Mike Milbury off NHL playoff broadcasts after 'insulting' comment about women

[The Colt 45s]

NBC has had a history of sexual harassment.  Matt Lauer's exit meant any accusation or perception or comment is radioactive. 

[old guy]

So what did Mike Milbury do? He made reference to the fact that in certain social situations attractive young women can have an effect on men and alter their focus. Well knock me over with a feather! Isn't that the truth? Haven't humans been aware of this for all  the thousands of years of our existence on earth. Would anyone deny this?

 

 

How is alluding to this simple reality in any way insulting to women. It's a fact! The stating of this fact does not diminish women or shortchange their talents, capabilities, or intellect and is not any kind of judgement on women. What Milbury said was just a recognition of what nature has instilled into the human condition. But, in an artificial moral environment truth is disparaged. There are countless other examples in our present world.

 

In the current environment of reflexive rushing to demonstrate how woke and enlightened they are it is the NHL and television network who are demonstrating the moral failing. Cowardice is definitely part of that failing. They are not alone! 

Edited August 25, 2020 by old guy

[filthycanuck]

11 hours ago, RRypien37 said:

Absolute joke. The level of censorship and literally not being able to say ANYTHING without offending someone is at a scary level. This needs to be stopped before it's too late. 

I have to agree with this one. We live in a hypersensitive time now where pretty much EVERY word you say can be offensive which is absolutely terrible. I get what Milbury is saying, which I think means its girlfriends, side chicks, because when teams are on the road, lets be honest here, some guys like to party, bring women back to the hotel that sort of deal. Everyone is the bubble is just concentrated on hockey rather than thinking about having fun.

 

That being said though Im not a fan of Milbury in the first place as a hockey guy, he was an awful coach and probably the worst GM all time in the NHL. A person sitting in a bus stop probably has more knowledge of hockey than Mike Milbury

[filthycanuck]

7 hours ago, elvis15 said:

No, not really a compliment. He's saying one of two things (possibly even both):

1. The wives/girlfriends of players are a distraction because they are too demanding for the players to the point they can't concentrate on their jobs.

2. Women are just hanging around trying to have sex with players who are just quietly unwinding in between games.

 

I guess the other option is that players are incapable of not screwing things up on their own, and that is a larger worry than the distraction of players missing their families. All of it's not the worst thing anyone's ever said, but it's Milbury, and it's definitely not good. A guy who is on a national broadcast who can't figure that out - after multiple chances - shouldn't be on the air.

1) Do you have a wife or a girlfriend? If they are present, you are 95% concentrated on hockey, if they are not, you are 100% concentrated on hockey. Does that extra 5% improve your performance in the playoffs? You tell me when the stakes are high trying to win the cup when every single edge you need to win matters

 

2) Its more of the players being on the road during this pandemic. Its not like pre pandemic where the players are not couped up in the rooms, they can go out, have a good time, socialize, meet a few people. The players here are solely concentrated on hockey.

 

I hate Mike Milbury anyway even before his comment, he's a has been and doesn't deserve to be on any type of broadcast whatsoever but im just calling it as it is

[filthycanuck]

1 hour ago, The Colt 45s said:

NBC has had a history of sexual harassment.  Matt Lauer's exit meant any accusation or perception or comment is radioactive. 

Yup Lauer probably played a part as well, albeit a small one

[King Heffy]

1 hour ago, filthycanuck said:

1) Do you have a wife or a girlfriend? If they are present, you are 95% concentrated on hockey, if they are not, you are 100% concentrated on hockey. Does that extra 5% improve your performance in the playoffs? You tell me when the stakes are high trying to win the cup when every single edge you need to win matters

 

That's balanced out by the stress for these guys being away from their families.  Regardless, it's the same for everyone so not sure how anyone gets an edge here.

[Gurn]

18 hours ago, Squamfan said:

we kind of had a example in a different situations. Hope Solo got arrested for domestic abuse on her nephew and sister, yet she played for the US national. If a man did that he is released from the team and is never playing again.

Mike Milbury was/is not NBC's best commentator, Hope Solo was the USA's best player.

Not an apple to apple comparison.

[Gurn]

Milbury is a twit, but this is an overreaction.

Women can be a distraction

Fortnite can be a distraction

Making diner can be a distraction

and so on.

[HomeBrew]

Most people here are missing the point. They more so have an issue stating that there are no women involved when they are trying to grow the game with the female gender, than they do with the distraction bit. Putting those two together is what makes it a really bad comment from their perspective.

[thrago]

I'm maybe too old for this stuff, so can someone explain it to me.  

Is it offensive to say that women can distract men?

- because they can't?

- because they are professional's so saying it would is insulting to the players?

I'm confused and not trying to be rude, who does this offend?

 

I think there is truth to the statement I know when I was in my 20's nothing distracted me more then women, not because they are annoying but because I found them appealing.  I feel like we as a society are just looking for things to offend us even if none was meant.

 

[elvis15]

On 8/24/2020 at 7:31 PM, RRypien37 said:

Heavens no! Someones feelings could've gotten hurt!! He isn't a saint and it wasn't a mistake. It was his OWN OPINION. Believe it or not, people are entitled to their own opinion regardless if others find it offensive or not. 

 

I bet you're the same type of person who likes participation trophies. 

Sure, people can have an opinion, and people can be fired by their employers for having an unpopular one (and in particular voicing it during their job to a significant audience). But you do you and worry about people being too happy from receiving participation trophies.

 

On 8/24/2020 at 8:05 PM, Tortorella's Rant said:

Dangerous times when that's all it takes to get fired.

You should change your username to Tortorella's Rants, Altercations and Assorted Blow Ups. This one comment wasn't the only thing Milbury's screwed up on, and that's just talking about his broadcasting career.

 

23 hours ago, Allt svartnar said:

What he, while being in my opinion a waste of flesh, said was the exact same thing other people in the broadcasts have been going on and on about, only phrased slightly differently. Cuthbert and DeBrusk keep talking about how bubble life is easier for the Canucks than the other teams because they are so young and don't have families. It is pretty much the same thing. Unless of course if you're trying to interpret it in other ways to make the currently popular political point.

 

Women are distracting for men and if they are not perhaps that man either found the wrong woman or doesn't deserve winning female affection.

I have seen the comments about how family life can be a distraction from the games, but I've also seen how missing family can be a distraction. And that can be siblings, partners, parents, whomever. You don't think someone like Jack Rathbone, noted for his devotion to his brother, would be distracted not being able to see his brother and the rest of his family? Horvat and Benn not being able to see their new babies?

 

And I think you got that last sentence wrong. Even if you meant it differently than I read it, the point is that it isn't women who are the problem. Being with or away from people can be their own distractions, and an athlete who is really here just for our entertainment is not more important somehow than a mother raising a child. That doesn't even touch on the idea of the male hockey players going out and partying - especially for away games - and sleeping around with women, simultaneously suggesting the players are just boys being boys and the women are sluts.

Edited August 26, 2020 by elvis15

[elvis15]

20 hours ago, old guy said:

So what did Mike Milbury do? He made reference to the fact that in certain social situations attractive young women can have an effect on men and alter their focus. Well knock me over with a feather! Isn't that the truth? Haven't humans been aware of this for all  the thousands of years of our existence on earth. Would anyone deny this?

 

 

How is alluding to this simple reality in any way insulting to women. It's a fact! The stating of this fact does not diminish women or shortchange their talents, capabilities, or intellect and is not any kind of judgement on women. What Milbury said was just a recognition of what nature has instilled into the human condition. But, in an artificial moral environment truth is disparaged. There are countless other examples in our present world.

 

In the current environment of reflexive rushing to demonstrate how woke and enlightened they are it is the NHL and television network who are demonstrating the moral failing. Cowardice is definitely part of that failing. They are not alone! 

It insinuates men don't have control over their libidos, which is a myth. Men may choose not to control it, because they've been brought up with power and little consequence, but it's like the "she was asking for it" line of thinking when a woman who was dressed provocatively is assaulted. That has a lot of negative repercussions for women, and absolves men from taking any responsibility for their ability to do their job without being distracted by any short skirt they see.

 

For that matter, there are bound to be some gay players, or even bisexual in the playoffs right now. Why are they not distracted, especially when they are locked in a bubble with solely a bunch of other men? Why are women more distracting than men?

 

Never mind that it also insinuates women are legitimately a distraction by their very nature, regardless of if they're a wife and mother, or if they're a single woman in a bar after a game. Would any of us say to our moms that they were a distraction when they were cooking dinner, cleaning the house, washing laundry and anything else they did to keep the family running? How would that make your mom (or your grandmother, or sister, or daughter?) feel when even with more equality now they still carry a lot of those traditional roles?

 

19 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

1) Do you have a wife or a girlfriend? If they are present, you are 95% concentrated on hockey, if they are not, you are 100% concentrated on hockey. Does that extra 5% improve your performance in the playoffs? You tell me when the stakes are high trying to win the cup when every single edge you need to win matters

 

2) Its more of the players being on the road during this pandemic. Its not like pre pandemic where the players are not couped up in the rooms, they can go out, have a good time, socialize, meet a few people. The players here are solely concentrated on hockey.

 

I hate Mike Milbury anyway even before his comment, he's a has been and doesn't deserve to be on any type of broadcast whatsoever but im just calling it as it is

I have a wife, girlfriend and then some. And still I manage to do my job at a very high level. I'm distracted by other things as well, video games, what to make for dinner, how to find a little entertainment to wind down from my job - are all those things eliminated from an NHL player's day to day because they prevent them from being 100% concentrated on hockey? 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by elvis15

[old guy]

 

"Never mind that it also insinuates women are legitimately a distraction by their very nature, regardless of if they're a wife and mother, or if they're a single woman in a bar after a game. Would any of us say to our moms that they were a distraction when they were cooking dinner, cleaning the house, washing laundry and anything else they did to keep the family running? How would that make your mom (or your grandmother, or sister, or daughter?) feel when even with more equality now they still carry a lot of those traditional roles?"

Obviously, that's not the context that Milbury had in mind. He was referring to young men and single young women in close social contact. There are obvious ingredients at play whether or not the men control their libidos. That's not the point. The point was about an erosion of focus.

But anyway, come on! We should be past something like this being an issue. We recognize women's talents. They are supposed to be strong and capable, and they are. But if they are, then are they so fragile that they need to be sheltered from a simple statement expressing an obvious truth? Are they so fragile that they will be unsettled by such a statement or insulted, or have their confidence undermined? Do they really need to be sheltered and protected from such an innocent utterance? Only in a world become absurd.

[elvis15]

On 8/24/2020 at 7:59 PM, King Heffy said:

The only way to prevent private corporations from enforcing rules of their own choosing is regulation.  Sounds awfully lefty to me.

"I want less government, not more. Unless it means someone might be fired for saying something against their company's policy, then I want more."

[elvis15]

8 minutes ago, old guy said:

"Never mind that it also insinuates women are legitimately a distraction by their very nature, regardless of if they're a wife and mother, or if they're a single woman in a bar after a game. Would any of us say to our moms that they were a distraction when they were cooking dinner, cleaning the house, washing laundry and anything else they did to keep the family running? How would that make your mom (or your grandmother, or sister, or daughter?) feel when even with more equality now they still carry a lot of those traditional roles?"

Obviously, that's not the context that Milbury had in mind. He was referring to young men and single young women in close social contact. There are obvious ingredients at play whether or not the men control their libidos. That's not the point. The point was about an erosion of focus.

But anyway, come on! We should be past something like this being an issue. We recognize women's talents. They are supposed to be strong and capable, and they are. But if they are, then are they so fragile that they need to be sheltered from a simple statement expressing an obvious truth? Are they so fragile that they will be unsettled by such a statement or insulted, or have their confidence undermined? Do they really need to be sheltered and protected from such an innocent utterance? Only in a world become absurd.

But is it obvious? And are we past it? Clearly a lot of things we think we're past, are actually things that are being ignored and still going on. How often have you heard someone say we've made so much progress in gender equality? Or for racism? And yet here we all, with all the problems of the #metoo and BLM movements that really do affect the people in those groups significantly every day.

 

That is the point. It's an attitude that is still present, one that still prevents women from having opportunities and access to things. It's about letting the one thing slide when it leads to a whole host of other things going with it. This wasn't a one time mistake or badly phrased choice of words on Milbury's part, it was his beliefs as a person trying to make a joke.

 

Here's the other side of it: how much does it offend some of the people here that someone can be held accountable? That we'd have to call others "fragile" for standing up and making mention of something that contributes to a larger system of discrimination for others?

 

I don't post this to say you particularly are a bad person. It isn't always easy to see how something so small can be something so big to others. I say it to try and bring some understanding that I've been trying to work on myself, when I know people who have done the work for me to tell me how things like this affect them, not just as one small thing but a part of that whole.

[old guy]

There is such a thing as chromosomes and also hormones. Their influences result in young men and women being aware of each other and behaving in a certain way around each other. They can be and are distracting influences. That is a basic and indisputable fact in human interactions.

A simple and tacit awareness of this that was inherent in a casual one line throw-in statement, were it not for the obsessions of a narrow crowd focused on using extreme political correctness for ulterior purposes, would have caused no consternation to the majority of people, and I am sure would have caused no discomfort to the majority of women listening. It's sad that so many people allow themselves to be influenced so easily as to how and what they should think.

Anyway, no one has the right to go through life without ever being discomforted  by the speech or behaviour of other people, especially when it involves actual truth. Dealing with that discomfort involves growth and becoming more resilient. As a man, I have been on the receiving end  of male stereotyping on many occasions and sometimes it unsettled me, but I didn't whine and it didn't destroy me. I dealt with it.

However, to reiterate, there is nothing in a simple statement that recognizes women's and men's ability to distract each other that diminishes anyone  or would discomfort anyone except in an unbalanced world where extreme political correctness is running amok. Not wanting to be trite, but it really is a world where so many have been conditioned into the "snowflake" culture. We used to be much more resilient and sensible. Sigh!

[189lb enforcers?]

Biologically speaking, isn’t what he is trying to state an age-old maxim though? 
 

An old coach of mine used to give me heck for spending too much energy on an old girlfriend prior to games. Find him and cancel him. 

 

Milbury had a point, whether or not the delivery bombed. 
 

Interesting.

 

See that emocon thing, what might it represent outside of a person acting in stealth?

 

The West wants to usher in other cultures, some dressing up their women  like Dark Vader, partly for supposed reasons one could argue to be biological; anatomical, or the like.
 

In that case, the West is all for women to be disguised around unfamiliar men, but Mohammad forbid, a sports personality suggest that there are concentration benefits of not having women around ‘in the bubble’.

 

The West better pick a side on the fight for Women. 
Darth Vader - good. 
Mention they may be a distraction -bad. 

 

Clown World. 

Pick a side for where you think the line is for how women should be treated, and stand there.
 

If you have a problem with his apparent insult, you’d better have a problem with forcing/tolerating a woman dressed up like E.T. or Darth Vader, IMO.

 

One view of women was just cancelled. The other view of women is tolerance... I am told by MSM, so I must obey and get woke or go broke. 

Edited August 26, 2020 by 189lb enforcers?

[oldnews]

I think this is a case where his cumulative idiocy caught up with him.  As it did with Cherry.

 

The last word / incident that appears to precipitate these endings - might appear relatively ticky-tack - but their bosses see that they continue to lack a respect/edit button - are liabilities - and nip it at a point that is far beyond a bud.  There is no question in my mind this last comment is a mere fraction of the cause of the outcome - as anyone here could probably recognize.

 

In the process that 'last word' makes it easier to spin them as victims - as if they're entitled to their positions - with no shortage of irony in the victim cards played by those people defending these guys.  That's the problem with reacting to an incident like this - as opposed to acting, long ago, as probably should have been the case.

 

I don't like the way Cherry was fired.  I would never have kept him around that long.  I wouldn't have fired him for any single perceived transgression - but let his contract expire due to the continuum - of being a loudmouth idiot - forever.  He had his run - it was long, it was loud, it was reactionary, it was never particularly professional.    And worst of all, he dressed like a pimp and seems to have influenced another generation of Maple Leafs.

 

Spin victimization out of it if you will.   But if his cronies had to listen to his equivalent / counterpart - some loud and proud opposing radical - with an opposing ideology - the outrage would have, likewise, have been epic.

 

Good riddance to both of them. 

Bring on the old school professionals.  Nice to see the likes of Loui DeBrusk stepping (back) into the game - respectful to all, professional, no obvious homer axe to grind, represents the game well, doesn't take sides in his commentary (in spite of having been an Oiler, etc).  That's what the game needs - not a bunch of peripheral, loudmouth, inciting, arrogant noise.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by oldnews

[JM_]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Biologically speaking, isn’t what he is trying to state an age-old maxim though? 
 

An old coach of mine used to give me heck for spending too much energy on an old girlfriend prior to games. Find him and cancel him. 

 

Milbury had a point, whether or not the delivery bombed. 
 

Interesting.

 

See that emocon thing, what might it represent outside of a person acting in stealth?

 

The West wants to usher in other cultures, some dressing up their women  like Dark Vader, partly for supposed reasons one could argue to be biological; anatomical, or the like.
 

In that case, the West is all for women to be disguised around unfamiliar men, but Mohammad forbid, a sports personality suggest that there are concentration benefits of not having women around ‘in the bubble’.

 

The West better pick a side on the fight for Women. 
Darth Vader - good. 
Mention they may be a distraction -bad. 

 

Clown World. 

Pick a side for where you think the line is for how women should be treated, and stand there.
 

If you have a problem with his apparent insult, you’d better have a problem with forcing/tolerating a woman dressed up like E.T. or Darth Vader, IMO.

 

One view of women was just cancelled. The other view of women is tolerance... I am told by MSM, so I must obey and get woke or go broke. 

 

so just curious - when is something just stupid and not riddled with all this political narrative?

 

[189lb enforcers?]

45 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

 

so just curious - when is something just stupid and not riddled with all this political narrative?

 

When is a fact stupid? 
I get that it’s Milbury, but we don’t speak truths any more, those are hate facts. 

This is 1984.

Chip by chip, the freedom we have is being chopped away from the totem of the West, if that is symbolic enough a phrase. 
 

Ever wondered why the most Socially advanced and prosperous culture on earth Needs to be dismantled so much?

 

I’d enjoy sitting down with you over a few days to learn why you perceive the world the way you do because I find your convictions few, but your opinions many. This tells me that you have a slant, but that you are still open minded. We are pretty much opposites usually, but I’d like to think we are both interested in moving to the truth. Plus, I think you’re probably clever and experienced in life enough to challenge my positions and I’m attracted to that. 

Edited August 26, 2020 by 189lb enforcers?