Offender: New TV comedy "Work It"

Media Outlet: Premiered on ABC, 1/3/12

The Offense: Two out-of-work men dress up as women to get jobs selling pharmaceuticals. The first episode included lines such as: "Women are taking over the workforce. Soon they'll start getting rid of men. They'll just keep a few of us around as sex slaves . . . Not the kind of sex you like . . . Just kissing and cuddling and listening," and "When women take over, they'll make pride illegal."

NOW's Analysis: As one might expect from such an outdated and convoluted concept, "Work It" relies heavily on the presumption that viewers will crack up at the mere sight of two men dressed as women. The script is obsessed with ticking off every supposed difference between the sexes.

For instance, women eat itty-bitty lunches, while men crave giant subs. Men sit around and pound beers at pubs, while women drink cocktails and dance at clubs. And, of course: Men just don't get women, even their long-suffering wives. They need to literally walk in women's shoes to empathize with the other half of the population.

The stereotypical female characters in the office include the blonde princess, the driven bitch, and a slight variation on the Manic Pixie Dream Girl (this version's on hand to help the lead male character, Lee, become a better man and woman).

Other clichés are trotted out, too, like straight men's fascination with lesbians and this classic: "I'm Puerto Rican, I'd be great at selling drugs." Even book clubs where women read about coming of age (and dying) in Rwanda are played for laughs. Aren't women and their interests just silly?

"Work It" might be easy to write off, if it weren't so offensive. The plot is kick-started when Lee runs into a prescription drug saleswoman in his doctor's office, and she tells him: "We're kind of just looking for girls . . . we've had some guys, but the doctors seem to want to nail them less." And Lee's wife has to remind him to "stop comparing prostate exams to the pinball scene in 'The Accused'" -- no matter how old the reference, is gang rape ever good fodder for a joke?

Set aside for the moment that the characters repeatedly refer to adult women as "girls." And the ridiculously mocking way Lee's friend, Angel, walks in heels and a skirt. Even worse than these superficial offenses, the show has a nonchalant attitude toward inappropriate sexual remarks and attitudes. At his interview, Angel tells the female boss: "Your ass looks tight in those pants" (is this ok because he's presumed to be a woman?). Afterward, Angel tells Lee he was fighting an erection during the interview.

Perhaps the most insulting thread in the premise is how Lee gets hired. Vanessa, the boss, expresses surprise that Lee researched the company before his interview and actually understands its products. She confides: "Most of the girls who interview here think clinical trials are the things Lindsay Lohan keeps having to go to." Lee replies: "I'm not your ordinary girl."

So, ordinary "girls" are dumb and don't know how to prep for interviews? But a man (especially one with experience selling macho cars) knows how to impress the boss? Were any women writers or producers present when this exchange was waved through?

This kind of sexist buffoonery is juvenile even in beer commercials. Thirty minutes of it is just pathetic.

Take Action: Tell ABC what you think about the outdated and offensive stereotypes of women and men in "Work It." Update: ABC canceled "Work It" after two episodes, but it's still ok to contact the network and tell them why shows like this are a big mistake!

Lisa Bennett, NOW Communications Director, January 9, 2012

More offenders in : Objectification of Women, Television, Harassment, Intimidation, Media Hall of Shame

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 2.81/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word:

Offender: Blogger Erick Erickson

Media Outlet: RedState.com and CNN

The Offense: The conservative blog Red State, of which Erickson is editor-in-chief, ran a piece posted by "The Directors" that said, in relation to the Roe v. Wade decision: ". . . once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support." (emphasis added)

NOW's Analysis: We do not find it the least bit surprising that right-wing websites run posts like this, using language like "mass bloodshed." Of course, that doesn't make it acceptable, just sadly predictable. Normally, we wouldn't spend time addressing the content on a conservative blog.

What makes this post relevant, however, is that Erick Erickson is a political contributor on CNN's John King, USA. And NOW believe that a mainstream media outlet like CNN has no business employing a radical propagandist like Erickson.

Let's count the ways in which this quote is scary: First of all, doctors, clinic workers, volunteer escorts, security guards and others have already been killed and injured in the name of protecting the "sanctity of human life." If there's an audience that doesn't need any riling up with allusions to violence, it's anti-abortion rights extremists.

And how about the careful phrasing that claims bloodshed won't be necessary, "but only if..."? The caveat that follows sounds quite difficult to measure. So, if those "committed to justice do not waiver or compromise" (what constitutes a waiver?) and they "send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials" (what qualifies as a clear signal? how many representatives must be signaled?), only then is there no need for "mass bloodshed." Who is going to be measuring whether these conditions are met or not? Is there a time certain for the conditions to be met? If they aren't met, what form will the bloodshed take? Who will be the targets of the bloodshed, and will they be warned that it's about to commence? If this series of questions comes off sounding sarcastic or facetious, it's not meant to be. This is dead serious.

Erickson reportedly will offer analysis during CNN's State of the Union coverage. Imagine a liberal in charge of a website that suggests the terms under which "mass bloodshed" should or should not take place in the U.S. being given a prominent and regular position on a mainstream cable news network. Not likely. Why is it ok for a member of the radical right to be given such a platform? It's not.

Take Action: Tell CNN that Erick Erickson has got to go. NOW. Make sure to put Erick Erickson's name in the box that says "Anchor or reporter's name."

Thanks to our friends at Media Matters for alerting us to this outrage.

National Organization for Women, January 25, 2011

More offenders in : Violence Against Women, Television, Reproductive Rights, Internet, Harassment, Intimidation, Media Hall of Shame

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 2.04/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word:

Offender: Political Cartoonist Brian Fairrington

Media Outlet: Available on Daryl Cagle's website on MSNBC.com and in publications across the U.S.

The Offense: Fairrington's depiction of current Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan includes her wearing buttons that say "Never Married," "No Kids," "Boys are icky!" and "Kill Baby Kill"

See Cartoons by Cartoon by Brian Fairrington - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon

NOW's Analysis: Ever since President Obama announced Elena Kagan as his pick for the Supreme Court on May 10 (heck, even before, when she was on the short list), this impressive woman has been targeted with some seriously ridiculous speculation about her sexual orientation. Playing softball, not fitting into the traditional woman's role of married with children, and who knows what else, are leading the media to question whether or not Kagan is a lesbian.

As we should all know by now, it doesn't matter whether or not Kagan is a lesbian. Being a lesbian, repeat, being a lesbian is not an insult. And yet, so many in our culture still believe that it is. Lesbian-baiting is designed not only to harm the person being "smeared" but to send a warning to other women that it could happen to them, too. It's just another intimidation tactic. And the media, with it's love for all things titillating, goes along either dumbly or complicitly.

This cartoon is just one example of the kind of attacks a woman nominee, even in 2010, can expect. Kagan also has been taken to task for not looking like a supermodel, for daring to look like herself. Comments on Kagan's experience, qualifications, philosophy and ideology are fair game and should give the media plenty to talk about. But her appearance and sexual orientation should be out of bounds.

Take Action: Email Brian Fairrington and tell him what you think about his cartoon.

Lisa Bennett, NOW Communications Director, May 17, 2010

More offenders in : Sexist Piggery, Print Publications, Internet, Harassment, Intimidation

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 3.12/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word: