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.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Great, so the whole world is biased against female comedians.

Ever think that maybe it's reality conflicting with your dogmatic beliefs?

[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.

[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]

looking right back at ya. Sexism IS rampant in society. We will automatically assume a woman is not as funny as a man so women are not given the same chance. It is far more ridiculous to proclaim that women are not as funny or not as talented as men.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"women are not as funny as men"

As stated, that is a retarded statement. But the statement "most of the best comedians are male" isn't. You really think audiences don't laugh as much because the comedian is female?

The idea that women aren't funny and the idea that women are just as funny as men are both dogmatic beliefs not supported by reality.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"We will automatically assume a woman is not as funny"

Oh of course. And your evidence for this is....?

[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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree, but the reality is people still believe it. Even in modern times (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701).

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

'Best' is a subjective statement. Most of the most popular comedians are male. And yes, I think it's because people will automatically assume that the man will be funnier and are more likely to laugh at his jokes. It's human nature to follow the crowd, to find things funny because we have been conditioned to.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

You? And the attitudes of millions like you? And the statistics given in the OP? What is more likely, that women are not funny (even though there are countless very funny women out there) or that they are not being given the chance men are? This is not a difficult concept. But you keep clinging to that sexist belief that men are funnier. Oh, and better at sports. And I'm sure in your mind better at a whole host of things. Without even realizing it you are proving my and the OP's point.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I'm not clinging to anything, I would have no problem with an equal number of funny female comedians, I'm simply looking at facts, and not relying on unproved psychobabbnle whose evidence is that reality conflicts with the dogmatic belief. You have a completely circular system going.

"Oh, and better at sports."

Yes, you are quite dogmatic. The easiest sports to compare are individual sports without judges. Try actually looking at record times for track events, distances in shotput and javelin, height in highjump, amount of weight lifted, ...

The reason that these sports are segregated is because if they weren't men would win all the medals. OMG sexist! sexiest! sexist!

No, it's reality reality reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_athletics

[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.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Walk into your local comedy club, you'll see the audience has more men in it than women. Look at the roster, you'll notice more men on it than women.

It's not that people are sexist, it's that the odds favor those who put more effort into making it their career. For every famous male comedian there's thousands who worked the club circuit for years and never got famous. The reason why more females are becoming famous in their fields is because there's actually more females entering these fields. Some are actually trying to compete against men and work hard for it.

Women can be funny. So can the guy at the local comedy club who'll never be famous because he does a set only a few times a year and he doesn't try and spread them around.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

In some sports, yes physiological differences between men and women are going to give men the edge. But there are many that women can and do perform at the same level and even better in some cases - and those cases are growing as women are being given more of a chance.

However, being funny is not a physiological condition. So it really does not explain away your belief.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I can agree with this to a point. But I maintain that the reason women were not putting the effort in was because they were, until recently, up against nearly insurmountable odds in succeeding. Now that more women have blazed that trail you do see more females entering the field and putting the work into it that men have all these years.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

My belief?

I'm looking at evidence, not explaining the evidence away with unproven assumptions.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

"Men are more aggressive biologically."

You clearly know different women than I do.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Ye, and some men have bigger breasts than some women. Doesn't change what the vast majority have.

[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. . . .

[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.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

Maybe women don't attend the local comedy club en masse because they know how much sexist, gross jokes are the staple of male comedians' lineups? Because seriously, I would never, ever go to a comedy club to see someone I hadn't at least heard of before - I've gotten burned too many times by going to listen to a comedian on Youtube or something and finding that they were unapologetically, disgustingly misogynistic.

It's not that people are sexist, it's that the odds favor those who put more effort into making it their career.

Except that a lot of women don't try to "make it their career" because they know they won't get anywhere -- because of sexism. If you know you'll never succeed in a given field, you wouldn't want to put everything you have into it, would you?

[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.