After reading “Don Cherry’s views are as outdated as, well, Don Cherry” (Sports, April 30), I am of the opinion that Mr. Cherry is a well-grounded male living the truth with respect to the God-given dignity of the human body. Writer Nathan Fenno, on the other hand, has apparently been suckered into one of the greatest deceptions of this recent century: that there are no differences between men and women that are worth acknowledging. He seems to be another confused individual with a broken moral compass who unfortunately has been given a public forum to demonstrate his lack of wisdom.
As best I could tell from the opinion column, Mr. Fenno takes Mr. Cherry to task because Mr. Cherry holds to the position that women should stay out of locker rooms where men are in the process of showering. This action is unacceptable in almost any other work environment, including, for example, a fitness club. In most cases, this action would by grounds for legal action against the person who has entered the locker room of the opposite sex.
The problem is not equal access, because the solution for that is to simply keep all reporters out of the locker room. In fact, that poses the question, what can possibly be so important that reporters can’t wait for 30 minutes until the players shower and dress? This whole business of women needing access to men’s locker rooms was an extension of the radical sexual revolution that began in the 1960s.
This reminds me of the tremendous hypocrisy of professional sports with regard to sex. The team owners, who are ready to drop the hammer on a player who gets involved in inappropriate sexual activity, are the same people who put half-naked women performing erotic dances on the sidelines at games. And I understand the “cheerleaders” face a similar hypocritical situation, in which they must act lascivious on the field, but cannot do the same in their private lives.
Mr. Fenno should stick to his presumed expertise of sports reporting because he is way out of his league when it comes to issues of human dignity and morality that Mr. Cherry, in his simple, blunt way, seems far better equipped to address.