By focusing on and making outrageous comments about a woman's appearance is a way to undermine her intelligence and divert other readers/watchers. It hammers home the fact that despite our supposed advances, women are seen as ornaments, especially as we have marched into the new millennium. When we compare images of women and girls in the 90s to how women and girls are portrayed now, the viewer will see more flounce, makeup and heels; a far cry from the boots and neutral colors of grunge. From talks on Capital Hill to My little pony, females are ultimately ornaments. the worst part is that women do a lot of this to themselves and those who have greater priorities are punished for failing their gender by not looking like a made up doll
14
In 15 years on ABC News, I got my share of hate mail (no internet in those days), but concluded quickly that insults about my appearance ("that mustache is a disgrace") were really a reflection of distaste for something I had said and just went with the gig.
2
What about newscasts where the men speak normally but the woman use either "upspeak" or 'vocal fry?" Don't they realize how unprofessional it sounds? (As well as making them seem like they are trying to appear younger).
5
The internet and social media seem to have brought out everyone's latent anger.
7
Can we stop making this an issue for the women whose appearance is commented on and start interviewing the trolls who make these comments and ask why they feel compelled to spend their time to put other women down? Do they make similar comments about men? Would they want their daughters and sisters work/experience/opinions ignored, with attention instead on how they look?
17
So I've read through most of these comments and the number of people who claim that hair in the face distracts them, and that women should dress more conservatively like men, astounds me.
Because that isn't what they tell women who wear follow that advice and wear sober clothes in buns (or short hair). They are sneeringly called librarians and mice. They are not considered to have presented a professional appearance.
So stop pretending you aren't sexist and shallow. You are.
Because that isn't what they tell women who wear follow that advice and wear sober clothes in buns (or short hair). They are sneeringly called librarians and mice. They are not considered to have presented a professional appearance.
So stop pretending you aren't sexist and shallow. You are.
19
I'm not saying it's PC, but some of those guy ESPN, TNT, CBS sportscasters could use some fashion advice. Wide ties and narrow lapels look dumb; and what about those paisley pocket squares worn with Wildeian flamboyance? Does Verne Lundquist's polyester CBS blazer detract from the games? Somebody ought to tell the guy about wool.
5
The people making the nasty comments are miserable, unsuccessful and probably unattractive. They compare themselves to the women in positions of power and come up wanting and so the comments start. This article reminded me of Diana Vreeland's observation:
“You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone: not your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not your coworkers, especially not random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother; you don't owe it to your children. You don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked "female.”
“You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone: not your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not your coworkers, especially not random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother; you don't owe it to your children. You don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked "female.”
19
I wish I had the kind of time that the people do who are writing in to complain about someone's hair, clothes, or makeup. I literally cannot imagine the thought process that would make me think it was a good use of my time to track down the way to send that information to that person, and then do so.
I hope these people spend as much time involved in things like city, state, or neighborhood issues. I am sure there is a volunteer organization in your area that could use this effort you clearly have the time to expend. That at least would be something that actually matters.
I hope these people spend as much time involved in things like city, state, or neighborhood issues. I am sure there is a volunteer organization in your area that could use this effort you clearly have the time to expend. That at least would be something that actually matters.
16
These people are the sort of whom my grandmother had said "little people belittling other people to make themselves feel big" -- technology has now made it easier for them to let the rest of us know of the little world they inhabit.
7
This may point to an article referencing the dumbing down of America. Our media exposes us to all types of information and venues that not everyone is capable of participating. Yet they do have a keyboard. Take Gabby Douglass' stellar performance at last year's Olympics. Not everyone was familiar with her sport and the technicalities involved. Those on the slow bus flooded the internet with comments about her hair. Logically, her hair should be disheveled after sweating and extreme activity, but this bypassed many. People gravitate to what is on their level. Visual representations need little thought or intelligence. In business this is taken into account. The business suit unifies, hopefully allowing personal -isms to be muted. Yet still there are those with nefarious minds that will target race or sex and associated stereotypes, for example, to disqualify a presentation they cannot absorb or disagree with. This articled nailed the issues presented. Good read.
14
I just finished a book about Pauline Frederick, the first woman network news reporter. She had years of experience covering post-World War II, the formation of the United Nations and many other pivotal stories. When she started in television in the 1950s, and throughout her career until the 1970s, many people commented on her on-air appearance, often criticizing her hair and makeup, No similar comments were aimed at her male counterparts. What a shame things haven't changed in more than 50 years! Sad but true, as this writer indicates.
17
Sadly, The New York Times Style section routinely judges and critiques the clothing choices of female public figures. (Recent examples includes opinions by NY Times Vanessa Friedman about Kate Middleton and Michelle Obama.) Actually it is more like bullying.
Regarding newscasters/journalists, agree with comments about offensive trend by media companies forcing female newscasters to wear cocktail party dresses, big earrings and cleavage.
Regarding newscasters/journalists, agree with comments about offensive trend by media companies forcing female newscasters to wear cocktail party dresses, big earrings and cleavage.
17
A different hair style for Lani Guinier would have gotten her Senate confirmation.
1
When you are on tele, remember this:
"All attention is good attention!"
"All attention is good attention!"
2
Greg Feith commonly gets grief about his ties when he appears as an aviation safety expert on NBC. Clearly how the presenter looks makes a difference no matter the sex.
2
Multiple studies have shown that women get disproportionately more comments about their appearance then men. There have been additional studies that demonstrate the hostility level directed at women is higher also. Men may be mocked for their ties, but women often get comments about how they should be raped or killed or beaten due to their looks.
So yes, gender does matter.
So yes, gender does matter.
9
I think the example at the beginning of the article is not really the same as the others. Sure, the complainer might be jealous or overly sensitive; but I can definitely understand how someone constantly fiddling with her hair is distracting and detrimental to the presentation she is trying to make. That's different from an aesthetic issue, where someone is complaining about how the hairstyle (or any of the other things mentioned) actually looks. I can't quite say the same thing about a tattoo or other potentially (but less likely to be) distracting item. Presentation does matter.
If a man were cracking his knuckles or fiddling with an article of clothing or something, it wouldn't be any different.
If a man were cracking his knuckles or fiddling with an article of clothing or something, it wouldn't be any different.
12
This phenomena is indeed quite weird – and it occurs to people other than women and other than on the internet. When my husband and I go for bicycle rides or cross-country ski after a snow storm, we sometimes have people scream at us that we are “Weirdo’s”. A local politician, who tragically took his own life, was portrayed in commercials as a bug to be squashed and looking like Barney Fife.
My theories as to why this occurs are 1. The behavior is modeled on reality shows, in political discourse, and elsewhere. Even personal finance shows involve berating people. 2. As you state, it is easier to disparage someone’s appearance or “oddity” than to respond to their arguments – or activities, in the case of bicycling or skiing 3. It often works. Political, work place, or other rivals can sometimes be vanquished by portraying them as unattractive, unappealing, or otherwise odd and socially unacceptable. It may cause them to withdraw from public appearances or result in people viewing their ideas as less valuable. 4. It makes the person feel superior, though I suspect they would not hold up to similar scrutiny.
My theories as to why this occurs are 1. The behavior is modeled on reality shows, in political discourse, and elsewhere. Even personal finance shows involve berating people. 2. As you state, it is easier to disparage someone’s appearance or “oddity” than to respond to their arguments – or activities, in the case of bicycling or skiing 3. It often works. Political, work place, or other rivals can sometimes be vanquished by portraying them as unattractive, unappealing, or otherwise odd and socially unacceptable. It may cause them to withdraw from public appearances or result in people viewing their ideas as less valuable. 4. It makes the person feel superior, though I suspect they would not hold up to similar scrutiny.
5
I watched the 1959 movie North by Northwest the other night, and smiled at Eva Marie Saint's motionless hair-do. Was it made of plastic? But recently I have been looking at reality strolling past in 2015, in the form of 'messy hair'. It seems hugely stylish to top your gorgeous self off - even at evenings like the Oscars, where derelict hair was particularly noticeable - to get that mop long, or uneven, or ragged, and then to twist and turn and straggle that hair as tho that head had recently been both tornado and tsunami. I do not understand! I am hopelessly out of fashion if I do not look like I have been through the washing machine backwards? Any comments on the style?
2
Why does it matter if you don't understand their style choice? You don't like it, but obviously they do. What does that have to do with anything substantive? You probably have style choices others don't agree with, but I agree that it's your style - your head - your hair - your body - your clothes - your taste. Wear what makes you happy and makes you feel confident. It's really none of my business.
3
While I can't disagree with your general comments about how women's appearance gets undue attention on the media, as I read the specific comment about you, it mentions your hair falling in your face, over your eye, and your pushing it away continuously. (I didn't see the show, so don't know if this was true.). No comments about your makeup or dress. What I took away from the comment, however rude, what that it was distracting to watch you fiddle with your hair; hence, harder to focus on your comments. It's about your hair getting in your way and thus the viewers'.
6
Men and women will view women beyond the superficiality of appearance when women have real seats at all the tables. We love to think we're there already.
5
Compare and contrast with Parul Seghal's piece in the Times Magazine http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/how-flawless-became-a-feminis...
1
One of our local TV stations has women in more than half of its on-air jobs, and they are all find professionals. The only things I notice about my own reaction to them is that, first, sometimes they wear really big jewelry - necklaces, earrings - that pull the viewer's eyes to that and away from the newscasters' faces, affecting my absorption of information. And second, once in a while the women will wear large print tops that overwhelm the tv picture, again drawing attention away from the story being covered. The men wear their uniform of suits and once in a while a bright-colored tie will also affect viewing, but the proportion of tie-to-grey-suit is usually very low and not so 'big' on my large-screen tv. I have actually written to the local station, suggesting that everyone tone down the brilliant accessories.
4
The targets are generally, if not always, women. I'm also convinced this happens with such frequency because of the anonymity of the Internet. We still have a mighty long way toward gender equality.
6
On the other end of the spectrum: The Fox channel women seem to be squeezed out of the same central casting newscaster toothpaste tube. If I were mugged and they were in a lineup I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
I guess people don't have a problem with Kelly's hair--as long as she's spouting the party line. Their air-brushed slickness is completely in line with their editorial policy: America is wonderful---as long as you look good and are probably white.
I guess people don't have a problem with Kelly's hair--as long as she's spouting the party line. Their air-brushed slickness is completely in line with their editorial policy: America is wonderful---as long as you look good and are probably white.
8
Men who appear on television understand that dressing in a business-like fashion is best, as it does not detract from their comments. While they may have facial hair, it is always neatly trimmed and it is rare to see a wild or trendy haircut.
Most women television personalities understand that while women are given more latitude (whether that is right or wrong is another question), some women dress inappropriately, showing cleavage and tattoos, as if they are a Kardashian. Some are frumpy, which is preferable, but the bottom line is that if the clothes or the haircut are the first thing noticed about a man or a woman, there is a problem
Wear neutrals, dress in business clothing, have professional makeup applied before going on air (just as the men do), and ignore all the critics. Just delete those nasty emails unread. Who cares?
Most women television personalities understand that while women are given more latitude (whether that is right or wrong is another question), some women dress inappropriately, showing cleavage and tattoos, as if they are a Kardashian. Some are frumpy, which is preferable, but the bottom line is that if the clothes or the haircut are the first thing noticed about a man or a woman, there is a problem
Wear neutrals, dress in business clothing, have professional makeup applied before going on air (just as the men do), and ignore all the critics. Just delete those nasty emails unread. Who cares?
5
I turn on the morning TV and see cats in trees, local scout packs, whats up with the latest movie stars and occasionally, some top line "news" Whats happening in Syria? Whats the mood in Gaza, how are we doing in Tikrit? Who cares...just give us fun stuff.
The news has devolved into infotainment so we expect to be infotained.
That means good looking guys and women. Also, since when would one not figure their appearance - guys and women alike- would not be judged. Did their mother never tell them about grooming? Keeping your hands and hair off your face? No seconf chance at a fiorst impression - which in TV land is...ta da - Visual! You want non judgement of appearance - do radio.
The again, if you want reality, make up less women and men with bad teeth and actual news, go to the bbc.....seriously, they actually do the news.
The news has devolved into infotainment so we expect to be infotained.
That means good looking guys and women. Also, since when would one not figure their appearance - guys and women alike- would not be judged. Did their mother never tell them about grooming? Keeping your hands and hair off your face? No seconf chance at a fiorst impression - which in TV land is...ta da - Visual! You want non judgement of appearance - do radio.
The again, if you want reality, make up less women and men with bad teeth and actual news, go to the bbc.....seriously, they actually do the news.
3
I must admit that frumpy hair on women is a pet peeve of mine. Why do women seem to think they have to look dowdy and unkempt to be taken seriously? Why do women get stuck wearing the same hairstyle in their 60's that they wore in their 20's? Sorry, long uncontrolled hair on a women over 30 is just a distraction from an otherwise intelligent message.
1
I realize this isn't the point, but from your pictures on Google images I think your hair looks very nice.
1
I'm glad that it was clear in this piece that most of the vitriol comes from other women. There is a damned-if-you-do / damned-if-you-don't lens that is focused on women's choices in how they dress and groom themselves. Trying for a look and failing is punished at least as hard as not trying at all.
We have become a society of shallow idiots. Who would take the time to write those sorts of emails? Really, who? You first have to hunt the person's email or website down. Then you have to register, compose your missive and send it. Plenty of time along that journey to say, "maybe not". But still, they hit the submit button. I propose a standard email response to those sorts of trolls: "How sad that you apparently have nothing meaningful in your life. In fact, it appears you have no life at all. Have a nice day!".
1
Hey Pam,
WAKE UP - welcome to the 21st Century.
Put yourself in front of the public
AND
They're gonna comment....good and BAD
Goes with the territory darling.
"If you can't take the heat.....get out of the kitchen."
WAKE UP - welcome to the 21st Century.
Put yourself in front of the public
AND
They're gonna comment....good and BAD
Goes with the territory darling.
"If you can't take the heat.....get out of the kitchen."
Calling her darling doesn't exactly send the message that you regard her as an equal or professional. So makes it fairly clear that yes this is about sexism.
6
I've been a TV correspondent for the past 24 years.
The first person who tracks down my email address to ask me "What the hell is wrong with you" in regards to my hair, or makeup, or clothing, is going to get the following response from me:
"What the hell is wrong with you? Do you know you're embarrassing your mother with your lack of manners?"
I refuse to be cowed by people whose courage comes from a keyboard.
The first person who tracks down my email address to ask me "What the hell is wrong with you" in regards to my hair, or makeup, or clothing, is going to get the following response from me:
"What the hell is wrong with you? Do you know you're embarrassing your mother with your lack of manners?"
I refuse to be cowed by people whose courage comes from a keyboard.
6
"One viewer emailed Ms Todd, 'Why would I trust anything you have to say about politics when you can’t even manage your own hair?'"
Ummm....Brian Williams's hair was always perfectly coiffed.
Ummm....Brian Williams's hair was always perfectly coiffed.
3
"Why wear hair that covers your eye?" was what Paul's critic asked, but she "became bogged down in the meaning behind the missive". Her critic had a simple point. The eyes are how we identify faces; we study gaze and eye movements to decide whether to trust. When the media want to hide the identity of a face they put that black 10-pixel rectangle over the eyes, not ears, mouth, or nose.
It's hard to concentrate on what a man or woman is saying on tv if hair is worn so that it conceals an eye. My mind wanders away and I fantasize about leaping onstage not with scissors but with a 3-inch WalMart barrette to stabilize that swinging clump. I start wondering if the speaker is hiding a birthmark or has tatoo remorse. Then I find myself wishing the person were wearing a hoodie pulled tight - at least the face would be symmetrical. Or that this were a radio broadcast, free of that visual interference.
Worst of all is hair that hangs in line with eyelashes that occasionally snag a strand and tug it like a bluegill on a fishing line. Hair that distracts becomes part of the message, as Paul found out. An extreme example are Ann Coulter's rippling tresses, tossed and tucked back and re-ruffled, in perpetual motion through every discourse, the ultimate Hair As Prop.
Pamela Paul's CSpan appearance is on YouTube, if readers want to judge for themselves.
It's hard to concentrate on what a man or woman is saying on tv if hair is worn so that it conceals an eye. My mind wanders away and I fantasize about leaping onstage not with scissors but with a 3-inch WalMart barrette to stabilize that swinging clump. I start wondering if the speaker is hiding a birthmark or has tatoo remorse. Then I find myself wishing the person were wearing a hoodie pulled tight - at least the face would be symmetrical. Or that this were a radio broadcast, free of that visual interference.
Worst of all is hair that hangs in line with eyelashes that occasionally snag a strand and tug it like a bluegill on a fishing line. Hair that distracts becomes part of the message, as Paul found out. An extreme example are Ann Coulter's rippling tresses, tossed and tucked back and re-ruffled, in perpetual motion through every discourse, the ultimate Hair As Prop.
Pamela Paul's CSpan appearance is on YouTube, if readers want to judge for themselves.
2
This is so cultural. Advertising deploys suggestions of lack and the need to self-surveil in order to get us to buy product. Why would we think it would stop at that? Then, put Reagan's campaign against poor black people into the mix ("welfare queens") that set everyone to watching and disapproving of each other. Then we have facebook and commenting and liking and unfriending. Cool, but so silly and shallow. We have turned into a country of teenagers bullying each other. Really, this was Reagan's legacy.
Frankly, all this stuff is unreal. Just be real. And if you go on TV, expect vicious and stupid,silly commentary, and let it dissipate of its own insubstantiality.
Frankly, all this stuff is unreal. Just be real. And if you go on TV, expect vicious and stupid,silly commentary, and let it dissipate of its own insubstantiality.
3
Unfortunately, the attitude about women's looks starts early. We often see this emphasis at the college level. Ask any woman faculty and they will have stories about how many students comment on their clothes rather than the content of their courses. I once had a younger female colleague in my office in tears because her class complained about her jeans, which were clean and well-fitting, yet the class never said a word about the baggy torn jeans of her male co-teacher.
The dual standard - focus on women's clothes not content - won't stop unless we break the cycle.
The dual standard - focus on women's clothes not content - won't stop unless we break the cycle.
5
It's not so odd really. Previously these comments were made between like-minded persons in the privacy of their living rooms or in bars. We now live in a Everyone-Has-An-Opinion/Everyone-Has-A-Keyboard culture--where musings that were once private are now targeted with pinpoint accuracy at any perceived annoyance. These hurlers of zingers gain the satisfaction of anonymously venting their vitriol, releasing their own stress only to add to the stress of others.
2
Male commentators are relatively immune from such verbal abuse from their audience not out of respect, but because their clothing, their hair, their whole appearance is so mind-numbingly boring. Women have infinitely more freedom of self-expression. Would they really want to give that up in order to avoid a few easily ignored snarky comments?
I prefer the curt response of "Thank you for sharing and caring" to all personal comments on this, that, and the other. Constructive criticism is an art from. Aesthetics is part and parcel of life from house decoration to food presentation to personal grooming.
Well this is the age of the online troll and bully. People now have a few ways to let out their anger and direct it at mostly strangers. We all watch TV, etc, with a running commentary going on in our heads. "That guy is so insincere, she sounds too shrill, why do they hire these people...etc, etc..." But now there's a way to let the objects of our disgust, distaste...frustration with our own lives, perhaps? - know our thoughts. All without any apparent consequences.
I know the term bully gets used a lot these days and not always appropriately, but that's what this column is addressing...which in this case is adult onset bullying. AOB, usually the result of a adult with no real means to get their frustrations and anger about their lives out. So they take it out on complete strangers...strangers who might be having a much better (from the outside view) life/career then the ones watching them on TV. So let me attack them on their looks, voice, etc.
AOB, adult onset bullying. Now available to all with a device and internet access.
I know the term bully gets used a lot these days and not always appropriately, but that's what this column is addressing...which in this case is adult onset bullying. AOB, usually the result of a adult with no real means to get their frustrations and anger about their lives out. So they take it out on complete strangers...strangers who might be having a much better (from the outside view) life/career then the ones watching them on TV. So let me attack them on their looks, voice, etc.
AOB, adult onset bullying. Now available to all with a device and internet access.
4
If it makes Ms. Paul feel any better, every time a particular hockey commentator appears on ESPN, I simply cannot restrain myself from shouting, "Dude! Do something about your hair! Is that a toupee or what?" I rarely care what women look like.
I know I'm not really the fashion police, but if the guy is going to be on TV, he must know that people are going to be looking at him!
I know I'm not really the fashion police, but if the guy is going to be on TV, he must know that people are going to be looking at him!
I don't know Pamela Paul or what she looks like.
But about women's hair, I do have something to say.
When women are in serious mode - I'm speaking of professional women, professors, scientists etc etc - I find it unprofessional looking when their hair is too long and too loose - falling on their shoulders, into their eyes etc. If a woman has long hair (as I do myself) when she's in professional mode and speaking in public - she should have her hair pulled back, put up, not falling into her eyes or onto her face. Off stage, who cares? She should do as she wishes.
But about women's hair, I do have something to say.
When women are in serious mode - I'm speaking of professional women, professors, scientists etc etc - I find it unprofessional looking when their hair is too long and too loose - falling on their shoulders, into their eyes etc. If a woman has long hair (as I do myself) when she's in professional mode and speaking in public - she should have her hair pulled back, put up, not falling into her eyes or onto her face. Off stage, who cares? She should do as she wishes.
4
Not really the point of the essay. The point of the essay is internet bullying and the differing expectations of men and women.
3
So this doesn't happen to men?
And the best answer to looks-only missives is: thank you for your comment; I must be pretty amazing to get on TV despite the flaws you point out.
And the best answer to looks-only missives is: thank you for your comment; I must be pretty amazing to get on TV despite the flaws you point out.
3
Women have been judged on their looks forever and everyone is allowed to cast judgment on every individual woman irregardless of the criticizer's gender. This behavior has been taught and reinforced through television shows, advertising, movies, magazines, social conditioning from families, churches, and other institutions.
Women are treated like public property because they are public property.
Thank goodness that things are changing and this article points this out. The blinders are coming off, the consciousness is being raised and we are, rightfully, getting indignant at being treated like objects. Finally!
Thank you for expressing many of our thoughts and let's keep this uprising alive! We will stop letting ourselves be judged on our appearance anymore.
Women are treated like public property because they are public property.
Thank goodness that things are changing and this article points this out. The blinders are coming off, the consciousness is being raised and we are, rightfully, getting indignant at being treated like objects. Finally!
Thank you for expressing many of our thoughts and let's keep this uprising alive! We will stop letting ourselves be judged on our appearance anymore.
6
(redo of last sentence)
We will not let others judge us on our appearance anymore.
We will not let others judge us on our appearance anymore.
I think that anyone who uses email or online comments sections for vitriol and personal attacks harbors his or her own serious psychological issues of fear and recognition of their own, very real, failings, i.e., self-loathing. He or she seeks personal critical deflection by pounding out rude and mean comments directed at someone else.
They want to hurt as they have been hurt. Vicious. I feel only pity for these sorry losers, who are bullies, in fact.
Dismiss ANYthing they have to say as lacking significance.
They want to hurt as they have been hurt. Vicious. I feel only pity for these sorry losers, who are bullies, in fact.
Dismiss ANYthing they have to say as lacking significance.
5
Rule 1) Television is an advertising medium.
There is no Rule (2).
There is no Rule (2).
3
maybe appearance bias is why few women appear as invited speakers on television. cnn is particularly egregious in its choice of all male panel speakers. for that reason, i’m thankful for msnbc’s rachel maddow, though i do wish she’d learn to speak a bit more slowly.
Mama, they hurt my feelings. You know I have feelings, although I am a man. I have so much to say and I said it all, but all they noticed is the way I look. I feel sorry about myself and want you to know that. Now I have said it!
You think it's bad now? Heaven help us all if Hillary Clinton becomes president.
2
Indeed. When she was in the primaries during 2008, my mother actually said something about not voting for anyone who couldn't at minimum make her hair look "decent." I was astounded.
2
So many times I watch MSNBC and ask myself "Why didn't that guy bother to shave?" But I don't suppose too many people send them nasty emails about their appearance.
Try getting through a Hallmark Movie without being entirely focused on the leading lady's hair. I wonder why the director can't yell "get that hair out of your eyes."
It blows me a way that people feel like they have the right to express an opinion about how you look. I'd like to tell them that sure, I can get a haircut or different clothes and fix the problem you think I have, but you'll still be rude. I'd rather be ugly on the outside than ugly on the inside.
1
One young reporter at our local station wears her eyebrows as if they were Colorforms, large black plastic commas. Clearly that is her take on modern style. Does it in any way make her reporting more targeted and cogent? I often see women reporters on national stations with false eyelashes so long that they obviously impair the reporter's vision. Does this make her statements carry more weight? There are limits to the viewers' tolerance when it comes to how the presenters look.
Gee ladies, I hope you're not uglying up the landscape. I will never forget an elevator moment of my (quite attractive) mid thirties- a Mariott valet carting a rack with my work totes and bag to the concierge level, and I, having had a very long day, thus somewhat distracted and largely ignoring his mindless chatter. That, until he said "SMILE! it can't be that bad!" My full retort, which could barely be "inked" here, I will spare you. But you can bet it included the lashing for the ridiculous assumption that because I am a woman it is my job and duty to please you, to "tart up" your scenery, and the odds of your making this statement to a MAN are exactly zero.
9
You kept your hair long and untied in a panel discussion. Whenever I have an important meeting, I tie up my long hair so people (and I) can focus on what I say. I wish there was a deep reason for your hairy experience. But there's none. Any object that is large (or long) and moving (untied hair) becomes distracting.
1
'Hair' is not the point of this essay.
2
Know that if you appear on television, don't bother if you look like a troll, have pillow hair or look otherwise disrespectful to your viewers. Viewers will never hear your intelligent, expert commentary since they are distracted by your appearance. Now also know that unless you are host or anchor, if you are a handsome looking hunk or big chested Marilyn, little of what you say will be heard!
1
This phenomenon is not something new. I remember, some 25 years ago now, my growing awareness of how casually brutal my two teenage stepsons would routinely be regarding the appearance of one woman or another on television. One evening, when the MacNeil/Lehrer Report happened to come on, and they sat and watched silently, I found myself wondering: What if this program were hosted by two females whose looks were the equivalent? A little heavy, kind of wrinkly, just incredibly average? ... This is another example of the double standard women live with day in and day out -- AKA "oppression."
7
I was shocked to see my perfectly lovely nephew wearing a t-shirt that read, "No fat chicks!" Ackkk!
1
Most online comment sections are not monitored or poorly monitored and it is not worth scrolling through the inane misspelled comments, including the personal appearance ones. Don't look at the comments, delete the emails, and rethink your Facebook policy. All that said, it's probably a good idea to keep your hair out of your face and try not to make distracting movements, like David Brooks on PBS rocking back and forth as he dispenses his wisdom.
There seems to be no bounds for commenters' posts that just plain mean and ugly - racist, misogynist, xenophobic, on and on. I'm glad that some news sites such as the Times does view and filter some of them. But this article also reveals that some of these commenters will stalk the author. Seriously, some of these people need to be in therapy and taking meds.
1
It's a standard applied to men as well as women.
My husband grew a light beard and converted to a Matt-Lauer style crew cut when his receding hairline started to draw teasing comments from competitive co-workers.
A good friend recently retired from his position as University dean and promptly grew his hair into the pony tail he's wanted since the 1970s.
It's been a long while since I've seen a fully bald male newscaster...Alli Velshi, where are you?
My husband grew a light beard and converted to a Matt-Lauer style crew cut when his receding hairline started to draw teasing comments from competitive co-workers.
A good friend recently retired from his position as University dean and promptly grew his hair into the pony tail he's wanted since the 1970s.
It's been a long while since I've seen a fully bald male newscaster...Alli Velshi, where are you?
Dress for success has a set of common sense rules to avoid distracting your audience from your message. They have been around for years. There is even a point system. If you want an audience -- customer, supervisor, or an actual TV audience -- to focus on your message, pitch, or rhetoric, do not introduce distractions in dress, grooming, or accessories. This is not a comment on the superficiality of the audience, but the distraction introduced by the speaker. Use common sense. Or stand your sartorial ground and distract your audience from your message.
1
I had a male commenter repeatedly calling me unattractive and other harsh words during an online thread—and my photograph wasn't even posted.
This is apparently what is told to women to get their attention, or get them to shut up.
I'm not a shrinking violet, but I do limit what I say, and how, so as not to attract that kind of attention. Why speak up at the risk of bringing that on?
The entire conversation around how women express themselves at work and outside of it needs to consider this. If I didn't have to worry about being attacked for expressing myself, I might express myself the way men and anonymous commenters do: freely, without regard for others, to advocate for my own advancement, and the shortcomings of others.
This is apparently what is told to women to get their attention, or get them to shut up.
I'm not a shrinking violet, but I do limit what I say, and how, so as not to attract that kind of attention. Why speak up at the risk of bringing that on?
The entire conversation around how women express themselves at work and outside of it needs to consider this. If I didn't have to worry about being attacked for expressing myself, I might express myself the way men and anonymous commenters do: freely, without regard for others, to advocate for my own advancement, and the shortcomings of others.
7
All I kept thinking when I was reading these accounts by journalists or TV contributors was that the online trolls or any other individual who thinks that it's ok to email a person with such superficial vitriol, 1) need to get a life as it's clear they have too much time on their hands and need to put someone else down to feel better about themselves, and 2) need an urgent refresher (or primer) on the golden rule. Just another form of bullying that I hope these women are not taking to heart.
3
Where did we get the idea that because someone is a public figure, we the public have the right to know everything about that person? Or, that we have the right to say something we would never say otherwise.
Besides, I would love to see a picture of those who are so critical.
Besides, I would love to see a picture of those who are so critical.
I've heard some very attractive people on radio. I have no idea what they look like. Works for me.
3
Maybe what these misogynistic trolls (whatever their sex) would like is for female news presenters to begin wearing the all-covering black abayas that they will now be forced to do when on air in Saudi Arabia. They would then be unable to criticize their hair, but of course they could still post ugly comments on their faces, voices, and makeup.
1
(I'm a chick)
Female newsreaders dressed up to the nines provoke a negative reaction in me -- so do overly groomed male newsreaders. It says to me the news show does not understand why I watch it. When I watch a movie, the visual style of the women (and men) on screen is part of the experience. When I watch news, I'm there for crisp, clear, reliable information. I'm much more likely to trust and to listen to the woman (or man) who is not four inches deep in Maybelline and smiling all the freakin' time. Look me in the eye, structure your sentences thoughtfully and unambiguously, and, above all, tell me the truth; nothing else matters.
See Rachel Maddow for a highly successful woman in news who cares a little about her appearance, sure, but only about the same as a man (ie. not too much).
Female newsreaders dressed up to the nines provoke a negative reaction in me -- so do overly groomed male newsreaders. It says to me the news show does not understand why I watch it. When I watch a movie, the visual style of the women (and men) on screen is part of the experience. When I watch news, I'm there for crisp, clear, reliable information. I'm much more likely to trust and to listen to the woman (or man) who is not four inches deep in Maybelline and smiling all the freakin' time. Look me in the eye, structure your sentences thoughtfully and unambiguously, and, above all, tell me the truth; nothing else matters.
See Rachel Maddow for a highly successful woman in news who cares a little about her appearance, sure, but only about the same as a man (ie. not too much).
5
I was a television pundit until eight or so years ago, appearing on FaceThe Nation and elsewhere. While the exposure was good for my career, I hated doing the appearances because of the primping required. I'm a roll-out-of-bed-and-go kind of gal. Our media consultant at work was constantly encouraging me to wear more make up, blow dry my hair, get more bright colored suits, etc. I just didn't care about it. But I did hate the nasty emails about my "fugly" appearance. In the end, those emails, coupled with the pressure to primp and the round the clock appearances, prompted me to tell my boss I was done with TV. I've never regretted that decision. And they wonder why they have trouble recruiting female pundits....
17
one less pundit no matter what their gender is not a loss to the world--it's a relief.
I miss Helen Thomas.
1
visitor anytime you want. she's buried in detroit
Thanks you Ms. Skloot for giving us "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks". An excellent read.
2
I am sure there will be tons of comments regarding her personal style, if/when Hillary Clinton throws her 'feminine', yet 'serious' hat in the political ring. In the past, we have gotten some snark about presidential candidates' clothing (sweater vests, anyone?) but the true over-the-top 'analysis' is given to the candidates' wives. There was a bit of snark regarding Hillary's style in her run for president in 2008, but I think the social media world has amped up these types of comments to the insane levels that they are today.
2
I have no idea what you (or more precisely your hair) looked like - and I will admit up front that mine is quite short partly for this reason - but I cannot abide watching people (women) play with their hair on tv or seeing it fall in their face. Separate from issues of beauty or form it annoys me and distracts from whatever the speaker is saying.
I'm always dumbfounded that adult women don't understand even the basics of how men operate. Guys want to talk to, sleep with, see, smell and touch attractive women. It is how we are wired - to our very core.
I know it isn't politically correct, you can call me a pig or sexist, or whatever the latest term is, but 95% of men are not metrosexual TV hosts - we still have alot of Caveman imbedded at the base of our brains.
I know it isn't politically correct, you can call me a pig or sexist, or whatever the latest term is, but 95% of men are not metrosexual TV hosts - we still have alot of Caveman imbedded at the base of our brains.
Women understand that men like attractive women. What women have trouble understanding (or more accurately accepting) is your complete inability to evaluate us on any other criteria at any other time. Ok, so you don't want to have sex with this women, why would that mean you can't hear news from her, or listen to her research on cancer cures or fund her start up? That's not cavemen speak that is completely and utterly dehumanizing.
And that is what I don't understand, Why do men think women have to accept being so dehumanized and treated like nothing? What possible benefit is it to us to accept this behavior? None. This is your problem. Find a better way to manage it.
And that is what I don't understand, Why do men think women have to accept being so dehumanized and treated like nothing? What possible benefit is it to us to accept this behavior? None. This is your problem. Find a better way to manage it.
3
Quit reading the critical emails - or stay out of the public eye if this is upsetting. Or go to a stylist who can make you look presentable. By exposing yourself to a few million idlers, you are inviting comments of all types.
1
Live by the sword, get shaved by the sword.
If the only thing someone can comment on is your appearance, and not the substance of your book, talk, speech, etc, then it becomes apparent that they are threatened by you. The negative comments are all about tearing the women down to their level. Our country has a major issue with women in Power. Look at Hillary Clinton. Most of the comments regarding her have to do with how she LOOKS, not with her politics.
19
This is simply not true about Hillary. There's no need to exaggerate in order to make the broader point that women are, very often, judged on their appearance
There is, you have to admit, not just a bit of irony in the fact this piece is being published in the "style" section the whole purpose of which is to judge how others look and behave all with the goal of creating enough anxiety that readers rush out to buy the advertisers products and services. Unfortunately, sometimes the anxiety generated just leads to nasty comments.
7
Hey, Amy Goodman is a newscaster that looks like a normal woman you might meet in your life. She's smart, brave and articulate. The emphasis on how women look etc is soooo superficial and demoralizing. What ever happened to liberated women? Time to reboot the Women's Lib movement. Young women....hey...it's your turn.
3
The same situation is happening up in Vancouver, Canada as I write, where a female news weather person has been attacked for allowing her pregnancy to show - here she is reading one of the hate letters she has received (see last video is article) http://globalnews.ca/news/1909089/kristi-gordon-says-to-the-haters-thanks/
It is difficult for female personnel on other channels to meet the standard for on-air appearance when the bar is set so high by Foxy News.
Most normal figured women cannot slip into low cut, skin tight, sleeveless cocktail dresses or walk comfortably in four inch heels. And it is likewise difficult under the hot glare of TV lights to keep the lips moist, the hair shimmering.
That's why I often watch Foxy News; with the sound off, of course.
Most normal figured women cannot slip into low cut, skin tight, sleeveless cocktail dresses or walk comfortably in four inch heels. And it is likewise difficult under the hot glare of TV lights to keep the lips moist, the hair shimmering.
That's why I often watch Foxy News; with the sound off, of course.
Yet another front page article in the New York Times telling us that women are are living in a completely sexist society. If all I did was sit at home and read the New York Times I'd think that women were sexually harassed everyday at work and that rapists were lurking behind every corner.
3
Karl Stefanovic, an Australian newscaster, wore the same suit for a year and nobody noticed! He said he did it because he couldn't believe all the critiicism his female colleagues received from the viewers about their appearance.
http://jezebel.com/newscaster-wore-the-same-suit-for-a-year-to-prove-a-p...
http://jezebel.com/newscaster-wore-the-same-suit-for-a-year-to-prove-a-p...
1
I think she sums it up really well in the final paragraph....these are people who have nothing substantive to say.
2
Everyone is more critical of women than men. Very pretty women are not taken to be serious people in academia, corporatons, law,etc.. Hollywood types feel compelled to under-go very serious surgeries to maintain young-looks. It's nuts.
I worked at a Park Ave corporate headquaters for over a decade before I finally had a baby and took a very-long leave (years). One comment upon my return from a female colleague.."I see you still have your high cheekbones." I was speechless.
I don't know why people critique folks' appearance, maybe it empowers them.The motto.."If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"., doesn't appear to reside in many peoples' fontal lobes.
I worked at a Park Ave corporate headquaters for over a decade before I finally had a baby and took a very-long leave (years). One comment upon my return from a female colleague.."I see you still have your high cheekbones." I was speechless.
I don't know why people critique folks' appearance, maybe it empowers them.The motto.."If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"., doesn't appear to reside in many peoples' fontal lobes.
2
“If you’re watching C-Span, one sort of assumes you’re not there for the looks.”
Well sure, now that Brian Lamb is gone.
Well sure, now that Brian Lamb is gone.
1
I rarely see any commenters lambasting a man for his haircut, beard or not, tie color, and so on. This article only confirms for me how sexist we are. Anyone texting Angela Merkle or Ruth Bader Ginsberg about the fashion choices? We are sick.
9
Whenever I see a majority of middle-aged adults following some current fashion trend that is at best difficult to understand (to take some recent examples, clothing that is very tight, pants that slide so far down when the wearer bends over that fissures are revealed), I am reminded of how conformist most people are. They are conformist about their own appearances, they expect it from others, they hand out at least some of the rewards on that basis. To me, it would be a matter of changing those expectations and assumptions broadly -- without that, I would say the appearance issue is kind of like an entrance fee to a more public life. I am going to be bet that it screens out plenty of worthy people, for a multitude of reasons (time, money, physiology, taste, for example). I am going to guess that some people actually enjoy conforming, but the concept itself contains the very reason we are discussing this: if people don't conform (and women are treated to a particular version of this), then they run the very real risk of being excluded. Even without being in the public eye, I get a lot of feedback about my hair. I have tried styling it ways more people prefer, but my guess is that my hair is to some extent a symptom of what lies beneath my appearance -- my priorities, style of thinking, style of interacting -- so to some extent I feel that it kind of gives people fair warning, & I myself would rather weed people out earlier than later, in terms of acceptance and rejection.
13
I notice that many of the commentators discussed in this piece have professional websites and Twitter feeds, and appear to make much of their living in the public eye. While it might seem unfair, professional makeup and hair styling before television appearances might be judicious, if feasible.
10
So all of the the 646 MILLION Twitter subscribers who have professional websites, like professors and analysts, need to get "professional makeup and hair styling" before going on air? The comment is so ridiculous that it highlights the problem written about in the article. You are so misunderstanding of the issue yet you felt it necessary to comment.
1
Nope. Going along with it is enabling. This was a rant from someone whose values surely are not those of the writer. Ignore them.
So women should not be seen in public even if they have something intelligent to say, unless they have a professional stylist and makeup crew ensuring they look suitable in your eyes? Who is it with the problem again?
I suspect many people are like me in that often, no doubt sometimes incorrectly, I mistrust people who seem to devote a lot of time to their appearance. And, yes, I tend to judge them as superficial and likely not worth my time.
49
There is a great difference between making yourself as attractive as reasonably possible (i.e., without extreme effort), and adopting gender-associated, inappropriate, provocative gestures, such as repeatedly tossing one's long hair or pushing it out of one's eyes. What is more distracting than that, especially in a serious setting? The emailer was too harsh in addressing Ms. Paul, but I think the point was absolutely correct.
The next time it happens tell them that it's your "Dangling Participle" hairstyle.
15
Another possibility: the ubiquitous and unfathomable popularity of the Claire Underwood side-swept bang that incessantly falls into the eyes unless you keep your head perfectly still or use massive quantities of hair product. I am distracted when I watch someone trying to do their job and keep it out of their eyes. Makes me want to go for them with scissors. That said, I just got my own cut last week (shorter bangs please!) and I feel like I got my life back and can stop jerking my head around. It's not sexy, ladies.
Don't know your style and I may be off-base. If so, never mind and please excuse.
Don't know your style and I may be off-base. If so, never mind and please excuse.
14
I assume lisbeth realizes that "it's not sexy" is purely a personal opinion. If not, I have news for you -- you'd be surprised at what can qualify as sexy, and I don't mean to a tiny minority.
5
Who is Claire Underwood?
1
It's sad that you seem to reduce women to whether or not they're sexy.
1
How about this. My wife is an avid, amateur seamstress. She travels throughout America and Europe to quench her thirst for this passion. (Stay with me.)
Recently, she's joined the 21st Century and purchased an iPad. She was excited to visit sewing blogs to read things about sewing that others who share her interest have to say. She was upset and appalled at the trolling that goes on. The put downs. The foul language. The none too subtle sexual comments. We're talking about sewing!
The trolls appear to be women, mostly middle aged and mostly middle class. This observation is, in part, an assumption. But having accompanied my wife on many of these trips, take my word for it.
People are just awful -- and cowardly.
Even on the comment pages of the venerable New York Times! Quite often, commenters who have silly user names from non-descript locations say the dumbest, meanest things. The site monitors the postings, but the left leaning over-the-top comments see the light of day more than than the right leaning ones.
Too bad this paper does not have a policy like the WSJ, which requires real names from its commenters.
Recently, she's joined the 21st Century and purchased an iPad. She was excited to visit sewing blogs to read things about sewing that others who share her interest have to say. She was upset and appalled at the trolling that goes on. The put downs. The foul language. The none too subtle sexual comments. We're talking about sewing!
The trolls appear to be women, mostly middle aged and mostly middle class. This observation is, in part, an assumption. But having accompanied my wife on many of these trips, take my word for it.
People are just awful -- and cowardly.
Even on the comment pages of the venerable New York Times! Quite often, commenters who have silly user names from non-descript locations say the dumbest, meanest things. The site monitors the postings, but the left leaning over-the-top comments see the light of day more than than the right leaning ones.
Too bad this paper does not have a policy like the WSJ, which requires real names from its commenters.
21
I have two suggestions (they are only suggestions) about why you see more over-the-top "left-leaning" comments than "right-leaning" ones. First, I think there are more "left-leaning" than "right-leaning" comments. Second, you are more sensitive to the former and notice them more. I say the first because it's obviously true. I say the second because my observation is that there are more over-the-top "right-leaning" comments, even though there are more "left-leaning" comments in toto, so I suspect I have the same sensitivity bias as you do, but the other way.
21
At least the NY Times commentaries are moderated so the really nasty, meaningless ones don't make it onto the website. The WSJ ones aren't and the few times I have commented there I have been attacked so harshly that I felt that I was set upon by a school of hungry piranhas.
Disagree with me? Fine; I come from the culture of "two Jews, three opinions." But verbally assault me on this kind of blog when my tone is polite and my comments aren't attacking anyone? Uncalled for...
Disagree with me? Fine; I come from the culture of "two Jews, three opinions." But verbally assault me on this kind of blog when my tone is polite and my comments aren't attacking anyone? Uncalled for...
Points well made (& taken) Thomas. All the more so in that it appears your name is real and that you are from a real place.
Waiting at a stoplight and seeing a woman in the neighboring car casually twirl her hair - how wonderful! Interacting in a business meeting and seeing a woman across the table every so often adjust and rearrange her hair - how distracting!
7
So when men talk are you looking at them and their little affectations, instead of listening to what they have to say?
1
Try being a fat older woman, just innocently going about her daily chores and errands. Why is it appropriate to make a negative comment or make helpful unwanted suggestions about my size? Do you go up to bald men and offer advice about hair regrowth? Do you go up to a person with a large nose and suggest plastic surgery? Is it accepted that you should go up to a person with a bad complexion and suggest cosmetic products for improvement?
105
While I have never done this, my reaction to seeing a fat person is typically one of compassion and distress and I can understand the urge to help. The other examples aren't really parallel. But if you want a group that's constantly annoyed, talk to smokers: it doesn't seem to occur to people that gosh maybe the smoker knows that smoking gives you cancer.
12
It is inappropriate but women's bodies are presumed to be public property so people feel free to comment on any woman's appearance to her face as though we were walking "slam books." Ignore it, say "thank you" or something like, "I'll get on that right away" to comments and questions, etc and keep moving.
Josh Hill: fat people don't need or want your "compassion and distress." You would do better to respect them as people and mind your own business beyond that. You know nothing about the reason for a "fat" person's weight. For all you know, s/he may eat better and exercise more than you and may have better health indicators.
FWIW (because I know some people will assume I am overweight, as if that would make my comments less valid), I am of "normal" weight. However, I am against discrimination of all kinds, and the condescension and nastiness aimed at overweight and obese people is no more acceptable than racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism.
FWIW (because I know some people will assume I am overweight, as if that would make my comments less valid), I am of "normal" weight. However, I am against discrimination of all kinds, and the condescension and nastiness aimed at overweight and obese people is no more acceptable than racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism.
2
I agree with about 99.9 percent of this. But if the fake blondes of Fox News didn't show up half naked--seriously, their clothes partially look torn off, and the skirts too short--I don't think the network would have the ratings it has now.
51
Most of the fox babes have law degrees and are very intelligent & articulate - perhaps it's you who is prejudiced against good looks & grooming?
Why answer such an email in the first place? So there was an odd missive that came to this person regarding a public video appearance. You can just let something like that go - after all, it took the writer two weeks to register. I'm seeing lots of oversensitivity over "trolling" - just let something like that go.
I occasionally comment on a political article and get bizarre or snarky "replies" and my rule is - I said something publicly - I'll say it just once and stand behind it. If others make fun of itor try to tear it down, they have their rights to do so. I can sleep like a baby and not worry about those countercomments or criticism.
I occasionally comment on a political article and get bizarre or snarky "replies" and my rule is - I said something publicly - I'll say it just once and stand behind it. If others make fun of itor try to tear it down, they have their rights to do so. I can sleep like a baby and not worry about those countercomments or criticism.
12
The individual recipient can certainly let it go, and try to forget about it, but the point is that this exists en masse. In addition to the private comments these TV presenters or guests receive, there are the millions of ugly comments in newspaper comment sections and forums about people's physical appearance, usually women's. It's an epidemic. It's a problem.
79
As a child before my buck teeth were straightened (half a century ago) I endured teasing and remarks about appearance. Since then, honestly, the world has left me alone in terms of snarky comments about hair, clothing or weight. American women are far too sensitive and childish about these things. So what? When I read about the latest trends in beauty products, hair care and personal hygiene products I wonder seriously who really has time to take the use of such products seriously - life has many more pressing problems. I suspect that if ladies would be less "sensitive" the remarks would also be less - it does appear that some of the negative commentary comes from people trying to get a "rise" out of those they criticize.
Sure, you can let it go. You can edit yourself to not express what you want. You can keep your head down. But there's a cost to that: the absence of your voice, the seriousness of your reaction. The fact that you exist, have feelings, have a right to be a participant. Sometimes, the way to "lean in" is to stay in the game and fight back. This is what men do. Until women do it, we will always be seen differently — or just someone to look at.
1
I don't watch the tv news readers anymore. The men are all suited up, with nice ties and button down shirts. The women are dressed in short sleeve or sleeveless dresses with a certain amount cleavage showing. Along with long, flowing hair. Others have mentioned here that they look like they are on their way to a cocktail party. It's like watching Barbie talking about bombing etc. I know it's the executives idea but nevertheless, the women buy into it. I only watch PBS if I want the news. The women there command respect.
196
I think that's a very good point. I react the same way you do. The message is obvious -- these women are only here for their appearance, the guys are doing the heavy lifting.
Of course, many of the Ted Baxter anchors are there for appearances also -- blow-dried airheads who leave the actual editing and news gathering to others. But at least they're supposed to be emulating authority, rather than playing Barbie.
Of course, many of the Ted Baxter anchors are there for appearances also -- blow-dried airheads who leave the actual editing and news gathering to others. But at least they're supposed to be emulating authority, rather than playing Barbie.
34
Thank you for this comment. I could have just voted you "up", but I'd add this: the news departments of what were once three major networks were considered public services and not adjuncts of the show-biz side. But that's now ancient history. For a very long time they have been ratings driven pseudo-entertainment. Add in the general lowering of standards and the easy availability of "adult" material on this very medium conveying this thought and you get women turned into skin-baring eye candy and not taken seriously. Can any bright accomplished young woman who is not off the beauty queen pageant circuit get hired anymore?
2
To lulu;
That's why I watch Fox News with the sound turned off.
That's why I watch Fox News with the sound turned off.
"One viewer emailed Ms. Todd, “Why would I trust anything you have to say about politics when you can’t even manage your own hair?”
Well, it's official. We are doomed. We've actually reached a point where an apparently significant percentage of the American public thinks that the level of one's attractiveness and compliance with prevailing fashion and beauty trends is a useful and reliable indicator of the fundamental correctness or importance of what one is saying, and perhaps even an indicator of their basic right to say it.
This really isn't about different standards for men and women or the public's perplexing inability to recognize that the vitriol they are so compelled to spew is being aimed at an actual human being. Instead, what this trend illustrates most clearly is what attributes we believe humans must possess to be valuable, and it's a scary picture that's being painted, because whatever we believe gives us value is what we are going to direct our time and energy towards. Each person who sends off one of these comments can safely be assumed to be devoting the lion's share of their efforts in life towards achieving their ideal appearance. They're not working in service of others, they're not pursuing their creative dreams, they're not focusing on doing their jobs well, or nurturing their children, no, their priority in life is to always make sure they'll look good on TV. It's waste on a massive scale, and waste we can, as a society, ill afford.
Well, it's official. We are doomed. We've actually reached a point where an apparently significant percentage of the American public thinks that the level of one's attractiveness and compliance with prevailing fashion and beauty trends is a useful and reliable indicator of the fundamental correctness or importance of what one is saying, and perhaps even an indicator of their basic right to say it.
This really isn't about different standards for men and women or the public's perplexing inability to recognize that the vitriol they are so compelled to spew is being aimed at an actual human being. Instead, what this trend illustrates most clearly is what attributes we believe humans must possess to be valuable, and it's a scary picture that's being painted, because whatever we believe gives us value is what we are going to direct our time and energy towards. Each person who sends off one of these comments can safely be assumed to be devoting the lion's share of their efforts in life towards achieving their ideal appearance. They're not working in service of others, they're not pursuing their creative dreams, they're not focusing on doing their jobs well, or nurturing their children, no, their priority in life is to always make sure they'll look good on TV. It's waste on a massive scale, and waste we can, as a society, ill afford.
151
Great comment, great observation, thanks!
it's worse than that. now it seems we're doomed to insistently comment upon it when the nyt deems it column-worthy
You just now figured out what's been going on for a L O N G time?
This good dog and I keep the TV on a lot for company here in the attic, but almost always with the sound off because we don't want to
hear what's going on. Most of the time our muted TV is tuned to Fox News because we like the way the women on that station look. I'm sorry if this contributes anything
positive to their ratings, but that's the way things are.
hear what's going on. Most of the time our muted TV is tuned to Fox News because we like the way the women on that station look. I'm sorry if this contributes anything
positive to their ratings, but that's the way things are.
How often is anyone commenting on a man's appearance on C-span, or any show for that matter. Fat stomachs, bad hair, grotesque skin, it's endless. But we accept the men.
There's a different standard and nothing is off limits for women. My experience has shown me it's not just men hating/criticizing/devaluing women - women are doing it to each other. Women, start accepting one another.
There's a different standard and nothing is off limits for women. My experience has shown me it's not just men hating/criticizing/devaluing women - women are doing it to each other. Women, start accepting one another.
138
I saw a young man get criticized online today because of his hair style. And I've been criticized often enough, don't remember how many times some moron said "Is it a boy or a girl huh huh huh huh huh" when I had long hair. I still bear the emotional scars of having buck teeth as a kid and i know fat guys who were equally scarred.
So it isn't just something that happens to women, although women clearly have it worse. But how can that be otherwise, given that in our species females compete more than men on the basis of appearance? Our mate selection instincts are very strong and as in many (most?) species, they aren't entirely symmetrical.
What we can do I think is show a bit of decency and consideration for one another, and keep in mind that appearance is just one of many characteristics, and one that is particularly shallow and fleeting.
So it isn't just something that happens to women, although women clearly have it worse. But how can that be otherwise, given that in our species females compete more than men on the basis of appearance? Our mate selection instincts are very strong and as in many (most?) species, they aren't entirely symmetrical.
What we can do I think is show a bit of decency and consideration for one another, and keep in mind that appearance is just one of many characteristics, and one that is particularly shallow and fleeting.
27
I bet 95% of the nasty comments come from women. We need to stop keeping each other down.
50
Men's hair pieces have gotten some serious shade. The really obvious ones have whole nicknames, mocking Vines and other video. Not saying they should - but I have seen men get some beatdowns online.
Not as vicious or seemingly hateful, however, as women get.
Not as vicious or seemingly hateful, however, as women get.
In yesterday's Times, there was an article covering the decision by the Italian Supreme Court to acquit Amanda Knox of all charges stemming from her murder trial --
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/world/europe/amanda-knox-trial.html
As one might expect - there were a few hundred comments from many people who - understandably - have strong feelings about this story...
One of those comments - which was not only approved by the moderators - but also received twenty-five recommendations, was --
"If she wasn't cute no one would care about this."
I'm certainly not above forming opinions about the hairstyles and fashion choices of some of the women (and men) I see on televised news programming...however, I limit my expression of those opinions to a very few close friends --
If you really feel compelled to post anonymous comments - or shoot off emails - to female moderators and newswomen regarding their hair and makeup -- then you're doing it wrong...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/world/europe/amanda-knox-trial.html
As one might expect - there were a few hundred comments from many people who - understandably - have strong feelings about this story...
One of those comments - which was not only approved by the moderators - but also received twenty-five recommendations, was --
"If she wasn't cute no one would care about this."
I'm certainly not above forming opinions about the hairstyles and fashion choices of some of the women (and men) I see on televised news programming...however, I limit my expression of those opinions to a very few close friends --
If you really feel compelled to post anonymous comments - or shoot off emails - to female moderators and newswomen regarding their hair and makeup -- then you're doing it wrong...
6
Yeah, I noticed that comment as well. Quite a silly thing to say, but there is at least some truth to it in terms of what stories the mainstream media focuses on and the stories the appearance-obsessed segment of our society give their sustained attention to. That being said, she clearly can't conceive of anyone being interested in Amanda Knox's story either because of compassion for what she was going through or concern over the fact that one of our own citizens was being held prisoner for something she simply did not do. When someone can't conceive of something, it's because it's completely foreign to their own experience, which tells us that the person who wrote that comment is just as obsessed with the things that don't matter in life as those she is aiming her criticism at.
13
The cuteness comment seems very much on the mark. The media consciously seek out cuteness (especially white cuteness) in choosing which lurid crime stories to cover. With rare exception, no cuteness (or hotness), no coverage. They know all too well what the public laps up.
48
Sadly, the comment was spot on.
Someone mentioned to me years ago that the media loves to focus on cute, blond females. The saddest thing is that if an African-American, Native American, Middle Eastern, First Nation, or Latino/Latina women is involved in a crime story, she is likely not cute enough to meet their high standards (blonds get a head start), so the media ignores it unless it is so gruesome that it attracts prurient interest.
Someone mentioned to me years ago that the media loves to focus on cute, blond females. The saddest thing is that if an African-American, Native American, Middle Eastern, First Nation, or Latino/Latina women is involved in a crime story, she is likely not cute enough to meet their high standards (blonds get a head start), so the media ignores it unless it is so gruesome that it attracts prurient interest.
Pamela Paul, I think you need to write or edit a style guide to "the thinking person's guide to informal communication with intellectual celebrities." As someone that writes into podcasts with inadvertently backhanded compliments (Parul, even though your voice sounds affected, I love what you have to say), I need to stop but I just can't. But it's not all gendered - I once emailed Thomas Frank to very politely tell him to stop starting sentences on interviews with "Look." But, it took me some time to realize that I love you and Parul and Thomas 99.99% of the time, and that I wouldn't ever want you to stop -- but a Thinking Person's Guide -- I would love that.
Also, for the link to the youtube video in question, which is so germane and should have been linked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1bb0bwV9Lw
Also, for the link to the youtube video in question, which is so germane and should have been linked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1bb0bwV9Lw
2
I hate to say it, but after watching the video of Pamela Paul, I agree that her hair was distracting. I don't think it was messy or unattractive. I's that it looked precarious. It was like watching something that you know is about to fall. And in order to keep from fussing with it with her hands, she held her head stiffly and then flipped her head in a way that I have never seen on TV before, so it broke concentration.
People shouldn't be commenting on bags under the eyes or other things that are solely about attractiveness. But hair that is getting in the way is indeed distracting. Men usually don't have this problem because their hair is usually short.
I do think people are too critical of women's appearance. It is really unfair how much energy women have to spend buying a variety of appropriate more expensive clothes, styling their hair, applying makeup, and monitoring many other aspects of the way they present themselves (like walking the fine line between being ignored and being considered aggressive).
People shouldn't be commenting on bags under the eyes or other things that are solely about attractiveness. But hair that is getting in the way is indeed distracting. Men usually don't have this problem because their hair is usually short.
I do think people are too critical of women's appearance. It is really unfair how much energy women have to spend buying a variety of appropriate more expensive clothes, styling their hair, applying makeup, and monitoring many other aspects of the way they present themselves (like walking the fine line between being ignored and being considered aggressive).
10
I love Thomas Frank, but I might have sent him that email too. You know who else would start every sentence with "Look"? Karl Rove...
6
Hdb: Well, after your comment, I went ahead and watched the video. First, I have to say that I think Pamela Paul looks fabulous, hair and all, and that she looks far better than most humans would look on TV. Her haircut might not be one that a TV anchor, or someone who spends lots of time in front of the camera might choose (because of rules about distraction etc), but as she points out, that's not her main role in life. She looks wonderful. She doesn't need to look like a TV anchor for that event. Her haircut is cute and quite an unremarkable style for a regular human. If she's getting vitriolic reactions, I hate to think what less attractive and well-groomed people are getting.
Second, why the heck does anyone care what her hair looks like anyway? She's a charming, articulate, thoughtful person trying to promote the reading of good literature (and apparently doing a great job of that).
Second, why the heck does anyone care what her hair looks like anyway? She's a charming, articulate, thoughtful person trying to promote the reading of good literature (and apparently doing a great job of that).
This piece, as is typical for the "feminist cultural commentary" category, fails to note the existence of men as anything other than antagonists to women.
I'd like to point out that men who go on TV also get faced with appearance standards. Shocking as it is, a man who appears on television without a bleached 60,000 dollar smile will be scorned, if his clothes too ill-fitting, or his belly too large, he'll be sneered at. Just as the point gets made about a woman of color on TV with her hair natural being ridiculed for it (for the record, as a straight white man, I like natural hair) a black man who does the same will also be ridiculed.
It just turns out that television is a superficial medium that draws superficial people. The reality is that the typical TV viewer may not be up to intelligent commentary, and may react to it by insulting someone's appearance. This reality is not a "women's issue" and I really encourage itching the victim complex.
I'd like to point out that men who go on TV also get faced with appearance standards. Shocking as it is, a man who appears on television without a bleached 60,000 dollar smile will be scorned, if his clothes too ill-fitting, or his belly too large, he'll be sneered at. Just as the point gets made about a woman of color on TV with her hair natural being ridiculed for it (for the record, as a straight white man, I like natural hair) a black man who does the same will also be ridiculed.
It just turns out that television is a superficial medium that draws superficial people. The reality is that the typical TV viewer may not be up to intelligent commentary, and may react to it by insulting someone's appearance. This reality is not a "women's issue" and I really encourage itching the victim complex.
18
In all fairness, the column did mention Richard Nixon, who lost the presidential debate because he refused makeup and sweated under the lights. It's a perfect example of how shallow most people are; after all, there were much worse things about Richard Nixon, and yet the public elected him twice.
But you're right, it isn't just about women and it isn't about misogyny, either, as some people seem to think. At the same time, women really do get judged on their appearance more than we guys do.
But you're right, it isn't just about women and it isn't about misogyny, either, as some people seem to think. At the same time, women really do get judged on their appearance more than we guys do.
8
josh hill - it's not a matter of people being shallow. it's a matter of people being human. a million years of biological evolution can't be overcome by a few thousand years (some would say less) of cultural evolution.
And one adds that this judgement very often comes from other women.
Naf
Naf
It's not simply misogyny, as the article shows that the comments are spewed from both males and females. I think there are just a lot of people who feel powerless, maybe they've begun to notice just how many people there are around now who seem to have access to piles of money, who knows. They become bitter and self-righteous, and gain temporary power by abusing electronic access.
35
it is false that only men can be misogynistic.
Misogyny is still misogyny when it comes from a woman. Just as black people can have racist views (as has been shown by researchers), women can have misogynistic attitudes. We all absorb the sexist and racist messages from our society; the only way we can fight them is by first becoming conscious of them.
Women can be just as misogynistic as anyone else.
When I (a straight woman) watch women on news shows, I always find myself doing a quick critique of hair, clothes, makeup, etc. However, I don't believe it detracts from my opinion of their intelligence. For better or worse, appearance is part of being female. It's amazing and admirable that most women manage to excel in looks AND brains.
11
"Excel" means something like, "Be better than the majority." It's impossible for MOST people (that is, the majority) to excel (be better than most people) in anything, let alone in two things at once.
Why exactly would that be amazing?
There's a part of me that agrees with this. We women are smart and intelligent and beautiful and sexy. Smart and beautiful are not mutually exclusive. Own it.
I'd recommend that Pamela Paul review the video of her televised appearance and make some decisions. What were her goals? If one is making a televised appearance, most agree that it is best to learn to keep ones head still. If the purpose is for the audience to focus on what she has to say, anything that distracts from that --- hair, jewelry, attire, etc. --should be avoided. If she chooses to assert her persona and her audience comments on that aspect of her performance, there is no accounting for taste.
11
Smartest comment so far. As best as I can tell, most of this column is not about misogyny or appearance; but a distracting habit, perhaps caused by an ill-conceived hair style (as far as functionality goes, not appearance).
The rest of the column about internet comments and calling women ugly is another matter and obviously bad behavior and bad manners.
Bottom line, it might well be about the hair.
The rest of the column about internet comments and calling women ugly is another matter and obviously bad behavior and bad manners.
Bottom line, it might well be about the hair.
1
It seems there is no way for women to win. If women wore bland suits like men do they would be criticized. if they pulled their hair back looking neat they would be criticized. if they get old and have plastic surgery then that is bad but if they have wrinkles that is unacceptable as well.There is no equivalent to Bob Schieffer for a woman.
Yes it is misogyny.
Yes it is misogyny.
170
I disagree on both counts. Many -- most -- women look just fine. And I'm not sure that any of this has much to do with misogyny. Why do people keep throwing that word around while among other things many of the criticizers are women?
6
Women can be misogynists too!
33
Whippy, perhaps, but is giving another woman advice or being catty about her appearance misogyny? I can see some contexts in which it would be, but many more in which it wouldn't. I can also see the very real risk that because women are held to higher standards of appearance than men, it would be used against them, unfairly. In fact, I think that happens pretty often, and it is unquestionably misogynistic, but I didn't get the impression that it was the case here.
1
Yes, you have to have a really really thick skin to be in the public eye in any capacity. Even just to be on twitter and instagram! The average woman is now competing with celebs who have glam squads and people who photoshop their "selfies". It's awful. And it's misogynistic. And ageist. And degrading. And, unfortunately, it doesn't look like things will change anytime soon.
34
Whoa. Again, not sure how you got to misogyny -- and what is this about ageism? I'd be deluding myself deeply if I thought people would find me as attractive at 60 as they did at 20. If we try to make the world a place in which sags and wrinkles don't matter, we're just going to make ourselves miserable, because we'll never achieve that goal nor from an evolutionary perspective should we want to.
3
Appreciate much of what you've written in the is forum but what makes your opinion the yardstick for what is misogyny and what isn't?
Jane Pauley, a lovely and (obviously) very successful woman, told interviewers that she got a lot of hair mail. Snail mail (before email) - people took time to root around for paper, stamp, the NBC address - and write to comment on her hair.
Some negative, some very negative.
It's been ever thus. Mind you - this is a woman who was attended to by professional hair and makeup pros every day of her (working) life for decades.
And lighting techs and camera operators who, presumably, were told to frame the pricey talent in a flattering way. Plus wardrobe consultants not shy about opinions as to what worked, what didn't.
It's been ever thus for women on TV.
I hate gendered trolling, but your hairstyle is not my worry. Toughen up.
Women who get rape threats, hate-speech level denunciations, or have their real addresses targeted online concern me more.
A thin thread perhaps connects "you look tired" to "you deserve gang rape." True.
But we need more talk about how to suppress hate speech against woman, currently hiding behind free speech protections and too-timid social media sites whose male hierarchy is slow to act.
Let's have that conversation - then, reviews of your hair will perhaps be of interest.
Some negative, some very negative.
It's been ever thus. Mind you - this is a woman who was attended to by professional hair and makeup pros every day of her (working) life for decades.
And lighting techs and camera operators who, presumably, were told to frame the pricey talent in a flattering way. Plus wardrobe consultants not shy about opinions as to what worked, what didn't.
It's been ever thus for women on TV.
I hate gendered trolling, but your hairstyle is not my worry. Toughen up.
Women who get rape threats, hate-speech level denunciations, or have their real addresses targeted online concern me more.
A thin thread perhaps connects "you look tired" to "you deserve gang rape." True.
But we need more talk about how to suppress hate speech against woman, currently hiding behind free speech protections and too-timid social media sites whose male hierarchy is slow to act.
Let's have that conversation - then, reviews of your hair will perhaps be of interest.
20
Like it or not, we're judged on our appearance, women even more than men. And those who are envious or unable to debate can always use appearance to hit below the belt. If it's any consolation, there's always the quip of the famously scraggly Einstein, who, during a speech honoring his achievements, leaned to a friend and said, "But the man doesn't wear socks."
6
a little consistency in your posted opinions would go a long way towards increasing their credibility. you condemn human judgementalness in one post and excuse it in another.
1
This article only begins to touch on the ever-growing contention in the media directed towards women who choose to address wide audiences. I recently completed my Master's degree in film and media studies. I have long, blonde hair and I am quite feminine in my affect and in the way I choose to dress. These are things that are naturally part of my identity, and I choose to see them as signs of strength. However within academic settings I am damned because of my appearance. Yes, persons who study film, media, gender, and philosophy understand the historical trajectory associated with aesthetics and gender, yet many continue to perform these stereotypes in their day-to-day behavior. They know better and do it anyways.
What your article points to is that these standards of acceptable appearances associated with women in public point to a dire reconsideration of aesthetics associated with gender and identity as a whole. The ways individuals choose to represent themselves is plural.
The most terrifying aspect of this piece is not that the criticism you received obfuscates the merit of your work by failing to even comment on it, but that it came from a woman. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to critique another's work, but it is quite another for one to cut a person down on grounds that have absolutely nothing to do with their work. It is degrading. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Stop doing this. We should be embracing differences. If we do not start to, we are digging our own graves.
What your article points to is that these standards of acceptable appearances associated with women in public point to a dire reconsideration of aesthetics associated with gender and identity as a whole. The ways individuals choose to represent themselves is plural.
The most terrifying aspect of this piece is not that the criticism you received obfuscates the merit of your work by failing to even comment on it, but that it came from a woman. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to critique another's work, but it is quite another for one to cut a person down on grounds that have absolutely nothing to do with their work. It is degrading. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Stop doing this. We should be embracing differences. If we do not start to, we are digging our own graves.
102
I remember academia well, and definitely anyone who is good looking and in particular a woman who is effeminate and attractive faces a lot of derision.
Perhaps whatever context you're in, if you set off peoples insecurities, you can expect to be attacked.
Perhaps whatever context you're in, if you set off peoples insecurities, you can expect to be attacked.
16
That is why the Julianne Moore character in Stlll Alice is so unbelievable. No one in academia would look like that. They would have been pushed out by sexual harassment, or learned to dress the part.
4
@ on the road: I am sorry to disagree but you are mistaken. I've noticed quite a few beautiful or sexy (or beautiful and sexy) women in academia. Some of them are incredibly smart and successful; others are just one among many, as are most professors. And I'm in math, which is supposed to be for nerds.
3
Let's not forget that it's always acceptable to criticize women's appearances or, really, anything else about them. They shouldn't be talking and having opinions anyway when their (our) primary obligation is to decorate whatever environment we're in and, of course, to "smile."
100
But Diane, I've never noticed much reticence in criticizing men - just look at today's comments in the paper -- and I have never noticed that it's acceptable to criticize a woman's appearance or the "anything else" to which you refer. That of course doesn't mean that people won't do it. But acceptable? No.
3
Josh, you are missing the point here. This is not about you.
1
Let's call it for what it is - misogyny.
174
Actually, it's not misogyny. The ludicrous things people might say about appearance is misanthropic, because men receive comments equally as scathing as women. The difference is that most men receive the comment, reject it, and move on; while, it would seem from this article, women internalize the comment, analyze every part of the comment looking for an underlying meaning, and then spend time writing an article about it (or speaking to a therapist) in an exercise of catharsis---which may take days, weeks, months, or, as is the case of at least one person I know, years.
13
Really? It's not crystal clear but it appears from Ms. Paul's narrative that the person who said nasty things about her appearance was a woman.
Moreover, men don't have a monopoly in this regard. Recall what Maureen Dowd had to say about former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris' make up. It wasn't pretty - the comment, not the make up.
Moreover, men don't have a monopoly in this regard. Recall what Maureen Dowd had to say about former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris' make up. It wasn't pretty - the comment, not the make up.
5
BB - you are so wrong. I have yet to see a male be scrutinized and insulted for his appearance the way women are. You're obviously a male and one who seems more than a little hostile when it comes to women. Perhaps a therapist might help.
13
When didn't looks count to any number of people? What you wear and how you wear it--it is assumed--is a sign of how you want to be perceived. And in a day and age when HD tv is in everyone's living room and bedroom, why do you think you wouldn't be critiqued on your choice of color, silhouette, or haircut? Ok, by now, I'm probably making someone angry at this response--maybe even the Ms. Paul and that's not my intention, honestly--however the reality is that social media has made it readily available, if not permissible, to judge just about anything anyone does on
line or on camera. If they can see you, you are fair game. The late Joan Rivers called many celebrities to the mat. What she right? Maybe. Was it always fair and balanced reporting. No. Because the lives of others doesn't interest the public once they are face to screen with them. Taste is taste. Good, bad or indifferent. You may not agree with your social media critics and that's fine. Should they seek you out and and lay their brand of "wisdom" on your doorstep. Of course not, but they will all the same.
You just have to decide for yourself if you want to be hurt by their barbs/advice or change your appearance in a way that pleases both you and them. I'll applaud your decision and I'll listen to what you have to say with real interest. I may also say to myself that your jacket/hair/lipstick is great too. Drawing the audience in to welcome your message isn't exactly a sin either.
line or on camera. If they can see you, you are fair game. The late Joan Rivers called many celebrities to the mat. What she right? Maybe. Was it always fair and balanced reporting. No. Because the lives of others doesn't interest the public once they are face to screen with them. Taste is taste. Good, bad or indifferent. You may not agree with your social media critics and that's fine. Should they seek you out and and lay their brand of "wisdom" on your doorstep. Of course not, but they will all the same.
You just have to decide for yourself if you want to be hurt by their barbs/advice or change your appearance in a way that pleases both you and them. I'll applaud your decision and I'll listen to what you have to say with real interest. I may also say to myself that your jacket/hair/lipstick is great too. Drawing the audience in to welcome your message isn't exactly a sin either.
2
THE reason the I do not own a comb! Defiance!
15
That said, when my mother died 14 years ago tonight, the last thing I did before the undertaker arrived was comb her hair......It mattered to her.
9
You were a good daughter.
6
I had an opinion column in various newspapers for many years, and know firsthand how freely readers critique female journalists on their appearance alone. Heaven help you if you update a column mug - you're inviting yet another barrage. It does play with your head, especially when your male colleagues don't bear the same attacks. But even compliments on your looks are backhanded when you consider yourself a professional career woman whose appearance is utterly beside the point. Sexism, straight up. Shame on readers/viewers for buying in and fomenting it without a second thought. (Or, apparently, an original one.)
70
Understand that the majority of women who appear on TV "news" stations (CBS, NBC, CNN, fox, ABC, et al), are made up to look sexually attractive and available. When I, on occasion, wind up on one of these stations, the first thing that crosses my mind, is what they look like without their clothes on. The TV executives know this, that's how they sell advertising. That's why I only wind up on these channels when I accidentally push the wrong button on my remote.
There's very little on commercial TV that is not in the realm of soft-core pornography. If I want information, I read.
There's very little on commercial TV that is not in the realm of soft-core pornography. If I want information, I read.
66
All so true. Televised news media is the worst. That's why I read as well. Though wouldn't it be nice (especially since you are forced to participate in the system from time to time) if there were ways to counter this on screen? I am certainly not advocating sexually objectifying men on camera as a way to counter how women are sexualized every time they appear on a screen. That seems quite counterproductive. However there has to be ways to move forward, and away from sexualizing women who participate in conversations on television that have nothing to do with sex. Right now, it seems like these ideas would have to be implemented by the guests, not TV executives. So if you have any ideas, perhaps you could activate them next time you appear on TV.
7
It's really a shame you can hear or understand the women on tv because of all of their clothes making you imagine them without clothes. Sounds very distracting indeed. I hope the reading you do for all of your information is in a sensory deprivation chamber so you're able to completely focus.
2
People who are attacked by fashion trolls should just reply, "Well, I'm not crazy about your look today, either." At which point the troll thinks with horror, "OMG, she can see me? How is she doing that!?" and turns off her device.
75
Great idea. And fashion trolls probably just about of the intellectual depth to fall for it.
8
Truly, it's not about you. It's about them.
66
A lot of the network newswomen dress as though they are headed to a cocktail party following work. Whether or not it should, it does affect my perception of them. PBS is the exception.
49
MSNBC has Rachel Maddow, Andrea Mitchell and other women chosen for their work and not dolled up. Fox News "Outnumbered," in contrast, has 4 slender women dressed in tight dresses, all bright solid colors, showing off their long legs. The news channels are not all the same.
20
Fox News has very obviously chosen their female on-camera personnel for looks, whatever other qualifications they may have (and they may; I don't say not). I'm sure that's a strategy to get more viewers and that it works.
6
It's called misogyny.
60
No, it is called using women and sex to sell biased information and advertised products. The women who flit their hair around get hired in part because of this. Good looking guys are also hired to be on TV for the same reasons. It is really discrimination against the less-beautiful people, not against women. Please explain how it is misogyny to hire women for being attractive? How is it that there are plenty of women who hate and abuse men but the term misandry doesn't even pass the spell-checker, let alone enter into conversations?
4
It is the same for men, but few men wear shirts cut to their navel and then demand to be taken seriously.
The last paragraph says it all.
29
Ms. Paul, I, too, find it annoying and distracting when a person, man or woman, is constantly playing with their hair while taking. It is difficult to focus on what you are trying to say when your hand is constantly in front of your face, or you're busy looking at the ceiling getting you hair to flip back off your face. So, you may have misinterpreted the message. It wasn't about you looks, but about you presentation mannerisms.
37
Agree completely. Although I would never write you a nasty comment, I certainly complain plenty to my husband when women exhibit this distracting behavior on TV. Why WOULD someone want their hair to cover their eyes? I just don't get it. As a women, I want women to come across well and am distressed when they undercut their presentation in this way.
6
My mother used to stand in the doorway every morning of my HS career with a lipstick. As I walked out she would say "You're so gorgeous with lipstick on but without it well..." Every morning I'd breezily sail by her ignoring the proffered tube and then put on my own lipstick in the elevator. You see we had very different tastes in lipsticks back then. What I didn't realize then is that she was training me as countless mothers have trained daughters to have a backbone and trust in my own sense of self. You can't stop people from saying stupid stuff but you can learn to roll breezily by while shaking your head at them.
25
I do think that for public figures, appearance can be a distraction if it is constantly changing, as in constantly having a new haircut, or wearing very fashion forward clothing. Men for the most part wear the equivalent of a uniform with as little adornment as possible. If they were to start experimenting with their facial hair, for example month after month - one time growing a handlebar mustache, another time a goatee - then I'm sure it would be a topic for conversation.
Women are unfortunately expected to take more care in their appearance, and there is always going to be more variability in what they wear and how they look. I do think keeping it simple on TV is best - unless your appearance/dress is part of your persona. Because it is about what you say, not how you look.
That is still no excuse for offensive comments about someone's appearance on TV.
Women are unfortunately expected to take more care in their appearance, and there is always going to be more variability in what they wear and how they look. I do think keeping it simple on TV is best - unless your appearance/dress is part of your persona. Because it is about what you say, not how you look.
That is still no excuse for offensive comments about someone's appearance on TV.
19