Dave Letterman and women writers

[elastic_spam]

So my nervousness about Letterman has kinda been realized: Apparently, there was sexism going on: http://www.popeater.com/2009/10/27/david-letterman-staffer-sexism?icid=main|aimzones|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popeater.com%2F2009%2F10%2F27%2Fdavid-letterman-staffer-sexism

Jesus fuck, Dave. Jesus.

Comments

[rocza]

Slowly, one more time:
Late night comedy writers.
Scripted comedy writers.
Drama writers.
Science fiction writers.

Lots of writing fields. One area has less women, when you narrow the field to look at three of many shows that are in that category.

There are less female late night writers. The question is why are they disproportionately represented, and why do they seem to continually move to other areas of writing? I don't think "sexism" is the easy answer, because I don't think it's sexist, automatically and inherently, that there are less people doing one thing than another.

I have a problem with the entire argument, because it relies on a limited data set to make its sexism point. When you open up the data set to include all late night television, the numbers become different. They're still less than other areas of television writing, but they're not this dire, oh god look how sexist the field is no one hires female writers, woe is us, awful.

There is certainly an issue, and as I have said repeatedly, the question is where and why. Just going "oh, it's just cuz it's all sexist" is a cheap, simple, and ultimately unsubstantiated argument. If it comes out that Leno, for example, refuses to hire women because he doesn't think they're funny, then yeah, there's a sexism issue. But automatically assuming that there is sexism when the only thing there is, is a disparity in numbers, makes it so that people won't actually take a step back and analyze what's going on in any kind of systemic or logical fashion. It's a kneejerk response that very well could overlook any actual issue - work hours, job location, or other things that might be making it less likely for women to pursue that particular path of writing versus another.

[spoggly]

It's a kneejerk response that very well could overlook any actual issue - work hours, job location, or other things that might be making it less likely for women to pursue that particular path of writing versus another.

Things like that are also hugely and disproportionately affected by sexism. How is this hard to understand for you? Work hours would affect women more because they usually need more standard daytime hours because they are expected to be the primary caregivers of children. Location would affect it because women make less money than men and might not be able to afford to live in large cities like NY. Or maybe living in the city makes them feel less safe due to disproportionate violence.

A large disparity between women and men in a field is evidence of institutionalized or societal sexism! There are more women than men in this world, so why are the majority of the writers of mass entertainment men?! Just because things are getting better doesn't mean they're equal.

[decim]

But automatically assuming that there is sexism when the only thing there is, is a disparity in numbers, makes it so that people won't actually take a step back and analyze what's going on in any kind of systemic or logical fashion.

what makes you think that by stepping back, sexism will disappear, and some greater, wider issue will suddenly become clear? by taking a step back, identifying what is happening and analyzing the reason it is happening, sexism is a clear answer. the answer? maybe not, but an extremely prominent one.

the fact that you can't or refuse to see this shows you are not looking at this from a truly analytical angle, and are making knee-jerk reactions that because it might make feminists look bad to say that sexism is causing something, it must not be the answer.

[rocza]

what makes you think that by stepping back, sexism will disappear, and some greater, wider issue will suddenly become clear?
I don't. But I at least have faith that if said step back is taken, then if ultimately sexism is the answer, then it's the actual answer, and not a kneejerk response. So far, the response to stepping back and looking at all possible causes for the disparity has been outright scorn, because of course it must be sexism. That does not leave one with much faith that any actual thought is taking place.

[decim]

when you see disparity between men and women in various situations, what is the comprehensive cause?

i have yet to see you offer an explanation for this disparity that makes sense on all counts besides ridiculous generalizations based on gender, i.e. "women prefer scifi/drama." perhaps you are not putting any actual thought into this.

[rocza]

Or perhaps I am putting the amount of thought into it that is relevant and necessary for an online discussion - one which hasn't exactly been friendly or welcome to people who dare raise a point that steps outside "omg men evil sexism."

Disparity exists for a variety of reasons - a classic but valuable example of this can be shown with the wage disparity between men and women in a variety of career fields. If you account for taking time off for raising children and the lack of commiserate experience, a lot (not all, but a lot) of the wage disparity goes away (and is there for men who take time off to raise the family, as well). It's hard to argue that people with more experience should receive higher pay.

Does this mean that the situation of wage disparity is sexist? Maybe, maybe not - a lot of the argument loses wind when you rearrange to see that there are other factors in play.

Does this mean that family-care and childrearing is still a predominantly female practice, and could there be sexism buried within that? Probably, and that's definitely something that's being deconstructed to the nth degree, to figure out precisely what is going on there.

My active research in comedy (specifically, satire) stopped a few years ago as I was distracted by other things, and wage and gender issues were never a high priority of that research (it just happened to be a part of what I was reading on). I don't have any explanation for the disparity that accounts for everything, and I shouldn't have to have a polished and defendable thesis in order to raise an objection to a idea.

Likewise, while I don't expect people who are in disagreement to have fully formed data sets and defendable statements of their own, I do expect that they're going to place a bit more thought into the scenario they're looking at than "there are more men than women so OF COURSE it's sexist" or "one single female writer in 20 years says it's sexist, naturally she's right." I mean, even setting aside the entire "is or is not the late night comedy writing subset of television writers an inherently sexist field" debate, the entire original link should have raised significant flags for anyone, and should not have been presented as a be-all, end-all proof of anything other than a single opinion (one that's been disagreed with by other people with writing and employment history on that particular set).

[spoggly]

Can you hear yourself? Like, seriously.

Does this mean that family-care and childrearing is still a predominantly female practice, and could there be sexism buried within that? Probably, and that's definitely something that's being deconstructed to the nth degree, to figure out precisely what is going on there.

Are you serious? Really? It doesn't take rocket science to see that there's sexism in this. It doesn't take huge leaps and bounds of logic to see that there is an impact on wage because of it.

BTW, you are not exactly bringing anything to the table, here. You have commented without data sets, without statements that make any sense when one more level of logic is applied to them.

You are arguing with quite a bit of intellectual dishonesty here, and more than a bit of sexism in your arguments, and it's stuff like this that makes this comm a joke.

[rocza]

Funny, I was thinking everyone else's response is what makes this community more and more of a joke. It was awesome when it started out, and people actually had intelligent and lively conversations about divergent points of view. These days, it's broken down into "NO YOU'RE WRONG I SAID SO THAT'S WHY", of which you're a lovely example of.

As for my point about data sets and so forth, you missed it. Go back, read again, come back when your comprehension levels up.

And no, I'm not going to say it's clearly sexist women choose to stay home, when for the last month the NYTimes, the WaPo, the Atlantic, and others have been reporting on the increasing number of stay-at-home women and wives who make that choice for feminist reasons. It's not my area of research, it's an area of study in general that I only read casually - therefore, I'm going to couch my language in maybe, probably, and other such that indicates that it is not my field. It's academically and intellectually honest; something you may want to look into yourself.

[spoggly]

o you! Call me strident, bb!

Hey, have you heard of google? Because I have! I used my insane internet skills to find some data sets for you!

Oh, yessssss, the choice feminism starts up. People don't make choices in vacuums.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA you are such an amazing delight! I adore how it's never even crossed your mind that I might actually know what I'm talking about, because this is oh idk my area of study, not just something I read casually.

You're awesome, please never change. Keep jerking your faux-academic non-relevant credentials, keep shutting down people who are responding to you with sexist language, keep refusing to acknowledge that the pervasive sexism in our societies actually has an impact on how people make decisions and are treated.

Choose your choice - choose your illogical, offensive choice.

BTW, i have a protip 4 u. Not responding to people with actual you know questions and points for you, or going "LRN2READ" when people ask legitimate questions you have consistently refused to address, is not the best way of representing your argument.

[fornikate]

dude are you high? seriously, are you?

hey look some data

[spoggly]

Since 2005 -- the final year analyzed in the 2007 Hollywood Writers Report - women writers’ share of overall employment has remained unchanged at 25 percent. In the television sector, 28 percent of the writers in 2006 and 2007 were women, up one percentage point from the group’s 27-percent share in 2005.

Women, who account for slightly more than 50 percent of the U.S. population, remain underrepresented in television employment by 2 to 1 and in film employment by nearly 3
to 1.

After nearly closing in 2003 ($2,300), the gender earnings gap in television widened
between 2004 and 2006 (averaging $9,223), before shrinking again in 2007 ($5,380).
Nonetheless, women television writers earned about the same in 2007 ($82,604) as they
did at the beginning of the five-year report period in 2003 ($82,000), despite spikes in
earnings in 2005 and 2006. The television earnings of white male writers, by contrast,
increased by nearly $4,000 over the report period (from $84,300 to $87,984), after
peaking at $100,000 in 2005 and 2006.

In January 2009, the Writers Guild of America West (WGAW) instituted a new program designed to increase television employment for writers with diverse backgrounds. The Writers Access Project (WAP) is a script-judging contest aimed at identifying outstanding, mid-level diverse writers who appeal to showrunners looking to staff their shows. Four categories of contestants were considered - minority writers and writers with disabilities, women writers, writers over age 55, and gay and lesbian writers.The goal was to actively engage television decision makers in the process of recognizing talent in a sizable pool of diverse writers. By all accounts, the initial incarnation of the WAP has more than succeeded in achieving this goal. A total of 154 writers submitted scripts to be judged - 74 in the category of minority writers and writers with disabilities; 47 in the category of women writers; 15 in the category of writers 55 and older; and 18 in the category of gay and lesbian writers.
First-round judges, who were all at the level of co-executive producer or above, were so
impressed by the quality of the scripts they read that some asked for the identities of the
writers. To be sure, the success of the program suggests that the underemployment of diverse writers in the industry really has more to do with access, networking, and opportunity than with a shortage of talent.

The representation of behind-the-scenes women did not vary by program genre. Dramas, situation
comedies, and reality programs all employed 25% women and 75% men.

Women accounted for 29% of writers. This represents an increase of six percentage points from 23% in 2007-08 and an increase of nine percentage points from 20% in 1997-98. However, it is less than the recent historical high achieved in 2006-07 when women accounted for 35% of writers. 72% of the programs employed no women writers.

Re: hey look some data

[spoggly]

I remember seeing that (online)! So awesome.

lol you speak nonsense this is a vacuum ok