Alright, you have two women competing for a job. One of them is fresh from a good college but has no experience. The other is a bit older and has been doing a very similar job for several years but doesn't have the degree. Which one gets hired?
The one with the biggest boobs, of course. (Gimme a break - what do you expect from a feminist joke?)
Justly or not, that's also what happened on "Dancing with the Stars". Kelly Monaco, once picked to be one of the first to go, wound up winning over John O'Hurley and his incredible professional partner Charlotte Jorgensen. Ms. Jorgensen could make anyone look good, including O'Hurley, but in the end he was just too much of a load.
Should O'Hurley have won? Well, I won't call myself a good enough judge for that. The consensus of the pros I've asked who saw it was that O'Hurley should have won. I'll assume that the fact that the input included no straight males had nothing to do with that decision. Anyway, I'd like to see how well he would do in a social setting without a world-class partner to backlead him.
IMO O'Hurley overdid it much of the time though. And his strengths were in the standard rather than the Latin dances - the latter are more telegenic IMO, and Kelly Monaco had the figure for it (oh, did she...there had to be a lust factor here).
Ah, Kelly Monaco. Her strengths weren't technical. She could stretch and spin and could survive some of the more elaborate footwork, but if she winds up dancing professionally it'll be about her presence, not her chops.
Both O'Hurley and Monaco had made tremendous progress in a short time. But men have more to learn to reach a given level of dancing in any case, so O'Hurley started out in the hole. In the minor leagues where I labor, men and women ordinarily don't compete directly for that reason.
Injustice or no, I hear another season will be coming soon.