FSNorth Girls: Sexism or Opportunity?

[Paul Pleiss]

I blogged about this, but I'm looking for more discussion than I typically get form my blog posts here at TD, so I'm sharing below

 

The subject of the FSNorth Girls came up in a post by PeanutsFromHeaven the other day from a post about hirting his mom to be the next Twins manager.

"•Hiring her would give young female fans something to aspire and relate to OTHER than being a Fox Sports North Girl. [Nothing wrong with the girls, but rather than having the broadcast focus on appearances and introductions, focusing on a woman's strategy, intelligence and involvement with the on-field action]"

 

 

I responded in a comment
"And I agree, in this day and age, should we really have women filling the roll of "girls" who have at least some expectation of being eye candy rather than reporters/broadcasters/journalists? Should we not also have FSNBoys? Would any man feel comfortable filling that description? I think it's great that Fox Sports are finding ways to get women into their broadcasts, but there has to be a less sexist way to do so than by objectifying them."

So I put the topic out to you, Twins Territory, what are we to make of the FSNorth Girls in today's world? Are they taboo and holding women back, exploiting them for their looks, or are they a viable option to get young sports minded women a foot into a male dominated world?

Maybe somewhere in between.

[Paul Pleiss]

Also, here is a strange and yet enticing blog dedicated to women anchors and news people and the boots they wear, which is where I found the picture of the FSNorth Girls used above.

 

http://appreciationofbootednewswomen.blogspot.com/search/label/fox%20sports%20girls?updated-max=2012-10-31T16:25:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=108&by-date=false

[Brock Beauchamp]

I despise any kind of "fill in blank Girls". I despise booth babes and anyone who is hired for their looks instead of their ability to do the job.

 

So, yeah, I hate the FSN Girls. With a fiery passion, actually.

 

I also hate cheerleaders but at least they have a job requisite outside of "stand there and be hot".

 

TV personalities, by and large, have to look good. That's fine, whatever. It's what people want... But there is no shortage of good-looking people who are capable of doing more than standing there and looking good. Give them a real job doing something meaningful. It will make the telecast more interesting if it's filled with people who know what the hell they're talking about.

[TheLeviathan]

Can't it be an opportunity built on sexism?  (Not saying that's a good thing, just saying)

[ashbury]

Can't it be an opportunity built on sexism?  (Not saying that's a good thing, just saying)

Back when slavery was legal in the US, there were opportunities to work in the master's house (you might know the offensive phrase I'm alluding to), an opportunity built on racism, and I might or might not condone the choice made by the individual (the movie Django took a less ambivalent stand on that), but it's not any kind of a justification for the system.

 

Probably we're both saying "don't hate the player, hate the game", but I'd rather emphasize the second part of that construction.

[Squirrel]

I don't know where to begin with any of this.  Ugh.  So, hmm, opportunity ... is it truly opportunity if it's not open for all?  And having 'FSN boys' doesn't make it less sexist, it makes it equally sexist, in the manner in which this is presented.  It's still objectification; and we are teaching young men and women that it's okay, and that those who are 'better looking' have more opportunity for success because of that and not because of ability.  It's just wrong.  If you want to have FSN 'girls' and 'boys,' fine ... but choose them on the merits of their abilities and not on the merits of their appearance, for the purpose of giving experience in the broadcast field, and not for any purpose of 'titillation.'

[diehardtwinsfan]

This is a problem though that starts in elementry school, and honestly, I think it's more than just culture, there's a wiring component (and in my opinion there's different wiring for each gender that contributes to it). My 8 year old daughter really really really wants to be a cheer leader. I don't think that's her culture telling her to aspire to it as for the most part, we've shielded her from that. There's something about it that appeals to her at a very very very basic level.

 

To answer the other question, it's a mixed bag. There are plenty of professions where looking good is part of the job description... or at least, it really helps. Most sales roles fall into that category, and it doesn't matter if you are male or female. The better you look, the better you will sell. That's just how it is. It helps in journalism too, though in my observation, both sexes (at least for TV reporters) tend to be appealing to members of the opposite sex. While looking good is a part of it, there's personality, coming across as intelligent, and dressing professionally that comes into play too.

 

That said, at the end of the day, it's about the ratings... and quite honestly, the FSN girls get better ratings. As such, it will continue to happen until it no longer gets that result, and I'll be honest in saying that I don't think that will ever change.

[Mike Sixel]

Anyone catch the icegirls controversy in Philly? Nice sexism there for sure.

 

I don't have FSN, so I can't comment on them, but if they are getting an opportunity to be actual members of the media, and grow their talent and skill and ability, I don't have a huge issue with them being picked because they are both attractive and good at their job. 

 

As a pretty liberal person, who thinks everyone should have a chance.....I struggle with the whole "objectify" women thing. I think women are amazingly beautiful creations. All shapes and sizes. I happen to like a FB page (drunkcyclist.com NSFW) that posts a lot of pictures of women and bikes. Clearly, they are posted because the people running the site like, in their words, "beer, boobs, and bikes" (I may have that in the wrong order).

 

Am I objectifying women by looking at them online (I'd guess about 90% are posed pictures, or sent in by the women themselves)? Or, am I just admiring something I find beautiful? I'm not imagining anything about them. I'm not judging them as people. I'm just admiring them like I would any other beautiful thing on the planet.

 

Again, not having FSN.......is it wrong to hire them partly because of their beauty? I don't think so. But, man, it is a slippery slope for sure. Because I do think there are tv shows and what not that go over some line.

[Paul Pleiss]

I think it they called them Fox Sports Women, instead of girls, it would change the tone, the implications of what their "job" is at the station. They are women, clearly.

 

I understand the cultural need for beauty, but to blatantly objectify them, that's crossing the line. And fox is doing it with all of ther local sports stations. And it's a shame.

[Mike Sixel]

that would help, I agree. 

[Bark's Lounge]

The only worthwhile thing the FSN Girls do for me is improve my peanut shell throwing accuracy towards my TV during a commercial when a Twins game is in session.

 

I do wonder what kind of money these young ladies make as FSN Girls... maybe it is substantial?

 

I like to think that most people have a personal pride that prevents them from selling themselves out, but maybe some of these individuals have weighed the pros and cons of their situation and paying their college tuition is worth the sacrifice of becoming sports television sex objects.

 

It can be tough making your way in the real world and I can definitely see sacrificing your personal pride for a better end outcome and being able to make a greater positive impact on society with their next profession of which would not have been possible without the monetary gain of being a FSN Girl. If that is the case, good for them.

 

The sad part of this whole enchilada, is that the Marketing people at Fox Sports think it is a good thing for ratings and it must be working.

 

I guess Sports and Sex go hand in hand and the main client (men), are misogynistic, sexual predator scum bags.

[ashbury]

I guess Sports and Sex go hand in hand and the main client (men), are misogynistic, sexual predator scum bags.

Riverbrian not being here, and there being no Game Thread anyway, here are 5 things to think about, in response:

 

5. You say that, like it's a bad thing?

4. Moderator's note: Respect for others is expected in everything we write.  Waived in this case due to the obvious truth of the statement.

3. Hand in hand.  Giggity.

2. You may be understating the case, actually.

1. After viewing the web site referenced by Mike Wants Wins, I lost my train of thought and forgot what I was about to say.

[Bark's Lounge]

Riverbrian not being here, and there being no Game Thread anyway, here are 5 things to think about, in response:

 

5. You say that, like it's a bad thing?

4. Moderator's note: Respect for others is expected in everything we write.  Waived in this case due to the obvious truth of the statement.

3. Hand in hand.  Giggity.

2. You may be understating the case, actually.

1. After viewing the web site referenced by Mike Wants Wins, I lost my train of thought and forgot what I was about to say.

Hilarious!

[Bark's Lounge]

1. After viewing the web site referenced by Mike Wants Wins, I lost my train of thought and forgot what I was about to say.

My favorite was "Top 10 Reasons my Bike is Better than a Boyfriend".

[Pius Jefferson]

The p.c. is strong in this thread and not surprising so is being judgmental.

[ashbury]

The p.c. is strong in this thread and not surprising so is being judgmental.

IMO there has been a spectrum of opinion shared already.  Feel free to add yours, instead of standing back and observing (though, I am confident, not judging).

[Craig Arko]

You want sexist? Take a stroll through the game thread archive. Some of this stuff is so ingrained in our culture we do it practically as a reflex.

 

And I suppose my answer to the question of the thread; those two things are not mutually exclusive, and they never have been. Maybe things will change after the zombie apocalypse.

[TheLeviathan]

Some of this stuff is so ingrained in our culture we do it practically as a reflex.

 

I would take it a step further - I think "culture" is often portrayed as the driving cause and I think a lot of what is considered sexism is some basic biological stuff.

[kab21]

The bigger problem that I have with it is that they are probably paid next to nothing for their role.  I have read some disturbing things about the compensation and rule book for some (all?) of the NFL cheerleaders. 

[Squirrel]

Yes, let's just write it off as 'biology' or 'cultural' and do nothing and think no further.  Boys will be boys, after all.

[Craig Arko]

Yes, let's just write it off as 'biology' or 'cultural' and do nothing and think no further.  Boys will be boys, after all.

I for one, would be quite interested to know what you think. JB and Madre Dos too. And any other of the women posters on the board.

[Squirrel]

I for one, would be quite interested to know what you think. JB and Madre Dos too. And any other of the women posters on the board.

On this topic in the thread I said it above.

 

For attitudes to change it means participation by both men and women.  It means teaching understanding and respect at an early age.  But when everything around us is plastered with examples of the opposite, including 'sexing' up sports, it doesn't help, it hurts.  Yes, when a 'beautiful' woman or man walks by, I'd say, yes, it's nature to turn and look.  But it's not nature to stare, ogle, comment, point, catcall, or be body-part specific in any of it.  And I've been just as guilty, to some degree in my lifetime.  And yes, there are some careers out there that appearance does play a role, but with the FSN 'girls,' what is the ultimate that is being achieved with that?  Using titillation for better ratings.  Sexing it up.  And you are sending a message that that is okay, to to be successful and to gain opportunities, use your bodies when you have to, that your abilities are secondary.  

[Craig Arko]

There is some cause for hope.

 

http://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/st_albans_schoolboy_s_response_to_emma_watson_s_un_speech_goes_viral_1_3791716

 

At least this kid gets it. Some of the other reactions to Emma Watson's speech were downright un-evolved.

[Squirrel]

Yes, she received threats to her life for that speech.  Seriously, why?

[Mike Sixel]

It is an odd world we live in, for sure. I don't get all the anger and hate, but it is there. Her speech was amazing.

[TheLeviathan]

Yes, let's just write it off as 'biology' or 'cultural' and do nothing and think no further.  Boys will be boys, after all.

 

No, I agree.  I think the best thing to do is acknowledge our nature as we work to make it better.  Thousands of years of biology are difficult to overcome in a day or many days, but well worth working on.

[glunn]

It seems to me that there is a biological component that we cannot change, and a cultural component that will always be evolving.

 

I also believe that the biological component will eventually be changed once mankind is able to master genetic engineering.  At that point, perhaps 50 years or 100 years from now, parents will be able to design their babies to suit the cultural aspirations at that time.

 

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.

 

Until we can genetically engineer ourselves out of this dilemma, I believe that we should first focus on the women who are suffering the most.  I would start with the sex slaves and the women who are being genetically mutilated.  Then I would move on to the prostitutes then the strippers then the FSN girls.

[Craig Arko]

Hmmm. You make me think of this...

 

[Craig Arko]

Having said that, I do think before we worry about genetically engineering the species, it would be a good start for people to get a little better control of their own behavior first.

[Squirrel]

It seems to me that there is a biological component that we cannot change, and a cultural component that will always be evolving.

 

I also believe that the biological component will eventually be changed once mankind is able to master genetic engineering. At that point, perhaps 50 years or 100 years from now, parents will be able to design their babies to suit the cultural aspirations at that time.

 

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.

 

Until we can genetically engineer ourselves out of this dilemma, I believe that we should first focus on the women who are suffering the most. I would start with the sex slaves and the women who are being genetically mutilated. Then I would move on to the prostitutes then the strippers then the FSN girls.

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.