Give It A Rest
I've seen local female reporters take him to task. I've seen the major media outlets only post a headline of his poorly-worded introduction to what he was trying to express. Even the CBC's Karin Larsen had strong words on Twitter for Don Cherry regarding his view of women reporters in a locker room.
I'm not trying to defend any misogynists here, and I'm not saying that Don Cherry is a misogynist either. But did anyone actually listen to Don Cherry past the point of his gasp-inducing statement?
I get that women have fought hard for all of their achievements that they accomplished, and that no one should be looking to take anything away from them. Heck, I fully support women being included in eveything, and celebrated Manon Rheaume's smashing through the gender-barrier! But Don Cherry wasn't saying that women should be banned because of their gender if you listened to his poorly-crafted, terribly-worded diatribe. He actually, if you listen very closely, wanted women out of a male locker room because of the behavior of the male hockey players.
Like an onion, his speech made some cry as you peeled back the layer. I'll even go as far as saying that it stunk. It wasn't his most eloquent speech, but that's more or less Don Cherry's style. If you're unaware of that, you haven't watched Don Cherry in probably 15-20 years. As he's gotten older, he routinely makes his point by shocking everyone with a statement before qualifying it. Don Cherry wants people to listen to his points, so he hits them with a sledgehammer rather than tapping them on the shoulders.
Is it the right way to go about making a point? Hardly. In fact, it works against him often as seen by the anger and vitriol spewed at him after his comments on Saturday night. But if you strip away the Cherryisms, you understand where he's coming from as a man who first opened the door to women being in an NHL locker room after games.
Here's the video of Coach's Corner from last Saturday. Watch it, and listen closely. Remember: like an onion.
Ok, let's start by looking at Cherry's track record on this. The guy hasn't coached since the 1970s, and times have significantly changed since the last time he was intimately involved in the on-goings of the locker room. If you know anything about Don, he speaks his mind in terms of how and, more importantly, WHEN he coached: no visors, no Europeans, Canadians are the best, more fighting. All of those things he likes are all traits of hockey in the 1970s!
Admittedly, Cherry is a little out of his element when it comes to progressive issues and the evolution of the game, but he's still entertaining because he's like one of those old guys at the sports bar that harkens for the "good ol' days" when the Bruins, Leafs, and Canadiens ruled the rinks. Canadians, it seems, love that idealism, but it comes across as being anything but politically correct in today's day and age.
In her piece for ESPNW.com linked above, Robin Herman writes,
"I’d gotten a lot of publicity for breaking 'the locker room barrier' at the 1975 NHL all-star game in Montreal, but that was a one-off. You were the first coach in the NHL to allow me, a female, accredited sports reporter and member of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association, into your locker room as a matter of policy."I'd say that's a little progressive. But Don Cherry was actually never worried about women being in the locker room. While it took a few minutes to get his point across in the video above, he stated that he was always worried about the behavior of the semi-naked to fully-naked male players in the locker room when women arrived. As he stated,
"I remember the first time it happened to me. Guys are walking around naked and I hear this woman's voice. I turn around and she's asking me about the power play. I say, 'Let's go outside.' She said, 'I'm not embarrassed.' I said, 'I am.'"Again, basing his statement on the 1970s era, that statement is entirely fair considering that male players used to wander around in their birthdays suits in locker rooms during that era.
Cherry tried to qualify his view of women in the locker room with naked men by harkening back once more into the days of when he was a coach in the Bruins' locker room.
"I don't feel women are equal. I feel they're above us. I think they're on a pedestal and they should not be walking in when naked guys are walking in. And you know some guys take advantage of it and I don’t think it should be."Even Ron MacLean says that the players in all sports push the sexism towards women way too far, and both Cherry and MacLean touch on how it still exists in hockey today.
But the key is this: they never said "ban women" once. They're talking about the behavior of the players towards female reporters and how these behaviors towards female reporters embarrass them and the game as a whole. Again, Cherry is talking about the 1970s while MacLean is discussing today's sporting world so there's an obvious disconnect there, but the point the two of them seem to agree upon is that the behavior of the players is the problem, not the women covering the game.
While I am certainly and entirely for women covering the game of hockey, every single woman who covers the game that found Mr. Cherry's comments to be an attack on their profession and gender is not a very good listener - something I would assume to be extremely vital when it comes to reporting. CBC's Andi Petrillo, who is a mainstay on Hockey Night In Canada broadcasts, seemed to catch what Don Cherry was saying. She said,
"I think his comments were misinterpreted and if you actually listen to what he was saying, it wasn't so much about women not being in the dressing room as it was about players perhaps not conducting themselves appropriately around women."You have to know Don Cherry to understand Don Cherry, and I'm quite certain that Miss Petrillo has been able to get to know Don better through their working together at CBC and on Hockey Night In Canada. If Andi Petrillo understood what Don meant through his twisted diatribe, why can't others hear the same thing?
He's "old school" in his thinking. He's not the world's best orator by any means, and usually gets caught saying things in the most convoluted way. But Don Cherry certainly isn't sexist as far as I can tell. The problem, in this case of reporting, seems to be the listening being done by the reporters and the spin they're putting on this story after Don Cherry grabbed the spotlight by saying something entirely unfathomable in trying to make a point about the behavior of the men playing the game when a woman enters the locker room.
If Andi Petrillo - a beautiful and successful woman in the sports industry - can hear what Don is saying, why can't everyone else?
Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!
Posts
8 comments:
Ya, a dumbass entry supporting a dumbass dino. Watch hockey progress in leaps when the fruit retires.
Here's an idea: try reading and listening. Listen very closely. He's denigrating the behaviors of players, not the female reporters. Why is this so difficult to hear?
This article is a masterclass in deflection — trying to make it about the men’s behaviour rather than addressing the core issue: why are women allowed in male locker rooms at all while men are never allowed in female ones? The logic is backward, the excuses tired, and the double standard glaring.
Let’s break it down:
Cherry’s argument (“I wasn’t worried about women, I was worried about the men”) is just repackaged gynocentrism — the kind that infantilises women while holding men solely accountable, even in their own space.
Instead of asking why women should be there while men are nude, the conversation becomes “how can men behave better around the women we’ve decided to let in?”
Imagine flipping that: “We should let male reporters into female locker rooms and expect the women to act appropriately around them.” No one would ever make that argument. Nor should they.
This is the twisted dynamic:
Women have the right to report.
Men have the duty to expose themselves and behave “appropriately” while being involuntarily observed.
It’s not about modesty. It’s about consent, privacy, and boundaries — something that is sacred when it’s women’s bodies but comically disregarded when it’s men’s. Cherry’s nostalgia doesn’t change that. And the apologetics in this article only further prove how normalised the exploitation of men has become.
That's a lot of words to say "Men should not be responsible for their actions." But let's have a discussion, shall we?
First off, nothing in Cherry's comments are gynocentrism. He's not even taking the female point of view. All he's saying is that men need to behave better regardless of who is in the locker room, but even moreso when women are trying to get access to players.
Asking this question - “how can men behave better around the women we’ve decided to let in?” - is entirely the purpose of conversation. Professional hockey players should be held to a higher standard if they're being paid more than doctors and teachers. There is nothing wrong with asking for better behaviour from players in all circumstances.
You state that "It’s about consent, privacy, and boundaries", but all NHL players have consented to allowing women into the rooms when necessary. It's not exploitation - no one is exploiting men walking around a locker room in their birthday suits. It's about allowing male or female reporters to do their jobs without any risk of boundaries being crossed. Both sides have an obligation in that, but only one side walks around in towels. See the problem?
I can imagine flipping the argument, and it's one of the reasons why the WNBA has banned all media from locker rooms after the WNBA player's association demanded it. They recognized the problem upfront and did something about it. There will never be an issue in that league.
It's also why the NHL has now made media availability for players a lot more accessible OUTSIDE the locker rooms. You're commenting in 2025 about something that happened in 2013 - over a decade ago.
Your comment gives no examples of "exploitation of men", so that falls short in its attempt to make this valid. While I appreciate the comment and your reading the article, I have yet to see this exploitation in action. Until the receipts can be shown, all you've done is made empty claims about how NHL hockey is still a man's world when it clearly is not.
Actually, no — this isn’t about “men refusing to be responsible for their actions.” It’s about the blatant double standard that treats men’s privacy, consent, and bodily autonomy as secondary to media access and commercial interests.
You claim there’s no consent issue.
It’s in the contract. They agree to media access obligations as part of the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and league policies.
These policies rarely allow players individual opt-outs of locker room access for reporters — it’s a blanket rule.
That’s not meaningful consent.
That’s coerced compliance under threat of fines, punishment, or career damage.
It’s not a free choice.
In any other context, being forced to expose oneself to the opposite sex under the justification of “it’s the job” would be rightly called harassment, exploitation, and boundary violation.
But when it happens to men?
It’s somehow normalised and even expected.
This isn’t hypothetical.
• In the NFL (USA) today (2025), players still have no personal right to refuse post-game locker room access to reporters, including male and female reporters. And reporters are still in the locker room. Where men are naked. Read the recent news. In the US, in Australia, in Brazil, in France, and possibly in other countries. In fact, Australia this year introduced a new media rule that gives even more unfettered access to men’s locker rooms post-game, in AFL and NRL. They want it to be “USA-style” coverage. (But only in men’s AFL and NRL, not women’s). The Premier League in the UK, who’ve had decades of fully closed lockers to everyone (out of respect for tradition) are under pressure to let the media in after games … but only in men’s football, not women’s. Spain did this in 2023.
• After COVID forced media to conduct interviews outside the locker room, some players publicly said they preferred it — citing privacy, dignity, and consent.
Yet the moment anyone suggested keeping that model, the media framed them as anti-women/media or accused them of having something to hide.
Meanwhile:
• WNBA, NWSL, and most female leagues have banned media from locker rooms altogether.
Reporters (especially men) are not allowed inside female locker rooms post-game.
• There is no debate about the privacy, consent, or boundaries of female athletes.
Their locker rooms are protected spaces.
Male athletes? Their bodies are on display, and if they object, they’re told to “be professional.”
You say “there’s no exploitation.”
Really?
When men’s most private spaces are turned into public zones, where they have no say over who observes them, under contractual threat?
That’s exploitation — by definition.
This is not about modesty.
• It’s about the right to private, male-only spaces.
• The right to not have to perform masculinity or ‘behave better’ in what should be a sanctuary.
• It’s not about players refusing accountability — it’s about respecting that they should never have to change their behaviour to accommodate outsiders in a space that was historically theirs.
• Just like women wouldn’t — and shouldn’t — tolerate that.
Also, the Cherry defense of “It’s not the women, it’s the men’s behaviour” is textbook repackaged gynocentrism:
It shifts all burden onto the men while sidestepping the core question:
Why are women allowed in male locker rooms at all when the reverse is inconceivable? (And why is the media, in general, including men, permitted to enter?)
Cherry’s nostalgia for the 1970s doesn’t excuse the double standard — it just shows how deeply this conditioning runs.
And no, this isn’t a 2013 debate.
• **The NHL (in the US) still requires post-game locker room access.
• The NFL (in the US) still enforces it. As do other sports and leagues.
• Male athletes still have zero say.
• Reporters (both male and female) are still defended as having an unquestionable right to be there.
You said “show me receipts of exploitation.”
Here they are:
• Players being forced to expose themselves to the opposite sex without the option to refuse = exploitation. (Exactly what’s been happening with the trans female debate in sports and women's locker rooms)
• Players being punished if they protest = coercion.
• Men’s privacy being dismissed while women’s is protected = systemic double standard.
The NFL Players Association (NFLPA) recently called for immediate changes to the longstanding policy allowing reporters into locker rooms after games
"Players feel that locker-room interviews invade their privacy and are uncomfortable." (The Times, 2024)
Cincinnati Bengals centre Ted Karras, an NFLPA player representative, highlighted incidents where players were captured naked on camera, prompting the call for change. He emphasised the need to protect the sanctity of the locker room:
“I think what brought it to light was a couple guys naked on camera this year. I know that’s happened a few times throughout the history of the league. But this will not affect game day, I don’t think. We’re gonna come up with a good solution to make the week as smooth as possible, get everyone the time they need and, again, protect the sanctity of the locker room,” said Karras. (New York Post, 2024)
And there are plenty of other published quotes, if you care to research.
This is so normalised that even when men raise the issue, they’re often mocked, told to 'man up,' or accused of misogyny.
You proved that in your own reply.
You can support male and female reporters’ right to cover the game — but that doesn’t give them the right to override male athletes’ basic human boundaries in the only private space they have. And yes, those private spaces are still being invaded, in various countries, across multiple sports. Eyes are still locking on men’s naked bodies in locker rooms … and some reporters are making money writing NYT bestsellers about said experiences.
This is not a men’s behaviour problem.
This is a systemic disrespect-for-men problem.
And the fact that you — and the leagues — refuse to see it is exactly the problem.
Consent under duress is not consent. It is exploitation. The fact that male athletes' most intimate spaces are contractually invaded — while female spaces remain protected — is not equality. It's systemic male disposability dressed up as 'professionalism.'
I never claimed NHL hockey is "still a man's world."
That’s your misread.
My argument was simple:
In men’s own locker rooms — a very private space — their boundaries are ignored, their consent overridden, and their bodies treated as media property.
That’s not power.
That’s exploitation.
And it’s exactly the kind of gaslighting men face when they raise these issues:
They’re accused of defending 'male privilege' when they’re actually defending their right to basic dignity.
Also — I never said men shouldn’t be responsible for their actions.
That’s a strawman.
This is about men having the same right to privacy, boundaries, and consent in their spaces — rights women expect and demand in theirs.
Expecting men to surrender those rights under the excuse of 'professionalism' isn’t accountability.
It’s a double standard.
If I read all of that correctly, it seems you have an issue with the CBAs and agreements signed between leagues and players' associations regarding required media interactions and where they take place. I can dig into that.
According to the NHL players cited in this article - https://globalnews.ca/news/9142438/media-set-to-return-nhl-locker-rooms/ - it seems that most of them appreciate the locker room interactions with reporters. When it comes to other sports, I cannot and will not comment because I'm not familiar with the setups for those sports. Knowing what I do about the hockey world, it's not quite as exploitative as you seem to think it is.
Do I understand the players' want and need for privacy, boundaries, and consent? Absolutely. But you and I both know that it's two different conversations for male and female athletes as a societal issue, not just a professional sports issue. "Free the nipple" is still a battle that some women fight because there are significantly different standards held for male nudity vs. female nudity. That's a societal issue, specifically in the western hemisphere.
Back to hockey, though, perhaps it's a conversation that needs to happen during the next CBA negotiations if players feel exploited. Based on the comments in the article above, it seems they don't feel that way, but that sample size is admittedly small. The NHLPA should poll its membership and find out if this is something to pursue.
I'll add that media don't treat athletes as property. It's a give-and-take relationship as seen with Larry Brooks and John Tortorella. While reporters may feel obligated to get a quotation from certain players and personnel, it doesn't always happen. Credentials can be pulled if someone isn't following the rules and protocols established by the NHL and its member teams, and many reporters will not come close to risking that access. Once it's gone, it's not going to be given back if the players and staff don't want you there.
Jeremy Rutherford wrote an excellent article in 2019 in The Athletic about how player access and locker room access really works in the NHL - https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/1443355/2019/12/09/postgame-interview-which-players-made-available-why-their-comments-are-rarely-insightful/ - and why players rarely ever offer up comments that will draw clicks and analysis from talking heads. The players are very aware of what the exercise is, so the scene in the locker room is usually more of a ghost town than a lively party.
As for "surrendering those rights", these requirements for media availability are spelled out in both the CBA and their personal contracts with the teams for which they play. I'm not saying it's right, but that's how it's set up by design. Should it be reviewed? Possibly, but that's a CBA discussion. Perhaps they go back to the COVID-style "press room interviews" where it was more like the NBA with two players at a table taking questions. I'm not against that, but the NHL loses the one-on-one aspect of reporters chatting with players where some players open up more.
All in all, I don't know if either side will move the ledger on this topic.
Post a Comment