The Locker Room Debate

Well, well, well. Here we have it people, the ethical debate of the century. Or of the last 35 yearsanyway. Prima Donna Cherry decided to take two whole minutes to educate the masses and cause a few migraines for poor Ron McLean. So therefore the inter-webs screeched “sexism”! But I believe the world should calm down, put on some thinking caps, and think long and hard about Mr. Cherry’s warning for us. 

It’s obvious to anyone who knows the protocol for a woman in the locker room why there are multiple parties unhappy with multiple aspects of locker room behavior. Basically, for those of you who don’t know, it goes something like this:
1) Professional woman enters locker room full of rowdy, sweaty, fresh out the game naked men.
2) Said woman starts asking questions that could be asked/answered literally anywhere else in the world.
3) Sweaty, naked man can then either: a) answer questions awkwardly because he’s naked. b) answer questions in a cocky fashion because he won and is naked. c) Say something snarky because he’s naked (See Scott Hartnell). d) Be sad because he lost, and naked or e) be filmed and naked. In any of these situations the man will be sexist.
4) Unless the woman does something stupid, everyone takes her side because progressive feminism.
Now, there are many different ways one can approach the prospect of having women in the locker room. I’ve taken the initiative to illustrate those opinions for you:
1) The Chauvinistic Geezer
“It makes me uncomfortable!” said Cherry, upon explaining the first time he had a run in with a female reporter in the locker room. While the woman was completely un-rustled, Canada’s sweetheart didn’t feel the same way. (Which is completely acceptable, by the way).
These people are set in their ways of the “olden days” whatever time period that appears to be. Women should not be in the locker room because women shouldn’t do anything (cough, cough) but men should have free reign of anything because they’re professional. Usually well argued, like Cherry’s case, it appears bigoted and sexist to the newer generations. Honestly they’re just a product of their generation.
2) The Progressive Feminazi
Boom.
So, yeah. Women are the superior sex, men are chauvinistic pigs, they think everything, oppression Olympics– blah blah blah. You’ve heard it all. Anything that’s not equality among genders is feminazi madness, or, whatever.
Regardless, they believe in the empowerment of women in all forms. Women should not only allowed to be in the locker rooms, they should be allowed to be naked too! Any male who makes a snarky comment or anything that is not rigidly professional and ignorant of nudity shall be fired, hung up by his manhood and quartered!
3) The Jockey Fan
Can be male or female, but generally male. Quite similar to the chauvinistic geezer, but in a different light. They think it’s sexy that a woman is asking about the power play among naked men with her hair and make-up all did. 
*This goes hand in hand with the locker room fantasy.
4) The Nihilist
Me. No one should see others naked in a locker room. Ask the questions somewhere else. No gender in question, no ethics in question. It’s uncomfortable and unnecessary.
Yep, seeing people naked is unnecessary. Who would have thought, right?

The Double Standard: A Hockey Fan Watches the NBA Draft

Held in Barclay's Center in Brooklyn, New York

So, I'm watching it for the first time. The NBA Draft, one of the biggest attractions next to the All Star game and the Dunk Contest, or something. I actually have no idea. Regardless, I like it so far. It's really aesthetically pleasing. The stage looks really rustic and the graphics on the screen are simple. A Canadian went first overall, and a few picks later a Ukrainian was chosen, so they really wanted hockey fans to feel at home. But, watching Simmons and everyone else discuss the picks, I realized something about the nature of broadcast journalism, and it wasn't a good something.

In any English class from middle school to high school to college teaches students to avoid cliches in their writing. Cliches like, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." and "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." or "Out of the frying pan, into the fire." Or maybe the most famous and annoying, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." And for the most part, authors and students of English listen. Sometimes it's used for irony, but that's no secret to anyone who reads it. 


However, it seems like in sports journalism, there is no irony in the cliche kingdom. 
"He's got a big body and skates well", "They go high to the rim", "This guy is a blue collar guy", "Who will be this year's Ryan Leaf?" and others that are really, really annoying. And, the repetition isn't the worst thing. It's not the obvious insanity of announcers and what they say, it's the fact that most broadcasters are honestly wasting their breath. 


I, and most of NBA fans (or any sport fans) want to know what's actually going on. Telling me Trey Burke "is an aggressive player," and "plays with a chip on his shoulder," and "is there to fill a certain role." I have NO IDEA what any of that means. And I have a sneaking suspicion it doesn't mean anything.


And speaking of cliches, the players are no better. And while I realize that PR plays a huge role in what they can and cannot say, I do not want to hear "I'd like to thank my mom, and the organization, and God. I'll bring my A-game to this team. Thank you." over and over and over again.


And for the most part, written stories and articles stay away from these cliches, it's mostly the doing of broadcast faces. Just, as a reminder from your friendly neighborhood journalist (pun intended) stay away from cliches, and everyone will be happy.