FSNorth Girls: Sexism or Opportunity?

[SwainZag]

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.

 

I just wanted to comment on this.  I went to college with a young lady who got her degree in journalism and went on to be a Fox girl in a different market for a few years before moving on to a job as a reporter and just recently become an anchor.  Is she good looking? Yes, and that was her first job out of college.  On the other hand, a guy I graduated with in a similiar situation also in journalism got a job with a newspaper basically as a gopher before making his way as a reporter some 7-8 years later.

 

You can either chastise the girls for being good looking and taking a position as a "Fox girl" or look at it as getting their foot in the door for a better position.  I know nothing of the background of the current FSN girls, and it might not apply to them, but everyone's situation is probably different.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

glunn, on 05 Oct 2014 - 02:26 AM, said:
 

In the meantime, I think that society needs to focus on protecting the women.  The vast bulk of this iceberg consists of women who lead far more difficult lives than the FSN girls -- strippers, prostitutes and sex slaves.

I believe that men are biologically different from women in fundamental ways.  For example, strip clubs with female dancers far outnumber strip clubs with male dancers.  I do not believe that this is mainly cultural.  I believe that for many men there is a very positive physical (and possibly metaphysical) reaction at seeing a women take her clothes off.  I believe that this is a biological response that has dominated the human gene pool for thousands of years.  My theory is that the men who were stimulated by seeing naked females (and even more stimulated by seeing multiple naked females) tended to have more offspring, and after eons of evolution, many men still have a very enjoyable reaction to behavior that objectifies women.

I'm going to set aside the genetic engineering part b/c I'm not so certain it will work, nor do I agree with the overall premise.  That said, I'd like to address this a bit more.

 

The idea of 'protecting' I think is very vague and can have different connotations to different people.  You listed 3 groups.  Of the three, sex slaves did not choose their profession, and in that I wholeheartedly agree that society should be doing what it can to liberate these inviduals from their predicaments. 

The other two groups chose their professions for various reasons.  Some turn there b/c there's no where else to go (which involves a separate economic discussion), and some do it b/c they can make insane amounts of money.  Not all of them live difficult lives, and some live quite nicely.   Over my life, I've met people in both or these groups, and I'd argue that they are just as guilty of taking advantage of vulnerable people.  If you've ever been to a strip club, you know what I'm talking about.  Yes, there's the occasional bachelor party where a group of guys are having fun at the expense of a soon to be married groom, or various other reasons why someone may go, but these clubs are littered with sex-addicts who will shell out every dollar in their pocket if the object of their lust is just flirty enough with them to make them think there's something there.  Prostitutes, I'd imagine are the same in that respect.  Women (or even the men who choose these prfessions) who can do this well, will make lots of money.  I get concerned when we talk about protecting these people.  They chose their careers, and many don't want to be protected. I get it from an economic standpoint, if there happens to be no other alternative, but that discussion is an economic one and can be easier solved by fixing the world's economic woes than protection or addressing cultural sexism.  Likewise, I'd argue that there are many men who fall victim here too.  Sex addition is a very real thing.  And I do believe that men are wired to be more prone to this than women (not saying that there aren't female sex addicts out there, just that there's far more male ones). 

 

As to your second point, this is wiring.  We can debate if this is evolution vs. creation or a human fallen sin nature vs. natural selection, but yes, there is a positive reaction in men towards these actions.  Your brain releases dopamine in these circumstances which stimulates the reward/pleasure centers in the brain.  For whatever reason, in men, those parts of the brain are easier to activate (or men just do a better job of accessing them, who knows).  In the case of an addict, the brain will literally start to re-wire it self over time, requiring better 'fixes' as the addiction progresses.  This is true whether it's sex, drugs, or any other addictive stimuli I might add.  I'd argue that the people society really needs to address is the addicts, not the people feeding the addiction.  To be clear, I don't think there's a 'government' based solution here.  But if society really wants to put an end to this, it needs to find a way to treat the individuals who truely do struggle with control.  This isn't as simple as cutting off their supply, as there's always a way to fry your brain.

[ashbury]

I don't mind 'girl' as long as it's used in a generic sense along with the word 'boy.' 

For "boys" I agree.  What's a useful female analogue for the word "guys", though? 

 

Back in the 70s or whenever, I adopted the word "gals" as a more acceptable substitute for "girls".  "Guys and gals", or just "gals" alone, seemed to work.  In the past ten years or so, though, I've gotten weird looks, most often from people my kids' age, when I use that word in any context.  Like I'm trying to sound Western or something, and just got back from a square dance.

 

"Guys and women" sounds overly formal toward the women, when a casual tone is what I wanted, not to mention unequal.  "Guys" collectively for both genders isn't well received.

 

I've gone back to "girls" a lot of times.  It's what I hear a lot of grown women saying.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, my wife says she's going out with the "girls", but I do understand why it can be considered condescending.

[Squirrel]

Yeah, my wife says she's going out with the "girls", but I do understand why it can be considered condescending.

That's why I said, it depends on the situation and the context.  I mean ... 'girls night out' or 'boys night out' .. meh, I don't care.  I don't care when one of my friend's husbands refers to us as 'the girls', either, in that context.   But when adult professionals refer to me as 'the girl who works in the library' (I'm the only female) when you'd never hear them refer to my colleagues as 'the boys who work in the library,' when our titles are the same, it's condescending.    

 

And Ash, technically, I think 'gal' is the counterpart to 'guy.'  But, again, depends on context.  I think 'guy' can be used more universally?  Not sure really how men take 'guys' versus 'men.'  'Gal,' to me, seems informal.  I'd never use either in a professional or formal setting.  But I've used 'guys' to be inclusive of both men and women, again, more informally.

 

In a professional situation, I prefer woman, or by my professional title with no gender attached at all.

[ashbury]

In a professional situation, I prefer woman, or by my professional title with no gender attached at all.

There's no question that woman is the term I'd use at work, etc.

 

But if Fox Sports had a group of males doing light interviews, they might call them, I don't know, "The FSNorth Guys."  No one would think twice.

 

What would be an acceptable counterpart to that?

[Squirrel]

There's no question that woman is the term I'd use at work, etc.

 

But if Fox Sports had a group of males doing light interviews, they might call them, I don't know, "The FSNorth Guys."  No one would think twice.

 

What would be an acceptable counterpart to that?

Well, 'gals' is technically the counterpart to 'guys.'  But in the type of situation you've described, I wouldn't like either gals or girls ... but then what would you use?  Ladies?  See ... why not hire young men AND women and just refer to them as 'reporters.'

[Paul Pleiss]

You can either chastise the girls for being good looking and taking a position as a "Fox girl" or look at it as getting their foot in the door for a better position.  I know nothing of the background of the current FSN girls, and it might not apply to them, but everyone's situation is probably different.

I'm not looking to chastise them for being good looking. That's a great advantage to have in this world. I think, more than anything, I am more concerned about what I believe Fox is using these women for, and it's not reporting.

 

In my original post I suspected that Fox probably claims it's a way to infuse more women into their sports in a positive way, as an opportunity for development in a male dominated field.

 

To play devil's advocate, you could tell me that your friend is a stripper and that she stripped her way through college and graduated without a penny in student loans. Does that somehow justify the existence of strip clubs?

 

Every situation is different. Every one of the Fox girls, I'm sure, had a decision to make. None of them seem to be nincompoops. I'm sure they understand what they're getting into, and looked at the value vs the risk, and made informed decisions.

 

I think more than anything, I just have a problem with the Fox Sports Girls in general.

 

I don't think I'd have a problem with the fox sports guys, or even the Fox Sports Gals. But the Fox sports girls? I can't get behind that.

 

This has generated more dicussion than I thought it would, and I'm enjoying all the places this conversation is going.

[Brock Beauchamp]

In a professional situation, I prefer woman, or by my professional title with no gender attached at all.

Without exception, I refer to my colleagues as Der Fuhrer. I assume that this is okay.

[Squirrel]

Without exception, I refer to my colleagues as Der Fuhrer. I assume that this is okay.

As long as you do it to their face, all is well.

[Brock Beauchamp]

As long as you do it to their face, all is well.

Well, yeah. I say it to their face before goose-stepping away but yeah, the actual comment is made directly to them.

[Boom Boom]

I'm pretty sure the draw of the Fox Sports North (or Anywhere Else) Girls isn't the TV ratings so much as the public events they would otherwise inexplicably show up at, implying that males can get a "chance" with them in person.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, 'gals' is technically the counterpart to 'guys.'  But in the type of situation you've described, I wouldn't like either gals or girls ... but then what would you use?  Ladies?  See ... why not hire young men AND women and just refer to them as 'reporters.'

 

Except they aren't reporters, they really are just women wearing sports apparel and appearing at stuff.  Jamie Hirsch isn't called a "girl" because she's an actual reporter.  As with even eye-candy sideline reporters.

 

The FSNorth Girls are a different category.

[ashbury]

Well, 'gals' is technically the counterpart to 'guys.'  But in the type of situation you've described, I wouldn't like either gals or girls ... but then what would you use?  Ladies?  See ... why not hire young men AND women and just refer to them as 'reporters.'

Well, the concept I had in mind for something called "The FSNorth Guys" wouldn't likely be in the category we usually call reporting.  More like a podcast ¹ with production values.

 

_{¹ No offense intended to those who make podca... nah, who am I kidding?}

[glunn]

I'm going to set aside the genetic engineering part b/c I'm not so certain it will work, nor do I agree with the overall premise.  That said, I'd like to address this a bit more.

 

The idea of 'protecting' I think is very vague and can have different connotations to different people.  You listed 3 groups.  Of the three, sex slaves did not choose their profession, and in that I wholeheartedly agree that society should be doing what it can to liberate these inviduals from their predicaments. 

The other two groups chose their professions for various reasons.  Some turn there b/c there's no where else to go (which involves a separate economic discussion), and some do it b/c they can make insane amounts of money.  Not all of them live difficult lives, and some live quite nicely.   Over my life, I've met people in both or these groups, and I'd argue that they are just as guilty of taking advantage of vulnerable people.  If you've ever been to a strip club, you know what I'm talking about.  Yes, there's the occasional bachelor party where a group of guys are having fun at the expense of a soon to be married groom, or various other reasons why someone may go, but these clubs are littered with sex-addicts who will shell out every dollar in their pocket if the object of their lust is just flirty enough with them to make them think there's something there.  Prostitutes, I'd imagine are the same in that respect.  Women (or even the men who choose these prfessions) who can do this well, will make lots of money.  I get concerned when we talk about protecting these people.  They chose their careers, and many don't want to be protected. I get it from an economic standpoint, if there happens to be no other alternative, but that discussion is an economic one and can be easier solved by fixing the world's economic woes than protection or addressing cultural sexism.  Likewise, I'd argue that there are many men who fall victim here too.  Sex addition is a very real thing.  And I do believe that men are wired to be more prone to this than women (not saying that there aren't female sex addicts out there, just that there's far more male ones). 

 

As to your second point, this is wiring.  We can debate if this is evolution vs. creation or a human fallen sin nature vs. natural selection, but yes, there is a positive reaction in men towards these actions.  Your brain releases dopamine in these circumstances which stimulates the reward/pleasure centers in the brain.  For whatever reason, in men, those parts of the brain are easier to activate (or men just do a better job of accessing them, who knows).  In the case of an addict, the brain will literally start to re-wire it self over time, requiring better 'fixes' as the addiction progresses.  This is true whether it's sex, drugs, or any other addictive stimuli I might add.  I'd argue that the people society really needs to address is the addicts, not the people feeding the addiction.  To be clear, I don't think there's a 'government' based solution here.  But if society really wants to put an end to this, it needs to find a way to treat the individuals who truely do struggle with control.  This isn't as simple as cutting off their supply, as there's always a way to fry your brain.

I believe that you have made a lot of valid points and I agree with all of them.

 

With respect to protecting women who are exploited, I agree that priority should go to eliminating sex slavery.  I also agree that some women (and men) make a lot of money from prostitution and stripping, and they should have the freedom to do so.  However, it also seems to me that a lot of prostitutes end up working for a pimp and/or working to support a drug habit, and I would like to protect them by decriminalizing and regulating both prostitution and drugs.  

 

Criminalizing these activities and building new prisons have not been effective strategies.  I am saddened by the number of people in our prisons and the inhumane conditions that they endure, and I am sickened by the fact that justice in our country seems very uneven as applied to black and hispanic people.  If drugs were decriminalized and made available to addicts (with required counseling), then we might be able to put a lot of the dealers and distributors out of business, and some addicts could be saved.  And if prostitution was decriminalized, then I suspect that pimps would have a harder time, because the women would be less afraid to report to the police that a pimp is beating them.  In either event, the police would have more time and resources to go after other crime, and we would save billions of dollars per year by putting fewer people in prison.

 

Finally, the genetic engineering scares me, but I suspect that it is inevitable.  If parents can tweak their DNA to produce smarter, better looking offspring who are not disposed to violence or sex addiction, I don't believe that anyone will be able to stop this.

[DaveW]

I always assumed the fox sports girls were more or less glorified interns. Right or wrong brands, teams, companies have been using "cute girls" to help sell their product for generations. Is it 100% right? Probably not, but it's hard to get really worked up over it. If a girl wants to try to make a living off her looks or what not, I say more power to her. It's not what I would want my future daughter to "strive for" Nessicary but then again it could be a pretty fun job for someone (regardless of sex) right out of college.

[Bark's Lounge]

Finally, the genetic engineering scares me, but I suspect that it is inevitable.  If parents can tweak their DNA to produce smarter, better looking offspring who are not disposed to violence or sex addiction, I don't believe that anyone will be able to stop this.

Glunn, I could see that a lot of people got weirded out when you brought up the genetic engineering topic, but I knew where you were coming from.

 

Although horrifying beyond words, it is a probable end outcome that will not have pleasant results. I believe in science, but there has to be a natural approach to certain things humans do. And by chance if it is successful, it takes the chaos and experimentation out of the decision to procreate out of the equation. What fun is that? I still would like to think that uniqueness is valued human trait, I think it has helped our world more than it has hurt us.

 

The only tampering we should do with reproduction is being tested for genetic deficiencies and making a choice to have or not have children.