Mike then heads to the coast of Maine to join forces with slime eel fishermen. Climbing around a hagfish boat, his first task is to separate buckets full of eels from their slime. Mike quickly learns why they're called "slime eels" -- it's because they produce a horrible slime that is released as a defense mechanism when they're caught. Hundreds of gallons of slime cover the deck of the boat in this disgusting job that has Mike and the crew feeling a little nauseous. After a long day at sea, a slime-covered Mike goes to work in the sorting house where he packs the eels on ice before they are shipped to Korea (where they are a delicacy). Fishing for slime eels is a dirty job that Mike and the gang won't soon forget.I've seen the previews for this episode of Dirty Jobs, and I was disgusted by it. The slime eels/hagfish are a very ugly creature and the slime that they release is thick and just plain nasty. I don't recommend eating anything during this episode, because you could see it again quickly.
But I didn't see the show and I still began feeling a little nauseous (and quickly my opinion of Dirty Jobs soured). That's because I wound up on the Dirty Jobs fansite, where the audience presumably gathers to swoon over the show's presenter, Mike Rowe. The site (sponsored by the Discovery Channel) aks:
Is he hot or not? Vote now! Tell us what you think of Mike.
And even:
Are you like Mike? Our quiz reveals if you two are compatible under the covers.
The reason I point this out is because this past weekend in North Carolina I admitted to being turned off by vast quantities of vulgar narcissism on the web (blogs included--but photos with hand puppets excluded). In the old days, this would have been a show about Dirty Jobs (geoduck farming and hoof cleaning). But the Internet now also facilitates dirty thoughts about the presenter. Nausea one way or another...just another shifting baseline.
Environment
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
What a pun-tastic name! He could use it in so many ways (if he is willing to refer to himself in the third person):
"This sewage from my house is full of Mike Rowe organisms!"
"This situation calls for some Mike Rowe management."
"I'll be back in a Mike Rowe second!"
and so forth.
Posted by: George | January 23, 2008 12:56 AM
Actually, I'm a fan of Dirty Jobs. It's one of the very few TV shows that I really like to watch. And Mike Rowe really is the reason why the show is so successful, but not for the reasons that you're assuming. His charm is that he's down-to-earth. He comes to each site with the knowledge that he's going to look like a complete bumbling idiot while he's working alongside folks who do grueling jobs with skills honed by years of experience.
He makes a point of reminding everyone that the show is really a tribute to people who do disgusting and exhausting grunt work, day in and day out, because many of the Dirty Jobs (like keeping pumps running at a waste-water treatment plant) are essential for keeping the world running.
So I just don't see that he has any sort of superstar attitude, regardless how the Discovery website might try to spin things.
Actually, Jenn, given your experience with summer jobs, I think you probably would get a kick out of the show. I haven't seen the hagfish episode yet, but hopefully I'll catch it as a rerun sometime.
Posted by: knwd | January 23, 2008 6:21 AM
I'm sure Mike Rowe (yes, great name!) is a real card. And indeed, the premise of the show sounds wonderful (I did picture him shoveling elephant poo for 12 hours). I just think taking a quiz to find out if we're compatible under the covers gives new meaning to "Dirty Jobs" and Discovery should allow some presenters to just be good at their work rather than insisting on superficializing (!) them as sex symbols.
Posted by: Jennifer L. Jacquet | January 23, 2008 7:55 AM
In Mike's defense, he seems pretty down-to-earth, but his fans are often of the rabid "Estrogen Brigade" type (see "David Duchovny Estrogen Brigade"). I would recommend taking anything that shows up on a fansite (even via the D.Ch.) with a whole shaker of salt (helps get rid of that slime). It's more likely that D.Ch. is facilitating fan interest by feeding the beast, for better or for worse.
I agree with the downside to sexualizing a TV show host, but on the other hand, I think that female viewership is surprisingly high for this type of show. As with "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report", the gateway to increasing female interest in an unconventional topic started with attractive hosts, but continues with interesting material.
Posted by: SabrinaW | January 23, 2008 8:23 AM
I like the show and like this blog but feel I have to cry foul here. Finding t.v. show hosts attractive is a shifting baseline? Huh? As far as I can tell, attractive or not, just about everyone on t.v. has been fantasized about by the general public in some way, shape or form. It is most definitely not a shifted baseline - however base it may be.
Overuse of a catchy phrase until it loses all meaning...(not) just another shifted baseline.
Posted by: Maeve | January 23, 2008 6:32 PM
This is not about finding a tv show host attractive. Certainly, pining over a tv personality is nothing new (I for one was obsessed with Dean Cain on Superman back in the early 1990s). But I could never test my compatibility with him in bed ("Dirty quiz: See how you stack up [with Mike Rowe]...in the sack"). The shifting baseline is not about finding a star attractive. It's about the television station using a star's attractiveness to shamelessly (over)promote a show...
Posted by: Jennifer L. Jacquet | January 23, 2008 6:51 PM
Sorry Jennifer - what was intended to be a pithy comment, upon reading it again, came out rather snippy. It was not intended to be! A side effect of a new blogger I suppose.
As a biologist working in Arizona I often will use the concept of shifting baselines when arguing a biological concern with a developer. For example when discussing recovery of pronghorn developers will point to numbers ten years ago to prove that pronghorn are in "recovery", instead of looking at how big, and how widespread the populations were 100 years ago which would clearly show the population in decline.
So I guess I sometimes have a hard time visualizing the term outside the biological context. But I'm trying!
Posted by: Maeve | January 24, 2008 7:26 AM
Hi Maeve, your comment was not snippy at all (the fact that you think it might have been is what really gives you away as new to the blogosphere!)! I appreciate the feedback and it's true that we don't want to start overusing 'shifting baselines' to the point where it becomes meaningless. Thanks for participating!
Posted by: Jennifer L. Jacquet | January 24, 2008 8:13 AM
What a pun-tastic name! He could use it in so many ways (if he is willing to refer to himself in the third person):
"This sewage from my house is full of Mike Rowe organisms!"
"This situation calls for some Mike Rowe management."
"I'll be back in a Mike Rowe second!"
and so forth.
Posted by: George | January 23, 2008 12:56 AM
Ya, he knows about the pun. I surfed through an episode and someone mentioned a microchip and he said, hey that's my name too! I didn't get it but then did and got a chuckle. Actually he did do a fun show with sharks once. It was pretty clean! LOL! Dave Briggs :~)
Posted by: Dave Briggs | January 24, 2008 1:20 PM
Jennifer, Mike Rowe is a truly impressive guy who besides being very handsome has turned a career of underachievement into a successful media franchise. Rowe is the cover story by Ellen McGirt in this month's Fast Company, a business and design mag that is a fave at Chez Pharmboy.
And, in my mind, there is a 'shifting baselines' theme to Dirty Jobs: as Rowe has physically gotten down with those folks who do the dirtiest yet most necessary jobs in our society, nothing seems too over the top (or under the bottom, as it were) for him anymore. Moreover, he seems like a really great guy whose goal is to celebrate the unique insights and creativity of truly hard-working folks. You are correct to admire him on many different levels.
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | January 24, 2008 3:47 PM
The baseline hasn't shifted. It's always been there. The web just allows it to get in your face more readily.
If you look at magazines aimed at women -like Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Redbook, etc., there isn't a one of them that seems able to put out an edition without the word "sex" on the cover somewhere.
They all seem to show unrealistically pretty women. The magazines aimed at non-Causcasians seem to choose their models to look as Caucasian as possible. These women have no pores and the top of the women's head (the part that contains the brain) is usually obscured by the magazine's title. It's saying, "Ignore the brain, look at the body and face".
We need to be alarmed at this. We shouldn't be surprised.
Posted by: Ian | January 25, 2008 8:22 AM
Hi! Yes, I agree that Discovery Channel sometimes makes poor use of Mikes looks and desirability, however, that is their use of these qualities and not Mikes. He has stated repeatedly that he has nothing to say about much of what DC decides to do with their site. I, personally, think the "under the covers" thing was stupid and makes Mike look like an object rather than the genuinely good person he seems to be. When mentioning what people have to say about his "hottness" his statement was, "whatever". He doesn't wear makeup to DJ shoots, doesn't try to cover scars, is self effacing in his remarks on camera about himself. I like him for each of those things as do many of his fans. Sure, he's a great looking guy but that's not all. Jennifer, I hope that someday you get the chance to meet him. I think you might end up being very impressed with him. And, please, don't let DC turn you off to him!
Posted by: Gibsy | January 25, 2008 8:32 AM
I saw the hagfish episode this afternoon, and only came across this blog post via The Intersection.
The slime on the show was gross, but I didn't have the visceral reaction some people have expressed. The video above was just astonishing, though.
Posted by: jackd | January 26, 2008 3:29 PM
cool
Posted by: joef | February 25, 2008 10:21 AM