Sportswriters don’t like to be told what to do — especially from editors. They especially hate to be told what to wear.

So it’s not surprising there would be some pushback from last week’s Major League Baseball announcement that all credentialed journalists would need to follow the guidelines of a dress code, the first created by any professional sports league or entity:

“Members of the media will be prohibited from wearing flip-flops, short skirts, tank tops or anything with a team logo.”

The guidelines raised hackles not for the humiliating reminder that shower shoes are not the ideal footwear in a press box, nor for any attire bearing a team logo.

Instead, they’ve got some members of the tribe rather indignant because of another item of clothing mentioned in the above sentence.

The short skirts.

You know, worn only by women.

At espnW, Jane McManus sounded off first, insisting that the policy is all about women. She refers to this portion of the Associated Press story:

“The skimpy attire worn by some of the TV reporters covering the Marlins in Miami drew particular scrutiny.”

The skirts, according to the policy, shouldn’t be more than 3-4 inches above the knee.

McManus wrote that some media outlets hire women “based on sex appeal,” and this is an important point. But then she swings and misses:

“The policy is unenforceable, and the people who will be affected by it are the ones who actually care enough to dress professionally in the first place.”

Well, if they’re dressed professionally, they shouldn’t have a problem, right?

Her complaints were mild compared to a couple of men taking up the women’s cause. At The Big Lead, the usually-good Ty Duffy proclaimed this to be about “patriarchal control.” And then he just got simply absurd:

“Will Bud Selig post grizzly nuns with Coke cans at media entrances to enforce this?”

The loudest bloviating came from Charles Pierce at Grantland, a favorite of mine but here just in a blinding rage:

“Are they going to do what the nuns used to do and make female reporters kneel down and measure the distance between the hemline and the floor with a ruler? Are we all now supposed to ‘make room for the Holy Ghost’ when we sit together at dinner?”

I understand this is hyperbole, but what’s with the nun references? Please enlighten the lapsed Protestant in me.

Better yet, why are three usually solid writers jumping the tracks on the conspiracy bandwagon? The policy very clearly stated a set of gender-neutral guidelines that were crafted with the assistance of the Baseball Writers Association of America.

A member of the guidelines committee, in fact, is a woman, Susan Slusser, who’s also the first female president of that organization. She explained that there actually was a credentialed journalist wearing flip flops at the World Series and that the guidelines were all about common sense:

“Don’t dress like a hobo and don’t dress like a ho, those are the extremes they’re looking at.”

She was joking a little, but there’s not been much good humor about what women wear in press boxes or to practices since TV Azteca’s Ines Sainz turned the New York Jets 2010 preseason camp into a circus with her girl-at-the-bar presence.

She didn’t deserve the treatment she got, but as I wrote at the time, women cannot pretend that they can dress however they like, and go wherever they like, and not expect unwanted attention.

I wasn’t alone among women in making this point. But the reaction to the MLB guidelines are a sad reminder that some don’t want to believe that professionalism cuts both ways. If you want to be regarded as a pro, then present yourself like one.

Male or female.

That’s the question Ines Sainz is raising as she continues to keep her name in the news while confirming my initial suspicions about all of this: that the flames over her appearance in the New York Jets locker room were also fanned by the Association for Women in Sports Media, which she claims never consulted her before advocating on her behalf:

“I wonder why a well respected association such as AWSM, within its right to inform about any violations of work conditions for its members, acted so impulsively.”

It’s hard to argue with anything Shannon Owens writes above. But I think AWSM, a group to which I once belonged, won’t be scrutinized to quite the same degree as Sainz.

After repeatedly trying to contact Sainz without success, AWSM proceeded anyway to press the Jets and the NFL. Since Sainz never filed a complaint, should this have been the normal course of action?

Then again, read AWSM’s “open letter” to its membership about and you’ll understand how stridently hidebound this organization has become.

This whole affair, once on AWSM’s radar, was never about Sainz but rather its own agenda. While the organization was founded to fight some necessary battles for access and fair treatment for women reporters, it has become absolutist, brooking no dissent, never acknowledging the murky nature of what allegedly took place.

Regrettably, Jeff MacGregor references the Stockholm Syndrome to parrot the AWSM party line, more or less.

My question was, and remains, this: Why did AWSM take it upon itself to be offended for Sainz when she wasn’t?

On a related matter, Mattel is introducing a “Sports Reporter Barbie” doll. Want to take a guess as to how she is dressed?

Let’s get the silly stuff out of the way first: USA Today’s Christine Brennan thinks the New York Jets should be penalized for the Ines Sainz flap.

This is the same Christine Brennan who not long ago teed off on Erin Andrews for “playing to the frat house” but now writes this:

“Some want to make this a story about how a woman looks and/or what she chooses to wear to do her job. That’s certainly been a popular topic of conversation the past few days, and I, as you, have read and heard many of those comments.

“But to focus on that distracts us from the fundamental question that remains for the NFL:

“Was a credentialed reporter harassed in the workplace by the team that gave her that credential?

“Everything else about this story is extraneous.”

And I understand the last part being where the Association for Women in Sports Media draws the line, underscored by the organization’s statement issued today. I can respect that, to a point. But it’s not as simple as they want it to sound.

And that’s a hell of a quick conversion for Brennan, an AWSM founder. Is it not? Sounds like she might have undergone some “re-education” from The Sisterhood for that crime against her gender.

A rare woman sports journalist who’s not been afraid to veer from the female pack is, sadly, on the AWSM bandwagon on this one. Sally Jenkins’ perspective in the Washington Post is generally well-thought out and nuanced, but here’s where she ruins it:

“It’s her prerogative to wear what she wants, and the only people entitled to judge its professional appropriateness are her bosses at TV Azteca, who apparently are fine with it. And if she dresses for attention, what of it? Women have been using dress as a form of communication since Queen Elizabeth I of England first put on pearls.”

This is quite silly too, and maddening. Professionals in any field have no such “prerogative” to dress how they choose. If companies don’t have dress codes — and many do — than anyone who conducts their business outside an office should employ professional comon sense about what to wear on the job.

I respect both of these women immensely as pioneers in my profession who have dealt with much more grief from the male sports culture than I have.

But I also sense a fear from the long-timers that this could lead to an erosion in their hard-won gains for women sports reporters. Another pioneer, Barbara Barker, chimes in accordingly. They’re tired of the double standards.

I understand perfectly where they’re coming from, but respectfully disagree. We’re not in a perfect world, but workaday women reporters and columnists have been generally unharassed since the Lisa Olson incident 20 years ago. And that’s a fine testament to the work of Brennan, Jenkins, AWSM and other women, the pro leagues and teams — and even the occasional athlete — to enforce policies of equal access and fair treatment.

I  particularly admire this strong dissent from Ashley Fox of the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“You also don’t walk into an NFL locker room wearing jeans that leave little to the imagination and a blouse that reveals your substantial cleavage. You don’t have to dress ultra-conservatively, but you have to be smart. If you want to be treated like a girl at a bar, dress like a girl at a bar. If you want to be treated professionally and without incident, cover up.

“To be a real, professional female sports journalist in this country, you must know: Athletes can be pigs. They say things. You have to have a thick skin and be prepared to fire back at them.

“Second of all, if you want to be treated like a professional, you have to dress like a professional. That means no super-short skirts like the one Sainz wore on the Today show on Tuesday. No cleavage-revealing blouses. No short-shorts.”

Also in the Washington Post, Leonard Shapiro argues that professionalism cuts both ways. I’m quoted at the very end, not by name, and am humbled by the inclusion.

I’m glad I’m not the only fly in the soup.

And that’s really all I have to say on this. I suspect I may have said too much.

Yesterday I figured I was among the few women sports journalists taking issue with my sisters in the business about Ines Sainz. ESPN.com’s Jemelle Hill feels the same way:

“But isn’t it fair, too, to wonder whether Sainz’s flirty, fluffy reporting style might blur the lines for the players? I have a hard time believing the Jets would treat USA Today columnist Christine Brennan, a pioneer for female sports journalists, the way they allegedly treated Sainz.

“I was disappointed that Brennan and the Association for Women in Sports Media (AWSM) have rushed to support Sainz. Yes, their response brings attention to a serious issue, but sometimes the wrong person can undermine the right cause.

“I respect AWSM immensely and credit the organization for mentoring women like me and helping us understand how to navigate the male-dominated world of sports.

“But is Sainz the best candidate for martyrdom?”

Bravo. Even some of the guys are summoning the gumption to sound off along similar lines.

Also: Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel absolutely nails it about Clinton Portis’ rock-headed comments about women in the locker room. Andrew Sharp of SB Nation begs to differ. Strongly.

And this: An aspiring female sportswriter wants to know why Ines does what she does. And the way she does it.

Wait, there’s still more, this from Keith Olbermann, who can’t pick on Tea Party women 24/7:

Kevin Blackistone of FanHouse reads from the gospel of the women’s sports media organization that appears to be more worked up over what happened to Ines Sainz than the Mexican TV reporter herself:

“What happened to Sainz is bigger than her.

“What happened to Sainz is why the NFL in 1985 implemented a policy mandating that female journalists have the same access to players as male journalists. It is why a month after Olson was violated that then-NFL boss Paul Tagliabue levied what then was the biggest fine against a coach, Sam Wyche, after Wyche barred a female reporter from his Bengals locker room declaring that, “I will not allow women to walk in on 50 naked men.”

“I’ve never seen a nude woman in a women’s locker room, and never looked for one.”

Blackistone makes a decent and honorable case for why women should not be mistreated by doltish football players and coaches. So do Bill Rhoden of The New York Times and Eric Deggans at sportsjournalism.org. Ditto for Ann Killion of SI.com, someone whose work I admire deeply.

A number of women sports reporters in New York are firmly behind efforts to “re-educate” the Jets personnel who misbehaved. I’ve got no problem with any of that, as long as they don’t get too Maoist with their cant. The Jets gave Sainz a credential, and they didn’t treat her professionally, and the team owner already has apologized to Sainz.

Bravo for him.

But to ignore the fact that this woman is out for attention, and that her attire was a central component in all of this, is to pretend that women can go anywhere they want, dressed any way they want, at any time of day or night, and not expect unwanted attention.

This should be a matter of simple common sense, yet absolutist views on this topic make it difficult for honest discussion to take place. The incident brings back painful memories for women who have experienced what Sainz just went through. Male reporters are terrified of coming across as insensitive at the least, or condoning harassment at the worst.

I’m not saying Sainz “asked” for, or deserved, the treatment she got. She did not. But she also lacked proper professionalism because of her dress, although the fear of being politically incorrect means she’ll rarely be called out for it. Good to see Mark Kriegel doing so.

(Redskins running back Clinton Portis should be called out for this nonsense that revives old arguments about women being allowed in locker rooms in the first place.)

Yet to watch Sainz make the rounds on morning TV programs today was to see someone who’s hardly a clueless dilettante overwhelmed by juvenile football players in a locker room. This is a very shrewd woman who knows how to become the story, or who at least is very comfortable being the story.

This too undermines the work of women in sports media, and I might be one of the few women in the business who will admit it.

When Deadspin has the proper perspective on the alleged mistreatment of Mexican TV reporter Ines Sainz by the New York Jets, then what does that say about this whole flap?

While the NFL ought to come down hard on the Jets if these accusations are true, the actions of more than a few boorish players and coaches need to be examined as well.

Should former beauty pageant contestants-turned sports correspondents be able to show up at an NFL team training camp dressed a certain way, then express complete surprise when they’re subjected to catcalls and worse?

I appreciate Tara Sullivan’s take on all this and her comments on NPR today. But women in sports media are hurt when news organizations assign attention-grabbers like Sainz to events like this in the first place.