Boobies: The John Tortora Argument

Here at Fake Or Gay, we like to have our fun. We also like to talk about fun things, like Jonathan Quick's soft tummy and Joe Thornton's literally massive jockstrap and the one time Alex Galchenyuk got really hot in three years. We're two important, serious people who tell you guys about things that we think are important and serious.

There is one specific thing we would like to talk to you about today, and it’s not fun, but it's deathly important and serious. We speak of two words that strike fear into the hearts of men and women alike: ice girls.


You've probably heard that the Sharks organization plans to introduce "ice girls"—women hired by team management to pretty much be cheerleaders—for the upcoming 2014-2015 season. Some things that we would like to clear up immediately:  women who work on an ice crew aren't automatically ice girls. Our problem isn't that women shouldn't be on an ice crew. Our problem isn't that women should never wear revealing clothing.

The Sharks' plan to introduce ice girls is issue that has understandably gotten people riled. Currently, 21 out of the 30 teams in the league employ ice girls to some degree. The Sharks will be the 22nd if they go through with their plan (which they probably will, because you can trust no one). Some people are asking, "Well, why not? We're dudes. We like boobies. We like to see boobies and maybe touch boobies sometimes." To which we respond: because not everyone who is a hockey fan who goes to hockey games is a man. Not everyone who is a hockey fan who goes to hockey games is attracted to womens' bodies. Sexualizing women for the enjoyment of men is misogyny, sexism, and it has no place in San Jose—and on a larger scale—no place in the NHL. Also, stop thinking about boobies, we know you like boobies, we like boobies too.

David Pollak, the beat reporter for the Sharks, recently published an article on the response of management to what I imagine to be a veritable flood of criticism. The article takes about five minutes tops to read and I would highly suggest you do so. It's honestly one of the most laughable things I've read in maybe four years. Or maybe I was laughing so I wouldn't start crying? I'm not laughing at Pollak, by the way, who I've met and who is an excellent character. I'm laughing at this dude he interviews. I've read this article about 15 times to write a letter to the Sharks' business operations and to write this. His responses get worse and worse every time.

Pollak interviews John Tortora, the chief operating officer, and quotes him as saying, "We are not modeling our ice team in the same manner as other teams do in the NHL or other professional sports teams with cheerleaders.

We're doing it in a way that works for us within our game experience and that is tasteful for San Jose." We're barely into the actual roast of this article and I'm already tired of this dude and his argument, you guys. It falls apart like Martin Havlat's pelvic floor.

He says that the Sharks aren't modeling their ice team, but the uniform in place for female members of the ice crew consists of a Sharks jersey crop top and yoga pants that is obviously form-fitting and revealing. I don’t know about you, but that kind of seems like modeling to me. Apparently this whole fiasco is “tasteful for San Jose”. Does this guy realize who lives in San Jose? Let me give it a quick breakdown: suburban families, young people in the tech industry, and old businessmen. Also apparently a huge 18-40 demographic that is just itching for lascivious women. What the actual hell? I understand that San Jose is nicknamed "Man Jose", but good lord. Restrain yourselves.

Prior to the introduction of ice girls, men and women on the ice crew wore the exact same thing: a track jacket and track pants. Neither were revealing, but men and women could wear both as they pleased. Women could wear them half-unzipped or zipped to the chin. If anyone cared there was never any indication of it. That, I think, is really the basis for half of the argument: how many people honestly notice if people on the ice crew are wearing revealing clothing? I'd assume that most people at a hockey game are drunk by the time the ice crew slides onto the ice for the first time. The rest of them are in the process of getting drunk, or talking to people, or drinking.

Some people have responded to the criticism by saying that our arguments slut-shame women who do choose to wear revealing clothing such as these uniforms. I can understand that, but the whole argument hinges on one word: choice. If a woman chooses to wear something revealing in front of a crowd of 20,000 men and women, some of whom are judging her every move, then bless that woman. She’s stronger than any of us know. But if a woman is forced into a revealing uniform and told to parade her body around for the enjoyment of an extremely specific demographic, then we’re getting into bad territory.

To add insult to injury, Tortora suggests “that concerned fans should take a wait-and-see approach.” Here’s the thing, buddy: women have been waiting and seeing since the beginning of time. Women have been waiting and seeing and every single time the results come out, we’re disappointed. We think, “Oh, maybe it won’t be that bad this time,” and guess what: it’s almost always worse than anything we expected.

What are we waiting for, man? What do you think we’re waiting for?

“We're hoping people hold off judgment until the team is selected and we see what their functions are,” Tortora says.

Why do you think we’re judging? All of the evidence we have been given so far is that you’re going to do what we don’t want you to do. I’m honestly terrified. “What their functions are?” What are you going to do, make them fight to the death? Make them re-enact the music video to Birthday Song (that music video is a work of art, by the way, but what I’m trying to say is that there is a time and place for everything)?

The article says that “no decision has been made on what the ice team will wear.” Okay, I’m going to take a deep breath, and i’m going to use all-caps in the next sentence, and I really hope you’ll forgive me, and this will be the only time I will ever do this, I swear, I promise.

LITERALLY OUR ONLY PROBLEM WITH THIS WHOLE DISGUSTING MESS IS THAT WE DON’T WANT WOMEN FORCED TO WEAR REVEALING CLOTHING THAT SEXUALIZES THEIR BODIES.

 Thank you for your patience.

If these women aren't going to be wearing a crop top and yoga pants on the ice crew, then tell us! Alleviate our worries, fears, and disgust! Tell us that these women will not be forced to wear revealing clothing as part of their uniform in a heavy-handed, sweaty-faced, slick-palmed ploy to pull disgusting men into the seats!

One last thing: "Tortora said the volume of complaints from fans is about at the level he expected." My question is this: if Tortora's line of thought went from "I think people might have a problem with this" to "Well, better do it anyway" and not "Hm, I wonder what I could do so I wouldn't get this volume of complaints", I'm really wondering if this guy should have any sort of administrative power at all.

I’m done. I need to lie down. I need a cold drink of holy water. I need to get out of this godforsaken place. If I catch you on the street John Tortora, I’m not going to hurt you, but I’m going to give you dirty looks the likes of which you have never seen. I’m going to give you nightmares with my face. And then I’m going to pray for you, because that’s all I can do for you at this point. I hope you seek forgiveness, but I’m not going to be the one to grant it to you.

 Rest in pieces.

---

You can see the call for applications here. According to Pollak, the audition date for men was added on July 7th, but the listing has been up for at least a month. Prior to this change, the audition date available was only for women.