Fact:
The F&I uniforms exploit the sexuality of the women who perform that job.
Nobody can deny that, and I don't think anybody is, but the notion that it's sexist is still ridiculous to me.
Sexual objectification is not universally regarded as part of sexism, but a lot of people think it is, so let's look at sexual objectification and how that relates to the F&I girls.
Quote:
|
The objectification of women involves the act of disregarding the personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities of a female; and reducing a woman's worth or role in society to that of an instrument for the sexual pleasure that she can produce in the mind of another
|
So, let's turn it into questions that we can answer:
Are the personal and intellectual abilities, along with the capabilities of the F&I girls disregarded?
NO - the F&I girls are required to clean the ice and interact with the audience at both the games and other events. This requires intellectual and physical ability.
Are the F&I girls only worth that of providing sexual pleasure in the mind of another?
NO - the F&I girls have roles that expand beyond being sexually appealing.
You have to ask yourself, if the F&I girls were dressed conservatively and included men, would they A) still be a job that someone had to do and B) still be sexist. If you believe that without the role being filled by beautiful women, the role becomes obsolete (as in, unless the women are beautiful, there is no point to have anyone interact with the audience, clean the ice, or attend community events) then yeah, B is true. If however you're willing to admit that everything the F&I girls do are jobs that need to be done, and could equally be done by anyone not wearing the uniform, then the job isn't sexist.
If A is true, B must be false.
Sexuality being part (even a large part) of a job is not the same as sexual objectification or sexism. If you believe that F&I primary serve to give sexual pleasure in the minds of their audience whenever they are at work, then in that instance sexism would be true, but I would say your judgement on their job is wrong.
The question could be: are their outfits serving a relevant purpose? (Which I think multiple people have asked and in-turn been accused of labelling it sexist). That to me makes a lot more sense. The way they dress if more humorous than sexual to me. It's goofy to see skimpy outfits running around in a chilly arena. I don't think anybody needs to accuse everyone of oppression and being "too PC" for questioning what value the outfits have overall.