Jezebel vs. Jon Stewart

Jezebel: 0; Jon Stewart: 1

The story of the “feud” between Jezebel and The Daily Show is making its way around the blogosphere today. For those who don’t know, a Jezebel author Irin Carmon published a piece last week, the premise of which was that The Daily Show, like most late night comedy shows, is a boys’ club, and that while The Daily Show is a darling among progressives, it is failing in the equal opportunity (for women) department.

A recent Slate article written by Emily Gould (who discloses that she used to work for Gawker Media which owns Jezebel) says the following about Jezebel’s premise that The Daily Show has “a woman problem”:

Jezebel writer Irin Carmon’s argument is essentially this: “Former videogame show host” Olivia Munn may soon become the show’s first new female correspondent in seven years, but her potential hiring is nothing to celebrate, because, while she’s a woman, she’s not the right kind of woman. She has hosted G4′s Attack of the Show for four years, and she has written a book. But, per Carmon, “her previous career path has led some”—meaning, I guess, Carmon and Jezebel commenters—”to criticize The Daily Show for hiring someone better known for suggestively putting things in her mouth on a video game show … and being on the covers of Playboy and Maxim than for her comedic chops.” Included as a link is a previous Jezebel post that featured video of Munn jumping into a giant pie while wearing a French maid costume.

Gould’s article also discusses the importance of page views to Jezebel authors, suggesting that in order to keep getting paid by Gawker Media, Jezebel authors have to garner consistently high page views:

As of this writing, Carmon’s post has generated almost 1,000 comments and nearly 90,000 page views. It’s a prime example of the feminist blogosphere’s tendency to tap into the market force of what I’ve come to think of as “outrage world”—the regularly occurring firestorms stirred up on mainstream, for-profit, woman-targeted blogs like Jezebel and also, to a lesser degree, Slate’s own XX Factor and Salon’s Broadsheet. They’re ignited by writers who are pushing readers to feel what the writers claim is righteously indignant rage but which is actually just petty jealousy, cleverly marketed as feminism. These firestorms are great for page-view-pimping bloggy business. But they promote the exact opposite of progressive thought and rational discourse, and the comment wars they elicit almost inevitably devolve into didactic one-upsmanship and faux-feminist cliché. The vibe is less sisterhood-is-powerful than middle-school clique in-fight, with anyone who dares to step outside of chalk-drawn lines delimiting what’s “empowering” and “anti-feminist” inevitably getting flamed and shamed to bits. Paradoxically, in the midst of all the deeply felt concern about women’s sexual and professional freedom to look and be however they want, it’s considered de rigueur to criticize anyone, like Munn, who dares to seem to want to sexually attract men.

When Jezebel was founded, it proposed itself as an explicit alternative to traditional women’s magazines. As any first-year women’s studies major will tell you, these glossies make money by exploiting women’s insecurities. The editorial content creates ego-wounds (“Do you smell bad? Why isn’t he into you?”) that advertisers handily salve by offering up makeup and scented tampons. But Jezebel must also sell ad space, and its founders knew that they are marketing to a generation that knew the score about how they’d been marketed to in the past, which meant those old-fashioned print tactics weren’t going to work. Page views are generated by commenters who are moved to speak out, then revisit the comment thread endlessly to see how people have responded to their ideas. Ergo, more provocative posts tend to generate far more page views, and the easiest way for Jezebel writers to be provocative is to stoke readers’ insecurities—just in a different way.

Instead of mimicking the old directly anxiety-making model—for example, by posting weight-loss tips and photos of impossibly thin models like a traditional women’s magazine—Jezebel and the Slate and Salon “lady-blogs” post a critique of a rail-thin model’s physique, explaining how her attractiveness hurts women. The end result is the same as the old formula—women’s insecurities sell ads. The only difference is the level of doublespeak and manipulation that it takes to produce that result. Recently, Broadsheet’s Tracy Clark-Flory elicited 32 mostly sycophantic comments by closing a post that rehashed a news story about a controversy over a model’s age by saying that it was “skin-crawling” that a mother of a 15-year-old model was quoted as saying that “age is irrelevant if you’re beautiful.” And XX recently got in on the Olivia Munn debate with a post about how Munn isn’t funny enough to be on the show. The writer cited an interview with Munn but no examples from any of the 374 episodes of G4′s Attack of the Show that Munn hosted between 2006-10.

It’s certainly important to have honest, open conversations about the issues that reliably rake in comments and page views—rape, underage sexuality, and the cruel tyranny of the impossible beauty standards promoted by most advertisers and magazines (except the ones canny enough to use gently lit, slightly rounder, older, or more ethnic examples of “true beauty”). But it may just be that it’s not possible to have these conversations online. On the Web, writers tend to play up the most jealousy- and insecurity-evoking aspects of controversy, and then anonymous commenters—who bear no responsibility for the effects of their statements—take the writers’ hints to any possible extreme. It’s just how the Internet works.

At the same time, many posts on these sites aren’t consciously written with the twisted mess of intentions I just described. Probably many of the writers feel that their work is helping women by exposing sexism and getting important women’s issues onto their radar. But especially for Jezebel writers, whose page-view-generating skills are a matter of public record, and whose careers are dependent on maintaining their stats, the pressure to continuously hit “outrage world” topics must be intense. As I write this, two of the five top stories on Jezebel have to do with weight loss: “Isn’t It Time We Called ‘Curvy Models’ Simply ‘Models?’” and “Lily Allen’s Face Not Thin Enough For British Elle?” In the comments sections, readers are responding with naked bitterness: “The thin and pretty are like rich people. They are freely given advantages they already have,” says sensitivitycop. NewWaveBatMitzvah chimes in with “I’m just glad that finally someone is paying attention to skinny women with large breasts. It’s high time they get out from living in obscurity in the shadows where they cry themselves to sleep with tears of sorrow and loneliness.”

On and on it goes, as commenters click again and again on the same post to follow the conversation, generating the traffic that enables the site to sell ad space. Right now, the ad alongside those headlines is for Cheetos.

First, let me say that I agree that there is a dearth of female comedy writers and that somebody needs to do something about that shit. (Call me!)

Second, I want to express my contempt for the article — it managed to turn what could have been a great exposé on the marginalization of female comedians and comedic writers into one more punchline that men can use in their bullshit “but women just aren’t funny” arsenal.

More than that, however, the Jezebel minions, like some sort of blogospheric cult have jumped to Jezebel’s defense on Slate and other websites, seemingly without taking a critical look at the article itself.

The article was terrible. It was poorly researched, based on unfounded assumptions, and, seemingly, the author did not even interview any women working at The Daily Show to find out what their take on the situation is. (One would think that the current staff would have more relevant details about whether or not Jon Stewart is a sexist prick than those women who, for whatever reason, no longer work for The Daily Show.)

The full Jezebel article that started this shitstorm can be read here, but I want to quote snippets of it to make a point:

The Daily Show is many things: progressive darling, alleged news source for America’s youth, righteous media critique. And it’s also a boys’ club where women’s contributions are often ignored and dismissed.

If Olivia Munn, the former videogame show host introduced to Daily Show viewers three weeks ago, survives her tryout, she’ll be the first new female correspondent on the show in seven years. With the notable exception of Samantha Bee, who’s been on since 2001, female correspondents have been a short-lived phenomenon. As fiercely liberal and sharp-eyed an observer as Jon Stewart can be, getting women on the air may be his major blind spot.

Television comedy, and late night in particular, can be cutthroat and transitory, and no one is particularly surprised when the men who host these shows turn out to be not very nice guys, as anyone who cared to pay attention to the David Letterman fall-out could see. Women are universally scarce, whether in the writer’s room or on the air. And the environment on The Daily Show was arguably worse in the Craig Kilborn era: Back in 1997, the then-host was suspended after telling Esquire,”To be honest, [co-creator] Lizz [Winstead] does find me very attractive. If I wanted her to blow me, she would.” (Winstead quit not long afterward.) Nowadays there may be less overt frat-boy humor, but that doesn’t mean the institutionalized sexism is gone.

Given its politics and the near-universal adoration with which it’s met, the current iteration of The Daily Show is held to a different standard by the viewing public. But behind the scenes, numerous former female staffers tell us that working there was often a frustrating and alienating experience. [Behind what scenes? You didn't talk to any current female employees!]

“What I was told when I was hired is that they have a very hard time finding and keeping women, and that I was lucky to get a one year contract,” says Lauren Weedman, a comedian and writer who worked on the show as an on-air correspondent from 2001-2002.

This mentality arguably goes straight the top ["arguably"? How about "I'm making this shit up because I don't have any facts"]: The host and executive producer’s onscreen persona is lovable mensch, but one former executive on the show tells us “there’s a huge discrepancy between the Jon Stewart who goes on TV every night and the Jon Stewart who runs The Daily Show with joyless rage.” [Could it be the former executive who, in the very next paragraph, quit the show because Stewart wasn't happy with her work? Could it? Could it? Hmm?] (A representative for Comedy Central said they would be unable to participate in this story.)

The story of Stewart throwing a newspaper or script at the show’s co-creator and executive producer Madeleine Smithberg out of displeasure with her work is an oft-told one among Daily Show veterans. Not long after the continued tension led Smithberg to quit in 2003, sources say Stewart refused to allow her onstage to accept the show’s Emmy, even though her work contributed to the win. [Cheap shot; citing one example of Jon Stewart's displeasure with the work of one of the show's producers and his subsequent refusal to allow her onstage (before or after she quit?) because he was unhappy with her work as irrefutable evidence that Jon Stewart has "a lady problem." Great argument! You win!]

The article goes on to relay the statements of former The Daily Show staffers, the most credible of whom is Stacy Greenrock Woods (credible only insofar as I remember her and I remember liking her… see? I admit when I’m making shit up!):

Stacey Grenrock Woods was on Stewart’s show from 1999-2003, longer than any other correspondent besides Bee. (She later chronicled the experience in her book, I, California.) She told me, “Did I feel like there was a boy’s club there? Yeah, sure. Did I want to be part of it? Not necessarily. So it kind of goes both ways.” [Is anyone surprised that late night comedy writers constitute a boys' club? Does this mean, in and of itself that Jon Stewart has a "lady problem"? No. No it does not.]

This mutual disdain is perhaps why so few women stuck around, whether by choice or otherwise. [Yes, "perhaps" that is why few women stuck around, or perhaps you're pulling shit directly out of your ass in lieu of actual research.]

…

Overall, The Daily Show’s environment was such that many women felt marginalized. [Who are these "many women"? What are their names? Their positions? You've mentioned, like, three women! Meanwhile, other women, like Samantha Bee and Allison Silverman are (snarkily, in my opinion) deemed "defenders" of the Daily Show and mentioned at the bottom of the article. I guess their views aren't as important because they're just defending Daddy Stewart.]

The article then goes on to criticize The Daily Show for their latest hire: Olivia Munn. And here’s where it gets fucked up.

If you search through the archives of Jezebel, you’ll see that Olivia Munn has taken a lot of shit in the Jezebel comment section–a lot of anti-feminist shit at the hands of women who call themselves feminists. There have been references to her sexual appeal as the reason for her getting the job, cries of “but I just don’t think she’s funny!” (as if these predominantly tightwad commenters are the final word on what is or isn’t funny), and references to the way she sexily eats a hot dog (with a video of said hot dog-eating taking up prime space in the article). That Olivia… she’s such a slut! She’s too hot to be funny! But we’re feminists! We can’t say that!

So, whatever, Jezzies. You clearly know something that The Daily Show producers don’t know. They should have just called you and asked for your opinion as to whether or not Munn is funny enough to be on the show, or whether she’s too sexy to be on the show, or whether she’s going to be passed around the show like Marilyn Monroe at the White House.

In response to what is, in my view, a hit piece by an author who had an axe to grind and didn’t bother to conduct adequate research, women who actually work at The Daily Show struck back today in an open letter:

Women of The Daily Show Speak

Dear People Who Don’t Work Here,

Recently, certain media outlets have attempted to tell us what it’s like to be a woman at The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. We must admit it is entertaining to be the subjects of such a vivid and dramatic narrative. However, while rampant sexism at a well-respected show makes for a great story, we want to make something very clear: the place you may have read about is not our office.

The Daily Show isn’t a place where women quietly suffer on the sidelines as barely tolerated tokens. On the contrary: just like the men here, we’re indispensable. We generate a significant portion of the show’s creative content and the fact is, it wouldn’t be the show that you love without us.

So, who are the women of The Daily Show?

If you think the only women who help create this show are a couple of female writers and correspondents, you’re dismissing the vast majority of us. Actually, we make up 40% of the staff, and we’re not all shoved into the party-planning department (although we do run that, and we throw some kick-ass parties). We are co-executive producers, supervising producers, senior producers, segment producers, coordinating field producers, associate producers, editors, writers, correspondents, talent coordinators, production coordinators, researchers, makeup artists, the entire accounting and audience departments, production assistants, crew members, and much more. We were each hired because of our creative ability, our intelligence, and above all, our ability to work our asses off to make a great show.

Is it hard to work at The Daily Show?

Absolutely. When it comes to what makes it onto the show, competing ideas aren’t just hashed out between the faces you see on camera or the names that roll under the “writers” credits. Jokes and concepts come from our studio department, our field department, our graphics department, our production department, our intern department, and our control room. Jon’s rule is: the strongest idea and the funniest joke win every single time, no matter who pitches it–woman or man, executive producer or production assistant. And of course none of these jokes and ideas would get to air without the layers of production talent working behind the scenes. The fairness of our workplace makes competition tough and makes the show better.

So if it’s so challenging, why have we stayed for two, five, ten, fourteen years? Because it’s challenging. We feel lucky to work in a meritocracy where someone with talent can join us as an intern and work her way up to wherever her strengths take her. But also because it’s an environment that supports our being more than just our jobs. The Daily Show (to an extent few of us have seen elsewhere) allows us the flexibility to care for our families, pursue our own projects, cope with unexpected crises, and have lives outside the show.

Also… are you kidding? It’s The Daily Show for Christ’s sake. You ask some stupid questions, imaginary interlocutor.

What’s Jon Stewart really like?

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.

But what’s he really like? Well, for a sexist prick, he can be quite charming. He’s also generous, humble, genuine, compassionate, fair, supportive, exacting, stubborn, goofy, hands-on, driven, occasionally infuriating, ethical, down-to-earth and–a lot of people don’t know this–surprisingly funny (for a guy brimming with “joyless rage”). How else to describe him? What’s the word that means the opposite of sexist? That one.

In any organization, the tone is set from the top. Since taking over the show, Jon has worked hard to create an environment where people feel respected and valued regardless of their gender or position. If that’s not your scene, you probably wouldn’t like it here. We happen to love it.

And so…

And so, while it may cause a big stir to seize on the bitter rantings of ex-employees and ignore what current staff say about working at The Daily Show, it’s not fair. It’s not fair to us, it’s not fair to Jon, it’s not fair to our wonderful male colleagues, and it’s especially not fair to the young women who want to have a career in comedy but are scared they may get swallowed up in what people label as a “boy’s club.”

The truth is, when it comes down to it, The Daily Show isn’t a boy’s club or a girl’s club, it’s a family – a highly functioning if sometimes dysfunctional family. And we’re not thinking about how to maximize our gender roles in the workplace on a daily basis. We’re thinking about how to punch up a joke about Glenn Beck’s latest diatribe, where to find a Michael Steele puppet on an hour’s notice, which chocolate looks most like an oil spill, and how to get a gospel choir to sing the immortal words, “Go f@#k yourself!”

Love,

Teri Abrams-Maidenberg, Department Supervisor, 11 years

Jill Baum, Writers’ Assistant, 4 years

Samantha Bee, Correspondent, 7 years

Alison Camillo, Coordinating Field Producer, 12 years

Vilma Cardenas, Production Accountant, 14 years

Lauren Cohen, Production Assistant, 1 year

Jocelyn Conn, Executive Assistant, 4 years

Kahane Cooperman, Co-Executive Producer, 14 years

Pam DePace, Line Producer, 14 years

Tonya Dreher, Avid Editor, 4 years

Kristen Everman, Production Assistant, 2 years

Christy Fiero, Production Controller, 13 years

Jen Flanz, Supervising Producer, 13 years

Hallie Haglund, Writer, 5 years

Kira Hopf, Senior Producer, 14 years

Jenna Jones, Production Assistant, 2 years

Jessie Kanevsky, Department Coordinator, 5 years

Jill Katz, Producer/Executive in Charge of Production, 4 years

Hillary Kun, Supervising Producer, 9 years

Christina Kyriazis, TelePrompter Operator, 14 years

Jo Miller, Writer, 1 year

Jody Morlock, Hair & Make-Up Artist, 14 years

Olivia Munn, Correspondent, 1 month

Lauren Sarver, Associate Segment Producer, 5 years

Kristen Schaal, Correspondent, 2 years

April Smith, Utility, 14 years

Patty Ido Smith, Electronic Graphics, 12 years

Sara Taksler, Segment Producer, 5 years

Elise Terrell, Production Coordinator, 6 years

Adriane Truex, Facility Manager, 12 years

Juliet Werner, Researcher, 1 year

Kaela Wohl, Wardrobe Stylist/Costumer, 2 years

PS. Thanks for the list of funny women. Our Nanas send us a ton of suggestions about “what would make a great skit for The John Daley Show.” We’ll file it right next to those.

PPS. Thanks to the male writers who penned this for us.

Um, what’s the word the kids are saying today? Oh yeah… PWNED.

Jezebel’s response?

I just wish the show had agreed to answer questions or make anyone available to talk when I approached them for comment before the piece was published.

Oh, please. I won’t pretend to know how much time passed between the author penning and publishing her column and asking The Daily Show for comment. But you know what? You’re not the New York Times, yo. You’re a blog. One of the most popular blogs frequented by women, sure. But still, you’re a fucking blog. And to those who take issue with Jon Stewart’s terse response– “Jezebel thinks I’m a sexist prick!”

– and claim that you wished he’d taken you more seriously,

Jon, I think Jezebel merits more than the brief phrase thrown into a frenzied rant.

The piece was written because a lot of the Jezebel community watches and likes TDS. And yes, we understand that your humor is not meant to be politically correct, and yes we like that about your show.

We don’t like that far fewer women than men have had a chance to be part of your show. Before brushing Jezebel off and presuming our ideas of feminism are completely unreasonable, I hope you will reflect on the reason this came up in the first place.

I say, get right on over yourself.

Jon Stewart is a comedian. The writers who write for him are comedians. Did you really expect to have a Henry Gates/Sergeant Crowley type pow-wow where you’d get to express how Jon Stewart gives you a case of the feminist sads and makes your vagina feel marginalized?

Render unto me a break already.

Do you know who feels marginalized on Jezebel? ME. And lots of other women–both of color and of no color.

Jezebel, you are an insular community of predominantly white middle to upper-class feminists who tout themselves as feminists, and high five themselves for being evolved, but really, you don’t want to hear what anyone with a differing opinion has to say. If you did, you would open up your comment section to everyone.

So here’s my beef:

• You are self-righteous–you require people to “audition” to comment and review your entirely ridiculous set of rules before doing so– thus virtually ensuring that a comment from anyone with a differing opinion will never see the light of day. I recall the first time I wanted to take issue with a post. After trying to figure out how to post a fucking comment and then realizing that I couldn’t post any comment until after my audition comment had been reviewed by whothefuckever, I said, “Fuck this noise!” and went to read another blog that doesn’t institute such ridiculous policies. (And by the way, considering your self-proclaimed feminist blog status, you might want to consider that there are a lot of women (and men) out there who don’t have regular access to the internet. These women (and men) may have something to say about your blog posts and can’t wait around to be vetted by your moderators. So, there’s that.)

And sure, I understand that it isn’t your comment policy, but rather that of Gawker Media, but in reality, to those of us who do not relish giving Jezebel its daily reach around, your indignation and self-righteousness about insularity falls on deaf ears.

• You routinely ignore issues affecting women of color (notwithstanding your hiring of Latoya Peterson of Racialious to do a guest blog post here and there, and for the record, I regularly read Racialicious***). You rarely have posts about celebrities of color. Your main message is that models are too skinny, society pressures women into looking pretty and losing weight, and rape is bad. Real deep stuff there.

• You routinely condescend and patronize the men who dare post comments on your blog (and by “you,” I mean “your commenters”). Yesterday’s ridiculous uproar over the dude from Deadspin’s guest posts is case in point. Get a fucking sense of humor, already.

As for The Daily Show, well, they are doing pretty well over there when it comes to diversity–Wyatt Cenac, Larry Whitmore, and Aasif Mandvi. Not to mention Samantha Bee and Kristen Schall. Could there be more women? Of course. But where the article failed is that instead of taking a look at how to get more women into the so-called “boys’ club,” it took the easy way out: Jon Stewart must be a tyrant, because these fired employees said so! ZOMG!

I could ramble on about this for a while (or, for longer than I already have), but frankly, I’ve got shit to do. So, I want to close with a comment from Jezebel reader “glorptok” that sums up exactly my feelings about the article:

“I know this will just sound like a rant by someone who hates to see his “hero” criticized, but I honestly think your case against Stewart was really thin but constructed to feel like there’s more evidence against him than there actually is.

First off the Daily Show has gone through a LOT of correspondents. When they have an opening, they try out many newbies and they are quick to dump the ones who don’t make a strong impression. They are obviously looking for charismatic correspondents who can think quickly in uncomfortable situations, exploit opportunities, get excellent footage, etc. The high standards they have is the reason so many former correspondents have become TV and movie stars – they look for performers who are better than funny. Stewart has gone though a parade of stand-ups, writers, UCB members, and the like in his search for the next Colbert or Carrel. His high standards disqualify 75% of the performers they’ve had over the last decade, male or female. Sooner or later, it seems that most of their correspondents get cut, as do many of their writers.

I also believe that a lot of the people who got sacked 8 or 9 years ago may have originally been hired for the less funny and consistent pre-Stewart version of the Daily Show (which had female producers). Maybe the firing of some of these women can be attributed to the fact that the new producers were clearing out the staff they considered dead wood (that’s what happened to the lovable Kent Jones, ex-Daily Show writer and current contributor to the Rachel Maddow show).

Regarding criticisms that the show is male dominated; it seems to me that the Daily Show has responded by actively searching for women and persons of color. Actually, I think that Samantha Bee, Aasif Mandvi, and maybe even Wyatt Cenac would be gone by now if they were white men, because – even though they are funny people and good writers – they don’t tend to nail their routines with the energy and timing that an Ed Helms or John Oliver would.

It certainly isn;t true that women aren’t funny, but it is true that specific shows have specific comedic tones and you can’t shoehorn in a different perspective just to make them feel more politically correct. I assume that women who are fluent in the show’s type of humor are welcome: Merrill Markoes wanted; Nora Ephrons, not so much. The comedy of the Daily Show has a distinct personality and rhythm and Stewart’s ability to reliably maintain that tone is part of the reason for the show’s success. Your graduate student’s ideal of an all-inclusive comedy program sounds good in theory, but could only work if all involved shared a comedic vision (comedy, by the way, generally wants to be politically incorrect as it is, so it’s a miracle the Daily Show maintained the levels of respectfulness and dignity that it has). Is the show’s tone overly masculine? I don’t know, but it certainly has a clear personality; besides a more feminine tone, the show could also be sillier, or angrier, or gentler, or racier, or cornier, or more conservative, or whatever – they could make Carrot Top, Erma Bombeck, or Dane Cook correspondents, but they won’t because they strive to give the show a consistent voice.

I don’t believe that voice necessarily excludes women, but I think it probably excludes highly personal material (I was a chubby 5th grader) like the ex-correspondent with a “damaged” persona, and it definitely excludes comedians who produce B-level remotes (which, if memory serves, was part of the problem with some of your other informants).

Getting down to the nitty gritty, it seems to me that the real impetus for your article was the outrage over the “smart” Daily Show hiring “slutty” Olivia Munn. I was also surprised by that at first, but then I considered that the Daily Show has tried out many unconventional correspondents in the past – we just don’t tend to remember them because most of them got the hook pretty quickly. Still, it’s that process leads to the occasional discovery of a John Hodgeman.

Finally, I’d like to point out one of your article’s cheapest devices – depicting Stewart throwing newspaper or script pages at his old female producer when he was frustrated with the quality of the show. You obviously included that at the top of the story specifically to create a sense that the show has a history of hostility toward women. It seems to me that comedy writers’ rooms are absolutely notorious for that kind of tension and behavior. I have no doubt the producer in question did her share of chewing out and humiliating her subordinates during her years there (though she may never have put others at risk of dangerous paper cuts).

The worst part of your article was the snotty and superior tone of your follow up after Stewart mentioned your piece on air. Your “I’ll be the judge of whether you’re sexist or not” tone smacked of the half-informed smugness of a second year MA student who distastefully revels in her new-found ability to judge others’ political correctness.”

Well said, glorptok. I’d comment after you and say “well-said,” but I haven’t auditioned yet.

****I encourage everyone to read this blog post by LaToya Peterson: The “Or” versus the “And” – Women of Color and Mainstream Feminism.

[UPDATE: Oh, I almost forgot. Hey, Tiger Beatdown? This? Not funny at all. In any sense. And it's sad that the commenters seem so gleeful over it. What Tiger Beatdown's attempted parody letter does is assume that the fully capable women who work on The Daily Show and came to the defense of their employer were somehow coerced into writing it. Because, you know... women cower before Jon Stewart, and what with their vaginas making them all insecure and whatnot, they couldn't possibly know how to speak for themselves. Again, render unto me a fucking break.]