Ms. Spayd, you are quickly going to learn that NY Times editors seem constitutionally incapable of ever admitting that they have committed any error. They will often blame readers for not reading things the way the editor wanted them to, or the sun was in the editor's eye, or whatever. But to acknowledge an error and learn from it: it seems to happen very rarely at the Times (which may have contributed to the egregious misreading of the public mood in the recent election: Times editors are in a bubble, insulated by self-regard. At least that's how it has seemed over Margaret Sullivan's tenure: the response from editors was always to deny that they had erred. As you see.
1
As the Harvard women's soccer team wrote in The Crimson response to their male counterpart's deplorable actions, Stronger Together: "'Locker room talk' is not an excuse because this is not limited to athletic teams. The whole world is the locker room." This kind of sexist talk is typical. It should be rejected. We need to stand up and say this is wrong and we should not allow it to be the norm.
1
Much ado about nothing. My take, is that by using the term "locker room talk" for this incident, the headline was highlighting the raw reality of so-called "locker room talk" actually happens, peeling away the veneer, in effect, re-appropriating term by revealing its literal reality rather than shrouding it.
Having spent my high school years in the band room rather than the locker room, I cannot speak to 'mere' locker room talk. My limited experience with locker room talk has been more about plays made (or not) on the field, what the other team did that they shouldn't have, and so on. Of course men in these situations discuss women, and presumably, vice versa.
But this was not 'talk', it was a shared rating system, of an overtly and intentionally sexual nature. That could not happen in the band room, being a coeducational venue. And that it occurred at an elite university only compounds the egregious nature. It smacks not only of sexual aggression, but of privielege. It is far more egregious than merely locker room talk. Egregious headline, with an editor who should know better.
But this was not 'talk', it was a shared rating system, of an overtly and intentionally sexual nature. That could not happen in the band room, being a coeducational venue. And that it occurred at an elite university only compounds the egregious nature. It smacks not only of sexual aggression, but of privielege. It is far more egregious than merely locker room talk. Egregious headline, with an editor who should know better.
3
Congratulations for joining the war against free speech. These Harvard men had a private conversation and are being punished for it. Time for laws to punish misogynists and feminists and errant public editors. On a freedom scale I rate Harvard a 2 and the public editor a 1.
1
This is not free speech. This is a form of hate speech, and the two should never be equated.
Women have had more than enough of being degraded, demeaned, harassed. Diminishing us as mere sex objects in whatever format is not tolerable, and harms all women.
Clearly you are a fan of and a contributor to what is currently called rape culture, wherein men bolster each other in their sexual aggressions and sexual assaults.
Stop telling us we are supposed to smile and get the joke when we are being harasses, demeaned, catcalled, sexually grabbed, groped and, yes, you even expect us to enjoy getting raped
Women have had more than enough of being degraded, demeaned, harassed. Diminishing us as mere sex objects in whatever format is not tolerable, and harms all women.
Clearly you are a fan of and a contributor to what is currently called rape culture, wherein men bolster each other in their sexual aggressions and sexual assaults.
Stop telling us we are supposed to smile and get the joke when we are being harasses, demeaned, catcalled, sexually grabbed, groped and, yes, you even expect us to enjoy getting raped
2
Ignorant talk certainly should not be rewarded.
Yet, the hyperbole from this article which insinuates the liberal notion that juvenile, sexist talk in a men althetic locker room is akin to a "gateway drug" to sexual assault equally should not be rewarded with a gold star of approval by Liz Spayd or the New York Times staff.
But, this is par for the course from a newspaper that will incessantly publish femenist, fact-challenged op-ed piece promoting the "fact" of rampant sexual deviant causality from men, but will bury articles that debunk this liberal notion, such as the false allegations of sexual assault at Duke and the University of Virginia.
Yet, the hyperbole from this article which insinuates the liberal notion that juvenile, sexist talk in a men althetic locker room is akin to a "gateway drug" to sexual assault equally should not be rewarded with a gold star of approval by Liz Spayd or the New York Times staff.
But, this is par for the course from a newspaper that will incessantly publish femenist, fact-challenged op-ed piece promoting the "fact" of rampant sexual deviant causality from men, but will bury articles that debunk this liberal notion, such as the false allegations of sexual assault at Duke and the University of Virginia.
2
Using the example of one false accusation of sexual assault in this way implies that all allegations of rape are false.
3
The phrase "locker room talk" has been around and been a pejorative description at least as long as when I was in high school in the late 1950's. By itself, it neither diminishes the language or behavior - it's just an easily and universally understood short cut to identify crude, vulgar, sexist language by men, regardless of where it is spoken.
5
This is conversation that needs to be had, but not in this particular situation. There seem to be a push to make a connection between Trump's comments, and his justifications, and these male soccer players and their actions and justifications. There is no comparison due to the fact that they did not justify themselves by using the same term as Trump. That term was placed by writer Stephen Benson. This is a non-sequitur fallacy the argue doesn't not follow the logical assumption that these men wanted to justify themselves by using that term.
1
Let's be clear.
It's not locker room talk.
It's sociopath talk.
It's not locker room talk.
It's sociopath talk.
4
The Public Editor doth protest too much, methink, or something like that.
Donald Trump dismissed as “locker room talk” something that went far beyond locker rooms. That turned the tables on the expression. Now the expression stood for something that went far beyond locker rooms, and that is the sense the headline writer tried to convey.
On almost any given item someone, from an interest that serves himself or herself, will rise up to be offended when there is neither warrant nor need to be offended. I put this one in that category.
Donald Trump dismissed as “locker room talk” something that went far beyond locker rooms. That turned the tables on the expression. Now the expression stood for something that went far beyond locker rooms, and that is the sense the headline writer tried to convey.
On almost any given item someone, from an interest that serves himself or herself, will rise up to be offended when there is neither warrant nor need to be offended. I put this one in that category.
TrumpTalk (or locker-room talk) promotes incivility in the workplace and reduces productivity by 48%. This behavior DOES affect work product and profitability. And it happens today, just like Trump advertised on tape. https://medium.com/@deetteday/our-corporate-vp-asked-us-whod-we-do-at-wo...
2
Knittle is too clever by half, and, as per usual, disagrees with the Public Editor's criticism, a hardy perennial dating back to Daniel Okrent's tenure.
Not that the headline has now been changed to "vulgar scouting report," which is better, but not there yet.
This has been a oersistent problem with the Times, particularly in the last few years, the mismatch between the often clickbaiting headline and the article that follows. It is particularly endemic in the mess that is the Times' political coverage.
Not that the headline has now been changed to "vulgar scouting report," which is better, but not there yet.
This has been a oersistent problem with the Times, particularly in the last few years, the mismatch between the often clickbaiting headline and the article that follows. It is particularly endemic in the mess that is the Times' political coverage.
3
There are locker rooms and there are locker rooms. I've used locker rooms most of my adult life and never heard anyone talk the way Trump does about women. In fact, there was always an unstated rule against talking about women at all.
7
I don't think Knittle's explanation is nearly as obscure as the Public Editor suggests. Is there no place for knowing irony in the Times's headlines? Perhaps it's not such a bad idea for the paper to tailor itself to readers who actually know what is happening in the world.
6
Well, it does seem like it literally was talk in locker rooms. And I don't know anyone who didn't think pre-trump that the phrase connotes vulgarities.
Obviously the headline was meant to be clever. and the phrase has been in the news so much that surely Times readers understood the allusion to Trump criticism.
Not sure this headline warrants a war.
Obviously the headline was meant to be clever. and the phrase has been in the news so much that surely Times readers understood the allusion to Trump criticism.
Not sure this headline warrants a war.
9
Well put. Too many NYTimes headlines are not thought through. Another one on the online front page today: "Woman Killed After Being Pushed From Subway Platform" implies that being pushed from the platform was not the cause of her death.
5
Whoa! This was a news story. Are you really endorsing using news stories to 'cry out against complancency and dismissiveness of misogynistic attitudes'? When did it become ok to push a moral agenda with news coverage? That does not sound like unbiased reporting to me.
Say what you want about arrogant presidential candidates or privileged sexists at Harvard in the opinion pages, but don't use news coverage to push a social agenda. This is outrageous. I hope Spayd will find some time to examine her own biases and adjust her office's priorities.
Say what you want about arrogant presidential candidates or privileged sexists at Harvard in the opinion pages, but don't use news coverage to push a social agenda. This is outrageous. I hope Spayd will find some time to examine her own biases and adjust her office's priorities.
4