Something sexist at this way comes...

Perhaps you've noticed Todd Epp's recent discovery that articles about 'babes' drive traffic.


Although I think the new 'babes' theme is pretty gross, I can't say I'm all that surprised. Remember Todd nicknamed Hillary Clinton "The Pant Suit?" Kelsey also reminded me that DW has collectively been referred to as "shrill," which I'm pretty sure isn't a way Todd would ever describe men. (Author's note: the recent serious overhaul of SD Watch has made thoroughly searching archives impossible...hence the lack of links here).


I'm sure that Todd has good intentions, and perhaps doesn't get why a feature like "Today's Babe" is sexist. Happily, Cory at Madville Times and Rebecca at Flying Tomato Farms have both done excellent analysis of the situation.


Interestingly, one of the comments on the topic at Middle Boarder Sun asserts that "The women complaining are probably middle-aged feminists, women of mediocrity in looks and achievement." This may be counter intuitive, but the majority of the commentary on BabeGate has actually been from men....which is something that's apparently hard for people to wrap their heads around. I'm sure it's news to Cory that he's a middle-aged "ugly" woman.


I'm interested to see the results of the poll that Todd is running on the feature today, asking readers whether or not he should keep the 'babe' feature. If the poll shows a positive response from readers, does that really justify continuing the objectification of women in South Dakota? Is "they told me to do it" really a believable defense? We've also seen the Esquire defense of BabeGate (found in the above link), which fails to address the fact that objectification is crap when Esquire does it too. Yes, objectifying pretty women does drive traffic / sell magazines. But that doesn't make it less damaging. Is anything that makes money (no matter who it harms) permissible now?