A question to the women here. If I say that a female reporter is hot, is that sexist?

Frankly, most of the talking heads they throw on screen sound pretty much the same to me. If I don't make a disclaimer that I think they are talented as well as beautiful, is that sexist?

Thanks for indulging me.

to give a comment is not sexist in my book

Because strong, opinionated, smart women are such a turn on.

Frankly, most of the talking heads they throw on screen sound pretty much the same to me. If I don't make a disclaimer that I think they are talented as well as handsome, is that sexist?

Deal?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm getting pretty loopy, almost put ventriloquist in instead of reporter. Ha pretty close. Anyways, if there are any "hot" male reporters, let me know and maybe I will make the effort to turn the TV on!

on edit:
}( :evilgrin: :hi:

Could you ever imagine a decrepit old woman in his place?
The only difference, she'd be wearing a lavender jacket, and she wouldn't have a comb-over.

But that's just me.

They all look good to me. ('cept Baba Wawa)

Jeez, I can barely keep up in here!

It cracks me up when someone posts something that's a few hours old and people tell them that they've missed the boat.

...yes I think that is sexist or disrespectful or crass....but hey, women are throwing it back at men these days proving that they are just as sexist, disrespectful and crass as the men. So there you go.

is reduced to body parts, it's shallow.

I personally believe that body parts are wonderful. The notion of being reduced to something wonderful seems odd to me.

Being found attractive by somebody does not take anything away from hard work. Many people wish to feel attractive.

I believe that there is nothing wrong with being handsome. There is nothing wrong with thinking that others are handsome. There is nothing wrong about posting the fact that you find someone handsome.

I do not see the sexism.

Granted I'm a guy who needs a little ego-stroking every now and then.

:applause:

I don't care how cerebral people think human beings have gotten, evolution hasn't entirely done away with our mammalian sexuality. Sure, we can talk all day about how culture shapes what's sexy and our culture is "shallow" but doesn't change the fact that people are sexually attracted to other people and have complex indicators of attractiveness in every human society.

Get it?

No, I don't get it at all. If someone told me that I was getting a spare tire I would not consider that an insult to my gender. I do not see how the two are connected.

Answer directly if you dare: Is there anything wrong with finding another adult physically attractive?



p.s. I just also wanted to point out that the op is a positive comment (almost every adult wants to be desired sexually by someone) and your example is a negative one (unless you love fat ankles, and some people do).

And if you want to find yourself on the wrong side of a sexual harassment suit, keep it up.

I noticed that you are unable to answer my question.

Is it OK to find another adult attractive?

Truly a difficult riddle. If the Sphinx would have asked Oedipus this riddle instead, Oedipus would have been screwed. The only logical answer seems to be; "Nice rack". Yet somehow, this is not the right answer.

Are all of the woman in the world who post that Johny Depp is attractive going to find themselves on the wrong side of a sexual harassment suit because of it? (hint: the answer rhymes with snow)

that so many stupid males still don't get it.

This is why you are calling upon lawsuits and stupidity.

Your argument is so hollow that you need to avoid logic at all costs.

You know that it is normal to feel attracted to others.

You know that confessing attraction to a celebrity (such as a reporter) on a message board is harmless.

I am expecting other wild arguments such as:
accusing me of yelling; "Show me your tits!"
accusing me of rape
accusing me of pointless to debate with since I don't get it, even though you are the one who refuses to argue the two basic points.

Anything to remove logic from the debate. Just keep changing the subject and throwing insults.

Because I am, and it fucking sucks when people look at me or other people who also have ovaries and just see a toy for them to jack off over. I am a person with my own feelings and thoughts, not a blow up doll for you to use and abuse for your own satisfaction.

My husband can comment on my appearance if I specifically ask him to. Other than that, leave me the hell alone.

I want people to see me as me and not as a collection of body parts that only exist for their pleasure.

Yes, I was sexually abused as a kid. Yes, that's part of it. And no, I don't expect other people to change for me and I just avoid conversations that are based entirely on external physical characteristics - if it's a pattern on a political board like DU I will comment on it, but other than that I just avoid it as best as I can - if I can't and get inundated with too many messages telling me that I am just meat and nothing else, it tends to affect me in very negative ways.

It's not only women.
I want people to think I'm hot :shrug: Some do some don't. I like it when they do.

And good luck with that quest. I'm fairly attractive, and let me tell you that men get treated like meat sometimes too. People are animals.

That is not what this is about. The OP is about posting that you find someone attractive.

Are you female

No.

only valued for your body parts

I have been.

I am a person with my own feelings and thoughts, not a blow up doll for you to use and abuse for your own satisfaction.

I am not advocating treating people as blow-up dolls. I am advocating that it is OK to be physically attracted to others and it is OK to confess attraction on a message board.

My husband can comment on my appearance if I specifically ask him to. Other than that, leave me the hell alone.

I don't understand this.

Yes, I was sexually abused as a kid.

I was too. I know that it sucks.


Do you believe that it is OK to be physically attracted to other adults?

Are all of the woman who say that Johny Depp is attractive sexist pigs?

I hope that you answer my questions.

That was wrong. :hug: I am so sad, and I wish you the best!

I went to a school with a fairly good broadcast journalism program, and hung out mostly with BJ (yes, that's what they call themselves!) majors. At the end of your second year, your advisor calls you in and in one of the main topics, if not THE main topic tells you if you have the face/body for tv or radio/print, and if you still want to stick with it, what you'll have to fix facially and bodywise. And that goes for the guys and gals.

The profession, at least from TV's standpoint, IS shallow.

Example #1. Neil Cavuto.

He has, not only a hideous soul and a whiny attitude, he is also physically unattractive, and has an irritating voice. Is Neil Cavuto homlier on the inside or the outside? It's a tossup. (Edit: Obviously his personality is the ugliest).

How the hell did he get on television?

As long as they read the RNC talking points verbatim, they could care less.

are not allowed to wear pants! They always wear skirts. Always. I have never ever seen a woman in pants on that network. Short skirts and sit in front of a short table or up on a bar stool. Sickening. I remember the one woman in the morning still wore a short skirt right up until the time she gave birth to her baby. What the hell is up with that? But you are right in your point about the men. They are all homely. But most Repukes are homely to me. I can spot them a mile away before they even open their mouths.

You said butt.

It reflects almost no feelings or meaning or anything.

To help you decide, how would you like to have your professional ability determined by whether or not people consider you sexually attractive in a purely superficial manner?

If someone asked me if they thought she was a good reporter, and my answer was that she has nice legs, then that would be sexist.

That goes for male or female. Now if you said that she/he is all beauty and no brains, that's another matter altogether. But I don't see a tasteful positive comment on someone's appearance as being sexist or negative.

So, the answer is no

A friend of mine is a former CNN journalist. Yes, she's very attractive, but more importantly, she is smart as hell.

No one here is dumb enough to speak of her beauty... but we all compliment her on her brain, and it's well received.

If it's sexist to comment on it, then surely it's sexist to hire these women primarily for their looks? :shrug:

That existed for decades before women broadcasters broke in.

Some of the earlier women were brainy but maybe not "hot" or beautiful in a classic way... Pauline Fredericks, Betty Furness, and Barbara Walters all come to mind. Barbara was an attractive brunette, but she had a speech impediment... of course, one could argue that Tom Brokaw also had one, so it's hard to figure that one out.

I'm sure there are more early female broadcasters in local markets, but right now, their names escape me. I do recall a woman sports announcer, very rare at the time, in Miami -- she is Jane Chastain -- beautiful and she knew her sports! I believe she moved into Christian broadcasting and may be a writer for one of their websites at this time.

Two of CNN's first anchors were exceedingly talented and not too shabby looking, either. Lynn Vaughn (a black woman) had been an intern on my WEEI Boston radio show, and the other anchor was Lynne Russell, who showed her spunk early on in Miami, Florida when I met her at a couple of PBS pledge drives. Also, Jeanne Wolfe was an early film reviewer on TV.

Many of the women hired today, in my opionion, as a 68-year-old grandmother -- are quite attractive as well as having beautiful voices. We'll take it for granted that they are talented, or else they wouldn't be in this hotly competitive business. Right now, I have to admit that Rachel Maddow -- who is a lesbian woman -- looks absolutely wonderful on TV with a smart suit and little or no makeup, and Stephanie Miller is progressive, brainy, funny and quite attractive.

Peace, love and happiness,

Radio Lady in Oregon

Like Rush Limpballs does.

I find that extrememly insulting to ALL female reporters.

OK, so maybe Rush has never killed a person, but he is clearly one of the most horrible people around.

I support free speech, but why the hell would anyone listen to shit like that?
:puke:

1. Once you make a decision to make a point of sharing who you find "hot" you're making a decision to publicly objectify women, which serves to remind others that that's first and foremost what men value women for, even if women are acting in a professional role, and it reinforces this as a cultural value.

2. Similarly, it serves to reinforce beauty standards, which are themselves extremely sexist (often the result of corporate marketing - meaning if women can naturally look that way, that won't be the current standard because nobody can profit from it).

Both of these often serve as a male supremacy ritual, where men can gather around and reinforce to themselves that this is what women should be valued for.

Your thoughts on who is attractive are your own business. It's a decision, though, to make that a point of discussion with others. What do you think you are accomplishing exactly by sharing your view with others? What's your goal in sharing it? Do you think it reinforces certain ideas of how women should look?

Just an appreciation of nice things like the taste of good food or the smell of flowers.

My personal opinion (which is obviously biased) is that as long as opinions of beauty don't overshadow opinions of professional worth or intellect, then they're pretty harmless. As soon as people start making judgments on looks instead of real qualities, then we have a problem.

Which is fine, there's no obligation, they're just for thought.

I believe our conversations influence our thoughts, though ... and that conversation is a way to pass on bigotry in ways that are so subtle we sometimes can't recognize it for what it is. Especially if we've been raised with it, it becomes difficult to be willing to critically examine it. Even more so if we indirectly benefit from that bigotry.

If you are a woman in a room full of guys, or a forum full of guys, it becomes clearer though when it happens. Sometimes it's like a big old gang of dudes reaffirming to each other what women must or must not look like - sometimes in very ugly ways.

It's a short step away from a group of construction workers yelling at a woman as she walks down the street. Are they doing it because they think they will win her over? Or because they get some sort of male bonding affirmation from each other by doing it?

There was a post over a year ago on DU about the objectification of women as a form of male bonding:



When we talk about the weather as a way to bond, that's a little different than rating women as a way to bond. The implications are very different, and the ultimate affect it has on women is very different than the affect it has on the weather.

how men being in an insulated group can get out of hand an reinforce negative stereotypes. But I think that what is more important is what happens outside of those circles. If people leave that circle and continue to perpetuate patriarchy and keep women in their traditional roles, then there is certainly a point to be made. But as long as it remains innocuous and we go ahead and promote women being fully developed people instead of just eye candy, then a quick comment doesn't really mean a whole lot.

1) The idea that men should ignore and repress their appreciation for female beauty is sexist. Don't try to make us feel guilty about what is for most of us a well meaning appreciation of a good thing. We can no more help it that we can help breathing or using the bathroom.

2) Beauty standards do have a heavily cultural component to them, however cross culturally (ie universally) they are by and large dependent on physical symmetry, and on body ratios if not body type. Generally an amazonian tribesman or tribeswoman will agree with the average american man/woman on who has the prettiest face out of 10 girls/guys. Further more a ratio of hip to shoulder that approximates the golden mean is generally prefered in all cultures, though the attractiveness of different BMI's varies from culture to culture.

3) Just because I value my dog for being cute doesn't mean that I can't value him for being affectionate, loyal, and smart. Not to equate women to dogs, but to make a point that even across species we swoon at cute "others", and this does not preclude appreciating other aspects of those "others". There is nothing wrong with expressing that out loud in a casual setting.


However! I'm sure that we both agree that there is a time and a place for everything. And there is of course inflection and context. It could easily be sexist or entirely innocent to tell another person that they are good looking, depending on how and when you said it.

Sharing your enjoyment at looking at another person is not inherently sexist or demeaning.

Barack Obama is a good looking guy. I like his smile and I like watching him speak. No I'm not gay.

Angelina Jolie is crazy mad hot. I enjoy her acting and I enjoy looking at her and I can't help that my brain plays out little "scenarios" when I look at her. My wife has admitted as much about Brad Pitt. Is she sexist now too?

And I think we can both agree that appreciating the human form as art, doesn't preclude appreciating a person's mind as beautiful as well.

You don't help the cause of feminism by broadbrushing sexual attraction and appreciation of human beauty as inherently sexist.

The ratio is hip to waist - and the ideal is 0.7. ;-)

Isn't that related to the golden mean though?

The electricity is not on often enough for her to enjoy much AC.

Robin Meade is a hottie to look at, and the sound of her voice makes her even sexier...

:hide:

If you follow that with, "I'd love to throw me leg over that one", it's pretty sexist.

Ask yourself this: If your daughter was that reporter (assuming you have a daughter), would you think that might be insulting to her?

but saying that my daughter is beautiful would probably be OK.

I can only say this theoretically since I don't have a daughter.

Saying someone is beautiful is one thing. Saying they are hot has a sexual connotation. In the right setting, calling someone hot could be a compliment. Then again, it could be just a way of sexualizing them.

In the end, "isms" are defined by the objects of potential prejudice and not by those displaying it.

Maybe I'll just stick with "pretty". Everyone's a winner.

But no, that is not sexist.

Commenting on physical attractiveness can be considered superficial and shallow, but not sexist.

But call me superficial and shallow, I like to look at hot women. Of course my thought is that there are no hot women on TV save Rachael Ray ;)

Hotness is totally subjective, ain't it?

People think I'm crazy when I say that I think Scarlett Johansen is meh

She is terribly annoying though.

hardly gross.

There are other hot women, but Rachel Ray is adorable. I think it's the voice... all gravelly and excited at the same time. ;)

and yes I have heard the buzz about some guys thinking Rachael Ray is a hottie. Obviously, she deserves a man who really loves her.

...and why.

It's a simple fact of life that we make all sorts of judgment calls during the day, however most of these we keep to ourselves. I don't believe that thinking another person is attractive is sexist, however telling someone else about it certainly could be, depending on context.

Also, I think it would be sexist to claim that an attractive person got their job solely because of their looks.

if you are a coworker in the working environment, probably yes
if you are her boss in a working environment, definitely yes
if you are in her HR department, probably yes
if you are her employee, probably definitely yes
if you are the her interviewee, probably yes
if you are on a date with her, no
if you are her husband, no
...

:shrug:

I wanted to know how Team DU would react.

as most DUers are middle aged suburban women.

It's more a matter of, who are you talking to?

After reading it, I started wondering if it were sexist or not, and here we are.

Thats why I come here so often....








:sarcasm:

I do not get to use it very often...obviously...

But I can't say without some context.

If I was just sitting around watching the news with you, and you said, "This reporter's hot," I would be offended and think you're crass and never, ever date you.

As for trying to get a date with a girl, my rule of thumb is don't comment on other women while in the presence of the girl you're interested in.

It's amazing how many men do that. Ha!

"just the guys." There is usually a woman overhearing it. I've overheard some horrendous things from groups when I was sitting at a table next to them, or when I worked as a waitress. Some men are real assholes and say these things around the women in their lives, too. So if you think it's private, and won't hurt anybody, you're wrong. Saying a reporter is hot is pretty mild, and I wouldn't be very offended by it, but there are certainly worse things said among men.

Another thing is, why encourage other men in their sexism? Why perpetuate that?

My point is, if you want to help change our sexist culture, don't even say sexist things in the locker room.

they don't really want to change it.

They just want to be reassured they can say those things without having to admit it's sexist.

Let's assume it was fairly innocuous and not going over a line. There is certainly a boundary when pretty harmless talk can turn into something pretty lewd and makes me (even as a guy) feel pretty uncomfortable. Is saying that some woman we just saw is pretty really such a bad thing?

is over the line, and it's damaging to women. And it's cultural that we do this primarily (though obviously not exclusively) to women. Not just women, but girls.

Did you know when teachers complement their students, they primarily give boys complements about their abilities, and they primarily give girls complements about their looks? Even women teachers do that, and they do it without realizing it. One of my grad school teachers - teaching a course on classroom management, no less - advised the student teachers to control the behavior of girls who misbehave by greeting them at the door with "you look nice today." She told us this just naturally makes the girls act more "ladylike" (read as passive and appeasing).

From a very young age, girls are trained that this is what they are valued for. Please don't perpetuate that. There are consequences to it, even if you personally aren't affected by those consequences. Be a decent enough person that you care if others are affected by it.

If I put together a nice outfit or something and someone notices it, that makes me feel good. Obviously I'd rather have someone compliment my work than my shirt, but it's still a nice compliment. I completely understand everything you're saying, but I think it's unfortunate that we can't make simple compliments that don't try to wholly define a person.

If that weren't the case, it wouldn't be cause for such concern.

I asked my kids at school today (teens) to write out what they would grab if they had to evacuate their house in a hurry. How does this response make you feel?



I thought that was one of the saddest statements ever.

If you are a guy, you don't have the lifetime of context to that one nice complement - or insult. It's likely not the constant background track in your life.

I don't EVER tell my kids they look nice, or that their clothes look nice. I used to, without thinking, but not ever since I read the research on that. A girl could show up in a prom dress with her hair in some fancy new style, and I wouldn't say a peep about that, because I don't want to be part of a system that tells women that's how they get noticed. I'm not going to reinforce her feeling good about herself because she spent money on a dress and an hour doing her hair. That's not just neutral, it's a bad thing to reinforce. I'd rather they learn they get treated exactly the same by me if their hair is natural or straightened, and treated the same no matter how they dress. I'd rather their time and energy went into productive things.

I want my students to have self-esteem because they accomplished something, not because they slapped a designer bit of commercial fabric on their bodies.


I don't believe you are really understanding everything I'm saying. I believe intellectually you can agree there might be some truth to it. But I don't believe at all that you are actually getting that this shit is harming real women and girls in the real world.

I'm done here.

Have a nice day.

I don't know how to react to a person who says they want opinions, valid ones are given, ones based on research, and the person still won't take personal responsibility even after saying yes some of those points are valid. I don't get why you asked for opinions in the first place, I guess. I dunno, where you actually thinking of changing behaviors, or you asked the question knowing you wouldn't?

I see this in the grad school classes sometimes, and I know I shouldn't be surprised anymore by it, but still I am. Someone will make some comment about kids being ill-behaved because they are raised wrong. You can bring up that 20% of them have lead poisoning, and a known side effect is behavioral issues, and it's like it goes in one ear and out the other, even when reports are quoted, cited, linked. They never dispute the truth of that statement, but the next day they are back to blaming the parents for not raising their kids right.

There are certain things that we just get so stuck in our heads sometimes that no amount of evidence - even when we ask for it and receive it - will make us change our attitudes about others. It does piss me off sometimes, and I'm sure that shows.

The points are valid whether or not you are pissed at me personally for being rude to you. I guess you can go on acting in sexist ways and then rather than taking personal responsibility for that - or even rather than being willing to honestly examine it in an unbiased honest way, you can say well, I don't need to confront that behavior in myself, because lwfern was rude to me.

But you know, my anger and frustration here shouldn't be an excuse for you not to confront it in yourself. I don't care what you think about me. I'm asking you to be the sort of person who cares about whether sexism affects women, and whether you contribute to it. It comes down to what sort of standards you want to live up to, not what sort of standards you want me to live up to. That girl in my class has been defined by people who make it clear that they do value her for her looks, and nothing else makes her unique. She's one of very very many. When we blame that on our culture, we need to recognize we ARE that culture.

it appears that many people who have posted disagree with you as well. I also assume that if I asked many of the women I met in the real world that they would also disagree. So let's not pretend that your opinion here is the only one that matters.

I believe that the biggest discrepancy between your view and mine is how we are attacking the problem of how young girls see themselves. Your view is that all mention of beauty should be stricken from the record. I believe that you can have balanced people by increasing the amount of positive reinforcement that people get from actual achievements, not just their physical appearance. I don't believe that we shouldn't ever talk about looking good, which appears to be the tactic that you are promoting.

All of the examples that you gave me about your kids in the classroom are hurtful for the development of girls and should be countered. If I were a teacher, I can't imagine commenting on students' fashion sense. This is a place for learning, not strutting. That being said, should people get all their self-esteem from the way they look? No. Do I think it's healthy to get a little from it? Sure.

We are a culture that values beauty, but it doesn't need to be all we value. And I don't want to eliminate it entirely. I'd just prefer to emphasize other things and have physical attributes be less important. Ultimately, I think that there is a happy medium to be found here.

It's not exactly "we shouldn't ever talk about looking good" - it's recognizing that the message about the need to look good is already out there in overwhelming and harmful doses for girls/women. If you or I refuse to contribute to it, we aren't leaving them in some void where they will never hear a comment about their body. I guarantee you that.

It's like chocolate. If I say "you must never ever have chocolate, it's bad for you" that's a little over the top. In moderation, dark chocolate's actually supposed to be good for you, right?

If, on the other hand, I know that 90% of what you eat is snickers bars, you can be sure I will never ever serve you chocolate, because I know you are already consuming it in harmful amounts. If your parents/spouse/personal chef, etc specifically asks do I think it's bad to give you more chocolate, I will tell them yes, you are already consuming it in dangerous amounts, they should not contribute to it.

I think you are focused on a hypothetical scenario which has no relationship to the real world women/girls live in, a hypothetical world where they aren't objectified in dangerous levels, taught that this is what their worth primarily comes from, demeaned and harassed and fired and hired based on looks. In that hypothetical world where there is no patriarchy, I agree it's not a big deal.

In the real world, the damage outweighs the benefits.

If I were in your shoes knowing that I had tremendous sway over young girls, I wouldn't mention their appearance either. All of the scenarios that you mentioned in your previous posts are insane to me.

For me, the zero tolerance policy isn't probably going to work. The most likely thing that I'll be able to control will be time, place, audience. If there's something I find a lot more offensive than complimenting good looks, it's when people go out of their way to denigrate bad, or even not spectacular looks. Here's an example. I was at work and for some reason a co-worker decided to bring us guys back autographed calendars of some non-NFL cheerleaders squad. I was there and the guys are talking not about which is the best looking girl, but which one was the least pretty. Obviously my comment was something based in the idea of if this standard isn't good enough, then what is?

Never mentioning that someone is good looking probably is asking a little much of me, but what I can do is not participate in denigrating women for not being absolute supermodels. Sadly, this comes from women about as often as I hear it from men.

Thank you for posting them. Perhaps I need to reconsider my own behavior in commenting on how nice certain men look. (See my recent post in this sub-thread.) I don't know. It's a difficult to know where the proper line is.

I made a deliberate decision to stop that behavior in myself, as a result of some long conversations with a good friend/mentor who taught me more about feminism than anyone else I know. He never once said I shouldn't objectify men, but it was from reading his thoughts on men objectifying women that made me live up to that standard myself.

It was especially stomach-turning to see him talk about delivering babies on a reservation, and the comments the male doctors would make when they were in the break room about the women's bodies. It was just a realization that hit hard, especially as a mom who already felt exposed and miserable in that circumstance, understanding that even in that situation, with medical doctors who are supposed to be in that work because they appreciate bringing life into this world, and women at their most vulnerable and in pain and at the same time at one of their most important events of life ever, the misogyny was still ... just filling everything.

I think it's possible to express admiration without objectifying someone. I hope so, because otherwise I've objectified Johnny Depp a few times. And Val Kilmer. And Brad Pitt.

But it's hard to draw the line. Lookism is one of the most pernicious forms of sexism.

And when it comes to reporters, it can be especially problematic because female reporters have been fired when they got older because they were no longer "hot." And, looking at the reporters on CNN and Fox, I assume that looks are a major consideration in hiring. Which should not be legal, because their looks don't affect their ability to do their job.

if where we are is that we can never appreciate human beauty when it's staring us in the face, then we have a major problem here. I think it's much more valuable to promote aspects of becoming a fully developed person instead of just a vehicle for sexuality. Since that is my conscious goal, then I think that typically harmless asides about human beauty aren't that big of a deal. That being said, I understand how for many people it can be a slippery slope from harmless comment to objectification of women.

I always try to point out the physical beauty of older and bigger women when I see it--in a polite way of course.

In my experience no one is raunchier talking about women's bodies than women themselves! They sometimes make me :blush:

I used to have lunch with a small group of activists regularly. One day just the two of us showed up, which is fine, that's happened before in various combinations. But when the waitress walked away from bringing his food, he made a point of checking out her ass and commenting to me about it.

I didn't say anything, but I think the look of disgust was on my face, cause he mumbled and changed the subject.

I stopped going to those meetups. If he can't have a normal interaction with a woman bringing him a plate of food without rating her ass and making a decision would he or wouldn't he screw her - and sharing that decision with others, no less, I really don't need to spend time with people like that.

I prefer men relate to me as a person. They don't need to be assessing my ass if I walk away from them, and commenting to others about it. I don't know what is wrong with people, why they think that's appropriate.

So they think it's appropriate.

It's not... Unless you are in high school, then it can be chalked up to uncontrollable hormones... Which should be well controlled in adult males... Too often, it isn't.

I don't believe in reverse sexism because "-isms" are power constructs and the oppressed cannot oppress the oppressors, but that was a pretty disgusting thing to say considering all the shit we women take for PMS and its perceived hormonal rage.

i think is ok. Clive Owen, oh yeah, Christian Bale, yup, both smoking hot.

:thumbsup:

Hey.... Daniel Craig ;-)

Oh oh oh Christopher Eccelston... :loveya:

And since I'm not a woman I don't have a lot of insight to how they think.

We have individuality also. One woman can't speak for all others.

I notice good looking men and find them more attractive than ugly men. Most men want to vehemently deny that and insist to me that I prefer men with money, no matter what they look like. But this is what they want, because they feel that amount of money they have might be more in their control and resist being judged on what they were born with. The Golden Rule does not appear to apply.

Me, I'd prefer a poor Brad Pitt to a powerful rich man. Look at Cheney or Dubya. Unsexy.

I wish the male counterparts were required to be as good looking. That's where the sexism lies. The men are allowed to get old and chubby, and less "hot" and keep their jobs. I would watch the news more often if the guys were cuter.

I want the news presented to me with clear, articulate speech. I don't need to hear the newscasters' opinions all the time.

In my terminology, if you say "she is beautiful", you are speaking about how she looks. I take "she is hot" as you'd like to have sex with her.

One is a comment on her, one is a comment on you, what you'd like to do. |

But the depends is because sometimes the terminology can have similar meanings.

But in my book it's all just "good looking".

Semantics arguments are a pain in my ass.

goes on TV with makeup, hair styled, dressed up nicely....so it is a whole package, what they say as well as how they look. They are selling both. She or (he) wants to be in front of a camera for a reason.

I mean, with all the makeup and lighting you really don't know how you would respond to them in person.

Just my opinion.

David

As long as you don't confuse the two, and base your opinion of someone's worth or intelligence on their appearance, I don't think it's sexist to call a reporter hot, even if you don't think she's talented.

Merely making an observation on somebody's appearance is NOT sexist. We all do it, whether we like to admit it or not. It doesn't become sexist until you place a person's hotness above any other quality they have. I am getting a bit sick and tired of the fucking PC police. :eyes:

pretty much sums how I feel. :hug:

If you are able to see her as a professional woman, to see her doing her job, independently of how she looks, then it probably isn't sexist because you probably are not sexist if you can see her in that way.

If you said it to provoke ribald comments, like many men do when they get in groups, yeah there might be a problem.

It all depends on what was going through your head at the time, and whether you objectified her subconsciously.

Myself, I am offended when a male ogles me or makes comments about my body. Especially if he doesn't know me. I feel that I am being objectified -- because, let's be honest, I probably am. I don't mind if a woman ogles/compliments me, because I don't feel that she would objectify a member of her own gender even if she did think I was "hot." Women have years and years of being put down by men, and that history is hard to ignore. That's why women, even bi women like me, are often far more sensitive to sexual comment from men than we are to sexual comment from women.

and I mean this would have to be one of my absolute best friends.

:shrug:

and I think this kind of question is strange.

If you truly want some feedback and aren't just looking for controversy, here's mine:

If you said you liked young white reporters because you thought they were more attractive than old minorities ... because they all sound the same anyway, would that be wrong of you? Or are you simply being indulged? Is that what news is for?

I'm well aware of how the world works but we don't need to pretend what's accepted is what's correct.

Let's be honest, how many of you love Angelina Jolie because of her UN work, and how many admire her for her beauty? Both? See, that wasn't so hard. If Angelina were a republican , I wouldn't think her physical attributes made her beautiful but we can't deny our mammalian nature.

I'm tired of hearing some people whining about how all compliments about attractiveness somehow automatically objectify women. Almost all men compliment women, and almost all women appreciate compliments. And vice-versa. As long as men, or anyone else for that matter, appreciate the otehr aspects of women I really have no problem being told I have gorgeous eyes. Sorry if that makes me objectified and sets the movement back 30 years. :evilgrin:

only the ones they deem "deserving". That's what the OP said, they all sound the same but some are hot. Don't you see that is the point people are trying to make? Have this discussion about sitcoms and it's a different ball of wax.

If the OP is watching a certain newscaster because he thinks she is hot, that's different than saying it's not important. That is objectifying her. News isn't a beauty contest and we shouldn't treat it as one. It's much more important than that.

Journalists or reporters who work hard need to be rewarded for their work.

I have gorgeous eyes and more ;), would it bother you if I got your job because of my superior body?

Women certainly don't compliment everyone at random and do compliment "teh deserving". I'm all for honest discussions about gender dynamics, but humans are sexual beings and to deny that is just lying to yourself.

I think it's a far stretch to compare saying someone has nice eyes to getting a job just based on the fact you have a good body. Not buying that strawman.

You will always have attractive people in high public profile positions. Should people be hired according to this or discriminated against? Absolutely not but newscasters are entertainers in this culture and until that changes you will always have people hired for their attractiveness. Change the whole culture of news into something to be paid attention to and not something to be consumed like a sitcom, and you will see a lower regard for looks. But you can't change the human drive to look at another person and find them attractive (or not).

I just wish more of us could rise above the easy and go for the meaningful.

If the OP had been about how news shows use attractive females to get your attention, that would be different. It wasn’t, it was provocative. He wants us to "indulge" him. You're right, to each their own. I just want better than sexuality posing as news, I want authenticity.


Hey, I'm a Democrat. I dream of better things. :) Someday, if we insist on better things maybe we'll get some!

sure, less "-tainment" and more "-info" would be great, but we're not gonna get it by complaining that all of the reporters are attractive. That's not teh way to fix institutional gender discimination OR watered-down infotainment news.

I don't really care if I stray off-topic; if I were going to address every point the OP made I would be many hours and pages. I just wanted to have a discussion about the role of physical attraction in media and how people react to it.

You have closed your mind. If you show the OP some leg, he'll probably jump to your defense ;)

I find it objectionable to evaluate two NEWSCASTERS or two CEOs or two Presidents on their physical beauty.

You're saying that's the way it is and get used to it? That's conservative thinking IMO. Not me, I'm a Democrat!

I want the TV news reported to me by pleasant-looking faces who speak clearly and articulately. There are too many ugly old men with shaking jowls. And, the double standard that men can get old and fat and still keep their broadcasting jobs! That double standard pisses me off, greatly. If women have to look good, why aren't the men required to be attractive? Probably because: Oh, men don't have to. Their corporate bosses tell them they are golden.

are not. as a reporter. Since all of their reporting skills are equal, I'm separating their looks from how good they are at their jobs. The talent level is not relevant to what I'm trying to get at.

So since their skills in reporting are theoretically equal, does my saying that I think one is particularly attractive necessitate sexism?

of refugees. I also appreciate Viggo Mortensen for his anti-war, anti-BushCo efforts and his support of Kucinich, but both are most certainly hot, and I doubt that either would feel at all degraded by the compliment.

Not surprisingly, the MSM prefers these images:





To these:

It's not like we women don't notice Brad Pitt.

Brownie points to the poster who can identify the source without the Google machine. :)

Sid

and I'm happy to find another FOTC fan 'round these parts :)

Sid

Looks have a lot to do with it. I went to an "entertainment" school, I know all the stories.

I have worked with men in a what you call "non traditional" job for many years. If she's hot, she's hot. If I see a guy that is aesthetically pleasing (um.. hot), I may or may not comment on it. There is a difference between being attracted by beauty or booty and acting like an asshole. I think you have the right idea. I would not bother with the disclaimer.

Beautiful, attractive, pretty, etc...are genuinely nice words to say about someone.

"Hot" implies "I'd have sex with you because you look good in a slutty kind of way."

"Hot" is just a gross word that is not flattering at all. It reminds me of what drunken frat boys unable to come up with anything better than a mono-syllabic utterance would say about a vapid bimbo with no brains whom they were viewing through beer goggles.

And all this time I've been demeaning my boyfriend by calling him hot. I had no idea I've been degrading him right to his face. I must change my ways before I give him low self esteem!

I'm hardly implying that - if you and your boyfriend are ok with the term, then that's your business. I personally find the word to have ugly connotations, and don't use it, but different things work for different couples. People will have different perspectives on the issue. I'm talking about a personal preference, which not everyone is expected to share.

And I completely agree with you, that in most scenarios, especially in professional environments, verbalizing that someone is hot is inappropriate and socially backward. (Just think of the character Michael on the show "The Office", played by Steve Carrell).

I just wanted to point out that there may be situations where it is socially appropriate to use that word. The (in)appropriateness varies in degrees, relative to the situation.

Familiarity makes all sorts of banter appropriate, while it might be completely unacceptable to say the same things to a casual acquaintance.

I started out with lousy social role models. Over the years I have progressed a lot, but I still have a ways to go, as do most people.

I just noticed that you don't declare your gender, which is fine, because you have great insight. I have seen some of your other posts over the years, and, although I don't remember exactly what was said, I remember that you are usually spot-on. :hi:

My gender is female. :-)

Such as?

Besides making someone seem shallow...

Lovely.

That's a little nicer. :-)

Hot vs. pretty vs. lovely vs. beautiful.

Does it sound as if you are saying something genuinely complimentary, or does is sound degrading?

People are far more likely to respond negatively to a disrespectful connotation - "She's a beautiful woman" is complimentary while "Whoa! Whatta hot broad!" is crass.

Some terms used to describe women are genuinely offensive, and not at all flattering - others are harmless.

But "hot" and "beautiful" are definitely very different. One implies "Yeah, I'd f#@k her." The other implies "What a lovely lady - she's interesting and appealing." It's a kinder gentler admiration than the kind where you'd merely consent to have sex with someone, but have no respect.

To me, beauty is a physical quality, while interesting is a mental quality.

I think most would be more interested in looking at someone whose face they liked, versus someone whom they did NOT like to look at. Interesting can mean a lot of things.

If someone is "interesting" it can mean any number of things, beauty, smarts, or otherwise.

BTW, the lovely lady in question in CNN's Suzanne Malveaux.

She is a beautiful lady, and far too classy and elegant looking to be just "hot."

but if all you ever say about women is sexist stuff, people are going to call you on it.

Though I guess that would happen to me if the reporter were a handsome man.

So maybe we need to pick reporters based on their abilities rather than looks.

and attack our Liberal politicians?

The same ones that have no souls and wish they could be more like their Goddess Coultergeist?

If those are the ones you are referring to, if you think they're "hot". it isn't sexist, but it shows how well they are doing their "work". I personally can't get turned on by evil.

I find anyone working for the Corporate media, who lies for a living even to promote the killing of millions of innocent people...the exact opposite of 'hot'.

The reason they are hiring 'hot' reporters is to distract people from the real news. Fox 'News' exposes the method best with their 'hot' reporters all wearing short skirts sitting in open chairs instead of behind the traditional newscaster's desk.

her ability-doing her job. When i say a guy reporter looks 'hot', I am technically being sexist about why I may like to watch him-for His 'looks, manner', not for his ability to do his job.

And acknowledging that you enjoy looking at pretty women and may even feel (gasp!)sexually attracted to them certainly qualifies you for WORST PERSON IN THE WOOOOORLD!!!!

It starts with checking out the hotties on the news, then before you know it you're groping chicks on the subway. It just a small step from there to membership in a FLDS cult.


It shouldn't be necessary, but :sarcasm:

It's called frottage, and it has happened to me a couple of times, once in a very egregious and offensive way. Some of my friends have had similar experiences.

Sarcasm tag noted. I trust that you are better than those gross, cowardly offenders who harrass young women or young men in crowded situations. Just please know that it isn't funny. Not really. I can laugh about it after the fact, but I am still thoroughly disgusted at what happened to me.

No, it doesn't make you sexist if you're using it in a complimentary way and not in a degrading one. Women can be called beautiful, sexy and hot in a way that compliments them. I like it when my husband says I'm sexy or hot. He says it in a way that elevates me.

It's when those terms are used in a way that degrades women is when it becomes a problem. Most people can tell by the tone of his voice or the look in his eyes if it aimed at degrading a woman.

If you comment on DU that a woman you saw on a street is hot there is no way I can determine how you mean it so I probably wouldn't say anything at all unless you added description that reduces the woman to an object.