It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Baseball: Keith Hernandez's Comments

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:05 PM
What are your opinions on Keith Hernandez's comments on Sunday? He saw a woman in the San Diego dugout and commented that only "player personnel" are allowed in the dugout. He then said that women don't belong in the dugout. He later laughed and said he was just kidding.

So, do women belong in the dugout, even if thery are player personnel?

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:48 PM
It looks like Keith is going to get slammed for these comments (

I think its unfair, Hernandez was obviously kidding, and any Seinfeld fan knows that he has a strong sense of humor.

As far a ladies (massage therapist) being allowed in the dugout my personal opinion was better expressed by someone else:

"Keith probably wasn't thinking this, but I think it's worth saying. "Gender equity" (a p.c. buzzword the Padres management rolled out in defense of this woman's hiring) is NOT something that women should be striving for in absolutely every arena of life.

If we believe that men and women are fundamentally different, not just physically, but emotionally and psychologically, then there are places that we should not be encouraging them to go. The front lines of combat come to mind. Now, I won't argue outright for keeping them out of a baseball dugout, but I can see someone's point if he didn't want his daughter's or wife's primary workplace to be in close quarters with people as personable as Milton Bradley, Kirby Puckett, Albert Belle, Carlos Zambrano, or Barry Bonds, however polite they may be to her. Dugout massage therapist- sounds like the sort of job that, if occupied by more women, is a lawsuit waiting to happen. That's my take on it, anyway..."

Comment by thetaphile April 24, 2006 @ 6:03 pm

Source (quote comes from comment #8): -a-huge-fan-of-hootie-johnson/

I just think that, in the opposition position, it would be looked bad upon if males (coaches) had the same sort of close contact to females athletes (although I don't know if they do).

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:38 AM
Of course it would. And of course male reporters would NEVER be allowed in the WNBA teams' locker rooms immediately after a game, nor in the women's locker rooms at Wimbledon. I suspect that the solution they've found to this is the same one that the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB and all other men's sports obviously should have found years ago:

Since reporters of both genders have to be given equal professional opportunities, close the locker rooms to EVERYONE but the team until they've had their damn showers and gotten dressed. But no, that's too sensible. So they have to send female reporters, as well as male reporters, into the locker rooms right after games. I'll guarantee you those women are just as uncomortable as I would be interviewing women tennis players or hoopsters while they were stripping and showering, etc.

The whole thing is idiotic, and it's NOT the fault of the courts or the reporters.

As for women trainers or assistant coaches, I think that's up to the teams to decide. But do you think Gino Auriemma (sp.?) gets to go in the shower room with the U Conn women's hoop team and watch them shower? I can guarantee you he doesn't. And I HOPE to god the MLB, NBA and such don't let these women into the locker/shower rooms until the players are properly dressed. If the guy needs his back or leg professionally massaged, so what? I've had that done by women... without getting naked, and certainly without getting turned on.


posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 06:05 PM
I guess there aren't any angry feminists (or other people) who think this a story of any merit. Is there anyone out there who has something to add, the issue of gender in sports (and in general) is an interesting topic to me (but probably to me alone).

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 06:38 PM
Gender in sports is an interesting topic to me as well. When stories like this one on Hernandez come up, I see a double standard. Why are women allowed in men's locker rooms, but men are not allowed in women's locker rooms? Why was Hootie Johnson criticized for trying to keep his club a men-only club, when there are still exclusive women's clubs? In the United Stated, it is almost looked at as a sin for there to be a male exclusive academy, and yet we still have female exclusive ones.

Women are pushing for the serve in the military in the same capacities as men. They want to have the right to participate in men's sports. All over the U.S. there are issues about high school girls trying to play for football or baseball teams. But those same women who push for these rights get really tenderoni when a boy wants to play in a girls' sport. Last year, there was an artice here in Harrisburg about a boy who was playing on the field hockey team and how many of the mothers of the girls wanted him off the team.

The brutal fact is that no matter how great an athlete a woman is, there are still thousands of men who are stronger, faster, and have more endurance. That is the way we are biologically constructed. In recent years there has been a little dispute in tennis over the purses paid out to the players. Except in the U.S. Open, the men get more money than the women. But you know what? The men play best-of-five in the Grand Slam events, whereas the women play best-of-three. A good five set match can run five hours or more, while a good three set match will only go 2-3 hours. The men are working more, that's why they get more money. If women want sports to be all inclusive, then they have to compete under the same conditions as the men.

I know from surveys that the majority of women want to keep the men's sports separate from the women's. However, that minority who want women to compete in men's sports seems to speak louder than the majority. I liken it to the issue of homosexuality. If you ever check out some surveys that have been done in the last five years, the majority of the U.S. citizens believe homosexuality is abnormal and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. But the voice of the gay community is strong and vocal, causing society to believe things that just aren't true. Remember Martha Burk's attempted rally at the 2003 Masters? Yeah, it made a lot of headlines and caused a lot of hype, but by the tim the demonstration came around, how many showed up? Only about 250.

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:38 PM
Well.... There are a lot of comments in that post which, in reality, are only tangentially related to sports, and are a lot more related to society, religion and philosophy, in my opinion. But I'm game.

I absolutely DON'T believe boys and men should be allowed to compete on girls' and women's teams, nor in girls' and women's individual sports, and for exactly the reason you state. It is a playing field which will NEVER be equal, as a matter of biological reality, and the feminists I know--and trust me, they're both numerous and prominent--agree with me.

I think that's so obvious it requires no discussion. But I also think comparing Liebermann's playing in that men's hoops league, or Wie's playing men's golf, to a 6'4" h.s. male's playing on a girls' hoops team, is a false parallel. In the former instance, you are talking about athletes who are biologically outgunned, except in extraordinary circumstances; in the latter instance, you are talking about athletes who can destroy the competition, take all the fun out of it, etc.

Now, I don't believe girls/women who have no realistic chance should be allowed to compete with the xy gender, and even Wie may fall into that category because of her driving limitations. But if a woman actually has a chance to compete with the men, I sure don't see that as a reason to destroy the women's event by allowing much larger, vastly stronger men in there.

On the other hand, huge believer that I am in the Constitution, I stand behind that pr*ck Hootie Johnson and his club members' rights to associate with whomever they like, and their concomitant right NOT to associate with whomever they DON'T want to associate, in their private club. The freedoms of association and non-association, in matters not connected to government action, are a core part of the First Amendment, and they don't only apply to guys I like.

On the subject of TRAINERS, shouldn't the individual TEAM and PLAYERS decide with whom they're comfortable? It's their decision, right? If they're ok with a female trainer, fine. If not, that's fine, too. As you've suggested, we won't see male trainers in the locker room of Pat Summitt's hoops teams any time soon, or I'll/we'll be shocked.

As I've said, I don't think ANY camera people or reporters should be allowed in locker rooms until everyone's showered and dressed. Then: (1) All reporters will have the same professional rights and opportunities; (2) all players will have their dignity respected; and (3) none of this b.s. will be an issue. I would be FURIOUS if I were an athlete and had a female reporter sticking a mike in front of the naked me, and I'm sure female athletes would feel the same way in the reverse situation.

I think it is now time to make an admission I will be taunted about for as long as I remain here--and it's ok, guys, as long as it's good-natured jesting:

I am a longtime member of N.O.W.--at least 20 years, maybe more. But they were WRONG in wanting to impinge on old Hootie's freedom of association, and I don't believe for a minute they were only seeking a drop in sponsorship. As a longtime member, and one who's thought up numerous changes to California sex-offense statutes which have then taken place and gotten more sexual predators locked up and gotten me a real nice plaque from N.O.W. that hangs in my hallway, I can tell you there are SOME prominent feminists who'd happily erase the Bill of Rights, every bit as fast as Dubya has tried to.

They scream bloody murder about his erasures, but see no irony in their would-be erasures. As a true believer in most of their causes, it's hard to watch.

Now, IF you are right that a majority of Americans "disapprove" of homosexuality, my question is, How far to they think they're entitled to go with that disapproval? Obviously they're welcome to their attitudes. But in the last 20 years, the traditional list of types of speech NOT protected by the First Amendment--e.g., defamation, false advertising, incitement to immediate violent crimes and a couple of others that don't come immediately to my mind--has grown by one: HATE SPEECH based on a person's race, national origin, and perhaps gender or religion or sexual orientation.

I haven't followed the debate real closely because I'm immersed in criminal law, and I'm so enamored of First Amendment rights that I prefer to stick with the traditional First Amendment line: Words inherently likely to cause an immediate violent response. Obviously this would apply to "the n word," but I don't know just how many others it applies to.

20 years ago, the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 or 6-3 decisions written by Kennedy's anything-but-liberal jurist, Byron White, said it is "facetious at best" to suggest the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applies to sexual orientation.

Well, it applies in California, and surely in many other states, these 21 years later. And violence-inspiring hate speech toward gays can get people arrested in a lot of states, of course including California. Of all the Constitutional hot points in my lifetime, this is the one I feel most conflicted about. But the fact a majority of Americans disapprove of homosexuals, if fact it be, is a sad comment about something which has ALWAYS existed and always WILL, and is hardly justification for discrediting the women's movement in sports.

I can say this for certain. I used to hitchhike all over the place, from ages 16 through 22 (1969-1975). Twice, I was picked up by gay men. They both took "no" for an immediate answer--in sharp contrast to the many drunken men we've all seen in bars, hitting on women until the women literally hit on them. So they've never caused me any problem and they leave me alone. And I will NEVER understand why so many people are freaked out about them.

The standard p.c. response is "because y'all are secretly insecure about your own sexuality." I think we all know that's cr@p. I would bet that no guy here is insecure about his own sexuality, whatever it may be. I know I'm not, though I would sure hate like hell if I'd have turned out to be gay in this country.

But please, PLEASE, PLEASE don't tell me the public has a right--whether it's a religious right or a majority-rules right or whatever--to oppress hundreds of millions of living people for something they can no more change than I can change my eye color.


[Edited on 4/27/06 by BaseballHistoryNut]

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 11:49 PM
Don't worry, I won't rib you about being in N.O.W.

You're right that this discussion is not so much about sports as about philosophy, religion, etc. It does have some correlation to sports, though. I'm not going to go into a dissertation on my religious beliefs or on philosophy in general; that is indeed a subject for another forum. I will say, though, that while I don't believe in oppression in any form, I do think that certain people blow their situation out of proportion. Are homosexuals really oppressed? What about women? I think at one time they were, but not anymore. Certain religious groups are oppressed more than those two are. Since 9/11, Muslims have been under fire to some extent. But even when women were oppressed, was it as horrible as the slavery of the blacks? Or the plight of the Native American--now THAT'S real oppression! People talk about discrimination against minorities. You know who I think is the group that is discriminated agains the most now? The heterosexual white male. He has nothing going for him. He can't play the gender, race, or sexual orientation card.

Regarding sports, I think women's and men's sports should stay separate. As humans, we should acknowledge that we have been created differently and celebrate that difference.

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:22 AM
The notion white males are now the disadvantaged ones in American society is a myth, and a pernicious one at that.

NO economic study would support that idea. As an attorney, I've seen brilliant women earn far less money, and receive vastly less respect, than some chowderhead male attorneys. And on the bench? Oh, god, the idiots that get to be judges--including appellate court "justices"--because of their political connections!!! But those idiots all have penises. Women judges earn their ways onto their judicial spots, and I don't mean horizontally.

There are 3 brilliant jurists among the 7 members of the California Supreme Court. Two of them are women, and either one of those is easily intellectually qualified to be on "the big court" in Washington, D.C. (Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar).

Study after study after study--and I'm talking about neutral ones--has shown women's earning power is still not in the same ballpark as men's. And in the home? Because of my successes, I'm highly-regarded in my narrow field of law, in California, and know pretty much all the other top ones. I'm sad to say three of THE best female attorneys I know in my field, each of whom is married to an attorney, does all of the cooking and other housework at day's end, while the husband sits on his @ss, watches sports or news, etc. Yeah, they're p.o.'ed about it, but there it is.

Worst of all--and this is nationwide--because girls are doing SO much better academically than boys in high school, colleges are giving clear preference to boys over girls in admissions--and doing so openly, and discussing the problem frankly.

They haven't come nearly as far as we think. And gays? Well, in S.F. they're probably not oppressed. In my town many miles to the north, they're certainly not. But there are a hell of a lot of places where, if I lived there, I would sure be glad I was born hetero.

Well, I'm glad of that, anyway, for a number of reasons, starting with the fact I relate to women a lot better than men, not to mention the fact they feel so damn good, I cannot imagine a male feels anywhere NEAR that good. :party-smiley-018: ).

OK. That's something we pretty much all can relate to. Now, I promise that at least for me, it's back to sports.


[Edited on 4/28/06 by BaseballHistoryNut]

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 10:16 AM
When I said the heterosexual white male was being discriminated against, I was speaking from my own experience. While working for Rite Aid--no, I wasn't indicted--I consistently saw women--especially black women--promoted up through the ranks much faster than white men who were often far more qualified. I noticed this at some other jobs as well. Just two years ago, shortly after I had come up with this theory, I saw an interesting statistic in the local paper. In 2004, there were far more male state workers than female, but the average salary of the women was higher than that of the men. Now, race, that is an area where I see minorities favored all the time. Colleges may target white males sometimes, but when it comes to financial help, there is not a lot the white man can do. However, there are many grants and scholarships designed specifically for minorities. I understand that these were initially set up because those groups were being discriminated against, but now the pendulum has swung the other way.

It really has been the media that has turned me to develop my theory since observing what has occurred in the workplace. Take a look at television commercials. More often than not, a woman is teaching a man, or a black is teaching a white. The white man so often is portrayed as a dunce. I remember watching a training video at one of my past jobs. The trainee in the video was a white male. His trainer was an Asian American male, his manager was a black female, and his general manager was a white woman.

In conclusion, let me point to the TV show Grey's Anatomy. The show is the story of five surgical interns in a Seattle hospital. Three of the five interns are women. The interns' direct supervisor is a black woman. Her boss is a black man, and that chief of surgery is a black man. Just based on averages, I highly doubt there is an arrangement like that in any hospital in the United States.

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 12:38 PM
There surely aren't any law practices like that.

N O W....

May I suggest....

We all get back to talking S P O R T S???

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:07 PM
Agreed. Back to sports it is for me!

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:27 PM
just a quick question, is it frowned upon to bring up sociological issues and their relation to sports? I was going to do something like that on the Bonds issue. I this board more for showing statistics or can we analyze different aspects? Just wondering because I don't want to waste my time with some overblown analysis that people don't want to read.

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:51 PM
I think it is important to address those sociological issues. In fact, those issues really interest me and I love to debate and discuss them. If you want to post anything about those issues, I will respond.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
just a quick question, is it frowned upon to bring up sociological issues and their relation to sports? I was going to do something like that on the Bonds issue. I this board more for showing statistics or can we analyze different aspects? Just wondering because I don't want to waste my time with some overblown analysis that people don't want to read.

We sometimes go off on wild tangents...

But talk about pretty much whatever you want to talk about.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 12:26 PM
I don't like your jacket, Gibbs.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 12:27 PM

top topics


log in