In Case You Were Wondering What I Was Thinking (About Brent Musberger and Other Stuff)
• Sportscaster Brent Musberger remarked during a boring rout of a bowl game that the winning quarterback’s girlfriend, in the stands, is gorgeous (which she is). Some female professor is quoted in the Times about his sexist remarks and ESPN (his channel for the game) apologizes. The woman in question, a former Miss Alabama, accustomed to strutting on runways in bikinis and stilettos in front of men to win competitions, comments that she didn’t find his remarks at all inappropriate.
Let me remind you that these TV stations post a woman, heavily made-up and perfectly coiffed, unnecessarily on the sidelines of the field itself to give a couple of meaningless reports and 30-second interviews with the coaches with the simple purpose of providing some pulchritude in the otherwise male-dominated broadcasts of a sport played by men. No one would care if they weren’t there at all. No one, they are superfluous.
Mr. Musberger is on the high side of 70, and I’ve noticed that people in public positions strangely garner more criticism as they pass that landmark. Even the nonpareil, legendary sportscaster, John Madden, started to receive criticism post-70. (He has since retired.)
Mr. Musberger admired a beautiful women after the director required a camera operator to focus on her (a management decision). He did so, in an age when we adorn everything from medicines to Mercedes with women draped this way and that in order to sell the merchandise on TV, on billboards, on the internet, and in magazines and newspapers.
Give me a break. This is more about ageism than it is about sexism.
• I would rather have the shyster pitch of the latest completely unnecessary kitchen gadget (“Buy one and get a second for free, for only (outrageous) shipping and handling!”) than the schoolyard “wink, wink” entendre of the ridiculous erectile dysfunction commercials. I keep wishing for a water moccasin or an alligator to surface on those those two annoying people in the bathtubs.
• When you spend time critiquing others’ tweets on Twitter, you have WAY too much time on your hands. When you’re worried about your Klout score for Twitter, you probably need medication.
• People who use obscenities to describe a ham sandwich or to give vacation advice on Facebook were at least solely local curiosities before social media platforms turned them into pubic fools.
• If you’re not allergic or otherwise traumatically affected by dogs, and you still don’t like them, you have intimacy problems.
• When you blame others for your perceived woes, you’re enslaved to people who don’t care and may not even be aware of your issues. Accept accountability for your own problems and you can independently resolve them.
• There is a restaurant and bar in Miami Beach called Prime 112 which has the rudest, most obnoxious waiters I’ve ever encountered. We were there only for a drink (they feature free bacon on the bar), but I’d never go back. There are too many wonderful places in the area to be subjected to 1950’s arrogance. Stay away.
• Why isn’t anyone complaining that President Obama has almost all male senior advisors? An Hispanic group just complained that the Kennedy Center Awards have not included enough Hispanics. They may have a point, with just two in two decades. Why aren’t the women complaining about Brent Musberger calling a beautiful woman “beautiful” up in arms about this? Go figure.
© Alan Weiss 2013
Hanno
before social media platforms turned them into pubic fools.
But at least the pubic fools are the best of fools.
Laurent Duperval
Alan,
What is the link between liking dogs and and intimacy?
L
Alan Weiss
My belief is that, barring illness or trauma, if you don’t like dogs and actively avoid them, you are a very closed and non-intimate person. I conducted an informal study once of about 80 people entering a classroom with a large, docile dog in a crate (cage) that was locked. About two-thirds of the people went over and talked to him or smiled, and one-third completely ignored him and/or made a distasteful face.
Laurent Duperval
OK. Maybe we don’t have the same definition of intimacy. To me it seems like you’re saying that if someone doesn’t like dogs, they have trouble establishing and /or maintaining close relationships. Is that what you mean? Is the converse true also? That is, if a person loves dogs then that person has no intimacy issues?
L
Alan Weiss
The converse isn’t true—some people have dogs in place of human relationships. Look (as our fearless leader in the US keeps saying, condescendingly): Don’t make too much of this. I’m simply suggesting that if you instinctively don’t like friendly, loving, loyal animals such as dogs, you’re probably not big on the warmth/relationship/intimacy scale. Non-scientific, based on 50 years of observations.