FSNorth Girls: Sexism or Opportunity?

[Willihammer]

Chitown have you ever oggled at Brian Dozier? Apart from the HR's and webgems I mean.

[Squirrel]

Chitown have you ever oggled at Brian Dozier? Apart from the HR's and webgems I mean.

I never said I was blameless ... in fact I admitted to such behavior in an earlier post.  But I do love his hair ... well, rather his hair the previous season, which was longer.

[Willihammer]

I never said I was blameless ... in fact I admitted to such behavior in an earlier post.  But I do love his hair ... well, rather his hair the previous season, which was longer.

Would it be fair to say that, in addition to his stellar on field play, Brian Dozier's hair in 2013 made the whole experience that much more enjoyable for you?

[Squirrel]

Would it be fair to say that, in addition to his stellar on field play, Brian Dozier's hair in 2013 made the whole experience that much more enjoyable for you?

No.  I would have enjoyed his play on field with or without the hair.  It didn't make it any more or less enjoyable.  I pay to watch baseball.  Brian Dozier's hair doesn't enhance that at all.  I don't buy tickets or watch games in hopes of getting a glimpse of that.  And if I do get a glimpse of his hair?  Meh.  Great.  So what.  It's nice hair.  But it doesn't enhance the baseball experience.  What enhances the baseball experience is good play and winning games.  Now, if I suggested we give him a long term contact based on his hair?  That would be sexist and offensive.  If I suggested that baseball players had to have hair and beards I liked first and foremost over their ability?  And that only certain body types would be given contracts over ability because that's what we're trying to sell over sport?  Yes, wrong.  And if I had the power and authority to do this and enacted it over someone trying to pursue a dream?  Ugh.  Wrong.

[Willihammer]

Fair enough. Me, I like sex and sports in more equal proportions. YMMV.

[Squirrel]

The whole Brian Dozier hair thing that got started, by me, in the game threads in 2013, was in direct response to another photo of a beautiful woman in a tight tank top that was being displayed.  I had asked, in private, if that was necessary and that it made me uncomfortable, that and the response and talk surrounding that also made me uncomfortable.  I was told, in private, that I was in the minority and that this is what men did, and it was all in fun, and that there wasn't a need to alter it.  So, in comes my 'ogling' of Brian Dozier's hair.  Was it right?  No.  The right response was to not respond to it rather than try to find a 'comfortable balance' to it and try to steer threads away from the 'men will be men' meme.  But that is a different issue than the one presented in the beginning of this thread, both worthy of discussion.  But are really different issues; related perhaps in a broader sense, but not the same.  When such 'ogling' and need for 'titillation' trumps ability for opportunities in the work force, that's a case of sexism.  It doesn't just happen to women, either, but more predominately.  It's something that affects us all.  And maybe it begins with basic attitudes we have towards the other gender.  And yes, I'm not denying that there is a natural response there; but nature isn't an excuse not to further our thinking on the matter to change the culture.  I think this can be done ... not quickly or easily ... but it does start with awareness, respect and understanding.  Men and women are different ... and thank God for that ... I love that we are.  But that doesn't mean we should ever have to sexualize or objectify ourselves in order to achieve or to do our jobs.  Nor should we be denied opportunity because we won't. Nor should we have to be limited by societal stereotypes of who we men and women are depicted to be.  I'm not judging anyone in this.  Nor am I trying to be pc.  I'm just trying to state what I see and feel and how I've had to fight stereotypes my whole life in order to reach the level of success I've had with my life and career.

[TheLeviathan]

That's pretty much a cop out allowing for no responsibilities of behavior. This is akin to blaming the victim for rape because the rapist couldn't help themselves.

 

I don't agree with everything glunn said (particularly about genetic engineering), but don't you think there is a natural/biological/evolutionary component to all human behavior that compels us?  That goes for a wide range of male and female behaviors.

 

That isn't to remove responsibility, just to acknowledge reality as we strive to better ourselves.

[Craig Arko]

I don't agree with everything glunn said (particularly about genetic engineering), but don't you think there is a natural/biological/evolutionary component to all human behavior that compels us?  That goes for a wide range of male and female behaviors.

 

That isn't to remove responsibility, just to acknowledge reality as we strive to better ourselves.

Well sure, but there is also cultural evolution which has given things like beer, dogs, cities, statistics, and sending robots to Mars. And baseball.

 

We do our best work when we can get past the limitations of the biological firmware, not be constrained by it.

[biggentleben]

This is a very different discussion than the original question.

 

To the original point, the role of objectifying a person to sell a product is absolutely sexism AND opportunity.  I cannot walk into Google and tell them I want to be their lead programmer without any modern programming experience (my last experience was in college with Visual Basic).  Yes, I have the basic tools of a programmer, but I don't have the specific set of tools that someone should have.  The opportunity is there for someone who does have that set of tools.  Not in the same breath, but akin to the fact that while I can lift more than most models you'll ever see, you'll never see me on the cover of a magazine because the muscle I have is not "pretty" muscle.  Those with the right set of muscles and a decent face will get every male modeling gig over me any day (trust me, no one wants me modeling anything, just saying!).  It is a sexist opportunity in that it is a position born of demand that requires a specific set of physical attributes that not every person can attain.

 

On the more recent discussion, I've seen Emma Watson's speech, and I was a big fan of what she said, but my takeaway might truly mess up the conversation here.  I don't think we should be chastising men for noting a woman's attractiveness, just like we should not be chastising women for noting a man's attractiveness.  Steps taken beyond observation and appreciation of that attractiveness (and it isn't difficult to know where the line between appreciation and unhealthy obsession is for most anyone, except maybe lawyers - I kid, I kid) are not healthy for the observer or the observed.  Emma Watson had multiple websites dedicated to counting down the days until she turned 18 and was "legal".  She's dealt with the poor end of things.  The interesting part to me is that I work in a very female-dominated career - social work.  The team of 8 that I'm a part of has nearly always had 3 guys on it during my time with the agency, and there are roughly 50 employees in the whole agency, and it has oft been the case that our 3 guys constituted half or a higher percentage of all the males in the entire agency.  I've been discriminated against in my field because I'm male.  I tell folks that I work in social work, and they assume I'm not intelligent enough or determined enough to work in a different, more male-dominated field.  Our view of sexes absolutely has classes.  Ask a room of people their response to a movie like the recent "The Fault In Our Stars", and you'll have a number of women admit they were brought to tears and the room supports them.  One guy says he was brought to tears, and the snickers in the room would be audible.  I'm very used to phrases like "he cries at movies, but he'll never admit to it" or "he's got a soft spot for kittens, but you'll never hear him say so" or similar things that would infer that a guy has a caring, sensitive nature about him, but that he has to hide this nature lest someone find out about it. Heck, for years I had coworkers and acquaintances assume I was gay because I was open about my feelings without covering them up.  True equality of the sexes isn't about boys will be boys and girls will be girls...it's about people being people and allowing for however and whomever a person is be who they are, not some sort of defining role in the scope of gender.

 

TL;DR

/soapbox

[TheLeviathan]

Well sure, but there is also cultural evolution which has given things like beer, dogs, cities, statistics, and sending robots to Mars. And baseball.

 

We do our best work when we can get past the limitations of the biological firmware, not be constrained by it.

 

Well, that was the whole "strive to be better" part at the end of my post.  I get the impression (often) that people seem to think our nature is easy to overcome on both a micro and macro level and as someone (like Ben) that has worked with people his entire life.....

 

I can tell you that is most certainly not the case.  It's not an excuse for the status quo, but it has to be a consideration in a discussion.

[Craig Arko]

Well, that was the whole "strive to be better" part at the end of my post.  I get the impression (often) that people seem to think our nature is easy to overcome on both a micro and macro level and as someone (like Ben) that has worked with people his entire life.....

 

I can tell you that is most certainly not the case.  It's not an excuse for the status quo, but it has to be a consideration in a discussion.

I agree. As do the beer and the dogs.

[twinsnorth49]

Would it be fair to say that, in addition to his stellar on field play, Brian Dozier's hair in 2013 made the whole experience that much more enjoyable for you?

Brian Dozier plays 2nd base for the Twins because he has nice hair? I assumed it was because he was really good a baseball.

[twinsnorth49]

This is a very different discussion than the original question.

 

To the original point, the role of objectifying a person to sell a product is absolutely sexism AND opportunity.  I cannot walk into Google and tell them I want to be their lead programmer without any modern programming experience (my last experience was in college with Visual Basic).  Yes, I have the basic tools of a programmer, but I don't have the specific set of tools that someone should have.  The opportunity is there for someone who does have that set of tools.  Not in the same breath, but akin to the fact that while I can lift more than most models you'll ever see, you'll never see me on the cover of a magazine because the muscle I have is not "pretty" muscle.  Those with the right set of muscles and a decent face will get every male modeling gig over me any day (trust me, no one wants me modeling anything, just saying!).  It is a sexist opportunity in that it is a position born of demand that requires a specific set of physical attributes that not every person can attain.

 

On the more recent discussion, I've seen Emma Watson's speech, and I was a big fan of what she said, but my takeaway might truly mess up the conversation here.  I don't think we should be chastising men for noting a woman's attractiveness, just like we should not be chastising women for noting a man's attractiveness.  Steps taken beyond observation and appreciation of that attractiveness (and it isn't difficult to know where the line between appreciation and unhealthy obsession is for most anyone, except maybe lawyers - I kid, I kid) are not healthy for the observer or the observed.  Emma Watson had multiple websites dedicated to counting down the days until she turned 18 and was "legal".  She's dealt with the poor end of things.  The interesting part to me is that I work in a very female-dominated career - social work.  The team of 8 that I'm a part of has nearly always had 3 guys on it during my time with the agency, and there are roughly 50 employees in the whole agency, and it has oft been the case that our 3 guys constituted half or a higher percentage of all the males in the entire agency.  I've been discriminated against in my field because I'm male.  I tell folks that I work in social work, and they assume I'm not intelligent enough or determined enough to work in a different, more male-dominated field.  Our view of sexes absolutely has classes.  Ask a room of people their response to a movie like the recent "The Fault In Our Stars", and you'll have a number of women admit they were brought to tears and the room supports them.  One guy says he was brought to tears, and the snickers in the room would be audible.  I'm very used to phrases like "he cries at movies, but he'll never admit to it" or "he's got a soft spot for kittens, but you'll never hear him say so" or similar things that would infer that a guy has a caring, sensitive nature about him, but that he has to hide this nature lest someone find out about it. Heck, for years I had coworkers and acquaintances assume I was gay because I was open about my feelings without covering them up.  True equality of the sexes isn't about boys will be boys and girls will be girls...it's about people being people and allowing for however and whomever a person is be who they are, not some sort of defining role in the scope of gender.

 

TL;DR

/soapbox

Good post, great examples of benevolent sexism, which is really the form that most people just don't see, mainly because it has become an ingrained part of our culture and society, not biological. 

 

To be honest I think the OP is touching more on objectification than sexism, although there is a sexist element inclusive in that, but not mutually. There also seems to be an odd disconnect here between what constitutes sexual objectification and what is sexual attraction, two completely different things.

 

Would be great to hear from more females that's for sure.

[Willihammer]

Brian Dozier plays 2nd base for the Twins because he has nice hair? I assumed it was because he was really good a baseball.

Yes that's exactly what I was trying to say.

[twinsnorth49]

Yes that's exactly what I was trying to say.

That ogling Brian Dozier the baseball player who happens to be an attractive person and ogling the FSN girls, the impossibly beautiful women used to titillate the male dominated audience and serve no other purpose, are kind of the same?

[Willihammer]

That ogling Brian Dozier the baseball player who happens to be an attractive person and ogling the FSN girls, the impossibly beautiful women used to titillate the male dominated audience and serve no other purpose, are kind of the same?

There you go.

 

Chitown had just said that using a billion years of mammalian evolution as an explanation for men ogling girls was a copout and I was calling her out for doing it too. Girls can ogle too. That was my point. I'm sorry if that derailed the thread.

[glunn]

I'm sorry , glunn, but there is so much wrong in this I don't even know where to begin. Did you listen to the Emma Watson speech? Maybe start there. You basically said men can't help who they are so until we can genetically engineer change in the male species, we must protect the women from the male species. That's pretty much a cop out allowing for no responsibilities of behavior. This is akin to blaming the victim for rape because the rapist couldn't help themselves.

 

With all due respect, I was not blaming the women nor was I saying that men cannot overcome their biological impulses.  I don't see anything in my post that even suggested that.  I recognize that many men rationalize that biology is immutable or that women should be blamed.  I am not one of them, but I do believe that understanding the biological component is vital to solving the problems.

 

I was saying that we need to protect women against biologically based male behavior that is at least partly a product of evolution.  It seems to me that until we can change the biology, we need to focus on protecting the women, especially the women who are suffering the most. 

 

The Emma Watson speech is a step in the right direction.  As CRArko's Star Trek clip illustrates and as history demonstrates, mankind can overcome biological impulses through education and adoption of better cultural norms.  In the meantime, hundreds of millions of women are suffering far more than the FSN girls, and it seems to me that education alone will take too long to help these women.

 

I think that we can all agree that education will be critical in changing the current situation.  But as stated so eloquently by Captain Kirk in the Star Trek clip, it seems to me that part of such education should include an understanding of the biological component of the oppression that women have endured for thousands of years.

[ashbury]

This is on Dan Piraro's blog this week.  Had to share.http://bizarrocomics.com/files/2014/09/Bizarro-09-28-14-WEB.jpg

[ashbury]

Some teens (a little too fresh-scrubbed but whatchagonnado?) discuss the message found in Nicki Minaj's Anaconda:

 

[media]http://youtu.be/1Uf7UpkbfmY[/media]

[twinsnorth49]

The kid who says this is a feminist video about empowering women is my favourite. 

 

I just  gots a lots stupider watching that.......thanks

[Bark's Lounge]

Some teens (a little too fresh-scrubbed but whatchagonnado?) discuss the message found in Nicki Minaj's Anaconda:

 

http://youtu.be/1Uf7UpkbfmY

Great song, great video, just kidding. What more is there to say?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I never said I was blameless ... in fact I admitted to such behavior in an earlier post.  But I do love his hair ... well, rather his hair the previous season, which was longer.

I think there's a big difference between Brian Dozier and the FSN Girls.

 

Being respectful doesn't mean you put the libido on the shelf and pretend that attractive people aren't attractive.

 

Brian Dozier is on that field for one reason: to play baseball. Is he attractive to many women? Yeah. Good for him. At no point did Gardenhire say "Yeah, it might cost us a couple of wins this season but put in the hot kid with the hair. We need butts in seats."

 

*cue player under Gardy's desk joke here*

 

Natalie Portman is absurdly hot. She's also a hell of an actress and that's a big reason why she gets the roles she does (being that it's Hollywood, "hot" also plays a role). There's nothing wrong with appreciating attractive people and occasionally ogling them... It's human nature. We're not robots.

 

Hell, if the scales were even balanced at 50/50 men and women getting these same types of "FSN Girls/Boys" roles, it might be somewhat palatable... But that's not the case. Overwhelmingly, it's women who are put in these types of "stand there and look pretty" roles and it's horribly insulting to both genders. One, for putting women in that job with the pretense that they are incapable of doing anything more and two, for the thinking that men are so completely sex-crazed that they won't realize they're being pandered to at the lowest level.

[TheLeviathan]

One, for putting women in that job with the pretense that they are incapable of doing anything more and two, for the thinking that men are so completely sex-crazed that they won't realize they're being pandered to at the lowest level.

 

I agree in principle.....but isn't there a sizable portion of both the groups that you described that this holds true for?

 

I don't like it, I think we should grow from it, and it's an indictment of our species to a degree.....but is it really insulting to have a business model that is largely successful because both of these things are kind of true?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I agree in principle.....but isn't there a sizable portion of both the groups that you described that this holds true for?

 

I don't like it, I think we should grow from it, and it's an indictment of our species to a degree.....but is it really insulting to have a business model that is largely successful because both of these things are kind of true?

But they don't have to ring true and I think it's a holdover from bygone eras more than something completely engrained in the human psyche.

 

Erin Andrews is lovely. She's also capable. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I'm not so naive that I expect capable people to get the job 100% of the time if they look like they grew up under a bridge. There are plenty of good-looking capable people out there. We should demand more from media, not less.

 

To boil it down simply, let's put it in Scarlett Johansson vs. Megan Fox terms.

 

Scarlett Johansson in Avengers: super-hot, sexy, great character with believable motivations. All around, pretty great.

 

Megan Fox in Transformers: super-hot, sexy, completely vapid and pretty much worthless once you get past the fact that she's ridiculously hot.

 

The Scarlett Johansson character should be the norm. Unfortunately, it's the other way around.

[TheLeviathan]

But they don't have to ring true 

 

But they do, you're kind of caught in an is/ought fallacy here.   We agree about the ought, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the "is".

[Brock Beauchamp]

Fair enough... But "is" doesn't really fly with me and I don't think it really flies with you, either.

 

Anyway, I don't think we're really arguing anything here.

[JB_Iowa]

It's sexism.  Worst of all, it just adds more clutter to already-cluttered broadcasts.

 

Streamline everything.  Cut down on the talking heads and extraneous personalities,  Buy a muzzle for Dick Bremer that only allows so many words per game.  Use a mild shock collar on Bert when he tells the same story or uses the same phrase too often.  Eliminate some of the "folksy visits."

 

Open up the mics and let us experience the sounds of the game.

[TheLeviathan]

It's sexism.  Worst of all, it just adds more clutter to already-cluttered broadcasts.

 

Streamline everything.  Cut down on the talking heads and extraneous personalities,  Buy a muzzle for Dick Bremer that only allows so many words per game.  Use a mild shock collar on Bert when he tells the same story or uses the same phrase too often.  Eliminate some of the "folksy visits."

 

Open up the mics and let us experience the sounds of the game.

 

See, the thing is, I agree with you but I'm guessing the guys in charge have vetted these decisions as money makers for them.  The problem we have is there is still a sizable part of the population that enjoys the lowest common denominator.

[Paul Pleiss]

I think there are some good points raised here, and the idea of attractiveness vs sexism is one I'd like to address.

 

I'm not implying with my original post that attractive women should be discredited for being good at being a reporter/sports personality. I understand that in the business of tv/video that being attractive counts for something.

 

The FSN Girls aren't being hired to be great reporters/personalities. They're being hired to look good, primarily, and do everything else second. That's what seems wrong to me. And the name really gets to me, the more I think about it, the more having them called FSNorth Girls, instead of women, or just reporters or whatever, that bothers me.

 

I brought this up with my fiancee to ask her opinion, as I'm interested in how women view this topic. She agreed that the use of "girls" instead of women, is a hot button issue for her, and not just with Fox girls, but in the real world, and across a wide spectrum of interactions.

 

I understand a need for a female presence on their network, and I understand that those women will likely be attractive. But I also think they should be expected and pushed to do more than look pretty and be oogled.

[Squirrel]

 

And the name really gets to me, the more I think about it, the more having them called FSNorth Girls, instead of women, or just reporters or whatever, that bothers me.

 

My mom had a t-shirt that she used to wear from time to time that said 'Don't Call Me Girl!'

 

I don't mind 'girl' as long as it's used in a generic sense along with the word 'boy.'  And never in a serious or professional sense.  I use the terms 'girls and boys' from time to time ... but again ... equally, and never in a serious or professional conversation, usually among friends and when I'm being silly or light-hearted, as in 'girls night out.'  But occasionally someone really, really doesn't get it.  I'm old enough to not be addressed as 'girl.'  And very often it's someone much younger than me saying it, which I find completely odd.  And in some situations, when polite correction doesn't work, I will resort to saying something like ... 'I haven't been a girl since I was 14' ... and that pretty much ends it right there.  Uncomfortable?  Not for me but males of all ages squirm a little with that one. 

 

But then there's this video ... and watching that, it's really not so bad being a girl.  (Okay, so it's kind of an advert for a feminine hygiene brand, but the message is still good.)