Sexism in media.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

"What Does An Important Person Look Like?" That's the question Jennifer Dalton poses in her new "Cool Guys Like You" exhibition, opening Friday at New York's Winkleman Gallery. And in case you hadn't guessed, the answer is: a dude.
As Dalton explains in her statement about the installation, an open letter to talk show hosts "Bill/Brian/Charlie/Jon/Leonard/Rachel/Stephen/Terry": "When I looked closely at whom you interview -- the people you collectively decide are the most important of the moment -- I was very surprised…. In 2010, the most lopsided show among you featured only 17.5% female guests. The most balanced among you still only featured 34% female guest s…. If I may be so bold, WTF?"

From Salon.com : Does "The Daily Show" still have a woman problem?
BY MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS Posted on FRIDAY, SEP 9, 2011 14:10 ET 

Whenever anyone tries to talk about sexism the one frequently seen reflexive response is to say something along the lines of "there is a very good reason why there are more men than women" then reasons are given that range from the blatantly sexist (women are not funny) to the systemic (not enough women who can fit these roles, women don't want to do these things in large enough numbers) These responses can be found in the comments of the salon.com article --the trouble is all of these responses are cop-outs and they are rarely supported by data.

A quick internet search will tell you that women outnumber men in journalism schools, and women outnumber men in drama schools. This is a hard indication that women WANT these kinds of jobs and they WANT to be in the industry and they are studying and working toward that goal in large enough numbers that it should not be hard at all to find one good woman suited to a given job. Of coure, a degree doesn't make one qualified or good, but the idea that there isn't a sufficient pool of women seeking these positions is nothing more than a comforting myth that helps us ignore the 10,000 gorilla in the room:

That even funny, awesome, compassionate liberals can be sexist.

My challenge to you: Don't try to explain this away. Instead think of something, however large or small it might be, that you can do to change it. Do you need an incentive beyond simple justice and fairness? Well, think of this: When we tap in to all of those silent female voices we will have better media and funnier comedy, that's just what happens when you select from a bigger pool without sexist blinders on.

Comments

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"When we tap in to all of those silent female voices we will have better media and funnier comedy, that's just what happens when you select from a bigger pool without sexist blinders on."

Are you saying comedy clubs, The Tonight Show, etc, are purposely (subconsciously or whatever) not choosing many females because they want males, or don't want females?

How about youube? I've seen several Ray William Annoying Orange Johnsons out there who get a million+ hits on each of their videos. I'm not aware of any female youtube comedians with that many hits***. Are all of us internet people biased too? Or could it be that like most sports, most of the best comedians are male?


*** Before anyone points out a female YOUTUBE comedian that gets a million+ hits per video as if that contradicts what I said, compare the number of such males to females.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Answers: Yes, Yes and No.

How ironic that in a post pointing out the kind of sexist answers one gets when discussing these matters the very first comment is exactly the response talked about in the OP.

Instead of falling back into ingrained sexism (you really think men are that much funnier than women?) how about you take a moment to examine how ridiculous this statement is and look for the real reasons behind it, that women are not being given the chances and the exposure that men are. That women are so easily dismissed. If this were to be changed I think the world would discover a large number of extremely talented and capable comedians and media representatives. We're missing out really.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

While I think the majority of "there is sexism in X" complaints are bull, there is a fairly ridiculous persistent belief that women are not as funny as men. This is a valid complaint.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

Are you saying comedy clubs, The Tonight Show, etc, are purposely (subconsciously or whatever) not choosing many females because they want males, or don't want females?

Er, yes, actually. Because believe it or not, even comedy clubs and the Tonight Show can be sexist. And they are.

Are all of us internet people biased too?

Yes. This really should be kind of a "no shit, Sherlock" thing. Of course "internet people" can be sexist. And they by and large are.

Or could it be that like most sports, most of the best comedians are male?

lolwhut. So your response to a question about sexism is to give us some sexism? Cos um, no, there are tons of very, very funny women out there - and tons of women who are very awesome at sports. Thing is, sexism not only denies them success within those fields due to societal stereotypes that women aren't as good at sports or as good at being funny as men, but it also denies them the ability and opportunity to try in the first place. It is incredibly difficult to succeed as a female comedian, and many women aren't going to even try because of the perception that they won't make it through the door in most places.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's only recent that funny women became more of a rule than an exception. You might have only known one mainstream funny female comedian in any given time frame. That tide is clearly shifting, even if it may not be as fast as anyone might want.

To put it another way, we can likely think of maybe 5 mainstream female comedians in previous generations. It's especially easy to come up with that many without trying today.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I agree with this. I was just thinking that things are slowly changing, that women are being granted more chances than ever before, and that for many in society, attitudes are shifting. I think we will get closer to equality in this field one day.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'That even funny, awesome, compassionate liberals can be sexist.'

It's not that anyone is sexist any more than the idea that nature is sexist.

The problem I see with a lot on the left is their denial of the inherent differences between people and thus their demands of equalization. And yet people are different.

A 5'0 tall 200lb man will never ever be as sexually successful as a 6'0 190lb man all other non-physical conditions being the same.

Men are more aggressive biologically. It's basic hormonal development. They'll be more aggressive and thus more successful in competitive endeavors.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

"Men are more aggressive biologically."

You clearly know different women than I do.

[weswilson]

I think there are many factors here that exonerate shows for weighting men over women, but I'm still unconvinced it's not actually going on.

The Daily Show and its ilk typically invite on authors, heads of state, actors, and media personalities. All of these exhibit some degree of weight, favoring men over women, so the shows that feature them are subject to those societal whims when seeking guests.

Examples:
Authors - While 6 of the top ten books of 2010 were written by women, only 4 of the non-fiction books were... and those tend to be predominantly what Stewart features in guests.
Heads of State - this is a no-brainer. Less than 25% of our representatives in congress are female, about 15% of nations have female heads, and about 15% of our corporations have female CEOs.
Actors - A study in 2005 found that only 30% of the characters on TV were female. In film, there are two male roles to every female one. Of the top 100 grossing films in 2008, less than 10% of them were directed by women, less than 15% were written by women, and less than 20% were produced by women. Every list of top grossing actors grossly favors men.
Media Personalities - I don't have any figures on news figures and their ratio of men to women, but I think that all one has to do is flip the channels to see the evidence of this.

So there's a bit of a pass on the Daily Show, since society itself tends to do a lot of the heavy lifting for them.

That being said, some math shows that the percentage of female guests on these shows should be around the high number not the low if guest invites actually reflected popularity and/or presence in the medium. So while that 34% number is defendable... those on the low end are likely exacerbating the situation with their own bias.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I'm stymied thinking of your last challenge sentence. I eschew commercials with the Tivo (a seditious act which Tivo dutifully reports to the show producers), so I am perhaps the least likely to bring more ad revenue to a show featuring women, should I take your challenge to heart and seek such shows.

Money talks. This might, in fact, be a factor that you implored us not to explore with explanation. Men make more money than women; on that I think we can agree. Men also, though, spend more money than women on the gadgets and gizmos that advertisers like to push, especially the expensive gadgetry (cars, stereos, boner and hair loss pills, etc). Advertising to women exists, yes, but burdened by their balls, men tend to compete with their purchases, or at least are targeted by advertisers as if they did.

A tangent might also be a factor pointed out in Mad magazine in the seventies. The joke: a group will find the same joke funny if it is told by someone in the group's "in" group (the mag showed the same joke told by Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis, Italian verses Jewish, a bigger deal, apparently, in the '70s). Since the stupid money is being spent by the men, men (especially insecure ones who might want comedians to crack wise about women in a misogenistic Sam Kinneson vein) might find other men funnier.

I have no such bias, it seems. I drive a crappy car, find comediennes hilarious (Wanda Sykes and Kathy Griffin come to mind), and don't buy crap to impress other men in my climb up the scrotum pole. This also means I don't affect that market nearly as much.

Hmmmm. . . .

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Men make more money than women; on that I think we can agree.

Only if you don't think about it. http://youtu.be/EwogDPh-Sow

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Try composers of classical music too.

When it comes to literature, no-one's ever going to tell me Jane Austen isn't funnier than any of her contemporaries, and a better writer too: perhaps the best novelist in the English language. Though on the point of more modern women writers I do think J. K. Rowling could have done with a good editor from the fourth novel in her boarding school series/Mallory-Towers-with-magic onwards.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Women are largely restricted to niche roles, as it stands, so yeah, women in comedy are generally only given a certain market segment to maintain, and if there is a "normal" female comedian, she's simply buried under a million "normal" male comics. Successful female comics have had to play Crazy, Hyper-Sexual or Dysfunctional to get any cred or air-time. Men can also be these things, but they can be a number of other things as well, so they aren't as restricted in their comic-typing. There are any number of idiotic, unfunny male comics who have a job simply because "stupid idiot man" is an accepted archetype, and it feeds into the male juvenile fantasy of always remaining a child, anti-sociality and irresponsibility.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

*It should be noted how successful female comics can be successful largely because they reinforce sexist stereotypes and male-friendly views.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

nicely said.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Feminism isn't running around calling everyone sexist due to lopsided statistics. It's about giving women, and really all humans, an equal opportunity in life without fear of discrimination. When your main point is:

That even funny, awesome, compassionate liberals can be sexist.

Then I'm not even sure you're interested in having a discussion about this. Why not just have it so everyone just adopts an affirmative action type of deal with women to include them until history corrects itself? Nobody thinks this is a solution. Ignoring the socio-political reasons for this phenomenon will not get you anywhere.

The entertainment industry in particular is pretty much built on bias and preconceptions, so tapping into that market means fitting a particular niche or changing society's expectations of women comedians altogether.

You know that you have knee-jerk reactions when even the usual suspects in this community are looking reasonable.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

You know that you have knee-jerk reactions when even the usual suspects in this community are looking reasonable.

I don't quite know what you mean by this.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

I wonder what the gender-make up of guests on Oprah or The View is?

Corporate Social Responsibility

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The entertainment industry is a business. The mix of men and women, as well as general representation of society such as ethnicity, culture, age or orientation, reflects what the bean counters and executives think will sell. They have the power to impose greater female representation, creative control and market appeal, but departing from the tried-and-true would involve risk and might take some time to turn a profit. What is needed is a way of getting them to look beyond the dollars and cents, past the next financial quarter.
Maybe the television and film industry should be treated like any other industry, and be evaluated on how well they do on non-financial measures, like fulfilling their social obligation to be representative. The numbers cited in the original post can form the basis for a balanced scorecard. Governments, regulatory agencies and NGOs can help consumers and advertisers to choose ethical alternatives to sexist media. If it works for other industries, it's worth a try for this one.

Re: Corporate Social Responsibility

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I think improving in this area would lead to them making more money. Not right away, but with time.

Consider the audience.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Women are generally better developed intellectually than men. As a result, the audience for TV programs is more male than female. Women have better things to do with their time.

Re: Consider the audience.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

You have data to back up that claim, or is theory all you need?

http://www.spottedratings.com/2009/08/gender-in-tv-ratings.html : "Of the 90 shows, only ten have more M18-49 than W18-49. Another two are exactly even."

http://www.spottedratings.com/2009/08/gender-in-tv-ratings-proceduralcrime.html

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Japan does have significantly freakier porn though.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You change it by not using gender in and of itself as a deciding point in whatever decisions you are making, and then by not ascribing malicious intent to the decisions of others when they make ones that seem contrary to what you would do when you aren't in their position.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Disparity exists along race, gender, etc. The problem I have is that nobody really knows what causes it. Most of the solutions are based on belief and most of the quoted statistics are based on scientifically dubious studies, or simply pulled out of thin air.

The question comes about as to what someone should do, and if doing anything is better than doing nothing, given that all actions have unintended consequences. What really needs to be done are coordinated large-scale multi-level studies using the best science available and statistical analysis to determine the most likely root causes, and then adopting programs to address these specific causes, with metrics and success criteria. Unfortunately a program like this, although entirely possible, would be very expensive and take at least a decade, and the science would be the easy part. Given the results you would have the pompous anti-science right wing simply ignoring results they don't like, and left-wing missionaries disbelieving that their pet solution is not optimal.

Given that we have insufficient science, all we have left is belief. The task for those who feel the problem is bad enough to take action regardless of the consequences again becomes an uphill battle. Most people are insufficiently masochist to take on the role of Sisyphus for every problem in life, and this problem is not high enough on most people's priority list given the relative gains women (in particular white women) have made over every other minority group.

I would be in favor of the Fed setting up and managing an Apollo-level project to both determine the root causes of disparity amongst minorities and women, analyze possible solutions and come up with success criteria. This would act as a stimulus with incentives to push social science forward and create defensible standards. Short of that I don't personally find the problem posited in the OP a high enough priority to warrant action on my part. I am more concerned about poverty than addressing the disparity within the very small number of highly paid TV personalities. If you feel otherwise, then by all means go for it.