In Defense of Erin Andrews and her Wardrobe

Erin Andrews is now being attacked for wearing "sexy" outfits on dancing with the stars. First by Elizabeth Hasselbeck and now by the New York Daily article. Here is what the Daily piece claims:

Andrews' "Dancing With the Stars" stint fulfills a longtime dream. Dancing has been her own sport; she was a member of the University of Florida Gators basketball dance team while at the school. Can't a female journalist dance?

Sure, but the trouble is that Andrews wants it both ways. She wants to be considered a journalist. She wants to be the observer, not the observed. But a journalist uncovers the facts, not her navel.

Let's face it: Andrews is a sports sidelines reporter. While she undoubtedly knows the games she covers, she's still there as eye candy.

She was voted America's Sexiest Sportscaster - twice - by Playboy, and accepted the kudos. She's posed for racy photoshoots in Sports Illustrated and GQ. She has sought celebrity.

But when when the peephole perv story broke and the paparazzi transformed her from storyteller to The Story, she called 911 and yelled to the operator, "I'm being treated like f---ing Britney Spears!" (Ironically, she employs Spears' stylist Paige Geran to dress her for her ESPN gigs.)

Now that "Dancing with the Stars" is over, Andrews is going to have to decide whether she wants to be a proper journalist or continue to be a journalistic lightweight who's light on her feet.

This is the classic problem of seeing women as either "sex objects" or as someone we should take seriously. They cannot, on this view, be both. That is sheer nonsense, and it should not be allowed to pass without response. A woman has every right to celebrate her body and to be taken seriously as a professional. Furthermore, Ms. Andrews' outfits on dancing with the stars were hardly as objectionable as this article would have it; but even if they were, that does not nullify her skills as a journalist.

The worst part of this article is its rather shocking implication that Andrews deserves to be objectified because she has accepted playboy's claim that she is sexy (where by the way, is the proof for this assertion? Furthermore, what does it even mean?!), and employs Britney Spears' stylist. This is outrageous and plays to the absurd prejudice that women are somehow at least partially responsible for cases in which they are reprehensibly exploited.

Erin Andrews has posed for sexy pictures. Erin Andrews bared some flesh for dancing with the stars. Erin Andrews is quite a beauty. So What? This has no bearing on her ability as a journalist and it should not effect our assessment of her skills, nor the level of professionalism she is accorded as an ESPN broadcaster.

I for one think Ms. Andrews (and any other woman) has every right to bare her mid-section AND be taken seriously as a journalist.

Shakira caves to Sexism

Shakira has sold out.

Her latest album features "Britney-like" computer voice and sound. It's even worse than I just made that sound. But that does not bother me, I don't really care much what Shakira sounds like (though in my opinion her first album - and even more so her Spanish music - is quite good). The problem is deeper.

Shakira also is said to be deliberately posing like Beyonce - not exactly a role model for young ladies. But again, that is not even the issue. If a woman wishes to pose in this manner I shall not say anything about her personal choice.

So what is the problem? As you probably guessed, it's this picture of Shakira, practically naked - what is covering her seems painted on! - IN A CAGE!!

A virtually naked woman in a seductive pose caged like an animal. This reeks of blatant misogyny! It can only mean one thing: "Women are property; they are less than fully human. We may, therefore, do what we wish to these "lower beings" who apparently only exist to satisfy our lust and who are therefore locked in a cage the rest of the time!"

This is really appalling!

Sadly, the woman in this cage - Shakira - has not only produced music that actually has depth and quality, but also has an IQ of 140 and takes college courses whenever she can.

Don't get me wrong. Shakira is gorgeous. She has a lovely body and I think she should own that. But this picture is NOT owning that. This is exploitation of female sexuality to sell albums. That a woman of intelligence, depth, and talent feels she must engage in this kind of stunt is truly very sad.

What is a Feminist?

Friday I attended the kick off of Marquette's new Women and Gender Studies program. It was very insightful and intelligent. I like the look of the program.

I went to two talks: one focusing on concepts of gender in the Health sciences. One of the speakers there spoke of the struggles of veterans within the framework of the paradigm of conventional masculinity - a reminder that "gender studies" includes men too!

What particularly stood out to me, however, was a session called something like "Do you call yourself a feminist? What's in a label."

The Interesting points of the conversation centered on why the label "feminist" has such negative connotations and whether we should reject the label and simply embrace the views and positions.

I said there, and I repeat here, that we cannot drop labels merely because some groups heap negative connotations on them. If we allow "feminism" to be a dirty word, then once we champion feminist ideas we are inviting ourselves to be dismissed as "those rotten feminists" and considered "beyond the pale" of appropriate social discourse.

Also mentioned were basic mis-perceptions of what feminism is about, and some suggestions about what it might really be about. In that vein, I stumbled upon the following videos ... which are much in the same spirit:

First the misperceptions and ignorace:



Now an accurate view of feminism:

Fear of Female sexuality

Elizabeth Wong, Malaysian politician, has offered to resign in light of the fact that nude pictures of her in bed taken by an ex- boyfriend have surfaced.

Ms. Wong has long taken political heat in Malaysia because she is 37 and single.

This is another case of male fear of female sexuality and female Independence. This tends to be a pretty standard feature of human culture: female sexuality is seen as something that needs to be controlled and ordered, don't dare let it get out of hand!

Sad that there is still so much of this fear and need to control in the world. We are in the 21st century now, it would be nice to see a deeper appreciation of female independence and sexual expression.

The BBC has the story in more detail. And the following video explains the events:

Salma Hayek Breastfeeds another woman's baby!

ABC news reports that actress Salma Hayek breast fed another woman's child in Sierra Leon.

Apparently Hayek was told that children in Sierra Leon frequently die from malnutrition, partly because women stop breastfeeding too soon due to pressure on them from their husbands:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=6854285&page=1

The following video explains the whole episode.

This story brings up a ton of moral issues. Most obviously the sexism and patriarchy of men in Sierra Leon, but also the question of whether it is appropriate for a woman to breastfeed another's child.


It seems to me that Ms. Hayek was acting out of compassion and trying to set an example to inspire the women to resist pressure to not breast feed. In fact I admire Salma Hayek for doing it. I think she was making a powerful statement. She was empowering women, and fighting - symbolocially - agaist the patriarchal culture that stops breast feeding early there.

But the topic is worth much discussion.