Bio not provided
1) Clearly, this was the wrong outlet for the Rangers to put this out. I can understand offense being taken in that regard.2) Terrible title. Straight stupidity on their part, and they deserve the flak they are taking for its sexism.
Overall reaction: Facepalm so hard my forehead hurts.Underneath its guise of stupidity, though, the article is just commentary. From the first page, it is apparent that Ms. Mandil is not talking to anyone who would read Blueshirts United, this fine blog, or any other hockey outlet. She doesn't know what football looks like on TV, so I'm guessing sports isn't her bag, but she has a column on Saks Fifth Avenue's page about how to select the proper pair of mid height heels to your wardrobe, so I'm guessing fashion and retail is her bag (and hence, the "70% off sale" line on the first page). She and her female friends didn't understand why the 20 male friends were so enthralled by the game, so clearly she doesn't have the privilege of dealing with any of the numerous female hockey fans I do, nor that anyone else on this blog does. The Rangers asked for "HER PERSPECTIVE" (citing the bolded line at the very beginning of the column), and they got it. They probably didn't ask for "A guide to dating a Rangers fan if you yourself don't like hockey", but that's what Ms. Mandil wrote, and from the female perspective, no less. I can't believe the Rangers released it, either, but simply because their target audience doesn't need it, and won't want to read it. And shame on them for it. But remove the gendered title, put it in Cosmo (instead of their "Who is the hottest NHLer from each team" column perhaps), and I don't know that it comes off so offensively.
2 years ago on Rangers' "Girls' Guide" Falls Flat