Comments on: In other diversity news: The New Yorker still safe for pale males

By: John S.

John S. — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:01:59 +0000

I am not a reader of the New Yorker, but am a regular fan of late night tv, which happens if 1) you own a TiVo and 2) have problems sleeping anyway. I find the presence or absence of female writers–especially in positions of authority–is palpable. Saturday Night Live was a *very* different show, for instance, when Tina Fey was head writer. On just a very a basic level, there were more sketches for the female cast members; on a more general level, the tone just seemed different. (And I am not sure if Lorne Michaels would have been as willing to fire a female regular for being too heavy, as he allegedly did this year, if Fey were still there.) As one critic has pointed out, the number of sketches that rely on male homophobia (even when being mocked) has gone up noticeably with Seth Meyers as head writer. Does that qualify as d00d humor?

I am very worried about my current favorite, the Colbert Report. It was the only one of the late night shows that had a woman at or near the top–Allison Silverman was co-creator and exec produced of the show. But Silverman has just left the Report; I hope this won’t change the show’s overall tone and quality, but I fear it will.

Nothing can be as bad as the original Daily Show, however. Craig Kilbourn’s version was *just* a little more fratguy than Jon Stewart’s, and Kilbourn got booted after making jokes in print about his boss Lizz Winstead sexually servicing him behind the scenes. Surprisingly, she did not take that well and Comedy Central axed him. TV being what it is, however, he managed to parlay that “disgrace” into a gig on CBS. Oh, rewarding sexism!

By: Historiann

Historiann — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:55:54 +0000

Janice–EEeewwww, indeed! We’ll see how this story unfolds. I haven’t watched him since–the late 80s, when I was in college? I’m kind of amazed that anyone does! He hasn’t been cool for at least that long, and probably longer. (Well, and I should admit: I can’t stay up much past 9 myself, which I confess is extremely uncool too…)

I do remember some of the magical weirdness of his show in the early days, when I’d sneak downstairs to watch the show when I was in high school. You never know who you might see (Pee Wee Herman?) or what a guest might do (Crispin Glover–the time he almost kicked Letterman in the head!) But–that was 25 years ago!

By: Janice

Janice — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:40:22 +0000

Oh, and this just in: Extortion attempt against Letterman over 'relationships' with female staffers. Note the plural. Even if that is over time, it suggests something about the culture, doesn't it? My immediate reaction was a thought of "Ew, I wouldn't want to be working in that environment."

By: Historiann

Historiann — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:25:07 +0000

Janice, I’ve just been thinking: maybe serious writers should ghostwrite under male pseudonyms, and see if their acceptance rate goes up? The problem with the boys at the Atlantic, the New Yorker, and the like is that they’re all part of a very small New York arts & letters circle, so while a big part of the problem is gender, it’s also insiderism. So, pseudonymous writers don’t stand a chance.

I think it would also be difficult to pull off, too, because of the ways in which writers are expected to be part of celebrity culture and to market themselves and promote themselves as such. (Then again, technology may go some way towards bridging that gap. If a pseudonymous writer had a really great blog, the blog could serve to self-promote. Still, at some point an adoring public would demand photos and biographical details, right? And lots of really specific details about the family life too, right?)

Emily, welcome and thanks for stopping by to comment. We’ll see if anything changes. Believe me, a lot of us thought we’d see a LOT more change accomplished and institutionalized by now.

By: Janice

Janice — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:42:41 +0000

Apparently, women also don't write horror and will give the boys who read SF&F literature a bad case of the cooties if they write too much in that genre. But don't despair! There are always the women's magazines, the women's TV shows and the women's section, I mean, the lifestyle section of your major urban newspaper -- so what if these venues only constitute a tenth of the venues in their media types (at best). Why, I mean, at least women have a corner on the romance genre? What, you say that's not the case? Well, don't you worry, when guys write romance it's serious literature, not that drugstore paperback schlock that women get to dish out. /end bitter and satirical rant

By: Emily

Emily — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:02:40 +0000

The sexism in journalism and other writerly pursuits (which dovetails with the sexism in academia) is quite the mess. There’s no questioning that the New Yorker can at times seem like a total frat house–but at least for the sake of playing devil’s advocate, I think that is something of a reductive view of the magazine’s culture. The William Shawn era produced some beautiful writing, even if it was essentially elitist and sexist writing, and I’m not sure that Tina Brown’s era was better in terms of what actually came out of the magazine. I have mixed feelings about Remnick, but I certainly don’t think his magazine is any more of an old boys’ club than, say, DC journalism culture is. I’m optimistic, too, that things will change: the new managing editor of the New Yorker is a 26-year-old woman. As a 19-year-old woman that at least gives me some hope that it’s not utterly pointless to be interested in magazine writing.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:48:13 +0000

Matt L–see the analysis run in the comments thread of the “sausage party” post, linked above. Scroll down and keep reading–commenter Marcia ran some of those numbers for us.

By: Matt L

Matt L — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:42:56 +0000

The point about the sexism in the New Yorker and the publishing industry in general is well taken. Its downright depressing. I wonder if the ration at the New York Review of Books is any better?

But, I like the Jill Lepore book reviews. I save them and make copies for my upper division classes so that students know what a joy a truly learned book review can be.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:27:29 +0000

All of these issues–”women aren’t funny,” and the scarcity of women writers in prestigious venues like the New Yorker, the Atlantic, Harper’s, etc.–seem connected to the “Girls Have Cooties” problem. That is, when more women join a masthead or write for a TV show (or teach History or English or Physiology in an academic department), their work comes to be seen as “women’s programming,” or a “woman’s magazine,” or a “woman’s subject,” and therefore is seen as lower-status and occupying a niche, rather than something aimed broadly at all viewers/readers/students.

When I teach my survey class, I’m always amazed at how little women’s history it takes to get the comment, “this class was basically a women’s history class!” Yeah, 2 weeks out of fifteen means that it was ALL about women’s and gender history–hey, wait a minute: that’s about 13.3%! Pretty close to the numbers we’ve been talking about here, so no wonder the New Yorker thinks that 9% is perfectly sufficient token representation.

By: Comrade PhysioProf

Comrade PhysioProf — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:40:50 +0000

The sad thing is that women are objectively funnier than men. The best humor is always generated by the less-privileged: women, blacks, latinos, jews, etc.

White d00d humor just isn’t very funny: “Whoah! I’d prong that bitch! Heh, heh.” Not funny except to little-dick losers trying to prop up their withered masculinity.