The thing is, republican newswomen are more stereotypically 'hot.' They are just there to fulfill traditional female stereotypes on the air.
I think dialog about the hotness of women on the air as opposed to their merits, and as opposed to discussion of their appearances and how their appearances say something about the image constructed by the parties, is just buying into highly sexist dialogs.
The irony is that Rachel Maddow also exemplifies liberal female stereotypes on the air, but since being a traditional woman is no longer acceptable, no doubt she's more acceptable despite being actually just as stereotypical in her way.
And, it's not sexist to talk about someone's hotness. It's normal sex-positive behavior. The correct way to fix it would be to encourage dialog about the hotness of men on the air, not to remove the discussion of women's hotness.
I mean, the irony is that women on the air are allowed to be attractive, with a greater variety of dress and presentation. In contrast, men on the air are expected to mostly have the same rather sterile appearance.
Yes, but discussing "which newscaster is the hottest" is pretty much more than commenting 'these women are beautiful.' You don't see people comparing the hotness of all male anchors, although of course there are notable hotties like Anderson Cooper on CNN.
It's not a fruitful, nor is it a political, discussion to merely mention different women and hubba hubba over them.
"You don't see people comparing the hotness of all male anchors, although of course there are notable hotties like Anderson Cooper on CNN."
Female sexuality is seen as bad/non-existent, so it's unsurprisingly that you don't see it discussed out in the open that often. There's also fewer media figures hired to be attractive to women as a result.
So there's nothing wrong with straight men discussing the attractiveness of women, as that's just just normal sex-positive behavior. It's rather there being few opportunities for straight women to discuss the attractiveness of men that's sexist.
"It's not a fruitful, nor is it a political, discussion to merely mention different women and hubba hubba over them."
So it's not fitting to the Political forum to discuss aspects of political figures? It's not like he's discussing rock stars or actresses or such.
Ryan's the sort of guy who's cute in a dorky way, then ruins it when he doesn't realize he's dorky. (Otherwise known as "trying too hard".) If he had been smart, he'd have played up the moe adorkable angle instead.
politics in America has been reduced to wild, unbased assumptions on founded on image, and popularity contests between figures who's larger than life personas are based on scripts written by Public Relations writers, and the same figures who do the same work for hollywood, on and off the screen.
They're on television. Television demands "the right face for the job." In the case of news channels, the faces of the top forecasters become the faces of that channel. So these channels typecast the sort of face they want to represent themselves, with the hopes of endearing their target audience. So, while their looks don't determine how well they do their jobs, it does certainly determine whether or not they get their jobs to begin with. The fact that a certain channel casts people who look a certain way can say a lot about what that channel represents and to whom it is representing itself.
Humoring you and looking at this from a serious perspective: Considering that politics currently happen in a world where media presence is important and sex sells, it has quite a bit of relevance, actually.