With the men in women's change rooms, it is a false argument because it doesn't happen.
I think it's a perfectly fine argument. It shows how conducting interviews in a changeroom isn't professional at all (even though it is the practice) and against common decency and consent and shouldn't be happening. Does the fact that something always happens anyways legitimize it? It's like all of the other sexist behaviour - like groping - that we've pruned away even though it happened anyways and women used to see it coming.
It doesn't matter that women "don't have a choice", because that especially is a false argument. To say that a woman can't do her job without walking into a male changeroom is ludicrous because nobody is proposing that. I certainly don't think Don Cherry is saying "it's not a woman's place to be in a man's changeroom and if she's unable to do her job, so be it!". Her job isn't dictated by whether or not she can be in a changeroom with men, it's about getting some question answered - and a changeroom has nothing to do with that.
I think the men who are in a state of undress have the final say about who they're comfortable being in the same room with them. It's a question of consent, and if someone isn't okay with women in the changeroom, then you shouldn't force him to bear with it for the sake of "equality". And why should the players take the responsibility of making sure they're covered up if "they know it's gonna happen"? It's their changeroom to begin with, and it's their privacy that has to be respected as well. No one is going to get away with anything for the sake of their "equality" if it interferes with my consent. The reason men don't go into women's changeroom is because it's kinda clear that women don't get their privacy violated - but apparently the privacy of men is still open to debate, because I dunno, I guess a man like myself should just man up because it's natural and it's happening all the time, so I should just get over with it.
MacLean told the Toronto Sun on Sunday that he didn't think Cherry meant to be disrespectful, and he made the facial expression because he knew what the reaction would be on Twitter for such a controversial statement.
Right on. The internet, especially something that forces messages to be dumbed down like twitter, can be a huge source of stupid. Some of the comments fail at reading comprehension. Take this for example, from an Olympic Gold Medalist:
"Just for the record. I have NEVER seen a naked player in a dressing room. Nor am I looking for one when I'm in there. #JobToDo"
Didn't he say that
he was the one embarrassed? Did he say anything about women taking advantage of naked men? I don't think Cherry referred to ****s or anything related to that but apparently he believes female reporters are on the prowl for sweaty man-flesh >.>
What is wrong with the people in this country? Haven't these people passed that Grade 10 literacy test? The one that involves considering passages in context? smh.
Edit: apparently sloots is censored. What happens if we want to talk about slootwalk?