1.) Summary: The first of the two articles discussed what people thought was manly. They used Sergio Romo as an example. He chose family over career. They used him as an example for the internal view of the world. They didn’t just point out his “bad” decision because his decision was wise. The second reading stated many points. These points ranged from ethnicity to gender to televised sport combinations. 2.) The first article was interesting because in the beginning it asked men only to look at themselves; but me being a women had a chance to look in at men-to-men thoughts. Obviously women’s views are going to be different; and obviously I’m going to agree with Romo’s choice. The second reading had a lot of interesting points in it. However, it is sad to see that women do not have jobs with in the televised sport stations and shows. Also, I don’t really understand why ethnicity is such a big deal. What does it matter if a white or black being televises something. Just my thoughts on that part.
Ashley Chinana's Blog
Whatever you focus on, expands.
I agree with you that as women, we are obviously going to agree with Romo’s choice to take a paternity leave for his family. I also think it is sad that women do not hold many jobs in the sports television networking field. That just adds to the “sports are a man’s world” image. How do you feel about the image these articles gave men to aspire to be?
I can totally see where you’re coming from as a woman and I can also see where the men are coming from. I don’t think that the concept is so much of an issue because quite frankly at first it may seem like a decently tough decision but after thinking about it only an idiot would put sports before family. Do you think the author regrets his comments about manliness?