I’ve waived any unsatisfaction about my wage after reading this


This article is about a viral story in the news, about the news itself, particularly TV stations and cost of living. It is an excellent article, that considers all the aspects of a popular decision to purchase an identical dress and wear it. The amount of decision-making that goes into picking clothing should usually be unremarkable, except when creepy people feel like they  should offer their less important opinion.

“And actually, this classically simple and inexpensive dress also says a lot about the everyday wardrobe challenges women face in the TV meteorology business.

It’s universally flattering, because people are jerks. Well, some people are jerks. They’re the kind of people that will send messages to women after their broadcast ends, commenting on what they were wearing, or the way they did their hair, or maybe just how particularly phenomenal they looked during their weather segments.”

The article goes on to say:

“Enter: the dress. It’s feminine, it’s flattering and it doesn’t reveal too much — something that is becoming harder and harder to find in clothing today. Most of all, it probably doesn’t elicit quite as many inflammatory emails and messages from rude viewers.”

Along with more reasons:

It’s cheap. This may come as a surprise, but 90 per cent* of TV meteorologists are not rolling in dough. They are not raking in the big bucks. When a meteorologist graduates from college, he or she will likely head to tiny markets in rural states, making little more than US$25,000 ($34,000) a year.

Of course this is not to say that 25 grand wouldn’t sound amazing to the 15 per cent of Americans who are living in poverty. But it becomes a little burdensome when your wardrobe is a fundamental part of your job, even though your employer does not provide a stipend or allowance for clothing.

There’s an exception to this for a small percentage of meteorologists in the highest markets – mainly places like New York City and Los Angeles. But there are even meteorologists in Washington, DC that do not get wardrobe stipends. It’s something that’s typically negotiated in contracts, which means there are winners and there are losers.

Thus, cheap is a must, especially since you also can’t wear the same five dresses every week. Viewers notice.

*This statistic is less based on measurable fact and more based on the author’s personal observations and experience.”
I included a large part of this article in this post because there were many great points. I was actually a bit surprised to read of the income of many TV station meteorologists. I work from home, so in a lot of ways, I’m fortunate to not have to deal with the judgemental opinions about my appearance, whatever may be lacking or disagreeable. And while I only make a couple thousand dollars less than than that $25,000 salary, I feel bad for them (I feel bad for richer people too), because I wouldn’t accept a raise for two thousand dollars if I had to deal with the amount of criticism that the average female or even male meteorologist faces.
There’s an extraordinary amount of decency that is needed for society to be healthy, an expectation that many people can’t live up to. The problem is that many people are ordinary, and they should keep their misogynist opinions to themselves. People who work in highly visible workplaces in society are simply the “low-hanging,” but noble fruit for lazy critics, and deserve the most protection from society’s angelic guardians (or simply, left alone if you thought that meant something else). If this story is even a thing, which I would have never imagined, then there is certainly a sub-class of terrible tv critics that had to have led to this private Facebook group. Otherwise, the Facebook group would have been whimsically public without the fear of input from critics with bad taste and worse manners.