I enjoyed this story about a female sports reporter who frequently dresses up like a porn star wannabe who is now accusing football players of treating her like a porn star wannabe. The usual suspects emerge to remind us that even if she dresses in see-through lingerie in their locker room, they have no right to sexually harass her. One of the staples of modern progressive society, after all, is to refuse the clear teaching of common sense. If a woman is wearing provocative clothes (and she does, her dress on the Today Show interview showcased her endowments very nicely), then she should expect some reactions. Yes, I know that's all subjective. And I know it's getting into that famous 'I may not be able to define porn, but I know it when I see it' trap. But let's face it, we can tell the difference between a woman dressing to look good, and a woman dressing to look available. And since female reporters lobbied for, and received the right to enter men's lockers rooms (while I wonder if men are able to return the favor in women's sports), perhaps the question is who is wanting to intrude upon who?
For me, the money quote was the above reference from a feminist lawyer interviewed on the Today Show. She was the one who said if a woman comes up to a man in see through lingerie, that doesn't give them the right to sexually harass her. But I wondered if a man went up to a woman and dropped his pants, wouldn't that be sexual harassment? Why, then, could a woman do the equivalent and it be no problem? The reason is because the last thing feminism cares about is equality between the sexes. It has ever and always lobbied for equality for women whenever convenient. And nothing illustrates it better than this story, and the reactions to it.