Home / Misogynist Wanker of the Day

Misogynist Wanker of the Day

Comments
/
/
/
331 Views

Rick Sutcliffe.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • travis

    Eh. I agree the comments were out of line, but this is yet another video described in lurid, inaccurate terms. In particular, the comments state that no one tried to stop Sutcliffe. In fact, he actually suddenly stops himself rambling about how hot Erin is and then on to another rambling chat about his cancer. (He sounded drunk to me.)
    This belies the whole point of the post. Either Sutcliffe realized on his own that he had just made a jackass of himself, or just as likely, the producer shrieked “asshole!” in his ear. Either way, it didn’t appear as described, but was instead filtered through DMZ’s personal history of seeing Erin shabbily treated over the years.
    I’ve never heard of either person before, so I have no dog in this fight.

  • shawn214

    I don’t know anything about Erin Andrews or Rick Sutcliffe, and maybe this has a history, but if not, why not just chalk it up to “guy scared about his impending surgery says inappropriate things”?

  • PTS

    Eh, I have always wondered about Sutcliffe ever since I went to one of his games, and he took so long between pitches that in my nightmares I am still there. I think he had to wait ten minutes for his arm to stop hurting…

  • CMike

    Scott wants to let everyone know he will not stand for misogyny rearing its ugly head. Yeah right Scott.

  • Mike

    It was Sutcliffe’s partner who mentioned how bright Andrews’s dress was. It was Andrews who joked that she was wore it for Sutcliffe. He acknowledged that, in a perfectly gentlemanly fashion, by saying that he liked the color, and then when perhaps a bit far by joking about the perils of wearing a dress in a high wind. The whole thing is about as misogynistic as voting for Obama.

  • I heard it live, and Andrews didn’t seem to be offended. It did go on about two sentences too long, but not nastily to my ears.

  • m

    Remember when Johnny Carson used to sexually harass Doc Severinsen by making fun of his plaid sport coats?

  • jj

    You’re definitely overreacting, Scott.

  • jj

    Sorry, your linkee is … to a great extent.

  • Rob

    And these comments are just really sad. Pointing out she is wearing bright yellow, not sexual harassment. Sutcliff going on about her short skirt and legs? Sexual harassment.

  • SEK

    For fans of BTF, on this subject, kevin’s in typical form.

  • SEK

    Sorry, I meant to link to this.

  • jj

    OK, Rob. But Scott’s linkee still seems (IMO, YMMV) to be a bit over the top, as does Scott’s title.

  • chuckling

    The word misogyny means hatred of women. By definition, nothing Sutcliffe said was remotely misogynist.
    I don’t even see how it was sexist, if we accept the dictionary definition of sexism as prejudice or discrimination based on sex.
    You could argue that it falls under a secondary definition of sexism: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. But exactly what is the stereotype? That beautiful women wearing bright yellow mini-skirts could be considered attractive? That women wearing dresses might want to be careful on a windy day?
    Or is it, as a commenter above suggests, sexual harassment? Uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature especially by a person in authority toward a subordinate? Possibly, I guess, But essentially all he said was he liked her dress.
    Granted, he implied she looked good in it and that he’d like to sleep with her, and you’ve got to be pretty stupid to say or imply anything like that on television these days, but ultimately, so what? Sexual innuendo is not necessarily sexist.
    Getting all upset about incidents like this actually harms the cause of getting open misogyny and sexism off the airwaves. There are plenty of real examples to attack. Picking at the far edges like this just gives the real problem people another excuse.

  • Rob

    Treating a woman on air as a cum dumpster isn’t sexist? At the far edges? Again, wow.

  • SEK

    the dictionary definition
    I always ask which dictionary is the dictionary, but the answer always seems to be an unsubtle variation of “the one I use because it’s composed entirely of common sense so bug off already.”

  • The sad thing is that what Sutcliffe said is no different than what you read on The Big Lead and Dead Spin every single day about Andrews and a host of other women.

  • JBJ

    I may have just outed myself as a sexist pig with a comment on the Clinton-Sebelius thread, but anyway…
    Put me down as saying this wasn’t that bad. There seems to be some collegial affection between those announcers, and in context of wishing Sutcliffe well with his upcoming surgery, I’d call it friendly, slightly flirtacious banter. In questionable taste, perhaps. Wanker of the Day worthy? No.
    I imagine Erin Andrews takes a lot of unfair shit from a lot of people (fans and athletes, for sure). This is not very high on the shit scale.

  • DivGuy

    Seriously? Do any of you have jobs?
    If you told a colleague in the workplace that her dress must be distracting all the other guys, especially in this wind, you’d be looking at discipline at the very least, anywhere I’ve ever worked.
    And rightly so – openly objectifying a colleague in public is wrong. On national broadcast, come on.

  • ibid

    Treating a woman on air as a cum dumpster isn’t sexist?
    That is simply not what happened. Talking about the wind lifting up her skirt is not the same as some violent sexual act. Certainly inappropriate in a professional setting, but this was stupidity, not violent misogyny. This is baseball, there’s little action a lot of time to fill, and announcers spend a lot of it speaking off the cuff about things that have nothing to do with baseball. They are bound to say something stupid several times a night, and occasionally they might say something stupid and ill-considered that is offensive. This sort of thing should be noted and Sutcliffe should be shamed for it so he can behave more appropriately in the future (I’m not sure what the chances of this actually happening are), but it’s not a fireable offense, as the link suggests.
    And btw, I find the language quoted above more offensive than what Sutcliffe said, even if it was supposedly just a characterization of his behavior. Especially from someone with a masculine handle.

  • jdkbrown

    They do come out of the woodwork, don’t they?

  • JBJ

    Two points
    1) They’re TV performers, for crying out loud, wardrobe is a relevant issue.
    2) It struck me that there was an earlier conversation that this exchange fit into. It’s quite possible that there was actual wind, and an actual problem with the skirt. Anyway, I don’t think the comment came out of nowhere.

  • Hedley Lamarr

    Rick “The Droner” Sutcliffe? They can’t pay him enough to quit, and he can take Orel Roberts with him.

  • strategichamlet

    “Wanker of the Day worthy? No.”
    Maybe its been a really slow day for Wankers.

  • spencer

    Inappropriate? Hell yes.
    A fireable offense? Quite possibly.
    Misogynistic? I don’t see it.

  • Bitter Scribe

    As a Cubs fan, I’m biased in ‘Cliff’s favor. But to me, it was nothing more than a ham-handed joke.
    Let’s be real. That woman got her job because of her looks. Guys are naturally going to comment on that.

  • Ken

    I donit care that he has cancer.
    Fuck you, Rick Sutcliffe. Fuck you, other guy in the booth.

    Now that’s offensive.
    .

  • Well, I think the remark “that woman got her job because of her looks…guys are going to comment on it” actually pretty much sums up the embedded misyogyny and sexism of the media *and its male viewers* since it implies that
    the “women on tv are here to service my needs and, if not directly as objects of my masturbatory fantasies then indirectly when my reps (the male guys who got to where they got through talent or hard work) sexually harrass her for my benefit.”
    See, the assumption that all viewers are male, and all are males who need to “comment on a woman’s looks” is itself *sexist* in that it assumes out of existence women as viewers/audience and their perspective and normalizes that of an adolescent boy.
    I’ve got no dog in this hunt since I didn’t see the original incident. There are lots of times that banter is just banter and we have to be open to that and just leave some things alone. But on the other hand can we please can the lectures from people (alas, chuckling on this thread and HTML mencken on the other) who insist that “we” must “stop” overusing some term or other because only by keeping our powder dry can it have its correct effect. Neither anti semitism, racism, nor sexism are made of anythign that, if stretched too far, gets thin or breaks. They are analytic terms that we can use to examine stuff in our lives. Not unnaturally and not infrequently the people who are most aware of these things are the people most affected–women who’ve had guys stare at their breasts instead of their slides at conferences, for example. Its pretty damned annoying (and very very overused) for people in the unmarked category to lecture the rest of us on what harm we are doing out own cause by recognizing some of this shit and calling it out.
    aimai

  • djw

    amen, Aimai.

  • jackd

    Was the embedded video edited somehow? I didn’t hear anything more than mildly inappropriate. Sutcliffe said, of Andrews’ bright yellow dress, “I’ve got a new favorite color” and (paraphrased) ‘I’m worried about her in that dress in the Chicago wind’, before he and his partner exchanged a couple of comments about her presence at batting practice.
    I wouldn’t defend this kind of sexist gab, but it’s hardly what I would call a “bizarre rant”.

  • The dictionary I used was Webster’s on-line. Not the greatest, but it should do as relatively generic. Quote me a better one. I like dictionaries!
    You see, in order for people to communicate, it’s necessary that we agree on the meanings of words. For example if I think country house means house in the country and you think country house means rectum, you would not understand if I said that your parents had a beautiful country house.
    In order to solve that problem, our forbears have created what we call dictionaries. Since we are all writers here, I am simply saying that it is in everybody’s best interest to consult these dictionary things. Is that really so controversial?
    Using said book in this case, nothing Sutcliffe said was remotely misogynistic. It would be difficult to argue that it was the least bit sexist. Given that it occurred in the workplace, one could definitely argue that it was sexual harassment, though that depend on the perception of the woman in the yellow dress. And even if it was, it would not be a firing offense unless it were part of a larger pattern. If not, he should be counseled and everyone move on.
    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not condoning the behavior, just looking for the right word. Boorish, would be my choice. Rude, vulgar, uncouth, course, unmannerly, ill-mannered, ill-bred, brutish, crude, crass, base, loutish, oafish, doltish, cloddish, peasant-like — something along those lines.
    And I certainly hope nobody is putting me in the unmarked category. I am categorically opposed to misogyny, sexism, and sexual harassment. But I am as free as anyone else to offer my opinion as to the best strategy for combating these injustices, and can certainly put forth a logical argument to back my opinion.
    In this case, I think we can see the contrast in strategies in how Senator Obama handles racism and Senator Clinton handles misogyny and sexism. Senator Obama chooses his battles. He does not comment on on the questionable stuff. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, plays the victim to the fullest and does everything she can to rile her followers up to paroxysms of rage about the smallest imagined slight. I am far from alone in believing that is not the best strategy for fighting injustice. It practically begs a backlash.
    Why give the other side a point on which they can reasonably argue when there are so many that they can’t?
    One may disagree with my answer to that question and make a logical argument that it is wrong, but one can legitimately hold that position without being some kind of misogynist, sexist, sexual harasser enabler, no?
    And as one who has been around when the left was ascendant, I can share with you my observation that it all falls apart when people start attacking those with whom they agree with on the issues over matters of strategy. You can see it happening to the right, even as we type.
    The wheel, you know, it turns.

  • rea

    I remember Sutcliff on TV in his player years. I’ve always had a thing for guys with beards, and he was soooo hot, so sexy-looking, it was positively distracting. That muscled body, that tan . . If only some kind of weather event had come along and torn his pants off . . .
    ;)

  • BlueMonkey

    Sut used to have problems with BWD (broadcasting while drunk), but now maybe he’s experiencing a little chemo brain. Who knows? He’s always rambled, sometimes stupidly, like former baseball players do. Welcome to the thought processes of some middle-aged, former jock heroes – who knew!?!
    And to rea – right on! However, I must say that the Euro 2008 matches in HD have much more to offer now in the way of eye candy.

  • BlueMonkey

    Sut used to have problems with BWD (broadcasting while drunk), but now maybe he’s experiencing a little chemo brain. Who knows? He’s always rambled, sometimes stupidly, like former baseball players do. Welcome to the thought processes of some middle-aged, former jock heroes – who knew!?!
    And to rea – right on! However, I must say that the Euro 2008 matches in HD have much more to offer now in the way of eye candy.

It is main inner container footer text