If you thought the war on women was being waged this week in Tampa, FL, there’s an smaller effort afoot in Major League Baseball’s midtown Manhattan officesCards C Yadier Molina risked having his brains scrambled in bearing the brunt of the above collision with Pittsburgh’s Josh Harrison last night, but the not-so-suave typist in charge of MLB.com’s Twitter feed picked a particularly uncerebral way to characterize the play. “Yadier Molina was forced to exit after this devastating collision, but he held onto the ball because he’s a man,” was the offending passage, which caused The Good Phight’s Liz Rocher to pen the following reply ;
What do you think is wrong with that tweet? Is it:
B) Hideously unfunny
C) Stupid and in poor taste
D) All of the above
The answer, of course, is D. Sexism isn’t right anytime, anywhere (duh), and here it seems like whoever wrote that tweet was trying to make a joke. A bad, unfunny, unnecessary joke about a guy who had to leave a game after getting crashed into by another guy running at top speed. Isn’t that totally hilarious?! Even funnier? He held onto the ball! BECAUSE HE’S A MAN. It’s not because he’s tough as nails or good at his job. It’s because he doesn’t have ovaries or a uterus, which automatically make you inferior.
Ms. Roscher has a point here. If an MLB.com representative opined, for instance , that black men lacked the skills to become general managers, the person responsible would rightfully face termination (after claiming the account was hacked). If the same author suggested a ride on the 7 Train was an unsavory experience due to the rich cultural mosaic on board, he or she would probably be pounding the pavement tomorrow. But suggest to MLB’s target audience that lady-folk are too dainty to withstand physical punishment, that’s apparently a-ok, if not business as usual.
At least one person has pointed out that taking umbrage with MLB.com official Twitter posts might result in being blocked. If that’s the case, who’d have suspected Bud Selig and Dino Costa would have nearly that much in common?