@BrewMastrJoe
This is a direction I'm not used to taking, but what's this world without risk takers? I like to keep my topics, to sports, but while on Twitter the other day, I found myself standing at a (proverbial) intersection of Double Standards Rd and Conflicts of Interests Ave. It left me feeling perplexed.
Domestic violence.
It's no joke and it knows no different degrees of itself.
The NFL learned that the hard way last fall, as we all saw these domestic violence cases thrusted into the mainstream spotlight.
Some groups of people were (rightfully) publicly shamed and others were black balled from their perspective employers (that's a matter of perception based on who you ask).
The media even reached back to the previous summer, when Hope Solo was arrested, and (later on) vindicated of domestic violence.
Not even the Women Of Sports are safe.
Or, are they?
It's not like our society is littered with Double Standards. Ha!
When I stumbled upon this tweet by Sarah Spain, of Chicago's ESPN 1000, I was confused, curious, and interested.
I decided to SKIM this Allison Glock Article (You'll understand why that's important in a minute). The first part of the article, is a reporter spending her day with Hope. At one point, it details Hope's laziness approach to a clean staircase(and home). Her husband is usually on her case to clean up after herself. Then there was something about an eye roll as her husband spoke, so I moved on.
I wanted to read about the altercation that took place last summer. Everyone has heard the cliff notes of what happened, but I wanted to read what this ESPNW journalist had to offer up, and well, might as well read Hope's bullshit excuse too.
I'll spare you the details of what happened, but the Article goes on to explain both partie's account of the events taken place was consistent to a certain point, and then they differ. Usually thats when these violent acts take place that no one wants to be responsible for.
The truth is always in the middle.
I imagine thats the case here.
Did anyone else miss the double standard?
Contradiction? Maybe even the hypocrisy of ESPN?
Instead of continually scrolling down, I decided to ask a question to Sarah Spain:
I was very careful how I worded this tweet because I see this poor women trolled by mindless Millenials who hide behind their twitter handles. At the very least, I was trying to avoid being lumped into her mindless troll followers.
Based on her response, I obviously failed the task at hand.
But first, she needed to know something.
So I read. The whole Article.
It's a well written article, but it also has the perception of being Hope's platform to tell her side of the story.
I decided to look at ESPNW's home page. Well, what do you know. ESPNW.com had this featured on its website and was using it to set-up the FIFA Women's World Cup.
Which is being broadcasted on ESPN networks.
While I was reading the Article, I received this Tweet from Sarah.
There's nothing more frustrating, when there's an attempt to have a adult conversation, to have someone try and goad you into an argument.
Is it really, that hard for a Cornell graduate to comprehend that someone who knows how to read can SKIM an article, not read the "fluffy" parts (by no means was this a fluff piece, but there was a lot of fat I had to sift through).
So instead of being sucked into her attempt to discredit me, I trudged forward.
It's obvious this style of approach to the subject has thrown her off.
Im sure, by now, most of her "fanboys" would be in an outrage, tweeting in CAPS, and hurling obnoxious things to her and/or about her.
I'm trying to emphasize to her, that I'm not trolling or trying to insult her. And this is the response I get in return.
Now she's on her 3rd attempt to discredit me by claiming I haven't "read the article". This is another bogus attempt to bait me, or a very high-brow attempt at calling me stupid.
I hope its the former.
Clearly, she's in no position to make such assumptions.
Her stance on this was starting to become very one dimensional.
So I responded.
I figured the direct route was the fastest way to end this conversation. It's a direct question that requires a "yes" or a "no".
So I waited for her response.
Waited a little more.
Nothing.
I figured 60 minutes was a long enough period to wait for her response. At this point, it was time to check out of this conversation.
That was it. Or, so I thought.
Hmmm. Suspicious.
I tweeted her a screen shot of those two tweets. I replied to them within our conversation so she couldn't "miss" them.
And then she responds, sort of.
I was quite surprised and perplexed by these two tweets. They're overly snarky. I not once, hurled an insult her way. I even, semi-apologized for the harshness (which there was none). Still, I'm met with this attitude?
Let's start at the beginning of these two tweets.
It was a simple "yes" or "no" question.
She dodged it.
This is the kind of response a politician would bestow upon a reporter to avoid any conflicts or faults.
The tweet is directly connected to our conversation. How it appears on my feed and not hers isn't a mystery.
It's a cop-out.
We will never know that, but if something doesn't make sense, it's probably not true.
The last part of the first tweet is a very obtuse. Who is she to assume, based on the timing of a tweet, the amount of subject matter my mind can absorb. I'm not saying I'm Stephen Hawking, but ESPNW by no means, is like reading "The Economist".
Yes, that RT was a promotion.
I hate to break it to you Sarah, but your Twitter Account is a promotion, in itself.
Your Twitter handle is your name (PROMOTION!) With your profession attached to it (PROMOTION!).
That's a promotion!
PROMOTION!
Talking about "Promotion".
Promotion.
Talking ab-
Ok, I digress.
Onto the second tweet.
Reacting to Sarah's tweet after SKIMMING the article and asking a legitimate question, in a very professional manner, is still going to get you banished to her "trolling fanboy" group.
Attempting to compare me to those mindless millennials, who lack respect for her (unlike me) is a slap in my face.
I'm still struggling to comprehend her logic. Trying to insinuate I'm creating a double-standard by reacting to her RT is not the same as reacting to any of those other RT'd male-driven stories.
Why?
Mayweather's fight wasn't broadcasted on ESPN.
The women's 2015 FIFA World Cup is.
Ray McDonald and Greg Hardy are two guys out of 2,500 (roughly).
They do not make up the entire NFL.
Mayweather was half of the fight.
There was no fight without him.
That's where I was ultimately trying to go with that. In the end, to not call it a promotion is insulting to me and anyone else who stumbled onto our conversation.
Sarah's elongated response to a "yes" or "no" question tells me everything I need to know.
If you're doing nothing wrong, you don't need 140+ characters to make a point.
I know this because she usually responds to her "fanboy trolls" with 2-6 word responses.
(Look at her Twitter page, you'll see what I mean)
(Look at her Twitter page, you'll see what I mean)
Not the case here.
There wasn't a point to argue, or worse, be goaded into an argument.
Watching her squirm was good enough for me. So I sent her two more tweets and called it a day.
She responds.
This conversation is still on Twitter if you'd like to read it in chronological order.
Now she's playing dumb.
I've been in enough relationships in my life to know what it means when your partner is playing dumb.
She COVERED the question, but she didn't answer it directly.
NO Sarah, you didn't answer everything.
One day, I hope to turn on Sportscenter at 6pm EST and watch Sarah anchor the desk for years to come. She's always been a favorite of mine and I respect her and her opinions.
But that doesn't mean I can't have a little fun, and hold her accountable.
Debating can be a sport within itself.
Just try debating with a dash of "fun" next time and try to not take it so seriously.
Debate is just a sport in the end.
