Reply With Quote
Jeez, Avery needs to get a smaller jacket... He looks like he looted a Men's Wearhouse. What a slob.
It perpetuates your images of gansta drug using, violent thugs. The overwhelming number of guys I know who dress like this are not.
Here is my stereotype of a drug using thug:
Jeez, Avery needs to get a smaller jacket... He looks like he looted a Men's Wearhouse. What a slob.
Obviously the league is cracking down on players wearing con uous jewerly such as large gold chains due to the antics of Shawn Bradley, Evan Eschmeyer and Scott Padgett.
IM struggling to buy my own suite, and these guys who makes one weeks salary = to my 2-3 years salary and they are complaining about being able to afford one and wearing one hahaa
Yes...it's only what I think. It must be my extreme racist tendencies that invented the word stereotype, which never, ever have any basis in fact.
Jeez, 608 posts in 2 days.
Let me know when one of the Spurs/Pistons/Knicks/Heat/etc. gets elected to Congress or the Presidency...or goes to work as a bank teller or a preacher or judge (wedding reference) or wins a Nobel prize for anything or starts directing funerals. Dress codes in general are not stupid. Dress codes for professional NBA basketball players (all of whom are legal adults) ARE stupid. Some cool guys (some of whome are professional basketball players) choose to wear suits; some cool guys don't choose to.Don't people know that in the US Congress, Congressmen/women dress with baggy pants, t-shirts, flip-flops and chains. Bush does it all the time too, especially when he is giving a press conference, or when he is signing a Bill.
Clerks at banks usually use ragged shirts; so do people at award shows. Not to mention Kobe when he was on trial. He had the the most untidy, unprofessional clothes I've ever seen (dress codes at work . . . nahh . . . but when prison is a possibility . . . you betchah!).
Dress codes are stupid. Next time I'm invited to a black tie wedding I'll wear nothing but a thong, and if I ever win the Nobel peace prize (yes, there is a remote possibility!), I'll accept the award in my underpants.
And to the next funeral, I'll show my respects in a nice "Che Guevara" shirt, camouflage pants and a red berret (the "Comandante Chavez" look).
Yeah, dress codes are stupid. Rules don't apply to rebels; cool guys don't dress in a suit.
Not to mention that the players are in the ENTERTAINMENT business...it's not your normal "job" I don't think we can treat it as such.
"I would like to know who in here has gone to an interview in jeans and a t-shirt AND GOT THE JOB."
Ok. You got it...
Me. I work for the federal government (made the 30-year mark this past August - I now have enough time to retire, but do not meet the age requirement). I have been to two different job interviews in jeans and t-shirt and desert boots. I do admit I had on a corduroy jacket for one of the interviews, but that was only because it was December and cold. BTW, I got both of those jobs.
"I want to know cause I would like to apply there."
Knock yourself out. Luckily, the federal government is more concerned about qualifications than whether or not you wear a suit (which is the way it should be in the NBA, IMHO). Good luck.
Please explain to me how forcing everyone to dress differently is going to change the way a few talk and act? Again, if you have a problem with a few, deal with the problem few and leave the rest alone.
Do you really want to go there?
You're right. And it's also an entertainment BUSINESS that is selling a product that has gotten a reputation of being nothing but a bunch of thugs in shorts...and apparently it's turning off the people with the money that support it.
It's still a BUSINESS that depends on paying customers for its existance, and if the reputation of your business is going down the toilet you do what you need to do to fix it or risk becoming insolvent. You cater to your customers if you want their money, not your employees. Is it that extreme? I don't know, I don't do the polling or keep their books. Will a dress code help clean up their image? It seems a little excessive for the majority of players it affects, but I certainly don't think it will hurt it. Are there deeper problems that need to be addressed? Of course, but those would appear to be a lot more deep-seeded and will need more time and are a lot more involved to overcome.
So all of the normal rules of running a business shouldn't apply to overly wealthy men because they have the remarkable talent of shooting a basketball through a hoop? All of the owners should just bow down to the almighty sharp-shooter with great hops? Why not, apparently that's what a lot of them have become used to. Why should they comply to what the owners feel might help their image and appeal to more people and sell more or their product? They're only the ones that made them rich mother ers. I didn't hear them demanding blow jobs....just sports coats. BFD.
And we're not talking about MLB, NFL or Right-Wing Radio ... those are completely different cir stances with completely different problems. I thought this was a thread about the NBA dress code.
Last edited by SpursWoman; 10-21-2005 at 08:32 AM.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck, looks like a duck, there's no ing way it can be a duck and to assume so would be judgemental and racist. I totally understand.
They don't look like thugs, but still look like !Allen Iverson is dressed better than any of the guys in the following pictures, yet I 100% guarantee none of you will say they look like "thugs" . . . Gee I Wonder Why?
Craig Biggio:
Dirk Nowitzki:
Mark Cuban:
Andei Kirilenko:
Mark Madsen and Andrei Kirilenko on the following web page:
(BTW, for fun, go to there and pick out which ones are the "thugs").
http://www.angelfire.com/magic2/sportscollection/
Yeah, stereotypes sprang up outta nowwhere. They aren't based on anything factual. Its all make believe.
Your on a roll today......
If the players weren't so talented, the owners wouldn't have a product to sell. So they should just follow the code with no input whatsoever? Just like you say about the owners just bowing down, the players should do that? I think it should be voted on betwen the league and the players association...that way even it still is implemented at least the players had a say in things. The players are the ones that are going to have to dress differently, not the owners.
Also does anyone realize the amount of sales that are gained from the so-called thugs wearing jerseys, caps, etc when they aren't playing? People WANT to look like them, they go out and buy what the stars wear. Wouldn't that put a dent in the league's pocketbook when that advertising is taken away?
I just don't even know how to answer that.If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck, looks like a duck, there's no ing way it can be a duck and to assume so would be judgemental and racist. I totally understand.
I know you're a good person and you're not a racist, but I just don't see how you can believe that that's not a prejudiced at ude.
We're talking about baggy clothes and caps here.
No, you clearly don't understand.
Let's just look at the "gangsta drug using" comment and look at the "basis in fact" that you hang your hat on:
From Dozier and Barnes, "Ethnicity, drug user status and academic performance" in Adolescence, 1997. Link
More recently, from a 2002 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Link.Bachman, Wallace, Kurth, Johnston, and O'Malley (1991) examined drug use among the five major ethnic groups: Native Americans, whites, Hispanics, blacks, and Asian Americans. These authors presented data from nationally representative surveys contrasting the prevalence rates of illicit and licit drug use. Surveys conducted with high school seniors from 1976 to 1989 indicated the following patterns: Native Americans were the highest users of licit and illicit drugs, with the exception of cocaine. Whites were next highest. Asian Americans were lowest, while blacks were next lowest, with the exception of marijuana, with black males exhibiting the highest use. Hispanics were the intermediate group, with the exception of high cocaine use by males. The differences between groups were not attributable to background factors such as parents' education, rural/urban distinctions, family composition, and region.
Prendergast, Austin, Maton, and Baker (1989) studied the drug use patterns and problems of black and white adults and children. Among adolescents, alcohol and drug use were lower for blacks than whites. Consistent with the findings of Bachman et al. (1991), these authors indicated that national and school-based surveys have consistently shown that black youths have higher rates of abstinence from drinking, blacks who do use alcohol drink less and have lower levels of heavy drinking than do whites (black youths also have a lower percentage of light and heavy drinkers), and young blacks exhibit fewer social problems resulting from drinking than do white youths. In addition, black youths demonstrate a lower rate of drug use than do young whites and youths from other ethnic groups.
Skager and Frith (1989), in a report to the Attorney General of California based on the 1987-1988 California Substance Abuse Survey, attempted to identify high-risk substance users in Grades 9 and 11. These authors divided students into three subgroups based on frequency of use within the most recent six-month period: high-risk users, conventional users, and abstainers. High-risk use was defined as use of cocaine in any form (e.g., crack), use of marijuana weekly or on a more frequent basis, or polydrug use three or more times. Abstainers were those who had not used drugs or alcohol within the previous six months. Conventional users were those who used alcohol or marijuana occasionally, or substances other than cocaine, but no more than once in the previous six months. Their findings indicated that whites and Hispanics were more likely than blacks to be high-risk and conventional users, while blacks exhibited higher rates of abstinence relative to whites and Hispanics.
Surveys of high school students have produced consistent findings. Blacks and Asians have consistently reported lower drug use than have whites. Although cocaine use by Mexican-American youths is slightly higher than that by whites, and alcohol use slightly lower, these two groups have reported about the same drug use. Native Americans, on the other hand, have reported higher drug use relative to whites (Oetting & Beauvais, 1990; Bachman et al., 1991). Controlling for background variables alone has not resulted in significant differences between racial/ethnic groups. However, after controlling for background variables, several lifestyle factors have been strongly related to drug use. These include educational values and behaviors, religious commitment, and time spent in peer-oriented activities (Wallace & Bachman, 1991).
By all means, continue to talk about "walking like a duck" if you feel you have to. Just be aware your perceptions are a matter of convenience for you and have nothing to do with "basis in fact".Only Native Americans use alcohol, marijuana or hard drugs at rates higher than whites in Washington, according to a 2002 study by the state Department of Social and Health Services. Asked if they had ever used hard drugs, for instance, about 25 percent of whites answer affirmatively, compared with 39 percent for Native Americans, 18 percent for blacks and Hispanics and 8.5 percent for those of Asian ancestry.
Of course I'm not a racist.
But, say a white woman is walking down a street in a shady part of town late at night heavily made up, scantily dressed with ridiculously high heels saying something to men passing by that you can't quite hear. What would your first assumption be? That she was leaving a Halloween party (even though it's only March) or that she was a pros ute?
Maybe she just likes dressing up like that and enjoys talking to strange men late at night. How does that make me prejudice to assume someone exhibiting a certain type of behavior associated with a very particular style of dress is engaging in what those two things together are notorious for? If she doesn't want to be mistaken for a hooker, she shouldn't dress or engage in activities that make hookers hookers...because it's going to happen. If it makes me prejudiced to think that she's a hooker because she's doing what hookers do, then I guess I'm prejudiced.
Although, someone did make a good point .... are SOME NBA players dressing up like gansters, or are gangsters dressing up like NBA players?
Well, you've added several variables that don't apply to the NBA players... Particularly the "shady part of town" description. If you saw that same woman in a club district, would you still assume she was a hooker? Or would you simply assume that she was going from club to club like every other scantily-clad woman in the area?What would your first assumption be?
Fact is, you go to that part of town, and it's possible that every male you see will be dressed in a way that looks similar to Iverson. But a very small percentage of them are actually criminals. And it's possible that the same percentage of those men are criminals as the percentage of white collar businessmen are criminals in their own right, though they may be guilty of less "seedy" crimes.
I say they're all dressing. Criminals and non-criminals do a lot of similar things. They eat some of the same foods, they watch some of the same TV shows, they in the same positions.... they wear the same clothes.Although, someone did make a good point .... are SOME NBA players dressing up like gansters, or are gangsters dressing up like NBA players?
That's not the analogy to what you're doing at all.
What you're doing in being a 85 year-old woman at the mall looking at a girl dressed in a midriff baring shirt and shorts and sandals and saying "that must be a hooker, no respectable woman dresses that way . . . look! there's another one! and ANOTHER! They're everywhere!!!"
....and please don't make the assumption that I agree with or fall for stereotypes, because I don't (even though I might sound like the duck). I wouldn't automatically think the hooker was a bad person, just doing what she feels like she needs to do...or just likes being one....whatever. And there are lots of hookers (call girls) that don't dress that way, either.
If I saw someone in a blue workshirt with a name-tag patch and covered in motor oil walking out of the Auto Zone I'd probably assume they were some kind of mechanic, too. But other than my own personal curiosity, it's really none of my business.
I do understand, though, how easy it is to make the association.
Last edited by SpursWoman; 10-21-2005 at 10:35 AM.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
