To think the choice of women on TV just displays yet again the inherent sexism in the TV industry?

[wishiwas21again]

Following on from a thread in Telly Addicts in which I posted the following -

I don't love her (Kate Humble), I can't stand her

Bill Oddie may have been annoying but he did actually know what he was talking about and lets not forget he had mental health problems as a result of a horrific childhood. Kate Humble is not a true nature expert just someone who looks pretty and got lucky. Television shows us once again that looks and popularity win over true expertise

A bit like Gaby Logan. At the last olympics there were hundreds of sporting experts they could have interviewed, but she adorned the screen for excessive amounts of time because she is good looking.

It is misogynist as well and not at all empowering to women.

And don't get me started on Nigella, with her 'sluts' pasta and black silk dressing gowns. Do male TV chefs offer themselves in such a way? Bah!

I bet the male TV bosses at the BBC and whatever have a field day

"It is misogynist as well and not at all empowering to women."

Nah - most of these TV people are highly educated or expert in their field, plus they are also good looking.

Is there any show that doesnt have at least one female presenter nowdays? How can this be seen as 'not empowering'?

I agree. TV is sexist. There are far too many attractive women on tv nowadays and many of them are talentless/foolish

ccpccp - because women have to be beautiful and youthful to be allowed on TV and men don't. A female equivalent of Adrian Chiles would never been allowed near the airwaves. Female new TV presenters are shoved off once they hit 40. Men aren't.

news

Yeah I guess that is true Edam.

With regards selection - I see no reason why they shouldnt pick a women with looks over any other equally qualified woman. Its TV after all.

But the 'removal' of those presenters when they hit a certain age is pretty harsh when they arent applying the same rules to men.

'With regards selection - I see no reason why they shouldnt pick a women with looks over any other equally qualified woman. Its TV after all.'

they don't apply the same criteria to men though do they - how is that fair?
And I don't believe they're only picking attractive women over equally qualified women. To have the level of average prettiness we have on our screens these days they can only be picking attractive women over more qualified less attractive women.

at least the bbc try to have a bit of variety: the scottish woman that does the snooker - hazel someone - don't think she was picked for 'eye-candy'.
Clare Balding as mentioned before.
The lovely gardening expert on the One Show and gardeners' world.

Do you see any such woman on Sky, esp Sky sports? er, no.

Orla Gerin (sp) the woman that is always in dangerous places is great though. Definitely no dollybird and knows her stuff.

It's that when picking men, they pick who they think is the most knowledgeable/likeable and don't even take his face or body shape into account (it would seem).

When picking women, they look at who is most knowledgeable/likeable AND ALSO fit to appear on our screens i.e. slim and pretty.

Women like Jo Brand & Claire Balding very much the exception to the rule.

I've got a challenge - can you think of an attractive male presenter in his 20s? Extra points if not from children's TV.

Ok, I think we've all got the point now but
1 - Is this at all surprising? and
2 - does it matter?

Take 20 women wanting to get their face on tv, those who are better looking are going to exploit it to the hilt and those who aren't, aren't. Perhaps we should be asking equally delusional, idealistic questions such as when an attractive trainee tv presenter is offered a position, why doesn't she say, "no thanks, I think you should offer it to Claire because although she is probably, imho, not as attractive as me, she does have better skills. Hmmmm, call me pragmatic if you must but I just can't see it happening.

Ben shepherd? Prob into his 30s now but has been around for a fair while.
Steve jones?

what on earth are you talking about Jameelaq? Has anyone suggested women should turn down jobs in favour of less attractive colleagues? The point is not what the people applying for these jobs do - they're not the ones with the power. The point is that the people selecting people for the jobs should do it on talent not looks. Just like they do for men.

the speak yer weight presenters annoy me.lightweight and frothy

Isn't it just as much of a problem that, e.g. Balding and Logan got their jobs because they have family in the industry?

I accept that Logan was a gymnast but really, honestly, not a very good one.

Do you think Beth Tweddle will be a presenter in 10 years time?

A genuine talent, but certainly not a beauty.

Nepotism is hardly a fantastic alternative to sexism.

Seth, the problem is economics and what the public want. Don't forget many of those doing the hiring are women, so why are they hiring looks over talent? Because that's what the public want, Why? I'm sure someone else can answer that one. However a lot of talent over looks types (TOLTs) front programmes of very limited interest to men, so why are women demanding these TOLTs? Again I'm sure someone else can explain this better than me.
Surely you only enter a marketplace with something to sell if you feel you have a good chance of selling it. If the market demands looks over talent then you are going to sell that aspect of yourself and if you make it, pretend you got there on talent not looks.

"Has anyone suggested women should turn down jobs in favour of less attractive colleagues? " Maybe they should, then the fantastic utopia will have finally arrived. You know, solidarity and all that.

it's rubbish to say that's what the audience want though, look at the outcry when Arlene Phillips was sacked.
This is what the (male middle aged) tv execs claim audiences want. They base it on nothing other than their own prejudice - there is no actual research to show it is the the case. Audiences are not given the choice.

So why do they do it then?

Partly because it's what they want - i.e. they think men are the default people, and if they hire a woman it has to be for a specific reason - something pretty to look at/lust after.

I don't think as much thought goes into it as "this is what audiences like".

Kind of the same way that characters in films are all male, unless there's a specific reason why they have to be female (to give birth or for someone to shag).

Because middle aged men like hiring pretty younger women, and firing older ones, oddly enough.

They shouldn't be allowed to indulge their personal prejudices to that extent, of course. There are laws against that kind of thing. But they get away with it. Partly because most presenters are contract rather than employees, partly because only a brave few will protest at the risk of whatever career they have left.

Holly Willoughby being on This Morning annoys me. She's a nice enough woman but that job requires a journalist imho. Exactly the same point applies to Philip Schofield who frankly, I find unbearable.

< off-topic somewhat >

The Masterchef guys used to present Veg Talk on Radio 4 - the weirdest and most stultifyingly boring programme I've ever heard (worse than Moneybox Live).

Basic premise: the jolly chappies chat about what veg is in season and listeners phone in to say 'today, Greg, I'll be making er vegetable soup.'

edam Fri 29-Oct-10 23:29:03
Because middle aged men like hiring pretty younger women, and firing older ones, oddly enough.
That really is pathetic. What sort of odd thrill can that give them? Just weird.

EvilAntsAndMiasmas Fri 29-Oct-10 23:14:53
Kind of the same way that characters in films are all male, unless there's a specific reason why they have to be female (to give birth or for someone to shag).

We are talking about presenters not films, but I'm not sure I agree with your point here. Surely it is men who have been the ones who have invented/built everything, done all the philosophy/war/art etc etc so obviously the interesting roles are going to them. If history was different it would be sexist to depict that. But it isn't.

my personal top peeve is the discovery channel

if an alien was to tune in, they wouldnt know that women exist as a race.

seriously. there are only 3 programmes on there that actually have women in them AT ALL.(cops of broward county, mythbusters and border control)

the advert for the channel (with the song, 'i love the whole world ....etc etc) flashes images of 32 men and only 2 women.

nuff said.

I suspect it has a lot to do with target audience. Men are supposed to like looking at , attractive women, but will respect older men. Women are happy looking at both younger and older men and a combination of looks and personality will be the deciding factor as to whether they like the man. Women are also harsher judges of whether a woman is 'beautiful' or not.

Still doesn't make it right though!