someone's right to privacy, jackass? At what point does someone's intelligence become so low that they expect people to enjoy being interviewed semi- or fully naked after playing a match? Gender would play a factor, but I wouldn't be comfortable with a guy interviewing me naked and sweating either!

If all she got was a jock strap on the head, she got off lightly. Depending on the team, I would have expected her to have been fired for that. Oh wait, she can't; she's allowed to be in there - equality and all that. Well, I'm all for equality and fair treatment of people, but that doesn't change the fact that men and women are not the same, never will be, and that people's reactions will differ between the sexes (and indeed, sexualities) in otherwise identical situations. If the genders in this matter were reversed, there'd be outrage! I can just imagine the howls and baying for blood we'd hear in that case - sorry, Abom, your wish doesn't look likely to come true soon. Best of luck litigating for it, though - I'm sure you'll be able to make a judge forget about reason, since the precedent has already been set.

Morgoroth, the Finnish system sounds right to me - there is a line between what can be expected of professional sportspeople and what cannot. Sure, you can be invited into the change rooms, but you sure as hell don't have a right of access to it. That'd be tantamount to giving people access to people in fitting rooms or toilets, both of which are clearly insane.

* - Don't be offended by this; work in the "crime victims" field of academia as a social realist before you tell me how non-PC I am.

[ February 08, 2005, 07:04: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

I am with Mororoth and we have the same system in Ireland - no reporters in changing rooms at all!

I really don't see why any reporter needs to be in one, as the players can be interviewed in more appropriate places.

Darn. Change of plans. I'm no longer going to cover weddings. Going to get myself a 'sports kit' and will fight for the right of men to walk into women's locker rooms, changing rooms, restrooms and showers. Since they are sportswomen, they will not mind being photographed from every angle, of course.

Stage 1: Earn the right as a male to enter male rooms mentioned above, and female to enter female rooms.
Stage 2: Use PC crap to "prove" how discriminatory it is that men are not allowed in women's rooms.

Now, who wants to get the pictures?

Fortunately, knowing women, most of them would rather resign from sports than be subject to such humiliation. She would act on impulse (a correct one, in that), return home and tell her husband that from now on he's to work harder, as she quit her job.

I wonder if anyone will soon argue that a pj has right to enter people's private homes.

Fortunately, knowing women, most of them would rather resign from sports than be subject to such humiliation. She would act on impulse (a correct one, in that), return home and tell her husband that from now on he's to work harder, as she quit her job. I guess it won't matter as women's sports are not taken as seriously as male sports in the US so who wants to cover it?

Womens hockey has a large following here but the changing rooms are for team members only.

Thats why we should scrap this PC crap. It would be better to use common sense over PC. I remember being told I was racist in a small Leeds (England) cafe once as I asked for a black coffee! Apparently I should have asked for a coffee without milk :doh:

Man, the hostility towards the concept of equality between the genders is quite severe among some posters here. What is it you are so afraid of the women will do? Dragging up unimportant tiny little events in your quest to discredit the whole struggle for equality.

joacquin -- it's not hostility. "Unimportant tiny little events," you say. But the whole picture is painted by tiny little events. They are, in fact, the result of the whole concept of equality. Where there are concepts, there will be absurd based on them. The more reasonable the concepts, the more absurd the absurd.

I will tell you what: genders will be equal under one condition: men will be able to bear children without the help of a doctor. Women are able to do so, why shouldn't men? Or women working in coal mines and foundries or smelters. How's that for equality.

Remember Guy Fawkes? Women are undermining the whole concept of equality because of two things:
-- they are starting to demand more and more absurd things;
-- the reasonable and actually important issues are buried under tons of stupid claims.
If I ever will be an employer, I will be an equal opportunity/equal pay one. Even if it does mean that I will be losing money if I hire a woman and she gets pregnant.

@joacqin: Is that mispresentation or did you not consider both sides of the problem?

You argue that equality of women and men demands that female reporters be admitted to male locker rooms.

But what about male reporters being admitted to female locker rooms?

If you want to apply equality and be fair about it, you must consider this, too.

It's equal when all reporters are banned. It's equal when all reporters are restricted. It's equal when all reporters are allowed inside. It isn't equal when cross-gender reporting in showers is one way only.

Sure, it's more of a problem for a woman to be seen by a man than for a man to be seen by a woman, but the judge didn't even consider the degree but the nature of the problem and rejected the restriction because of its nature and not the degree of discomfort. This means that, in the light of that retarded judge's decision, male reporters should already be received in the sports ladies' locker rooms.

What you name equality is, in fact, gender-based discrimination. Why I am hostile towards that decision, that judge, those reporters and all the lot is because of the blatant stupidity of claiming such a "right". The stupidity of a judge, who is supposed to have finished a course in a law school and know a damn about how the law works, is even more blatant. Someone with that sort of an intellectual faculty for dealing with laws wouldn't likely make it past the first year at my university.

You must also notice that those reporters don't just want equality. They want their stories and interviews. Equality would be achieved with all reporters being banned and it was done, but it was female reporters who protested.

They wanted to be allowed entry even after male reporters were banned.

@Cesard: If I ever go there, you must show me that cafe. I'll take my sit, grin and order *white* coffee. Blonde with green eyes as I am, I will surely give you a good laugh. :shake: :lol:

@toghluck: Looking for a lawyer? For a mere 10% income from the pictures... ;)

Well, the Finnish system seems good to me. If reporters are not to be banned altogether from locker rooms, everyone should have enough time to cover up before the reporter moves in and, still, everyone should have enough time to shower after the game. However, in this case, there would be no point being in the locker room, right? Well then, reporters could talk to the players for a little moment before they wander off for shower, but they had better not complain about the natural aroma of human bodies.

Note that there are people who would still feel uncomfortable seen in a bathrobe (probably a large share of women) or just boxers (some men, depending on their background).

Myself, I wouldn't really give a damn if the reporter kept at bay, looked in my face when talking and got out of there after given concise answers to concise questions, and didn't whine about the sexual comments coming from other guys.

But we all know this is impossible. Feminist reporters will always complain about "sexist" (i.e. sexual) comments. That's because their egos are even bigger than those of the jocks. Consider the following passage:

"I have had athletes either ask me out or make inappropriate suggestions sexually. It's a horrible position to be in because you have to keep writing about these men after you have rebuffed them, and often they are not very understanding about the reason you say no."Guys were probably wondering what a female was doing amidst all of them naked men and making jokes, intended for fun and maybe to embarrass the female a bit, but what did the reported make of it? Rebuffed? Come on, which of the guys actually meant it seriously? Doesn't the woman have ego problems? She probably feels oh so important because she "rebuffed" a couple of famous guys... who didn't actually mean to shag her, in the very first place, or not any more than they did any woman on the globe.

Feminists will never cease to astonish me with their logic. Are those women retarded? What is equal access to male locker rooms if male reporters aren't going to be allowed in female locker rooms? And they still preach equality until enough idiots fall for it or submit for the sake of finally being left alone.

Toughluck, I guess all women should be eternally grateful that men like you exist who are willing to shelter them and employ them despite them being babymachines.

chev, the hostility towards equality comes from your topic heading. You take a somewhat extreme event, in an in the larger picture unimportant area, and call it, quote: more "equality" idiocy. I cannot interpret it in any other way that you put forward an extreme example with the intention of discrediting the whole phenomena of equality.

I once read an article (by a woman, no less) which stated that equality was, more or less, utterly ridiculous, since men and women are different and therefore work better in particular fields. I personally despise feminism, and indeed all forms of political correctness, though I can quite happily do this whilst having nothing against the people that these groups are supposed to be defending.

I will tell you what: genders will be equal under one condition: men will be able to bear children without the help of a doctor. Women are able to do so, why shouldn't men?Hmm. See, when discussing equal rights, it has more to do with what you're allowed to do than with what you are capable of doing. Men are perfectly within their rights to have children, they just don't have what it takes to get the job done (um... that being a vagina... and ovaries and stuff).

My guess is I'm probably within my rights to breast feed an infant too... I just don't think I'd be very good at it. Think of all that hair the poor lil' sucker (get it? Sucker! haw! haw!) would get in his mouth.

Do you honestly think that there are no women that work in mines or foundries?

@Chev, Women's Sports Media Foundation? Are you a subscriber? :lol:

Hmm. See, when discussing equal rights, it has more to do with what you're allowed to do than with what you are capable of doing.Bravo, ArtE. That's the heart of the matter - whether or not the government is allowed to create (or tolerate) any artificial impositions on what opportunities any person who is capable of performing a task has to do so.

Toughluck, you do make one very valid point - if a minority group has a privilege, the majority should have access to the same privilege. This spans from women wanting privacy in locker rooms to racial or religious groups wanting private clubs or organizations. If they can have them, everyone else should be able to have them, too.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work that way. Protecting the rights of one group almost always comes at the expense of the rights of another.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work that way. Protecting the rights of one group almost always comes at the expense of the rights of another.Agreed. But doesn't democracy rely on protecting the interests of as much citizens possible to as big extent possible?

There's also the problem of some people confusing the protection of existent rights with demands for creation of new rights. I'm all in favour of equality, but I'm deeply against creating advantages for minorities. Democracy is about the majority of the voters having the say, it's not about reinforcing the minority's vote to carry the same meaning as the majority's one.

Where do you draw the line as to what is a minority or a majority? The problem with these arguments, is that usually the dividing line is completely arbitrary.

Going by some of the arguments of the past. Lets say... Black is a skin color, and a minority. Catholic is a religion and a majority. So if a black man is a catholic, is he in the minority, or the majority? People have a tendency to divide people into, "minorities" as it fits their own goals.

So back on topic, lets discuss why women are a percieved, "minority." They are not just reporters, they are female reporters, and that somehow gets in the way of doing an objective job in the presence of men in various forms of undress. Is it just because they're women and its morally wrong for a woman to see a naked man? Is it because we all know women can't control themselves in the presence of naked men? Is it do to an assumed sexual preference?

What if a known lesbian reporter went into the locker room? Is she not supposed to be there just because she doesn't share the same private parts?

What if a known male gay reporter goes in? Is that retarded?

Is a male gay reporter in the minority? Or does he qualify as the majority of reporters, as the majority is male?

The chief issue I have with it is lack of logic. Equal access to male locker rooms is just it - equal access to male locker rooms. But it by no means is equal access to locker rooms, without a defining adjective, contrary to what those reporters would have us believe. Equal access to locker rooms is only when all reporters are allowed into all locker rooms or no reporters to any locker rooms.

Male only in male and female only in female is still equal, I believe. The reporters aren't fighting for their rights, they're fighting for their stories.

Did you manage to find anything regarding male reporters being restricted from entering the womens locker room? I did a search and could find nothing (not saying its the case or not, just... nothing).

The reporters aren't fighting for their rights, they're fighting for their stories.I see that as the same thing. The right... to get their story. No?

What can a female reporter do at a pro-football game? Interview the cheerleaders?

A thought occured to me I remember that once I pondered it with some people.

Problem with feminists is that they are fighting in the wrong fields. They demand equality by basis of that, on average, a woman on a given post earns less than a man on the same post. Why not provide positive examples? That women do earn the same kind of money, and of course have the same ability to do almost every kind of work. In some they are even better* than men, and of course in some men are better than women. This has to do with the 'gender of the brain,' which is a scientifically accepted notion. Why not provide those positive examples? Because they show that, on average, a woman's position has improved significantly and that it is possible to cooperate. But it invalidates their martyr status, and it is harder for them to pretend they are oppressed when they are treated fairly equally, even if not perfectly.
Furthermore, to expand on the above statement.
1. Take contraceptive pills for example. They are fighting for the 'right of a woman' to induce a pathological state on herself. They fight for the 'right of a woman' to become an object to be used and discarded by a man. And all that for taxpayers' money. What for? The only side profitting from that seems to be pharmaceutical companies, nobody else, mostly owned by men. It is incomprehensible. There are alternatives, but that is a material for a completely different thread.
2. How about fighting for the 'right of a woman' to have an abortion? I won't go into detail over that. But they are fighting so fiercely that they forget other, definitely more important, points. How about the right of a woman to receive a paid maternity leave? In Poland, the feministic organisations have called it a 'success' that they were able to shorten the time of (unpaid) maternity leave from three years to eighteen months. They thought of it as a 'victory.' How about that?

As I can see it, feminists are fighting for the wrong ideals. They fight for what they seem is right, but I think everyone can see that any of their 'victories' is absolutely non-existant compared to the defeats they suffer.

*) As an extreme example where women would have been superior to men, but have never had the chance to prove it, take FLATs for example (First Lady Astronaut Trainees, cancelled in early sixties, after Tereskova's flight). They have proven overall superior to men in almost every aspect, being less susceptible to stress, heart disease, had more stamina and finally consumed less food, water and air. The problem was that astronauts were in a 'mile high club,' and no women were to be granted admittance. It took them more than a decade to fly to space...

If we're done debating the relative merits of reporters and locker rooms, let's open a new thread on feminism in general, as there are too many issues that are going to go pretty far afield just responding to Toughluck's last post.

As I can see it, feminists are fighting for the wrong ideals. They fight for what they seem is right, but I think everyone can see that any of their 'victories' is absolutely non-existant compared to the defeats they suffer.
While I was in college I had a few classes with hard-core feminist profs, and had a look at their ideas up-close. The thing most striking is that it is a historical view of the treatment of women.

Looking through the feminist lens one finds that women, for the most part, have been regarded as "property" throughout most of history, even fairly recently. Thirty to forty years ago this really started changing, and in most of the Western nations, this is really no longer the case. Yet, feminists still see themselves in a struggle for basic freedoms. And their struggle has now encompassed class warfare as well. One finds a relationship of sorts between feminism and Marxism. As a sometimes class warrior of sorts, I still consider myself a reluctant ally of feminism. My real concern is for the freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and the development of the individual -- regardless of class. This sometimes puts me in league with them, and other times, in opposition.

This is one of those issues in which I am in opposition, and agree with Chev. Ultimately, the rigthts of males in the lockeroom trumps that of "any" reporter's pursuit of a "news story." And the gender factor is mutable because of the right to basic privacy, which we all would expect in day-to-day society as individuals. It is not only a matter of gender-to-gender respect, but individual respect that should be considered here.

I'm either getting more conservative, or Chev is starting to make a whole lot more sense lately. This is another example of another issue in which I agree with him. Since when does an "equal" right supercede a "basic" right. I think the self-evident right of privacy should include not having ones privates viewed by member of the opposite gender, or even of members of the same gender for that matter. I personally wouldn't be comfortable conducting an interview with any reporter when I was naked, regardless of whether that person was a man or a woman. That having been said, I'd be more uncomfortable if it was a woman who was interviewing me.

Aldeth, I'm going even further than you. We don't need to touch on privacy if we just rightly conclude that it's no equal right of locker room access if male reporters aren't allowed to see naked females in female locker rooms, while female reporters have such acess to male locker rooms. I find it hard to believe someone after a law school could issue such a verdict.

True enough Chev. Moreover, as a male, I would not be comfortable MYSELF interviewing a naked woman a woman's locker room. I'd imagine that most women would feel the same way about interviewing a naked man. I mean, most people feel there is something basically wrong in going into a locker room of someone of the opposite sex, just like they feel wrong about going into a restroom of someone of the opposite sex.

Yeah, it's just some semi-political "progressive" agenda aimed against "superstitions" or some such. I think it's not the court's place to legislate a change in the mores. Not even the proper legislative has such authority.