Hiring Inequality Through The Daily Show
As it turns out, that fawning defense of The Daily Show by its women employees illustrates exactly what's wrong with the show's hiring practices. They write:
Jon’s not just a guy in a suit reading a prompter. His voice and vision shape every aspect of the show from concept to execution. The idea that he would risk compromising his show’s quality by hiring or firing someone based on anything but ability, or by booking guests based on anything but subject matter, is simply ludicrous.
You see, The Daily Show hires only the best comedians; it books only the best guests. And if the best of the best are reliably, overwhelmingly male? Well: Perhaps men are just better than women.
But first, a quick recap of Jezebel reporter Irin Carmon's findings on the show's gender disparities: In the past seven years, only one woman, Olivia Munn, has been considered an able enough comedian to be hired as an on-air correspondent on The Daily Show (and she's still in try-out mode). Past employees have reported a boys' club mentality in hiring and firing. And this year alone, the show's roster of guests has featured 63 men, but only 13 women.
Here are a few possibilities for why this might be the case:
(a) Overt sexism. Jon Stewart, let's just suggest for the sake of argument, is a tyrannical sexist who deliberately keeps women off the air and out of his writer's room due to a deep hatred of the gender. This appears to be the argument the women of The Daily Show are dismissing as "simply ludicrous."
(b) Societal forces. Comedy is an overwhelmingly male industry, and The Daily Show is at the very top of the pyramid. As show co-creator Madeline Smithberg told Carmon, "The planet is sexist." She explains:
"I don't think Jon is sexist," she says. "I don't think that there is a double standard at the Daily Show. I do think that by the time it gets to the Daily Show it's already been through the horrible sexist double standard of the universe. You're not hiring someone right out of school. By the time they get to the candidates of the Daily Show, the herd has been thinned by the larger societal forces."
(c) Ingrained prejudices. The comedic culture naturally views men as comedians and women as audience members, regardless of "ability." And as Amanda Marcotte notes, this form of sexism is hardly overt:
Our culture does believe there is a female and a male sense of humor that differ. We tend to say that men have a sense of humor when they say funny things, and that women have a sense of humor when they know when best to laugh when men say funny things. This sense is so ingrained that I had a few occasions when I was younger where I'd say something funny, and get blank stares, only to find a man stealing my joke a half hour later and getting giant belly laughs for it.
(d) Ignorance. Stewart is not (a) a tyrannical sexist, but he does fail to take into account (b) societal forces and (c) ingrained prejudices when making hires and booking guests. He and his show operate in a culture that values men over women, both as comedians (his staff) and people (his guests). And he—according to every woman on his staff—believes that by hiring and booking the people (men) who reliably rise to the top in this sexist system, he's making decisions based on merit—and nothing else. Attempting to counteract the ingrained sexism of comedy by deliberately seeking out women performers and writers would "risk compromising his show’s quality."
Of course, my guess is (d). I'm sure that the women employees of The Daily Show aren't lying when they describe Stewart as "the word that means the opposite of sexist." But it's not enough for him to be Jon Stewart, Really Swell Guy anymore—he's the head of a comedy institution, one with the power to either contribute to or counteract the overwhelming sexism of the field. In order to challenge structural inequalities and actually recruit the best people for the job, the men who run comedy—men like Stewart—will have to do more than just not be overtly discriminatory.
Here's an easy rule for any manager to live by: If you haven't considered the societal forces and ingrained prejudices that may contribute to gender disparities in your hiring practices, your hiring practices are probably sexist. And if you respond to suggestions that your hiring practices may be sexist with a letter signed by all the women on your staff dismissing these claims out of hand, then your hiring practices are almost certainly sexist. That, or men are just better than women.
10:49 am
Yes, but I feel that there is a difference between a show not doing enough to overcome sexism in an industry and a show being overtly sexist to its current staff members (as is suggested in the article) no?
And I agree the daily show needs to respond to its dearth of female correspondents, perhaps as it responded to its dearth of minority correspondents a few years back.
11:00 am
"counteract the overwhelming sexism of the field . .. challenge structural inequalities and actually recruit the best people for the job"
--what about funny though?
You seem to concede that there is already a sexist universe both within and outside comedy that lets more men get funnier and predisposes both men and women to find men funnier anyway. So Stewart is supposed to run an affirmative-action program that, logically, will sacrifice some of the funny?
Notice, this problem has nothing to do with whether "men are just better than women," as your cheap elision would have it. Instead, it has to do with what people find funny, the fact that that may be keyed to sexist realities, and to what degree a TV show can be expected to buck those realities when the logically inescapable corollary is becoming less funny to more people.
11:02 am
They should change the name of the show to,
'The Hypocrisy Show With Jon Stewart'!
11:06 am
ABC comedy has a rigorous AA outreach program (talent development) that shows quite obviously on their screen; it's nice that they're there as an example to shame the others who don't try as hard.
Most of their comedies are glaringly diverse next to the other networks' outputs - probably the best example though is Better Off Ted, since it's by a production company that put out a previous cult show of a similar look and feel. Andy Richter Controls the Universe had many of the same players but, starting with the lead, was generally status quo. Onto ABC, the actor of ambiguous ethnicity is moved to the lead with a female boss, black scientist, and endless extras from all backgrounds who are never "othered".
And I was ready to cringe when the two black characters from Pushing Daisies would talk in dialect whenever they met but they ended up being spot on.
Of course ABC hasn't had a lasting comedy in a while; the shows are good but it's hard not pandering to the majority apparently.
11:07 am
This is actually a VERY similar defense that Pat Bucanan used on the Rachel Maddow show against affirmative action. Because if the most qualified people are white males that's who should be getting into college. It completely over looks who much work a minority has had to put in just to overcome the obstacles society sets out for them.
11:08 am
fair enough, but it doesnt bother you at all that the first woman they hire to be a correspondent is a stunningly gorgeous woman? seems the sexist issue at hand is that the job descrip for a woman correspondent is that she has to be stunning and kinda funny. its not how many women, but how they are hired. if you look at it considering these sexist standards, it makes a lot more sense why they dont hire more women to be on air correspondents.
11:14 am
Vajoejoe, would you also argue that because standardized tests make use of biased cultural assumptions, only people from those cultures can be considered "smart" anymore and we should give up on trying to educate everyone else? I mean, by the same token, working hard to admit non-whites would just drag down the intelligence level at colleges, since so many people assume white people are smarter and the tests are written to support that.
I think there are better responses to deep-seated injustice than to throw up your hands.
11:26 am
also maybe worth noting: ever since that jezebel article, I've been watching to see if the daily show passes the bechdel test. I may have missed an episode or an incident of a woman talking to another woman, but if it's passed the bechdel test at all in the last couple of weeks, it's been rare.
11:36 am
Memo to feminist killjoys everywhere: The Daily Show is not a charity for commediennes. Where were you when the Paula Poundstone Show was on? What's that? Not watching either? Great. Now please go find something else good to crap on. KTHX!
11:39 am
Padrock, good point re: TDS being sexist vs. TDS not being "sufficiently" proactive in battling sexism in the comedy industry.
As far as I can tell, this entire critique of TDS is based on an inequality in male/female ratios in hiring on-air correspondents and in booking guests. In order to escape critique, exactly how many female correspondents must the show hire and how many female guests must it book? Does it have to be precisely 50/50 on both counts? If not, then what exactly is an acceptable lower bound? Or perhaps this critique is based on a gut feeling that these ratios are just "too low" right now.
Is it possible that there is another factor behind the relative paucity of elite female comedians? Or is the industry inherently sexist if there are fewer female comedians? Just asking. Does that also mean that the heavy metal music industry is sexist because there are fewer females in prominent bands? Because in that case, the fan base is also heavily male (judging by attendance at shows, for example). One could make a not-outrageous claim that guys simply like metal more than girls, so relatively more men attempt to play metal, so metal bands are disproportionately male. If you buy that, then it's possible that something similar happens in comedy. That would mean that something besides sexism contributes to the numerical inequality in upper-tier comdedy. I'd like to get your thoughts.
11:45 am
I stopped watching TDS as much because I began to notice these things. It is a show that gets laughs from lampshading the grotesque in media showbusiness to such a degree that it COMPLETELY misses its own obvious failings, such as its attitude toward women and ironic perpetuation of classism. The show pretends 'progressive' but really just bats the sensation ball around for laughs. I know people will tell me, 'But it's just a comedy show. Stewart even said so himself.' And that makes it worse. Because it is just for the yuks and only PRETENDING to take on issues of the day, then it is simply about the craft, the writing, the effect, and should not be taken as a meaningfully progressive Thing, just another place where, if sexism, racism, and classism sell, then they will forever perpetuate these modes and tones while pretending to hate them.
11:45 am
And if you comment on sexism without looking at the skin color of the females in the photo, you're overlooking something blatantly obvious.
11:49 am
He shouldn't lower the quality of his show just because there's a lack of female comedians out there.
11:54 am
You're right about what you say, Amanda, but you're talking past the staff.
The Jezebel article did not simply state that few women have been hired. The Jezebel article interviewed former employees who stated that there was an unwelcoming work environment for women -- a boys' club. It wasn't just hiring and firing.
While saying "Jon's a great guy" does not adequately counter disparate hiring, it does counter the idea that it sucks to work there as a woman.
Second, the only way to counter the disparate hiring practices is to hire more women. And when they do hire a woman -- Olivia Munn -- Jezebel says it's the wrong woman for the wrong reasons.
TDS has a long way to go, but the Jezebel article in that way holds them back.
12:53 pm
Honestly, I think the women in the letter had a legitimate beef: a lot of people are acting like there's no women working for TDS at all, and the ones that do have no power. A lot of these women are in production roles, which is a very influential position, and might I add, a very male-dominated profession. I've worked as a producer, and if you'd told me my job didn't count after I'd been running around like a crazy person trying to get a show together, I'd probably be a lot meaner than they were.
Just saying. They may not be sufficiently proactive for your tastes, but they obviously don't avoid hiring women (because in the production arena, they very easily could). And it seems like the show took the accusations seriously and is trying to address them. I don't know, it sort of makes me have more respect for them. They're ahead of the curve in TV--the curve is behind what we would like, but in my opinion they deserve a decent grade for effort.
1:09 pm
So... what IS wrong with the "societal forces" argument? Seems the most persuasive to me. Stewart is not a dope, and is no doubt aware of the gender make-up of the show, probably also the racial/ethnic make-up. Perhaps the straight/gay makeup? I don't know. When hiring/trying out Wyatt Cenac or Larry Wilmore, did they beat out women "candidates"? Which is more important? Is it not enough that Jon weighs this sort of thing as one factor to consider in hiring, or will it not be enough until his team of contributors/correspondents near perfectly reflect the country's (or the area's? or the industry's) racial/ethnic/gender makeup?
Also, we ARE talking about humour here, and it's hard to get more subjective than that. IF Jon, like many other men and women, does find male comedians generally funnier than female comedians, not saying he does, but does that make him "sexist" or what? To say you don't find someone funny is not necessarily a comment on their inherent "ability" just that, well, you don't find them funny.
In any case your pat dismissal of the female employees of TDS does not work with your summing up, unless, that is, you REALLY believe that Jon Stewart is, in hiring for his show, being met with a broad mix of exemplary talent from both sexes, and all races, so that he COULD hire perfectly equally but... chooses not to? Or doesn't give a damn? Is that what you're saying?
1:09 pm
Please. If Olivia Munn wasn't amazingly beautiful the initial article wouldn't have been written.
1:17 pm
Well as long as they keep the show overwhelmingly white i guess it's ok.
1:31 pm
Amanda, how could you have written this article without any mention of the lack of racial representation in TDS?
1:37 pm
"Here’s an easy rule for any manager to live by: If you haven’t considered the societal forces and ingrained prejudices that may contribute to race disparities in your hiring practices, your hiring practices are probably racist."
You can probably substitute any word describing a minority group in there without greatly altering the meaning.
The charge being made by Amanda is that if you're not running an affirmative action program at your company, your hiring practices are probably "---ist." While I agree about ignorance of the norm, or greater societal forces that have shaped the applicant pool, I don't find much merit in her conclusion. I have no qualms with any company that chooses to be affirmative in their hiring policies, but I would like to think that we're smart enough to avoid the fallacy of false dilemma and that there are more choices than just "affirmative" or "sexist."
2:37 pm
What are the other choices? With social inequity being standard, if you're not actively trying to remedy the advantages white males get at the expense of everyone else, you're perpetuating them. Unless...?
2:39 pm
I'm a humorous Native American and I wasn't able to get an unpaid internship at Comedy Central...let's write about that.
2:39 pm
@Jon
Great subject to look into, but not something I know enough about yet to really speak on. Not that it doesn't appear to be a problem---a look at the staff picture above suggests it is a problem---but I'm just not sure the show's racial representation problem manifests itself in the same way that its gender representation problem does. TDS' on-air News Team is currently 3/8 nonwhite (3/9 if you count Jon Stewart, 4/9 if you also count Olivia Munn), which is probably the most racially diverse the show has ever been, if the list of former News Team members is any indication. Much more research would have to be done to determine just how much airtime they get, etc. I'm also not versed in the racial make-up of the show's staff in general. (Anyone?) the writer's room does appear to be a problem.
3:37 pm
so i stopped watching TDS a long time ago (confession time: i NEVER really watched it to begin with)and it's because TDS... is boring. they are the definition of the status quo in comedy: older white liberal men joking about politics and culture. BORING. to anyone excusing the blatant sexism/racism/etc evident on TDS by saying "Jon is just trying to maintain a high quality show" i say bull! because this type of programming was created to be consumed by men and therefore has never really had to confront it's own sexism. it's tired and lazy.
3:38 pm
If there's white dudes that are the best choices to work on the show , then those are the people they should hire. This is like complaining that my favorite basketball team doesn't have any white guys. I don't care who's on the team I care about the results. I assume that's the way fans of the show feel.
3:45 pm
Good point that the less subjective the merit the less hegemony the status quo holds on a particular arena, kza.
4:33 pm
Honestly, while there are women I find funny, the majority of people I consider amusing are guys. I don't know whether this is because men make more of an effort to be comedians-- I do think women are less likely to be encouraged to be "funny" since there's still a notion that funny women are not sexy women, or that sexy women aren't funny. I'd like to see more women with a predominant role in the shows I like to watch, but without being self-consciously "woman-centric."
As an example, Allie Brosh of Hyperbole and a Half is hysterically funny without being all "Hey, look, I'm a woman and also I have a good sense of humor! Isn't that so great?!?" I'm sure now people are going to tell me how much they hate Allie Brosh and she's destroying humor and/or feminism or something, but whatever. I'd definitely like to see more women like her out there.
5:27 pm
Write some funny jokes and become a comedian.
5:47 pm
http://www.slate.com/id/2259434
5:51 pm
How about E) evolution?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200508/humors-sexual-side
6:33 pm
I'm going to say upfront I'm really biased on this issue. I started watching the daily show at the wonderful age of 13. At the time, I considered most television shows beneath me, being both a young connoisseur of comedy and a soon to be leader of the new feminist movement. But the daily show provided the perfect excuse to spend time with my my self proclaimed "king of the policy wonks" father. So I started watching, but with my ears pricked ready for even the slightest hint of sexism in any joke. Six years later, my father and I are still watching the daily show together and I have yet to once be offended by a single line.
I love humor. I love funny tv shows, movies, and people. But to this day if i hear just one line that makes 13 year old me twinge then I'm done with whatever source the line came from. Personally, I find it admirable how the daily show manages to be win awards year after year with out dipping in to easy sexist comedy and I really have trouble thinking of other comedy shows that make me laugh as much, with out leaving any kind of sour taste in me mouth.
6:47 pm
It would have been nice if he and the staff had taken the matter seriously. I thought the worst part of the article was dismissal of the list of female comedians. Viewers ( outsiders) had a right to their opinions. Jon should be aware of the value of the outsider's view as his show is based on his staff's view of media and politicians. As an result his show does a great job of saying these groups " should do better." On the same note there is nothing insulting about viewers, writers, etc suggesting that a show ( made in a male dominated world) can do a better job noticing male dominated practices... Also, before this article the only "Sexist" thing I noticed about the show was Jon habit of flirting with female guests ( esp actresses)... His "pretty lady who is too sexiest for a loser like me" humor might seem ok but I would preferred that successful women who come on his show not be treated like their worth is based on their looks and sexuality. ( just food for thought)
8:54 pm
Maybe he's flirting with their personalities.
9:37 pm
Fucking thing just ate my goddamned comment.
Somebody over at Feministe had a really good point: Unless all those women had the exact same thought at the exact same time somebody wrote up that letter for them. About their boss. Women make up more than half the population; Stewart can't find any more than two women over seven years? He took criticisms of minority jobs seriously but he was more respectful to Bill O'Reilly than he was to the Jezebel writers. Debate's over. A frat boy is a frat boy.
I love it when guys say there's no funny women or shit like that. Nope. It's not that they're not out there; it's that you're ignoring them. Women tend to joke about the shit that no man wants to hear: shitty boyfriends, shitty male behavior, shitty male excuses for shitty male behavior, sexism, and so on. and as Stewart's own behavior--and that of his defenders---shows, some men get their boxers in a knot over the slightest bit of female criticism. Feminist criticism makes them go fucking batshit.
12:00 am
I checked out Allie Brosh of http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/ She is differently funny. Is TDS sexist? I dunno. The show's wranglers are definitely lazy if they can't find women guests/performers, and guests/performers that aren't white males. The tired, so 2oth century, excuse is "we don't know where to look." That's bogus, and occurs if the wranglers lack curiosity, as well friends of different sexes, races or ethnicities, and don't read much, get out at all, or surf the Web.
12:37 am
@ginmar exactly!
And to PD: your commentary on female comediennes highlights a huge problem: You don't see male comedians as "male focused," they're neutral. And any woman who does her comedy the way men do it, from HER perspective, is seen as a deviation from that established, "male" neutral. Men have no gender, just like white people have no race. Male privilege has allowed men to sashay through life without ever having to look at life through a female perspective, while the male perspective is damn near all that women are offered. Any women who offers that perspective is seen as "totally focused on it." That is why comediennes are under-appreciated, and "female" comedy makes men uncomfortable. Men never have to look at that perspective and many would rather close their eyes to it. Women don't have the privilege to ignore the male perspective.
1:18 am
This was an interesting discussion, but "that, or your hiring practices are just sexist" was a bit much. You seem to be having the next three or four steps of a feminist consciousness-raising debate in your head with yourself, jumping ahead of the people you're responding to.
First, someone gets accused of experiencing or perpetuating sexism. They respond,"that's ridiculous! I haven't been sexist/no one else has been sexist around me!" - just like this letter basically says. The accuser says, "but look at this disproportionate representation - that's evidence of some kind of discrimination." They COULD respond "but there's just more funny men/more qualified male candidates/women don't like this job" or something. But they might also just not be aware of the imbalance - we're not supposed to notice these things. It doesn't mean someone is acting in bad faith, or that this letter - of which I was initially skeptical, but seems heartfelt - is evidence of some kind of conspiracy to cover up what is probably a case of institutional forces at work.
Incidentally, saying that "if you respond to suggestions that your hiring practices may be sexist with a letter signed by all the women on your staff dismissing these claims out of hand, then your hiring practices are almost certainly sexist." seems somewhat capricious, and lacks any type of deductive validity. Are people not allowed to defend themselves against accusations of sexism, personal, institutional, or otherwise? Admittedly, there's defensiveness, and then there's DEFENSIVENESS, but we should be careful not to be total assholes about it. Defensiveness is a natural response WHENEVER people are challenged. Accusing people of just being terrible is pretty much not going to advance the debate, though admittedly it is quite satisfying when you're sure of the justice of your cause. Just keep in mind that the people you argue with are just as sure of the rightness of theirs.
7:42 am
@ginmar
Good point. I guess the world needs a comedy show where half the staff are women bashing men. Because it's funny. Will the men be bashing women in the name of comedy too?
This formula sounds familiar... it's called "stand up". But TDS has a very specific, and different, formula: bash politicians.
These articles are lame attempts to gin up page view hits from people that live for outrage on the web. If there's such a market for comedy shows of funny women lining up to bash men, if such a show serves an important social function and can be successful, by all means get one rolling. The ratings are the ultimate vote.
8:56 am
Lizrd-- I do agree with all your points. I'm probably not the best person to comment on the comedy world; the things I find funny are usually kind of bizarre. I maintain that I find "hahaha it is so funny when you are a woman and woman things happen to you" and "hahaha it is so funny when you are dating a woman and she does woman things at you" jokes equally tiresome.
It seems most comediennes who manage to get out the door at all are resigned to one of three options:
a) trying to prove they can be part of the boys' club and make hilarious fart and dick jokes in spite of the fact that they are women
b) hoping for a Lady Humor Show on Lifetime or something
c) acting as a convenient foil to a man on his comedy show
I was discussing all this with my husband last night, and his observation is that, in adolescence, more boys than girls use comedy as a coping tool and means of social survival. It's all right for boys to be the class clown and whatnot, but girls are expected to laugh at the jokes, not make any themselves. So right off the bat you've got fewer girls growing up trying to be funny, being cultivated as humorists or comediennes, because that's the boys' realm from the time you're in grade school. By the time you get to the Daily Show, etc, the number of women in the pool is pretty minuscule, anyway.
2:05 pm
So now the argument that the Daily Show is a sexist hellhole for its female employees is debunked by the women who actually work there, we have to argue that they are not the "right" kind of female employees? Really?
And why is it now the Daily Shows and Stewarts responsibility to answer for entertainment industry sexism? They try to be the funniest show they can be, period. And no surprise many women excel at this and this is represented in how many women occupy key production roles on the show. The On-air talent is less important on this show than it seems. Most of the funny comes from the writers and producers. And I like how Amanda diminished the agency of these women, as if they were just kissing Stewarts ass. Maybe they believe exactly what they wrote? Isn't questioning their ability to recoginize sexism in their workplace one of the things feminism should challenge?
And would anyone complain about Munns hiring if she wasn't attractive? I watched Attack of the Show regularly and she is very funny. I don't know if that will translate to the Daily Show, but she deserves the benefit of the doubt. Even Colbert took a while to get truly good at the Daily Show, we should give her the same chance.
I agree that Stewart and the TDS should look to Female comedians more often for guests and anchor roles, but not to correct some sexist cultural bias. They should because the talent is out there and is overlooked. But trying to make an entertainment program while engaging in some campaign to correct sexist bias in society seems like a fast track to cancellation. What good would that do anyone?
2:54 pm
While we're correcting inequities, let's make sure we have an equitable representation of right-wingers as well. Or are liberals just "funnier" than wingnuts?
3:03 pm
When I was a kid a old man told me never bother listening to a woman complain, because once they start they'll never stop. This reminds me of that old man.
Put simply there is no way on the face of the earth that the feminists will be happy until there are no men on the TDS and it is just another man bashing show.
Furthermore there is no way to make the show fair to all racial, ethnic and religious groups. Hell you can't even make it fair to all women. You could ask what about obese women, why won't the daily show hire "enough" of them? Skinny women? Black? Asian? Native American? Biraical? Triracial? Transexual? Lesbian? Bisexual? Etc. Etc. I would love for some ivy league feminist to explain to me how you'll balance all these different groups, without complaint, and make the show "fair."
3:23 pm
Why is everyone talking about Olivia Munn being the first female to be hired as a correspondent when I have been cracking up at the segments with Samantha Bee for years?
5:27 pm
Because, Lisa, most people here, The Sexist included, rarely know what the fuck they're talking about. But they don't let a patriarchal concept like that stop them! Hooray for outspokenness.
5:33 pm
Gosh - this is a huge subject to be dealt with out of hand in a single article, and pretty much all of it could equally apply to any other show, and probably a number of large companies...
I actually couldn't possibly tell without an enormous study the one thing that this whole argument hinges on :- are there the same number of _equally funny_ females working in the field _right now_, that could fill in and do _the same job_ as the current male correspondents currently employed do? I suspect, due to the larger societal forces, there aren't.
That however is not nor should ever be used as an argument in favour of _positive discrimination_, which is what your article is arguing for quite strongly in labelling "ignorance". The fact of the matter is, no matter who's on it, it needs to be popular, the correspondents need to do the job the boss tells them to do...
6:27 pm
Olivia Munn is not the first female correspondent (as Maggie, at #6, observes), nor even the second in 7 years as Amanda Hess maintains based on Irin Carmon's report.
In addition to Samantha Bee, I can vividly recall Stacey Grenrock-Woods (53 episodes, 1998-2003, according to the IMDb) and Beth Littleford (145 episodes, 1996-2000), and Nancy Walls (85 episodes, 1999-2002--though she was, perhaps, a spousal hire).
Further, according to the IMDb, other women specifically listed as correspondents were Lauren Weedman (29 episodes, 2001-2002), Rachael Harris (12 episodes, 2002-2003), and Miriam Tolan (11 episodes, 2000-2001).
If you're going to complain about the small episode count of some of those names, and blame it on sexism, you should take a look at the numerous male correspondents with episode counts just as low.
Are there as many women as men? No. There aren't as many minorities as white guys, either. Because, yeah, comedy is dominated by white guys. That doesn't mean minorities and women aren't funny, it just means what it means--perhaps that friends recommend friends to Stewart, or any number of things.
But if you're going to accuse Stewart of sexism because he's only hired two women correspondents in 7 years, when his record is actually 8 women correspondents in 10 years--that just smells of cooking the stats.
10:40 pm
Wow, 8 women in 10 years! Good work, boys!
1:31 am
Am I the only one noticing the lack of minorities in that picture (and on his show)?
5:00 am
@Raven: The percentage of minorities in on-camera roles is pretty decent; there may not be a large number, but there aren't a lot of correspondents in the first place. Moreover, basically everyone has a kind of cultural role that they slot into, Jon included. Obviously I can only speak for myself, but whereas most TV feels like a bunch of white people and a few not-white people, I watch TDS and see the Jew, the Brit, the young black guy, the Indian dude, the jarhead, and so forth. It doesn't quite feel right in the case of Sam Bee, since women are a much larger portion of the population than, say, Indians, but that's the only part of the casting that's felt like an exception- and that may change if they bring Olivia on regularly. (She's supposed to be the eastern Asian one, too, but it'll take some convincing for some viewers; even Jon had to point out on her first show that she's part Vietnamese.)
Moving on.. it was already asked, why should The Daily Show have to answer for inequalities built into the industry at present? But I'm more baffled at how TDS ended up with the bullseye in the first place. As gennie (and possibly others, couldn't read all the comments) said, she's never been offended by the humor on the show. Neither have I, and given that it's basically not coming up in the conversation, I'd guess the same goes for most people posting here.
I think Amanda Marcotte said she doesn't believe Irin at Jezebel realized the kind of shitstorm her article would start. Maybe not the extent, although I don't know how you could write an article that you know will turn everyone's perception of a rather beloved individual and television show on its head and not expect a pretty major response. But for a show that's based on very reality-based, non-derogatory humor- by far the most important effect it's going to have on a widespread social level- it seems odd that even if there's fire behind this smoke, there wasn't a more compelling option that could have been investigated.
Or, to put it more correctly, we can probably all agree that there must be far worse work environments, in terms of sexism of whatever stripe you care to focus on, in the entertainment industry. And I wonder how much of this- both the writing of the article and everyone's enormous care factor level for it- stems from our resigned acceptance that most everyone else is bad, leaving us open to feast on the surprise that TDS may simply not be all good.
4:22 pm
Raven: Nope, but you might be one of the only ones who has so obviously not read any of the previous comments!
10:43 pm
The Washington City Paper has 6 editors, only 1 of which is a woman, and of it's 18 contributing writers less than 7 are women.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/pages/masthead
12:32 am
Yes, Jon Stewart is completely fair in his hiring practice [/sarcasm]
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: How did this all come together? Did The Daily Show approach you?
OLIVIA MUNN: Yeah! I was out here [in New York] for the upfronts for Perfect Couples. Jon Stewart saw some of my stuff online. As he told me, he saw it and said, “Yeah, she has what we want for the show.” They emailed and said, “Hey, we realize she has this new show on NBC, but do you think we could meet her for The Daily Show?” I was like: “Are you f—ing… YES!” I came in to meet him the day after the upfronts. We sat and we talked for two hours. Literally the next day, they said, “We want her to be a part of the show.”
11:14 am
Ms. Hess's article provides a differentiated perspective to the issues she tackles. Many of the replies to the piece pick out only one tiny aspect of her critique and fall thus short of a comprehensive and adequate response. Well done, Ms. Hess! I hope readers take your article as a jumping board to start thinking about why we still have sexism and racism in this country, or globally, for that matter.
5:25 pm
Can we get a gender, racial, religious, ethnic, and religious denomination breakdown of the City Paper's staff?
It's imperative for the public to know whether the City Paper is racist, sexist, gender identity-ist, religionist, classist, ethnocentrist, or any other -ist based on societal forces and ingrained prejudices.
6:26 pm
"And if you respond to suggestions that your hiring practices may be sexist with a letter signed by all the women on your staff dismissing these claims out of hand, then your hiring practices are almost certainly sexist."
I read that statement as either one, or a combination of, several possibilities:
a) women are incapable of responding on their own when the merit of their position/work is questioned and need a hiring manager to make them do so
b) at least 1 out of 32 women will always believe that sexism exists even where it doesn't or
c) you can't get 32 women to agree on anything, ever, even if it's true
What a perfect example of subtle gender stereotyping. Clearly Amanda Hess, while not overtly sexist, buys into the same unfounded beliefs that have plagued women in the work place for centuries: that they’re indecisive, weak willed, and cannot speak their minds without the approval of some big, strong male authority figure. As a professional woman who sets an example for young girls out there, she should recognize her responsibility “to do more than just not be overtly discriminatory” rather than contribute to outdated sexist modeling of the work place. For shame.
2:55 am
@ jammes i love you
can some please please please write an article in this paper or on the website about that actually wait no its still an amazing point but dont
for the feminist movment to make progress we need to stop chasing down actually not very important leads like the daily show which is honestly only watched by a small minority of the country and focus on stuff that majority of population watch
cause honestly i think the viewers of daily show are probably a hell of a lot more progressive then some. There obviously much much less then perfect. But frankly there are some pretty terrible programs out there much more obviously sexist on networks like mtv, vh1, bet, fox (obviously) that should be the focus of discussions like this. I know they are kind of like old news, but honestly
they still exist and should be discussed until they change even if they never do.
11:16 am
For someone who claims to be a feminist you sure used a big silencing tactic right there:
I'm sure this has been linked before but...
http://www.derailingfordummies.com
I think it's an 'important lead' to talk about all sexism. The Daily Show is supposed to be progressive. As a commenter mentioned in the TBD thread. We feminists tend to run into a lot of progressives that support feminism until you point our their own. Then they're not so happy with it.
Yes there's glaring sexism in other shows, and they've been covered and probably will be covered again. In case you didn't notice, Amanda kind of has this whole blog called "The Sexist" that deals with sexism.
Feminists write about this stuff because it *needs to be written about*. Saying "there's worse stuff out there, write about that!" is irrelevant. Write about all Sexism, whether it's the guy telling you to smile on the street. Or the restaurant that hires employees based on 8x10 pictures.
Either way, keep writing about it Amanda. :)
8:21 pm
wow im sorry that i offended you, but there is no need to questions my feminism or imply that i am too stupid to know the name of the blog i am commenting on. We are obviously fans of the sexist and probably agree on a lot of major issues. so there no need to be mean or hurtfull.
All im saying is that we have bigger fish to fry then John Stewart. (honestly the guy is like five three) Sometimes it seems that media will run away with the hot new, but less telling, significant story because its hot and new, while leaving the really obvious in our face daily stories behind, because they are old news.
8:00 pm
Thanks for this, Amanda - a concise write-up that provides the best response to this entire discussion (and the letter from the female staffers, which really made me upset - for reasons you explored) - very cathartic to see my feelings put into words.
It's too bad at least half of the commenters didn't seem to read the actual post, because although there's the typical bout of mansplaining and derailing, there are also quite a few comments seeming to interpret your post as a criticism of point a), instead of point d), which really does summarize the entire problem perfectly.
8:19 am
I find it so ridiculous that bloggers who call themselves feminists have put this amount of effort into criticizing and trying to discredit the statement of the WOMEN who work at the Daily Show, women giving voice to their own experiences and disputing what they obviously felt were unfair allegations. Way to support these women, feminist bloggers. So does feminism now mean championing the perspective of women who feel they've been discriminated against and mocking and maligning the perspective of women who might dare to DEFEND someone against claims of sexism?
11:50 am
Wow, got pulled into the blogosphere on this one.
So your point, then, is that anyone hiring for a company should *not* hire solely on merit and instead should take "societal forces" into account, right?
I was going to make an argument against that, but I realized that by stating it simply rather than hiding it behind a two-page long list, the flaws of that way of thinking should be obvious.
Listen, I understand what you're trying to do with all this, I really do. And awareness is good--yes, comedy is dominated by men for a lot of reasons (though less so if you factor in romcoms). But you're falling into the same trap that at some point sucked in every other civil rights movement in history. You stopped fighting for equality and instead started fighting for reparations. But the world isn't "Men vs. Women," men and women aren't some sort of global teams, and asking men to favor hiring women even if they are less competent is only going to hurt the ultimate goal of equality, not help it.
There are fewer women in comedy because fewer women try to do comedy. That's a problem. With a smaller pool of talent, when you're looking for people who are both talented and a creative fit, you will get skewed numbers. That's a problem. The targeted demographic for most comedy is male, who would naturally favor male sensibilities. That's a problem.
But the point of intervention is not at the top, at a place like TDS. In fact, after some quick Google searches, it sounds like TDS is a pretty all-around good place to work. The point of intervention is much earlier in the process.
A similar outrage stemmed from of Christopher Hitchens's Vanity Fair article "Why Women Aren't Funny" (And a female editor's response to it and then Christopher Hitchens's response to her response). Before you get too outraged at the title and his rhetoric (you should be a *little* outraged though), he was intentionally trying to start a fight--Christopher Hitchens is something of a literary troll. I think there's a lot more to be gained from that conversation, if you're interested, and it involves fewer personal attacks on a person who doesn't deserve them (Stewart).