Far too much disgusting sexism in this thread. Its ignorant and embarrassing.
Here we go with the diminishing and unfounded idea that she was only hired because she is a woman. There's no evidence of that, and the expression of ypthis idea is biased and discriminatory. Sadly, it comes up many, many times with without objection or rebuke.
Now we come to the tone of her voice. Women's voices are generally higher pitched than mens'. Live with it.
Yes, you would be, and are, labeled as sexist for criticizing her her based on personal attributes related to her gender. An employer who dismissed her on gender-related characterics would violate the Human Rights Code in every province and would face sanctions for doing so -- and rightly so.
Equality, blah blah blah. Pretty Neanderthal comment.
Again, a sexist comment pertaining to the tone of her voice.
Finally, a nuanced and supportive comment that recognizes the the difficult path that women face breaking into a male-dominated profession. Well done, sir or madam. You get it.
There's nothing to suggest that her hiring is due to her gender.
The notion that gender equality takes the quality out of equality is overtly sexist.
Another baseless, sexist she was hired because she was a woman comment.
Strange. A star Olympic gold-medal winning hockey play only got her job because her little-known husband holds a mid-level executive position with a hockey team in Alberta? This is a very twisted analysis of the power dynamic to think that poor wife needed hubby to lift her up to prominence.
Bad hair, too.
Always bad form to adversely comment on a person's appearance. It also gives the impression of objectifying women.
Would she be a better announcer with better hair?
Wait. I'm not done yet with you creeps.
The US Supreme Court decided -- probably before you were born -- that formal equality is not equality. That concept went out the window so long ago it isn't even funny.
??? In what way does she leaks. Of political correctness? Is it because she is a woman?
Only in the booth because she is a woman. Hell-bent on havingba female in the broadcast.
Your basis for these disparaging comments? They are sexist and diminishing to the role of women in the workplace.
Mmm. Do you feel that way about other women -- the ones in your life, too?
Here we go with the diminishing sexist myth that she was hired because she's a girl, rather than on merit. Your source for this disparaging comment?
Good. I've watched quite a few all-male broadcasts, and don't mind if there's an all-female broadcast crew too. No criticism of you, sir or madam, for pointing this out -- but why do you call them chicks -- and why won't you mind if you're late? It gives the impression that you don't respect their work.
I'll stop now only for the sake of space, but I do take issue with every single post quoted here, except those very few that point out the realities of a gender-biased workplace. I challenge each of you to rethink what you've said.
I'm not done saving the world yet, but I stand in solidarity with this person, and a few others, who actually get it. Look at all of these horrific sexist comments, as against the few people like this good person who has something to say in response.
Evaluate Cassie Campbell's work, if you will, but not on the basis of her gender.
Its easy to see that this is a sarcastistic reply intended to point out the sexism at work, but sadly such an outrageous reply didn't even make a dent. Some even thought you were serious.
Good for you for pointing this out. It is exactly on point.
I'll stop here only for the sake of space, but I take issue with each and every post quoted here, except those very few that speak to the realities of a gender-biased workplace. I challenge each of youbto rethink what you have said.