Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sexy Fox Anchorettes Don't Want to Wear Pants on the Air

By Jessica Wakeman, Huffington Post. Posted March 5, 2008.


Female anchor asserts, "Here at Fox we like to be feminine, so we don't wear the pants." What does that mean for female journalists?
20070304fncffwearhardt

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jessica Wakeman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

We watch a lot of FoxNews here at the Huffington Post.

Not because some of us want to, but because we need to in order to do our jobs. Thus, all day long, our remotes switch back and forth between the mainstream news networks -- CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. Oh, FoxNews. It's mostly inoffensive as a mute background visual. But out of the corner of my eye, I can still see the sorority of always giggling, liberally lip-glossed, buxom TV anchor-esses. Doubtlessly hired for their Columbia Journalism School degrees and hardnosed critical analysis, right?

As a (prickly feminist) young woman in journalism who wants to be taken seriously for my tenacity and reportage, that's frustrating to watch. To say the least.

And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse...

If you haven't watched this video, you simply must: On Sunday's Fox & Friends, a male anchor hands the broadcast over to a female anchor, cracks a joke about pants suits (gee, who do we think they were talking about?) and asks her, "Have you ever worn a pantsuit? Are you a pantsuit woman?"

A strange thing to ask a colleague, but innocuous enough.

But then Ainsley Earhardt -- the anchor-ess -- tucks her hair behind her ears and replies, "I have! But, see, here at Fox we like to be feminine, so we don't wear the pants." Off in the distance, we hear a wolf whistle.

And then Earhardt coyly continues, "Would you like us to wear pants, Brian?" "No, no!" Brian exclaims. (She does have great legs, I admit.) "It's very hard to please Brian," a second female anchor jokes. And then Brian, who sounds like a great guy, announces, "If I were to run for office, I would run on a pro-skirt platform. I am firmly behind the skirts." Another male anchor adds, "You're firmly behind the skirts? Is that what you just said?"

At this point, the second female anchor interjects, a bit sternly, "I think you should stop now."

Uhhhh...yeah.

What's interesting here is that Earhardt said not "we don't wear pants," but "we don't wear the pants." It would have made sense for Earhardt to say "we are feminine, (ergo) we don't wear pants," which of course would not have been actually true but would have been stereotypically true insofar as the Western construct of feminine appearance. But Earhardt says, "here at Fox we like to be feminine, so we don't wear the pants." As we all know, the pants is what the person in charge wears.

Is her implication that being feminine, being a female, means not wearing "the pants"? As a woman who wears skirts and dresses all the time -- and would support Brian's pro-skirt platform on fashion merits alone -- that's a really creepy characterization of femininity right there -- we like to be feminine so we don't wear the pants.

The feminist and conspiracy theorist in me hopes, though, that there's some sarcastic social commentary here. Could Earhardt possibly be making a dig at her FoxNews bosses and their expectations of their female anchors? How hard is it for you to imagine a FoxNews-y conversation either explicitly or implicitly guiding the female journalists ("journalists"?) to wear short skirts, cleavage-bearing tops and copious makeup? Think of that Katherine Heigl and Kirsten Wiig weight-loss scene in Knocked Up.

This is quite enough time that I have wasted dissecting an off-the-cuff convo between FoxNews employees on sartorial matters. I'll go back to figuring out, pasty-white-from-sitting-behind-the-glow-of-a-computer-screen and working-for-feminist-progressives associate blog editor that I am, if leggings, paired with boots and a shirt, count as "pants." And what that, exactly, means for my career in journalism.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gender, media, sexism

Jessica Wakeman is an associate blog editor at The Huffington Post. She is from Fairfield, Connecticut, and studied journalism and gender and sexuality studies at New York University. Prior to working at The Huffington Post, she worked at nymag.com and Radar magazine. She also worked as a local newspaper reporter in Connecticut. Jessica has written for Bitch magazine, The New York Daily News, New York Press, and Radar magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I'd vote for the pro-skirts guy
Posted by: rickiey on Mar 5, 2008 1:11 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quite frankly, I don't get to wear shorts to work, and I live in Florida. The women in my office get to wear skirts, and it appears to me, to be a much more comfortable clothing than the pants I have to wear.

When is society going to promote equality between the sexes and let men wear comfortable clothing as professional clothes!!!

Thanks for reading. You may all go back to your regularly scheduled bashing of faux news now, with my sympathies towards your being forced to watch it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'd vote for the pro-skirts guy Posted by: goeswithness
» I highly recommend kilts... Posted by: brock_samson
» RE: I'd vote for the pro-skirts guy Posted by: lepidopteryx
Thanks
Posted by: goeswithness on Mar 7, 2008 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciate hearing these things, even though none of them surprise me anymore.

I'm saying that before people start weighing in and pointing out that this is a rather minor thing in the world today. It is, but I still think it's valuable to know about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks Posted by: meeneecat
They Know Their Audience
Posted by: Urstrly on Mar 7, 2008 1:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perfect for all those Republican men watching Fox who want to pretend it's still 1962 when a woman (but never a man) had to type to get a job in television. I presume she doesn't do any heavy lifting or ever run for a story.

But come to think about it, is that attitude any different from what's implied over at CBS when they put Katie Couric in stilettos and a miniskirt and try to pass her off as someone to be taken seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Strange world!
Posted by: Verjenie on Mar 7, 2008 4:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that men should be able to wear what they want. I had a really burly boyfriend when I lived in the East Village and in the summer he liked to borrow my skirts, particularly the kelly plaid one that looked like a kilt. Actually it is very feminine to be in charge. Let's all take turns doing that. I had ducks when we lived in the country and they all move around in this group but the leader is always whichever duck gets up first with an idea where to go. I watched this and would check and it never mattered whether it was a boy or girl. No we're not ducks, but we could learn from them. What really upset me was I opened my earthlink homepage and the very first story was:
Rowland Feels 'Complete' After Surgery
NEW YORK - Kelly Rowland has gotten a little more bustylicious. Rowland, who sang "Bootylicious" with Beyonce in the group Destiny's Child, tells People magazine in its March 17 issue that she had plastic surgery last October to bring her "from an A-cup to a B-cup."
Somehow that seems really sad. However I guess the ridiculous Fox bandiage goes to making fun of Hillary who has the audacity of hope to wear THE pants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She's a Faux "News" Anchor... not a JOURNALIST!
Posted by: Quannah on Mar 7, 2008 8:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And if there's one thing they like there on Faux "News", it's T&A!!! The more the better! Skirts gotta be short! Shirts gotta be tight!

The sooner we all stop labeling Faux as "news" the better off we will all be. They are media, but they aren't news. They have "talking heads" but they don't have journalists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Northshorewoman Posted by: Northshorewoman
» RE: Northshorewoman Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Northshorewoman Posted by: Northshorewoman
» RE: You beat me to it. Posted by: bitsfick
As long as they don't wear panties...
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 10, 2008 1:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are naive if you don't think sex plays a big role in the media. And women have done very well teasing their way through stories right across the media world: it is just a fact.

The way to counter the use of sex to sell the news is to support and encourage initiatives like this one to bring quality stories into the public realm.

And this is going to wind up the left: but for christ's sake, pay for your journalism! Pay people who write and contribute to leftwing publications properly. It is a bit like prostitution - women turn to it when they can't earn enough to support themselves doing more sober work. So women whore for Fox and other media when there is no money to be made in the righteous media. Think about that for a moment or two.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'm not naive at all... Posted by: Northshorewoman
» While the left likes to... Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: While the left likes to... Posted by: BCcovers
In the interest of a woman's right to choose what to do with her body...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 10, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I submit to you that they can wear whatever they damn well please on that silly so-called "news" station.

I fail to see why folks watch that nonsense, or indeed, pay for cable television these days. I suspect a teensy-weensy recession might weed out a lot of premium programming, unless folks find a way to continue to put their everyday expenses on a credit card, fourth mortgage, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Truly, Actually
Posted by: jmmartin on Mar 10, 2008 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real reason those Foxettes don't want to wear pants is that they're all bubble headed bimbos.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

so a scotsman in a kilt....
Posted by: Bearzerker on Mar 10, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
would be out as a weatherman for faux news then?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MURDOCH'S FORMULA FOR SUCCESS
Posted by: smendler on Mar 10, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. BIMBOS

2. EDITORIALS DECRYING THE DETERIORATION OF SOCIETY'S SEXUAL MORALITY

3. MORE BIMBOS

It's worked for him for years

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MURDOCH'S FORMULA FOR SUCCESS Posted by: cherylsass123
Doesn't look like it's business channel will be any better
Posted by: brunowe on Mar 10, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Opposite Penn Station in New York, there is a billboard announcing the arrival of a Fox business news cable channel. On the billboard, the images of about a half-dozen comely females, and no men.

Of course, being hot doesn't necessarily mean you don't know what you're doing (Maria Bartiromo), but to either have an all-female (good-looking) air staff or to advertise only the air staff who fit that description seems par for the course for Fox.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Woman reporters at FOX news don't wear pants . . .
Posted by: mexgulf on Mar 10, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think what the right wing air head meant to say was at FOX the "women don't wear panties" That's why the boys were hootin and hollerin.

The only thing credible about that news group is that they have lots of money and plenty of idiots who watch them. Same people who make up the 20 something percent who still think bush is ok.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jessica Wakeman
Posted by: DigitalAztec on Mar 10, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like a real Nazi to me. Worry about what YOU wear, Wakeman!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms. Wakeman, do you specialize in picking gnat s**t out of pepper?
Posted by: joeunix on Mar 10, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or do you prefer to "strain out a gnat but swallow a camel"?

Irrelevant, stupid, waste of bandwidth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get it right
Posted by: ohb0b on Mar 10, 2008 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's "anchor-asses," not "anchor-esses." Woo-woo!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stormy7
Posted by: dpodlogar on Mar 10, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i never understood why women were forced to wear dresses or skirts. both of these items of clothing makes a woman more vulnerable.
i don't own any dresses or skirts.
as for the gals at fox, keep you legs together. that o'reily guy is a total perv.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, whatever...
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Mar 10, 2008 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't watch Fux News even if they were naked.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Faux "news" is nothing but a sick puppy channel !
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 10, 2008 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If women are going to have to dress short and tight, I strongly recommend the same restriction be imposed on the men on that channel ! In any case, if I were any of you, I would not only choose to not watch the channel but ditch the cable/satellite subscriptions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

when
Posted by: bitsfick on Mar 10, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there looks are gone, what are they going to do, fall back on their experience? I don't think there is much of a market for middle age air heads. Before you jump on me for being a sexist, let me point out that there are plenty of very intelligent, very capable, good looking woman of all ages out there, but you won't see them on Fox.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good grief
Posted by: willymack on Mar 10, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this about a phony news organization's dress code? A woman is still a woman whether she's dressed in a Christian Dior gown, bib overalls, or a turnip sack. The REAL issue here is honest journalism, and fox fails miserably at that, wardrobe notwithstanding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So much for equal rights
Posted by: DigitalAztec on Mar 10, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess women cannot be feminine, ladylike (a term of derision in "land of the free," America) and heterosexual.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TV journalism in general is craptacular
Posted by: chaoslegs on Mar 10, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I did check, Ainsley Earhardt has a journalism degree, not that necessarily makes you a good one, but her degree is in the right field.

Local news shows are probably just as bad as this one. I don't watch them any more, it would cost too much to replace the tv when they "made" me throw things at it for the inane chit-chatter that goes on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm confused....
Posted by: cisc on Mar 10, 2008 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what has fox anchors got to do with journalism?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not to worry...
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 10, 2008 4:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If that dork is married, he won't be alive much longer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fox news- 'faks n(y)uz- to trick by ingenuity or cunning: outwit: baffle
Posted by: yale on Mar 10, 2008 5:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Their title tells it all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

real meaning of 'fair and balanced'?
Posted by: wheezer on Mar 10, 2008 7:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Fox News - best pseudo-news to masturbate to, whether right- or left-handed!"

Could make for their new ad campaign...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the girls keep their legs crossed at Fox
Posted by: fonn on Mar 10, 2008 8:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing I noticed when I was forced to watch Fox by a cable company was that all the women working there, with the exception of one who did the legal stuff, were good looking. That is smart of Fox, for who wants to look at the ugly ones? And for obvious reasons all these skirt-wearing women crossed their legs. Did they never get tired of crossing their legs, I often wondered?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

anchorettes?
Posted by: meeneecat on Mar 10, 2008 9:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And why are we now calling female anchors "anchorettes"? (as opposed to just anchors)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MaryS
Posted by: maryMS on Mar 11, 2008 12:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Fox girls only wear skirts, but they are the shortest skirts on TV, and I doubt if they wear any underwear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NPR sucks too
Posted by: timemachinist on Mar 11, 2008 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop picking on Fox News as if they are some special bad source. NPR sucks too, despite the gay voices we get the same imperialist assumptions about the US role in the world, same corporatist assumptions about how the economy should be run, same police state assumptions about using the excuses of terrorism and drugs to build a gulag nation.

And what's wrong with women in skirts? I love it! Everyone knows you are supposed to turn off the sound when watching the TV anyway. The images are actually more important froma propaganda point of view, and I'm not even joking. Try it sometime: watch the news with the sound off (put on some music to make the time pass enjoyably) and you'll definitely get an understanding of the direction they want your opinion (ie, public opinion) to move. The logos they create for their stories, the beautiful face and eyes reporting on our latest war crimes as if they were a triumph of freedom and democracy, the horrible crimes whipping us into complete acceptance of complete police surveillance and presence at all points in the country (and many points beyond)....

At least keep it pretty!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a vision!
Posted by: carbon-based on Mar 11, 2008 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dont want them to wear pants on air either.. The funny thing is EVERY other station has copied the Fox way..beautiful women reading off cards. Although Fox seems to have more women hosting shows and can carry an open forum.

If you have to listen to what passes for news in this country, you might as well enjoy the sights!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why western women are only decades ahead of the Dark Ages, obviously
Posted by: stellabloo on Mar 11, 2008 3:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should I be indignant? Obviously nobody else is, western society having successfully programmed women to believe that Freedom really just means freedom to wear 3" heels to work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Something to add...
Posted by: l_m_n on Mar 11, 2008 7:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These Fox News bimbos make a mockery of the entire field of journalism, that is true.

However.. when I watched this, I thought she was saying "the pants" just like some people say "the interwebs"... sticking the word 'the' in front of anything automatically makes it a cool joke. It's possible she was trying that angle.

It's just as likely as having a mindless clone like that actually be making a deep commentary about the female condition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Homogenized Beauty Sells
Posted by: mcstewey on Mar 11, 2008 9:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody ever been to "newsbusters.org"? It's a fasciniting site of extremely narrow minded individuals who still believe the MSM is liberal...but I digress. They posted an article about the new Fox Business News Network several months ago. Their promo photo shot showed 2 blondes sitting behind a desk. I immediatly posted something like: "here comes Fox targeting the heterosexual middle class male crowd." I was immediately pounced upon as a "liberal." Huh, that's what I get for stating the obvious? Ok. It's a shame that some people have become so brainwashed that they don't have a clue as to what realy journalism is supposed to be about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]