So the Richard Sherman controversy is actually Erin Andrews’ fault – and it’s her fault because she’s not smart and she’s good-looking.
Well, okay, maybe that’s a harsh take on what he said, but it’s not far from the truth. Here’s the most relevant passage:
“Andrews, however, was not signed away from ESPN (by Fox) because she’s a high-caliber reporter, or because she possesses a unique view of the game, or incredible knowledge. She was hired away from ESPN (by Fox) because guys think she’s hot.”
Sideline sports reporters are almost exclusively attractive women for understandable marketing purposes. Pearlman’s reasoning about the hiring practices of sideline reporters would presumably be near universal. The real problem with his point is not that he recognizes the glaringly obvious importance of sideline reporters’ looks, but that he accuses Andrews of being a complete incompetent who only has her job because of her looks – and who caused the controversy.
He went on to say the following:
“Erin Andrews was a deer in headlights. She did not know what to do or what to say or how to respond. Someone in the control booth clearly told her to send things away from Sherman—and she did. In short, she wasn’t to be trusted with the situation, and Fox’s heads knew it.”
Now, I don’t know about you, but considering the swift condemnation about Sherman’s classlessness, I expect most people were taken aback and few would expect anyone to react differently. But I might have to low an expectation level for people in such professions.
Sports media is about as much a joke as the rest of the media – which is why I don’t find the analysis of most unattractive males particularly insightful either – and it is just as liberal.
This last point is why analysis of any accomplishment by an attractive woman is subject to scrutiny. The liberal sports media, affected as much by second wave feminism as any other liberal, is upset by the unequal “distribution” of looks among women and must pull attractive women down to the level of the less attractive by disparaging their intelligence and assuming looks (and sexism) are responsible for the disparity of results.
This is the same “depraved taste for equality,” to use Tocqueville’s words, that I criticized last week in my post about the Thin Privilege movement, an offshoot of liberal feminism also bent on a relativistic erasing of standards of beauty and thus an equalized perception of women’s looks. Tocqueville went on to explain that this extreme egalitarianism “impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level.” This is the cause of the liberal sports media’s reaction against Andrews and it is a disease in the American body politic.
I don’t really have an opinion on how good a sideline reporter Andrews is (although, as Pearlman himself admits, she was a college athlete and presumably reasonably knowledgeable.) The real problem here is the assumption that classless behavior is somehow her fault because she’s an incompetent who only got a job because she’s attractive.
Note to liberal feminist women: jealousy doesn’t become you. Note to the liberal sports media: enabling jealousy doesn’t become you either.
*Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh for mentioning another response to Pearlman by Gwen Knapp.