8 ms·

If we draw an analogy to stagecraft and "Ann Anchor" is a character from a popular play, it isn't unreasonable to expect a performer to dress up for a role. Act

by ThJ 8y ago

If we draw an analogy to stagecraft and "Ann Anchor" is a character from a popular play, it isn't unreasonable to expect a performer to dress up for a role. Actors sometimes go as far as losing or gaining weight or muscle mass to better fit a role. Like the theatre, television is show business. Beauty standards are narrower for women in TV because beauty standards are narrower for women period. Decades of feminism have done nothing to change the fact that being beautiful and fashionable is still far more important for women than for men. TV executives don't personally care how anchors look. They care about viewer numbers and everything you see on screen is optimised toward that. If having a particular look boosts the numbers, then they will want that look. If having two heads boosted the numbers, they'd want that too. It's no different than politics: Only the voters can be blamed for electing bad politicians.

pimmen 8y ago
It seems like all the arguments about hairstyles are about how important it is for the broadcaster. If it’s so important to them, how about they help foot the bill?
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Presumably, because the broadcaster is able to find another employee who is willing to foot the bill.
porlune 8y ago
I disagree about your last statement: "Only the voters can be blamed for electing bad politicians" If someone controls which subset of choices you are allowed to pick from, and you choose the one you like the most out of those options, that first someone is still to blame for limiting your choice.
- roenxi 8y ago
  Nobody controls who can vote for who in any functioning democracy. There are governments that are better than others at manifesting the will of the voters; I like the sound of Switzerland myself. Practically speaking, "voters" as a bloc aren't organised enough to excercise that so so you get effects where a party will develop a brand then endorse a candidate who is sufficiently aligned with that brand. This isn't some scheme foisted upon them, this is an implicit equilibrium that will be found in any democratic system. I've got long argument about why that happens that I don't want to type here, but it is hardly an undesirable outcome from the perspective of an ordinary citizen. There is an argument against systems where the mathematical equilibrium is 2 parties, but that in no way removes the responsibility of voters for outcomes. If they care, they should organise an alternative. Nothing stopping them except the fact that creating a large brand is hard.
  - taneq 8y ago
    > Nobody controls who can vote for who in any functioning democracy. You mean vote for which of the two candidates?
    - roenxi 8y ago
      Assuming you are talking about America, I am not very familiar with the situation but a quick google ([1]) suggests there were ~1,800 candidates with something like 8 different options with notable representation. Also, afaik, everyone is welcome to join a political party and scrum with the best of them to get good nominees through. It isn't fast or easy, but America's political process tilts a little on the slow-and-steady side for things like that. Also note that being a democracy doesn't mean that scribbling on a bit of paper is the limit of what can be done. Voter apathy and the inherent complexity of running a 300 million person country remains the big problem. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2016 https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2016
- kapauldo 8y ago
  Yeah but you could run.
some_account 8y ago
Because feminism is trying to change something that is hard-coded into our DNA. Basically make men look at women as if they were men, with no interest in how they look.
- sctb 8y ago
  Since you won't stop posting unsubstantive flame-bait we've banned the account.
blattimwind 8y ago
> Beauty standards are narrower for women in TV because beauty standards are narrower for women period. Decades of feminism have done nothing to change the fact that being beautiful and fashionable is still far more important for women than for men. IME women comment (judge) way more frequently on styling and looks of other women than men ("nice").
- chongli 8y ago
  Women judge and police each other openly, yes, but men tend to judge women silently. That means if a man doesn't find a woman attractive he'll just ignore her (or act polite but curt). Yes, some men will openly judge and mock women's appearances. These men tend to have a lot of other behaviour problems though.
  - reversecs 8y ago
    Both men and women will tend to be polite but brief with a person they are not attracted to (in the context that the other person is trying to develop a romantic relationship). That is completely normal and I think it's fine and healthy. Feminism will struggle against the tendency of women's attraction to be more heavily weighted by appearance than by character or economic status like men are. I feel like from there men and women have organized themselves and their "competition" according to the criteria set by the opposite sex. Women will become more critical of other women's appearances and men will be more critical of masculine criteria (how much money do you make, can you defend yourself, are you tough/independent/emotionally stable) including penis size, because that is oh so important to making a woman happy. Maybe men and women impose the harshest standards on themselves because they want to appease the opposite side more. And maybe even though it's true that those are characteristics we value in the opposite sex, we don't objectify the opposite sex as much as they objectify themselves. Some men and women will resent the way they are "judged", blaming their "judges" for their feelings of inferiority. Some men and women will try to capitalize on the others insecurity to their own gain. Mostly the inferiority is self imposed. It's a strange balance to acknowledge that (for example) appearances are important, and that it will be more difficult for either sex, particularly women, to find a partner if they don't take care of their appearances. And while that might be true acknowledging that you aren't an object and subjective qualities outside of the rubric of attraction actually do matter and are valuable to people you want to attract. I don't think attraction will ever be negotiated, and that's where feminism will fail and frustrate people. It might become more taboo to admit you like her cause she's a lingerie model, or that he's a catch because he makes 7 figures, but those things are always going to make a person stand out no matter how angry or inferior it makes us feel.
mc32 8y ago
This is unrelated to fashion and admittedly had no major purpose, but I’d like to see newscasters and presenters pick up on mid Atlantic English again. It makes it easier to listen to when you don’t have to tune your ear to weird local (and lazy) accents.
rustcharm 8y ago
Beauty Standards for women are narrower? Men all wear the same suit to formal events.
sparkpeasy 8y ago
"Because society is sexist against women, society should be sexist against women."

by ThJ 8y ago

pimmen 8y ago

It seems like all the arguments about hairstyles are about how important it is for the broadcaster. If it’s so important to them, how about they help foot the bill?

lotsofpulp 8y ago
Presumably, because the broadcaster is able to find another employee who is willing to foot the bill.

porlune 8y ago

I disagree about your last statement: "Only the voters can be blamed for electing bad politicians" If someone controls which subset of choices you are allowed to pick from, and you choose the one you like the most out of those options, that first someone is still to blame for limiting your choice.

roenxi 8y ago
Nobody controls who can vote for who in any functioning democracy. There are governments that are better than others at manifesting the will of the voters; I like the sound of Switzerland myself. Practically speaking, "voters" as a bloc aren't organised enough to excercise that so so you get effects where a party will develop a brand then endorse a candidate who is sufficiently aligned with that brand. This isn't some scheme foisted upon them, this is an implicit equilibrium that will be found in any democratic system. I've got long argument about why that happens that I don't want to type here, but it is hardly an undesirable outcome from the perspective of an ordinary citizen. There is an argument against systems where the mathematical equilibrium is 2 parties, but that in no way removes the responsibility of voters for outcomes. If they care, they should organise an alternative. Nothing stopping them except the fact that creating a large brand is hard.
- taneq 8y ago
  > Nobody controls who can vote for who in any functioning democracy. You mean vote for which of the two candidates?
  - roenxi 8y ago
    Assuming you are talking about America, I am not very familiar with the situation but a quick google ([1]) suggests there were ~1,800 candidates with something like 8 different options with notable representation. Also, afaik, everyone is welcome to join a political party and scrum with the best of them to get good nominees through. It isn't fast or easy, but America's political process tilts a little on the slow-and-steady side for things like that. Also note that being a democracy doesn't mean that scribbling on a bit of paper is the limit of what can be done. Voter apathy and the inherent complexity of running a 300 million person country remains the big problem. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2016 https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2016
kapauldo 8y ago
Yeah but you could run.

some_account 8y ago

Because feminism is trying to change something that is hard-coded into our DNA. Basically make men look at women as if they were men, with no interest in how they look.

sctb 8y ago
Since you won't stop posting unsubstantive flame-bait we've banned the account.

blattimwind 8y ago

> Beauty standards are narrower for women in TV because beauty standards are narrower for women period. Decades of feminism have done nothing to change the fact that being beautiful and fashionable is still far more important for women than for men. IME women comment (judge) way more frequently on styling and looks of other women than men ("nice").

chongli 8y ago
Women judge and police each other openly, yes, but men tend to judge women silently. That means if a man doesn't find a woman attractive he'll just ignore her (or act polite but curt). Yes, some men will openly judge and mock women's appearances. These men tend to have a lot of other behaviour problems though.
- reversecs 8y ago
  Both men and women will tend to be polite but brief with a person they are not attracted to (in the context that the other person is trying to develop a romantic relationship). That is completely normal and I think it's fine and healthy. Feminism will struggle against the tendency of women's attraction to be more heavily weighted by appearance than by character or economic status like men are. I feel like from there men and women have organized themselves and their "competition" according to the criteria set by the opposite sex. Women will become more critical of other women's appearances and men will be more critical of masculine criteria (how much money do you make, can you defend yourself, are you tough/independent/emotionally stable) including penis size, because that is oh so important to making a woman happy. Maybe men and women impose the harshest standards on themselves because they want to appease the opposite side more. And maybe even though it's true that those are characteristics we value in the opposite sex, we don't objectify the opposite sex as much as they objectify themselves. Some men and women will resent the way they are "judged", blaming their "judges" for their feelings of inferiority. Some men and women will try to capitalize on the others insecurity to their own gain. Mostly the inferiority is self imposed. It's a strange balance to acknowledge that (for example) appearances are important, and that it will be more difficult for either sex, particularly women, to find a partner if they don't take care of their appearances. And while that might be true acknowledging that you aren't an object and subjective qualities outside of the rubric of attraction actually do matter and are valuable to people you want to attract. I don't think attraction will ever be negotiated, and that's where feminism will fail and frustrate people. It might become more taboo to admit you like her cause she's a lingerie model, or that he's a catch because he makes 7 figures, but those things are always going to make a person stand out no matter how angry or inferior it makes us feel.

mc32 8y ago

This is unrelated to fashion and admittedly had no major purpose, but I’d like to see newscasters and presenters pick up on mid Atlantic English again. It makes it easier to listen to when you don’t have to tune your ear to weird local (and lazy) accents.

rustcharm 8y ago

Beauty Standards for women are narrower? Men all wear the same suit to formal events.

sparkpeasy 8y ago

"Because society is sexist against women, society should be sexist against women."