Squirrel

Geez, did they have a microphone in that fence? Ka-THUNK.

Okay, I liked that car commercial. It made me want to give it a test drive, anyway.

I wish I had really looked ahead at my schedule and done some planning and tried to get tickets to these games in KC. Could've gotten in a game or two before leaving on tour with the orchestra. Although, that might've made me nuts considering how I get for any travel let alone a 2 1/2 week tour.

Well, if we want to get philosophical, who really is all here? But as for the game, just hoping to see some joy at the end of it!

Anyone here watching? Exciting from the start.

I moved the other article to here and merged the two.

Ah! It's Chief, Jr.! And that is what you will forever be known as now! And I'll get my money from your Dad one way or another ... count on that! Edit: And since I have the power to ... where it says 'Still wet behind the ears' might have to be changed to Chief, Jr.

As long as you do it to their face, all is well.

Well, 'gals' is technically the counterpart to 'guys.' But in the type of situation you've described, I wouldn't like either gals or girls ... but then what would you use? Ladies? See ... why not hire young men AND women and just refer to them as 'reporters.'

That's why I said, it depends on the situation and the context. I mean ... 'girls night out' or 'boys night out' .. meh, I don't care. I don't care when one of my friend's husbands refers to us as 'the girls', either, in that context. But when adult professionals refer to me as 'the girl who works in the library' (I'm the only female) when you'd never hear them refer to my colleagues as 'the boys who work in the library,' when our titles are the same, it's condescending. And Ash, technically, I think 'gal' is the counterpart to 'guy.' But, again, depends on context. I think 'guy' can be used more universally? Not sure really how men take 'guys' versus 'men.' 'Gal,' to me, seems informal. I'd never use either in a professional or formal setting. But I've used 'guys' to be inclusive of both men and women, again, more informally. In a professional situation, I prefer woman, or by my professional title with no gender attached at all.

My mom had a t-shirt that she used to wear from time to time that said 'Don't Call Me Girl!' I don't mind 'girl' as long as it's used in a generic sense along with the word 'boy.' And never in a serious or professional sense. I use the terms 'girls and boys' from time to time ... but again ... equally, and never in a serious or professional conversation, usually among friends and when I'm being silly or light-hearted, as in 'girls night out.' But occasionally someone really, really doesn't get it. I'm old enough to not be addressed as 'girl.' And very often it's someone much younger than me saying it, which I find completely odd. And in some situations, when polite correction doesn't work, I will resort to saying something like ... 'I haven't been a girl since I was 14' ... and that pretty much ends it right there. Uncomfortable? Not for me but males of all ages squirm a little with that one. But then there's this video ... and watching that, it's really not so bad being a girl. (Okay, so it's kind of an advert for a feminine hygiene brand, but the message is still good.)

This was nothing short of awesome!

The whole Brian Dozier hair thing that got started, by me, in the game threads in 2013, was in direct response to another photo of a beautiful woman in a tight tank top that was being displayed. I had asked, in private, if that was necessary and that it made me uncomfortable, that and the response and talk surrounding that also made me uncomfortable. I was told, in private, that I was in the minority and that this is what men did, and it was all in fun, and that there wasn't a need to alter it. So, in comes my 'ogling' of Brian Dozier's hair. Was it right? No. The right response was to not respond to it rather than try to find a 'comfortable balance' to it and try to steer threads away from the 'men will be men' meme. But that is a different issue than the one presented in the beginning of this thread, both worthy of discussion. But are really different issues; related perhaps in a broader sense, but not the same. When such 'ogling' and need for 'titillation' trumps ability for opportunities in the work force, that's a case of sexism. It doesn't just happen to women, either, but more predominately. It's something that affects us all. And maybe it begins with basic attitudes we have towards the other gender. And yes, I'm not denying that there is a natural response there; but nature isn't an excuse not to further our thinking on the matter to change the culture. I think this can be done ... not quickly or easily ... but it does start with awareness, respect and understanding. Men and women are different ... and thank God for that ... I love that we are. But that doesn't mean we should ever have to sexualize or objectify ourselves in order to achieve or to do our jobs. Nor should we be denied opportunity because we won't. Nor should we have to be limited by societal stereotypes of who we men and women are depicted to be. I'm not judging anyone in this. Nor am I trying to be pc. I'm just trying to state what I see and feel and how I've had to fight stereotypes my whole life in order to reach the level of success I've had with my life and career.

No. I would have enjoyed his play on field with or without the hair. It didn't make it any more or less enjoyable. I pay to watch baseball. Brian Dozier's hair doesn't enhance that at all. I don't buy tickets or watch games in hopes of getting a glimpse of that. And if I do get a glimpse of his hair? Meh. Great. So what. It's nice hair. But it doesn't enhance the baseball experience. What enhances the baseball experience is good play and winning games. Now, if I suggested we give him a long term contact based on his hair? That would be sexist and offensive. If I suggested that baseball players had to have hair and beards I liked first and foremost over their ability? And that only certain body types would be given contracts over ability because that's what we're trying to sell over sport? Yes, wrong. And if I had the power and authority to do this and enacted it over someone trying to pursue a dream? Ugh. Wrong.

I never said I was blameless ... in fact I admitted to such behavior in an earlier post. But I do love his hair ... well, rather his hair the previous season, which was longer.

I'm sorry , glunn, but there is so much wrong in this I don't even know where to begin. Did you listen to the Emma Watson speech? Maybe start there. You basically said men can't help who they are so until we can genetically engineer change in the male species, we must protect the women from the male species. That's pretty much a cop out allowing for no responsibilities of behavior. This is akin to blaming the victim for rape because the rapist couldn't help themselves.

Yes, it is. But this is not a 'free-for-all' website. Twins Daily is privately owned and operated and as such, the owners want a certain level of civility and the moderators have agreed, voluntarily, to help maintain that. If you click on the little 'Privacy Policy & Site Rules' link at the lower right of the page, you can read about what is expected here. Or for a more detailed outlay of the posting policy, you can read the pinned post at the top of this forum.

Yes, she received threats to her life for that speech. Seriously, why?

On this topic in the thread I said it above. For attitudes to change it means participation by both men and women. It means teaching understanding and respect at an early age. But when everything around us is plastered with examples of the opposite, including 'sexing' up sports, it doesn't help, it hurts. Yes, when a 'beautiful' woman or man walks by, I'd say, yes, it's nature to turn and look. But it's not nature to stare, ogle, comment, point, catcall, or be body-part specific in any of it. And I've been just as guilty, to some degree in my lifetime. And yes, there are some careers out there that appearance does play a role, but with the FSN 'girls,' what is the ultimate that is being achieved with that? Using titillation for better ratings. Sexing it up. And you are sending a message that that is okay, to to be successful and to gain opportunities, use your bodies when you have to, that your abilities are secondary.

Yes, let's just write it off as 'biology' or 'cultural' and do nothing and think no further. Boys will be boys, after all.

Okay .. Doctor Who stuff belongs in the Sports Bar forum. You two, consider yourselves warned.

I don't know where to begin with any of this. Ugh. So, hmm, opportunity ... is it truly opportunity if it's not open for all? And having 'FSN boys' doesn't make it less sexist, it makes it equally sexist, in the manner in which this is presented. It's still objectification; and we are teaching young men and women that it's okay, and that those who are 'better looking' have more opportunity for success because of that and not because of ability. It's just wrong. If you want to have FSN 'girls' and 'boys,' fine ... but choose them on the merits of their abilities and not on the merits of their appearance, for the purpose of giving experience in the broadcast field, and not for any purpose of 'titillation.'

I'd be happy if either the Royals or the Orioles take the AL title; and either the Pirates or the Nats the NL. Any combination of those teams in the WS would be good to me.

Thank you for that vote of confidence!

Of course his name is going to come up in discussions. But the name I've heard associated more often with the DBs is Steinbach. It's going to be an interesting off-season.