MamaJD: Femmes Should Pass on Some Chances

MamaJD’s entire comment here

MamaJD (arguing why women shouldn’t take every chance they’re given in the work world): I will give an example - Since the Superbowl is coming up, I dislike female sideline reporters. I think that women sideline reporters are hired either for 1) so the networks can prove they are not sexist or 2) to capitalize on the side line reporters sex appeal for a predominantly male viewership. Since female sideline reporters have never played football at that level, I don’t give them the same credibility that I would give to the commentators who actually have played football. I will say that a female side line reporter will give thoughtful and well researched game stats, etc. But why is the female sideline reporter always on the sideline for player interviews? Because she is female. So 1) she isn’t good enough to be in the booth or 2) she can elicit better responses from the male player because she is an attractive female. I don’t see how this benefits women. I don’t see how this benefits men other than a prettier face to look at while men watch football. If that is the case, I believe we should call off the charade and the female sideline reporter should not wear turtlenecks. This is why I say, just because women have had the opportunity to report from the sidelines, we shouldn’t have taken the opportunity. Something that was viewed as a breakthru is something I view as demeaning. If you are going to use a person’s gender for persuasive purposes, at least be open and honest about it. The coffee stand owner and Hooters are upfront about this. This includes hiring a woman for the sake of fulfilling a quota (“We have to hire a woman because we have too many men”).

DFO: Dunno about MamaJD’s overall premise. (I want to think about it.) But I share her distain from viewtiful women doing sideline interviews with coaches as the coach hurries off to the halftime lockerroom. If they’re good, and not just viewtiful, they should be in the booth.