He first made a joke that women were invading hockey or sports commentating (I don't recall exactly, doesn't matter). I am convinced this was a joke since he "blamed Bettman", a popular joke among hockey fans. It's akin to the "Thanks Obama" meme. It's a joke. If you think it's something else, I don't know what to tell you.
I will grant you this point.
07-28-2019, 03:30 PMCarbine Wrote: He then clarified his stance, saying that the women play-by-play/colour commentators he's listened to just aren't up to par to the seasoned, male, commentators that have traditionally called hockey games for years. I don't know if he made this clarification publicly, but this is what I gathered after speaking to him directly.
He prefers to listen to game audio only if they're calling games. His main gripe is that the on-air chemistry between the male and female commentators he's listened to is mediocre at best. Lots of dead air, poor flow of conversation, etc. It's to be expected for these women who are new to the game. It's the same for male commentators as well, you're working with someone new and you need to develop that on-air chemistry.
He never once responded to the initial public thread to "clarify his stance." I can't speak for any other rooms, but in Russia he compared listening to women commentators to watching cooking shows with eight-year-old chefs, as if being a woman made them equally qualified to announce a professional hockey game as to letting an eight-year-old run a restaurant. He said they, quote, "stumble and talk nonsense" as if we live in a world where Don Cherry isn't heralded for exactly that. #BunchOfJerks. At no point did on-air chemistry come up, because God forbid that might have given him reason to think there will one day be female announcers that meet his standards once they have time to develop that chemistry with their colleagues.
07-28-2019, 03:30 PMCarbine Wrote: This is why I'm in awe of the outrage mob over this. You're just looking for a reason to demonize someone. I stop following after I spoke to him because I already knew how it was going to end. The pressure wouldn't let up, the mob would flame him wherever he made a comment and ultimately leaving the site would be the only option to escape the backlash. I don't blame him at all for reacting the way he has. If you have proof of him explicitly saying that women shouldn't be in hockey or sports broadcasting, I'd love to see it. But as far as I'm concerned this has been a massive overreaction.
Have I summized this clusterfuck pretty accurately, PK? @PenKnight
Leaving the site (which he still hasn't done, in case everyone ignored the fact that he has already replied in this thread) was not the only option. He could have clarified his comments publicly. He could have acknowledged even any semblance of remorse for his comments. He could have not drawn attention to them by adding a "Battle of the Sexes" signature and going on a rampage of posting in random media threads about why "women aren't mad" at other aspects of the site.
So, no. You haven't summarized the clusterfuck accurately. He will say you have, of course. But I'm getting really tired of having the beacons of truth of the SHL inform me how the conversation I actually witnessed and participated in played out.
ztevans
