He might have asked a woman during a job interview how she handled so many things on her plate.

Until I read about it here, I had no idea how sexist and offensive that question is. (I've been asked that question half a dozen times during interviews, and just let it slip by every time--because I didn't know how offended I should have been.)

But as long as we're resurrecting threads to make exaggerated public gestures of disapproval--and meting out lessons for comments made with no ill intent--maybe should cover that faux pas as well.

The opportunity to pop off about some sexist crap. What did I miss?

Posted a link to a female ND athlete’s profile with a “I wish we’d admitted women when I was at ND” sentiment, labeling it “exhibit one.” It was roundly shouted down, to the credit of this board.

My apologies to all.

Don't tell anyone. They will be jealous.

I like you too!

Your posts here are most often good therapy. You missing one is just a reminder to us mortals that even the absolute best can make a mistake here or there.

someone who changed hers, I totally get it. I can’t remember ever seeing you post before a week or so ago.

But that’s a story for another time. It was loaded with cop-killer rounds.

I’m sure there was no ill intended.

As there wasn’t with posting cuties of the week and those relentless black and white nudes of Savvy. Granted those were back in the care free days pre-2022.

Frankly, there's a lot more discussion of this than the thing merits.

I leave it up, I'm apparently contributing to the objectification of women.

I take it down, I'm somehow stifling discussion.

What was the result you were seeking?

...that they couldn't understand why the original post was objectification, but that it should have been removed purely because it might upset the women.

I thought that might have been worth a continued discussion. But it isn't.

When I read the thread last night, I was wondering whether the post in question included the entire bio, including the woman's athletic, academic and possibly other accomplishments. I infer from your posts today that the original post was just the photo, which would seem to exclude the possibility that a (presumably -- I don't know who we're talking about) physically attractive woman would have been welcome as a student for multiple reasons from the perspective of the original poster.

I've never met the original poster, but I share the view of many here that he seems thoughtful and considerate. But as I said, I'm not here to defend a post that I never read.

I do have a couple of observations.

One, this board is a much better place than it was 10 years ago and as others have already noted, that is in large part due to the persistence and the voices of female contributors. At the risk of excluding people, you and Angel definitely get a lot of credit for that. No doubt it would have been easy many times to walk away, but we all should be grateful that you didn't.

Two, I'm somewhat fascinated by how we deal with physical appearance/beauty in our society. My 30-year-old daughter, who is physically attractive in my biased view, seems determined to try raise her daughter (now 4-1/2) in a way to make her almost oblivious to beauty -- her own, or anyone else's.

On one hand, I understand her rationale and find it admirable. She doesn't want her daughter (or her younger sons) to base her value (or value others) based upon physical appearance or how others perceive physical appearance. She and I are 100% in agreement about that (not that her parenting is subject to my approval).

On the other hand, such an approach seems to ignore reality, to a certain extent. I'm not smart enough to understand the biology or other factors behind it, but humans seem hard-wired to appreciate things they (subjectively) view as pleasing to the eye -- whether it's nature, art or the human form.

It's easy -- and right -- to say that we shouldn't value people based upon their physical appearance. But if we're really honest, what does that mean? How many of us didn't find our partners/spouses physically attractive in some way, or disregarded entirely physical appearance in our dating decisions?

I promise, I'm not trying to be glib here. But beyond the obvious objectifying statements and behavior, are we to try to pretend that we don't make subjective determinations about physical beauty? Hell, I'm as straight as they come, but there are times I wished I looked like Mike Coffey!

Moving in a slightly different direction, I can appreciate the sentiment that Notre Dame would have been a better place with women enrolled as undergrads. I enrolled in 1977, and to a 17-year-old, 1972 may as well have been 50 years ago. At the same time, the passage of time has made it even more clear to me that Notre Dame was very much in transition five years after women were first admitted as undergraduates.

I'm sure my numbers aren't precise, but female classmates recently confirmed that our class ('81) was approximately 20% women. That had all kinds of implications, many of them less than ideal for both men and women. I will note that one of the ramifications was that the women in general had a much more impressive academic profile than the men did -- they were chasing roughly 1,000 fewer spots to gain admission!

But the idea that women made Notre Dame a better place -- not just in terms of macro ideals of equality, opportunity, etc., but also in terms of day-to-day life -- also logically means that it was a lesser place prior to their arrival as undergrads.

To me, it follows pretty easily that an ND alum who graduated before that time might understandably wish that his undergraduate experience included female students and all they brought/bring to the table -- intelligence, perspective and yes, a welcome change of pace from a classroom or dining hall full of unshaven, smelly men.

Again, I don't mean to defend the original post. And I once again thank you for your perseverance and contributions to this board -- certainly not limited to enlightening us cave men.

But I also hope we can celebrate exactly that -- the change for the better we have experienced -- while still wanting and demanding even more change.

And I would hope that the OP understands the esteem that I hold him in, which was one of the things that made the post so disappointing.

The entire post was something like "This is the reason that I wish ND had admitted women when I was there. " And a picture. And "This is Exhibit A."

That was it. And that was why I objected on the grounds that it was pure objectification.

What followed were posts along two lines:

1) This is wrong.

2) I don't actually think this is wrong, but the women might object, so take it down.

It was Point 2 that I objected to here. There is no deep thought, no empathy, no attempt to understand, just "the women might object for some reason, so maybe just take it down so we don't have to talk about it."

But we are getting there. At least QOTBR is gone.

Feel free to flesh the discussion out if you prefer.

1) The original post didn't even include the pronouns "she" or "her." It was "This" and "Exhibit A." That's dehumanizing language.

2) The original post only referenced a photograph as evidence as to why ND should admit women. The woman in the photograph has been a member of three US national basketball teams, was a National Merit Scholar, and is a student at the university that many of us take pride in having graduated from.

3) The reason given by other posters to take the post down had nothing to do with the actual content of the post, but only referenced the fact that it might upset the women on the board (or other women they know). "I'm sorry if you were offended."

I don't really care to add any more to this discussion. I don't think anyone here really cares to hear any more about it, either. If you want to nuke it, feel free.

Would this be a better explanation than "It might upset the women on the board."? I've been playing this around in my head, and I'm going to give it my best shot. Please let me know if I've missed the target. (it's a work in progress)

1. Women, way more than men, are judged on appearance first before anything else.

2. Therefore, women are way more sensitive to "appearance-only" posts/comments than men. And are justified to feel that way. And it makes sense.

3. "Appearance-only" posts reduce the woman to an image/thing.

4. In fact, there is no reason to comment on a woman's attractiveness in relation to anything.

5. On Rock's House, there have been posts about ND players about how accomplished they have become (Ambrose Wooden is the most recent post I've seen). NEVER has there been a photo added and a comment about how attractive they are. (Notwithstanding 1NDGal's posts about how "cute" someone is...and they have stopped)

6. Therefore, there should reason why a woman's attractiveness should be a topic in a post/comment. It reinforces the notion that a woman's value is tied to attractiveness/appearance.

I say all this as a willing participant in the QOTBR nonsense (17 years ago?) and have felt badly about it ever since.

I have to be honest, your point 4 is complicated. On some level, we all want to present ourselves well and look our best--maybe not for others, but for ourselves. We all do that--on some level, it is why business attire exists. I think that we all figured that out during the pandemic, when sweat pants and a dress shirt where/are en vogue. And quite often, when I look at my schedule for the day, and I know it is going to be rough, I tend to spend more time on how I dress/accessorize that day. It's a "look good, feel good" thing that is entirely for me and not for anyone else.

But yeah, women tend to be judged on appearance before anything else. And that's really frustrating-- women who are not traditionally "attractive" are discounted, and women who are tend to feel that they are judged by the way that they look, rather than on their skill.

All of that said, it should never, ever be an "appearance-only" post.

Team USA basketball. National Honor Society. Notre Dame student.

"This". "Exhibit A."

talking-to. Like I said, its a work in progress.

To add a little. It is complicated. While I think most people would like to hear that they are attractive, it's very hard to give that compliment, even if it would probably make them feel good.

If a woman is walking into a social event, dressed to the nines, then an in-person complement about how she is dressed is appropriate. And this would be true even for me--I am not exactly a 10, but I clean up well. Tell me that I look great. You would probably do the same for one of your bros.

In a professional setting...absolute no. No. Just no.

In the absence of context, such as the post in question--probably best not to post in the first place, unless it is mid-season, and she just had a career-best game. And don't mention her appearance, just her performance.

"Man, I am glad that we admitted women to ND. Player X just went off for 28 points, including 5 for 8 from the 3 point line, and hit the game-winner with 6 seconds left. Great game!! Go Irish!!"

But I think it's really helpful. Not that any of it is shocking to me, but it still helps to read stuff like this in black-and-white, including some of the thinking behind it.

As I continue to think more about this, the word "respect" comes to mind. If we ask ourselves how we can respect the person(s) in question, my guess is that we'll get it "right" more often than not -- assuming that we truly want to get it right.

While I think many -- although certainly not all -- men have improved in that regard in recent years (and I would definitely put myself in the "work in progress" category), there can be a difference between directly respecting (or disrespecting) someone and "indirectly" disrespecting (or respecting) someone.

A lot of guys, myself included, probably could stand to do a lot better at respecting the "absent" and also understanding how women in general can be disrespected by a comment or behavior even when it's not directed at them.

I think the post in question probably implicates both scenarios.

The internets are becoming self-aware.

Scary.

Despite virtually everything I type being unbelievably stupid.

I don’t recall seeing it until very recently.

net.

I am not an exception. At least I'm pretty sure of it. The people ignoring me are undoubtedly better off than the rest of you poor schmucks.

The OP was and is someone I like and respect as a person, and that won't change. He made a mistake, pulled a boner, chose poorly, etc. I'm sure we've all done something that in retrospect we think to ourselves "oh, crap, shouldnt'a done that" and progress.

I think purely on the merits of "this isn't really a discussion opener that contributes to the board" you made the right call, but that's just my .02. I'll stop there.

It could be worse - imagine being an admin for your workplace's collaboration product for doing so and having to police covid threads. I won't elaborate any further, but the amount of bad takes, responses to bad takes that go over the line into personal attacks, etc make me wonder what has become of us as a society.

We were going thru a spreadsheet and I had made an error and for some inexplicable reason I said “Ah, I must have made a boner.”

I never used that expression before but somehow I just said it.

There was an awkward silence and then we both busted out laughing for about 2 minutes.

Yet near as I can tell it's authentic, just from a time period where it didn't mean that. Still funny as hell. Thanks for this!

For the sole reason that all of the responses to it were appropriately calling it out for what it was

If the responses were agreeing and adding to his comments, that would be one thing. But since the comments were near universally critical, i think it sends a stronger statement to leave it up

I’ll be honest, I’ve changed the way that I think and speak in the last 15 years partly because of this board and hearing the perspectives of female posters. I appreciate the female posters that stuck around when this board was much more misogynistic and help to change it, and I think the board is better for it. Not perfect but definitely better

But you’re the boss So I totally get it if it’s easier to avoid the controversy in the first place

It's not a question of "avoid[ing] the controversy".

Mike's a good poster, but he made a mistake on this one. He didn't get a bad delete for it, I simply removed it.

You actually stated the controversy, “keep it up and get accused of contributing” or “take it down and stifling discussion.”

Again, it is not criticism, you have a hard job and threading that needle as a moderator is an imperfect science. I do think that in this case, it was such a perfect example of objectification, and the responses were so appropriate, that it actually would’ve been one of those salient lessons for those on the board for whom it isn’t so obvious

...poster. Whatever value there is to be had in keeping it up as an example of what not to do is outweighed by the value in giving said poster a mulligan.

Frankly I'm just glad there seems to be near universal agreement that it's not the type of thing we want happening here.

We're a long way from the oYo days.

That the downside would be that it is at his expense

It’s too bad it was pulled because it was actually a perfect example of objectification for anyone else who might not intuitively understand what that means

I would never want my college student daughter to be described as a “this” or an “exhibit”.

We are in our mid-50's. She spent 15 years in the Cook COunty States Attoerneys office surrounded by police officers and alpha males putting bad guys away. It was an old boys network and it was not uncommon to hear in appropriate comments from co-workers, judges or police officers. Even the bailiffs tended to be older men and would refer to her as sweetie all the time. For some context the Judge in Cook County who just reassigned after broadcasting unflattering comments about a female lawyer was a contemporary in the office.

That has changed. She now hears younger women in the office or judiciary complain about comments and she shakes her they would bother to get upset about it. Of course that is part of the problem, women her age were raised to accept things they should not have accepted. That mindset also led to woman getting smaller pay raises because their husband worked while the male co-worker needed to provide for his family. The generation coming of age today was not raised to accept that.

Agree with everyone else on the thread the poster is one of my favorites and is not someone who would intentionally discriminate against a woman based upon her looks. I just think the era one grew up in provdes a different point of view on what is appropriate. How many of us today cringe when we watch a movie from the 80's or 90's and see scenes that are no longer appropriate whether it is Anthony Michael Hall with the prom queen in Sixteen Candles or Louis in Revenge of the Nerds pretending to be someone else to have sex with the cheerleader. Thought it was hysterical at the time. Now it seems really wrong.

I am in my late 40s, and there is a *lot* of stuff that I just shut up and took when I was younger that I should never have put up with, and don't anymore.

We are all products of our upbringing, but that doesn't mean that we can't, and shouldn't, evolve to something better.

to Ewill's comment to Mike agreeing with her.

As in "this" in reference to her.

But it suggested that Mike retreat into pedantry.

The photo is the evidence, not the person.

...wait, that doesn't rhyme. Dammit.

Awful funny