Earlier this week, Fox News entered into a discussion about the appropriateness of leggings as pants. While that’s a hotly debated topic–particularly when it comes to school dress codes–the way that Fox News approached the conversation can only be described as really yucky.

The discussion was sparked by a viral video made by a Tennessee woman, Jamie Higdon, who ranted about women who wear leggings as pants. One of the “Fox & Friends” hosts, Steve Doocey, moderated the panel. He was joined by the husband of a co-host, Andrew Sansone, as well as “Duck Dynasty” star Willie Robertson, and one of Fox News’ legal analysts, Arthur Aidala.

Here’s the entire uncomfortable interaction, if you want to check it out for yourself:

There are just so many things wrong with this segment that I don’t even know where to begin.

For starters, let’s talk about the fact that as far as I know, none of these men are experts on fashion. Instead, they were qualified to be on the panel because they’re all dads. That’s disturbing, because it sends a clear message–that it’s up to a father to police what his daughters wear. Not a woman herself, because we can’t possibly be trusted to make autonomous decisions about what we can put on our own bodies.

Then there’s the fact that these four men clearly ogle the young women that are paraded out in front of them–and some of the comments they make get downright creepy. For example, Doocy asked one young woman if she had a tattoo in a particularly leering manner. At another point, the men applaud one of the models who turns around to show that her “tail” is covered. They also all comment on the physique of a model named Paige. In perhaps the creepiest moment, Aidala comments “We all took our nitroglycerin pills before she came on the set, just to make sure,” implying that Paige’s ensemble could have given the men heart attacks.

At one point Aidala does point out that dress codes aren’t just an issue for women. He comments on the apparel of young men he sees too, implying that sagging pants aren’t appropriate. But there’s a difference in the rhetoric used when referring to these young men and women–the men aren’t be sexualized. And I would bet you quite a bit of money that if young men were paraded out in front of these panelists wearing saggy pants, this segment would look a lot different. There would be way less clapping, way less leering, and I don’t think anyone would joking about heart attacks.

Overall, the panel just stinks of sexism and creepiness. It’s not a father’s job to police what his daughter wears, and it’s sure as hell was not this panel’s job to leer at and comment on young women’s bodies while doing so. Thanks guys, now I need a shower.

Learn More: School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Features Cringeworthy Panel of Dads Talking About Leggings appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: October 25, 2014

Well, that was quick. As of today TLC has pulled the plug on its uber successful reality show “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” The announcement comes after weeks of speculation and reports asserting that Mama June, Honey Boo Boo’s mother, has been dating a convicted sex offender since splitting with her long-time partner Sugar Bear.

Here is the family’s response to the news, posted to their Facebook fan page earlier today:

According to Mama June in the video, she is not dating Mike McDaniel, who was convicted of aggravated child molestation in 2004.

“The statement of me dating a sex offender is totally untrue. Pumpkin (June’s daughter) has openly said that I’m not dating him … I would never, ever, ever, ever put my kids in danger.”

TLC, unsurprisingly, has been cautious when addressing this situation. “TLC has cancelled the series ‘Here Comes Honey Boo Boo’ and ended all activities around the series, effective immediately. Supporting the health and welfare of these remarkable children is our only priority. TLC is faithfully committed to the children’s ongoing comfort and well-being.”

No word yet from Sugar Bear on this controversy. It remains to be seen if the Shannon-Thompson family’s fans are as loyal as those of another major cable network’s reality family: the Robertsons of “Duck Dynasty” on A&E. A&E briefly barred the Robertson family patriarch from filming when he likened homosexuality to bestiality in a GQ interview. The whole family threatened to walk and many viewers revolted against the network, which later walked back the suspension.

Read our prior coverage on Mama June and Sugar Bear’s split, which kicked off speculation over the show’s future, here.

UPDATE October 25, 2014: Anna Shannon Cardwell, the oldest daughter of Mama June Shannon, reportedly was the eight-year-old child who McDaniel molested between 2002 – 2003. Cardwell defended her mother against reports that she was dating the man who spent ten years in jail for her molestation, until yesterday when she received more information about her mother’s relationship. Cardwell reportedly came forward with this information about her experience because of the nature of what she sees as her mother’s betrayal.

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Horatio Agostini via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TLC Cancels Honey Boo Boo, Possible Sex Offender Connection appeared first on Law Street.

The First Amendment. It’s a tricky topic. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it’s been in place since 1791, yet every single day, we see arguments about its interpretation.

This holiday season is the perfect time to talk about the First Amendment for two reasons: the current “Duck Dynasty” controversy that’s been all over the news, and the tired, contrived, yearly argument we have about the Freedoms of Speech and Religion in regards to Christmas.

I have to admit, I’ve watched a grand total of 0 minutes of Duck Dynasty. I think it’s maybe about rednecks who make hunting equipment for people who hunt ducks. Then, last week, GQ published an interview with  one of the stars of the show, Phil Robertson. Robertson made some pretty horrific anti-gay remarks in which he compared homosexuality to bestiality, stating, “start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men”. This is just a sampling of the statements that he made in the magazine, as well as equally abhorrent follow-up comments made since the scandal broke.

In response, A & E suspended Phil Robertson, leading to a fiery back and forth between the network, the show cast, and third-party commentators. Some have decried Robertson, others have praised him. GOP Congressional candidate Ian Bayne went so far as to call him the Rosa Parks of our generation. Many of Robertson’s supporters have advocated for the man’s right to free speech, under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment argument involving Phil Robertson comes in the middle of my favorite perennial “is there a war on Christmas?” argument. For as long as I can remember, people have been going crazy about how Christmas is dealt with in the public sphere. There are arguments over whether to say Happy Holidays or Season’s Greetings rather than Merry Christmas. Publicly funded Christmas trees, such as at state capitols, are sometimes called Holiday Trees instead. People freak out, everyone says the separation of religion and state has gone too far, and I automatically get a headache.

Actually, this may explain my headache.

The juxtaposition of these two arguments is very interesting, because I think they say more about the First Amendment than about the individual arguments themselves. The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, the press, and petition. But what exactly that means is constantly up for debate.

Now, I have my views on the Robertson incident and the ‘War on Christmas’, respectively. It was A&E’s, and solely A&E’s, prerogative to suspend Robertson. They are a private company. They can do whatever they like, and if that includes suspending someone from their network because it may cost them advertisers and sponsors, they may do so. Freedom of Speech as a right means that Robertson can’t be persecuted or punished by the government for what he said, and he won’t be. But whether or not he can lose his job–well that’s the right of the business for which he works, not the government. A flip argument can be said about the ‘War on Christmas’ controversy. The government cannot be seen as promoting one religion over another. For example, would calling the large green tree up at my state capitol a Christmas tree be breaking the First Amendment? Probably not. But it’s safer to be inclusive, and nicer, and I applaud that. I work retail during the holidays, and we say Merry Christmas as customers leave. But again, we are a private business, and we can do so.

These are views that I’m entitled to as an educated citizen of the United States of America. And anyone else is allowed to have their individual views as well. I don’t fault anyone who disagrees with me, as I hope I wouldn’t be faulted in turn by someone who has different opinions. First Amendment arguments will never stop, but it’s my Christmas wish that we all calm down a little bit. I hope we can all appreciate the fact that we live in a nation where we have these freedoms. Because that’s not the case everywhere in the world. And the fact that I can get into an argument about whether or not a homophobic bigot deserves to stay on his TV show under the warm glow of the tree in my living room, well that’s something for which to be thankful this Holiday season.

Happy Holidays!

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Tristan Martin via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have Yourself a Merry Little First Amendment Argument appeared first on Law Street.