Nothing new

Not on the CBS and NBC affiliates in Nashville, and that's all I'll say about that LOL.

My dh's observation is that the weather girls are pregnant. Lol!

I've always seen a mix of guys and gals. Maybe it is something more local to you.

One of my local affiliates has recently hired what I call a 'weather bunny'. Her minnie mouse voice, stilted reading, and awkward arm and hand movements have turned me completely away from that network in the morning, typically my favorite. I absolutely cannot watch or listen to her., not even for a second, lol.

She's the only one like that in my local market, however. The national news and weather bunnies are commonplace, however.

Not only have I noticed it, but in our area, it seems to lead to pregnancy! Can't tell you how many pregnant weather women we've had! Maybe something else besides isobars in those warm fronts! :)

Gosh, "Weather Girls" go back to the 60s when pretty young well built girls would do weather reports -- in fact so much so that it was a standing joke. Obviously they were picked for beauty rather than brains! LOL!

This is so true, especially the pregnancy remark. Honestly all those pregnant bellies look like a weather front coming through. We have one woman on our CBS affiliate who is so odd looking yet fits the description of "weather bunny". We do have one guy who has been around a long time and he definitely does not fit the description!

Chi, I couldn't agree with you more.

Sadly, the bunnies I refer to are not educated professionals. My local news affiliates employs many highly qualified meteorologists, male and female, but the bunny girls, who might be news 'readers' or weather girls are a real turn off. There's only one of her ilk in my area, amongst numerous men and women who are clearly very knowledgeable and professional.

I, for one, don't discriminate against someone's appearance. It's the delivery! Can they pronounce Thames (the river in England), do they up-speak habitually, are they clearly confused about where Europe is or South America?

It's a problem on national cable TV, too. I'm very happy when I see more and more qualified women in these fields....doesn't matter what they wear. But the network producers/owners are still dictating that the on camera females have low necklines, high hemlines, and vacuumed-packed dresses.

I heard that the weather person in larger metropolitan areas and the national news are the highest paid professionals on air, because many people tune into the news for the weather only. I can't think of any names other than Ginger Zee, but she is an attractive woman who delivers the weather professionally, and seems to have the education behind her. We don't have weather bunnies where I live, rather a lot of semi-unattractive men. The first time hubs and I saw one of them we burst out laughing. The man is very large, but has a tiny head. It reminded us of David Byrne wearing the big suit in the Talking Heads movie "Stop making sense".

There clearly are women newscasters and weather reporters who are required to show off their looks. It does bother me that women who are very qualified and well educated are in a job where they have to dress like they just rolled out of a nightclub while the men are dressed like business professionals.

Let's be honest about this. Men tend to be visual creatures. Also, the way the male mind seems to function is that notions of sexual matters are frequently in our thoughts throughout the day. It may be the same for women but for this topic that doesn't matter. Put those two things together and when a man encounters or sees a woman who is talking about something serious but is dressed provocatively and situationally inappropriately, the man will tend to focus on the appearance while developing fantasy thoughts. Little or no attention is given to what the woman is talking about. Provocatively dressed women aren't just a distraction, their appearances completely hijack the encounter. That's human nature.

People in business of all kinds know this and tend to go for "bunnies", whether in the entertainment biz or just attractive people working for a corporation needed to meet with the public, etc. Are these women hired primarily for their brains and ability? Be serious. Same is true for personal encounters - dress provocatively or with revealing clothes for a neighborhood get-together or a cocktail party and you will attract attention. Not for what you're saying but for how you look. The men will talk about you amongst themselves AND walk away from you with a good idea of your vital measurements and fixed mental images of what you were revealing. And much less recollection of what you were talking about.

Does a woman in a STEM job have less gravitas if prone to wearing tight or revealing clothes and or with lots of decolletage? Yes, of course. How could it be otherwise?

Women who want to be taken seriously in public need to be aware of the impact their appearance sends to men, whether or not that's the message they want to send. Whether it is or not, I don't care, I love seeing women wearing revealing clothing, the more the better. But don't expect me to know the next day (if applicable) that you told me you have a PhD in anthropology and just wrote a book. I may not remember that.

Elmer -- So TRUE. *Everybody* knows this. It's why I can't agree with girls who play e insulted when they get called on revealing themselves to one and all. (What other purpose IS there in trying to look *sexually* attractive?)

I don't see provocative dress in the Columbus market. Our market is equally balanced with men in suits and ladies in suites or professional feminine attire.

Well qualified, well dressed, and community activists. They get an A+ on my grade card.

This has long been a sore point with me! No matter the situation the men are wearing suits and ties. In many (most?) other broadcasts the women are wearing sleeveless tight dresses which reveal lots of thigh when they are seated. It seems hard to take them seriously, especially on news broadcasts. I'm glad that none of my four brainy daughters decided on that type of profession!

Here too the ladies wear too tight dresses. They're too tight when they have wrinkles at their waist, instead of being smooth. Even pregnant ones like wearing the tight clothing that accentuate the very large bump and belly button.

One anchor on the national morning news wore a lot of sleeveless tops/dresses in the winter and then had a heater going under the desk. The male co-anchor was always commenting how hot he was because of the heater and wearing a suit. It looks idiotic to have freezing rain, snow, ice etc in the winter and seeing someone wear anything sleeveless.

Mostly men here on the local channels. I believe there is one weather girl and she is very attractive.

Men that don't have respect for women may not be able to retain what a speaking woman has said. Men that consider women to be equal to males in society, can hear and remember without difficulty. It isn't hormones, but a lack of respect.

In the early 1960's, a St Louis tv station hired a beautiful, tall elegant young black woman to be the "weather girl ", she did this for many years until meteorologists became the norm. She was very popular.

To deny the distracting effect of the sexual attraction of good looking and provocatively dressed people of either sex, and no matter what one's sexual orientation or relationship status is, is dumbfounding to me. Does that mean someone who feels that way has never had such an experience that many of us have regularly? There's nothing more to it than that. If my suggestion instead leads someone to a misunderstanding or is seen as evidence supporting a wrong-headed attitude, fine.

Attraction does not result in "Little or no attention is given to what the woman is talking about." and "I may not remember that [information she has disclosed about herself, such as having a PhD in anthropology and just having written a book] by the next morning.

If a women on the level of having a PhD and having written a book aren't sufficiently intelligent and interesting for you to even hear what they are saying during a conversation with them, that shows a serious lacking respect for women. To claim you can not pay attention to what women are saying because your hormones are raging is juvenile BS, unless your interest in women stops at lust. Lust as the solo interest certainly does not rise to the level of respect.

My favorite local has a pregnant weather lady, lol. Anyone keeping tally?

Stop looking for trouble and trying to conflate small things said colorfully and for effect into large ones. You'll understand more and be happier.. You'll understand more and be happier.

My beef with "good looking and provocatively dressed people of either sex" on TV news is that it's not either sex, its always the women showing skin in tight clothes, never the men! But ... those are the 'news' programs I glimpse as I flip channels on way to either PBS news or my small-market local news broadcast. Because no, I don't take skimpily-dressed news anchors seriously.

My local station's chief meteorologist is a nice looking woman in her late 30's. She's "real life" pretty (we see her around town as well as on the air), not a skinny barbie-doll clone. Her clothes are stylish, fit well. Her new assistant meteorologist looks like he just graduated school -- baby face cute. His first few times on camera his gestures were so awkward, I'd cringe. But he's improved greatly, and now looks almost relaxed as he presents and explains the weather report. Doubt I'll ever see him (or any male news presenter on the local station) in anything other than a stiff, formal suit. I wouldn't mind if they'd relax their dress code a bit.

Stop looking for trouble and trying to conflate small things said colorfully and for effect into large ones. You'll understand more and be happier.

That is a demonstratively dismissive comment, Mr. Fudd. My 3-line-long comment about what was written in your 27-line post didn't request a response from you, was not rude, and you had no need to even address it.* I'm allowed to voice my opinions in GW threads, even if they do not align with yours.

*Comment lengths per my monitor, current window.

Yes, please say whatever you want. When you criticize what someone says, be fair and be sure you understand it, take it in the context intended, and to be polite, restrict your words to the comments you disagree with and keep away from personal comments (which have no relevance anyway).

Your comments about me are ridiculous guesses and are so off the mark as to be laughable.

Chi -- I agree now that most "weather girls" are meterologists . . . but back in the 60s, they were hired for one thing only -- eye candy for the male viewers!

We have several women who do the weather in our area and with the exception of one, I prefer to watch thier forcasts as opposed to any of the men. My favorite is Hally Vogel on ABC. None of the men are as good in front of the camera as she is and certainly don't come across as articulate. She's a smart and seasoned forcaster who's very good at what she does.

Let's look at some of the Weathermen out there now and scrutinize their looks, wardrobes and talents, shall we?

One thing that makes me shake my head is when people mistakenly believe the title "meterorologist" is a highly-skilled and highly-educated position. Nope, not so. Because stations want to flaunt the "m" term, weather wannabes often just get their degree from the mail-order outfits. Hardly anything impressive. Someone who knows weather doesn't need a fancy title.

And yes, there's one in this market who has been pregnant for about the last 5 years. Drop the frog and back into maternity clothes.

Local TV news used to be some big bucks for broadcasters but since the internet, satellite and cable channels blew up, local news has taken the nosedive. There's very few who truly get big contracts compared to years ago. And the staffing is cut to the bone in most places too. The top stations around here used to staff 12-15 true meteorologists (not just someone with what's known in the business as a "MS Degree".) Today those stations staff about 4 weather folk with varying credentials. I remember when stations were crying to get a weather person who could talk so they could throw them on the air. Now, if you land a job you're well-advised to keep it. There's not 20 stations vying for your "talents". Same thing with news and sports, all have been cut dramatically since local news ad revenues nosedived they simply can't afford to employ more. Time was many stations would have their own expensive radar units and deride the National Weather Service's units. Now, you don't see them very often. You'd see remote trucks all over, now it's at best a handful of "photojournalists" at best. And with the decline of news, more and more stations have been bought up by the networks so the days of independent reporting are pretty much gone.