I don't know where to start...

Sorry, going back a bit and repeating, but I think this is the nub of it:

'Irrespective of your opinions I am almost 100% certain that you cannot categorically say that the producer of QI specifically selects men over women for sexist reasons. Nether can you say that for any other of the examples given (Horizon or Michael McIntyre). I certainly can't so could not make the giant leap and say that there is a sexist agenda present.'

I don't know the producer of QI, so you are correct, we can't say.

But you're not using logic when you jump from that to claiming that, therefore, you know there is no 'sexist agenda' present.

Of course there is a sexist agenda. How else could you possibly explain the fact there are fewer women? It may not be the producer's conscious choice, but you've got it arse-backwards to go from the individual's conscious choice to the underlying agenda.

If it's unconscious then I don't know how it can't be anything but ok? Equality is about eliminating oppression/prejudice. If someone acts in good faith and without malice then oppression/prejudice fail to exist. It's all about intent, isn't it?

No, I don't think it is about individual intent. It's about the cumulative effect those individual decisions have, which is that women (and people of color, people with disabilities, gay people) become, culturally, invisible - and this then conditions people even more to think that men are the default human beings. It's a vicious circle. I don't think it's an exaggeration to call it cultural femicide.

If you are a booker or producer for one of those shows, and you fail to consider inviting women, or don't make it a priority to have women (and not just the same small set of women over and over again) well-represented on the show, then you are contributing to the problem. In a passive way, perhaps, but nevertheless your choices, however unconsciously you make them, are still part of the problem, however much you would personally abhor sexism. It's about practices and behaviours, not about how pure of heart anyone is individually.

Part of the problem is that lots and lots of people fundamentally can't (won't?) make this distinction when it comes to themselves or people they like. They like to believe that they are good people who aren't capable of something as awful as sexism or racism, and thus it doesn't occur to them to examine whether they are part of some systemic form of discrimination. This is why you get the lefty liberal men who are so convinced of their own politico-philosophical virtue that they don't actually question their own privilege or practices. But because of the cumulative societal effect it has, I am just as concerned by this passive sexism as by the guy who is openly misogynistic and kicks the shit out of his woman partner.

If someone claims that they are not racist (and quite possibly truly believes it), but fails to stop unconsciously engaging in a racist practice, I don't think we should hesitate to call this a form of racism, and the same goes for sexism.

I'm not interested in the fact that otherwise nice people's feelings might get bruised when they realise they personally engage in sexist behaviour. I'm interested in the liberation of women from all of this shit.

On the tv thing.........I rarely watch tv anymore........Homeland about covers me but happened to watch the Royle Family Xmas special and there was an actual rape joke. I'm surprised there has not been uproar! The entire programme took the piss out of Barbara, but Jim Royle, on discussing sex with his wife said this...........

'I'd never get me leg over if Babs had to agree to it.'

"I don't think anyone has said the under-representation of women is due to producers thinking 'women belong in the kitchen, not on my show'. The problem is that straight, white and male are often the default settings for anyone on TV, and it shouldn't be, because the population is not overwhelmingly straight, white and especially not male. Suggesting it's a coincidence that men are greatly over-represented in the media seems at best very naive."

This post Ria? I totally agree with it.

I don't agree with FamilyGuy that it's ok/excusable.

That was probably me running I meant the majority of tv makers aren't (I hope) deliberately discriminating against women for the sake of it, though they may well believe that their show will do better with more men in it, for instance 'women laugh more at men'.

FamilyGuy - I don't agree that it's unconscious though - as I have already said.

The default setting being 'male' - where do you make the leap that it's 'unconscious'?

She was, Kim. Beautifully acted and directed film. Brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it.

That'll just be me being over-emotional and hormonal, though. Being a woman and all. (reference to the other thread raging on in FWR atm)

If you are taught all your life that one group of people is better than another of course it will bias your opinions, even without you noticing it. It's called conditioning.

runningforthebusinheels

LOL, glad I was of some use in the end Hope you enjoy the film.

But just before I go to bed....

If it's positive discrimination then it's ok for women but not for men. Fine, I get that because the industry is male dominated. I may not agree with positive discrimination but I can accept that some sort of balance may be necessary.

If it's unconscious then I don't know how it can't be anything but ok? Equality is about eliminating oppression/prejudice. If someone acts in good faith and without malice then oppression/prejudice fail to exist. It's all about intent, isn't it?

You are suggesting that it is wrong to innocently select a man over a woman for a job. I appreciate the 'innocent' bit is what's under question but I stand by my opinion that there is nothing wrong with an innocent selection. Anything else is not gender equality.

However, I am now watching Carve Her Name With Pride

A great film. Thanks for the tip-off, FamilyGuy.

Abigail, FamilyGuy thinks it unconscious - so that makes it ok

I'm not sure it's 'unconscious', or even subconscious, but even if it was, I wouldn't see that as a valid excuse.

running, yes men being the default is the problem and it isn't a coincidence. It is positive discrimination.

Actioned not auctioned. Sorry, bloody iPad.

If its a default choice then it's an unconscious choice and therefore oppression is not a factor. So where is the problem?

Unless producers are making a conscious decision but Ria has already discounted that a few posts back.

I raised the point about the dumping of women because its a clear example of wrongdoing. Paying women less for the same job is also wrong, as is promoting a male instead of a woman when she is clearly more talented etc.

However, saying that two thirds of positions are for men is an assumption. As I posted in another thread, HR departments vet all cv's and oversee equality issues and promotions etc. yet HR is a female dominated industry and the first line in ensuring positive discrimination is auctioned in the workplace.

Incidentally, as I type we have a documentary about queen Victoria on BBC2 with a female prof being interviewed. One Born Every Minute is on ITV and a film about a kick ass superhero woman on CH5. Carve Her
Name with Pride is on BBC4, which is a film about a woman secret agent in WWII. A real war hero of her era.

Here is a link to Kims episode of QI ehere they talk about why there arent more women in it

Of course it's no coincidence - the default setting of the media, be it news or entertainment is 'male'.

Three quarters of the top jobs in Newsrooms are held by men. Two thirds of reporters are men. Two thirds of acting jobs are for men.

And thank you, FamilyGuy, for bringing up the subject of the dumping of women due to their age - such an excellent example of obvious sexism in the media.

I am not so naive to think it doesn't exist. Of course it does. However, there's a big difference between the recent dumping of over age women from TV (totally outrageous) and second guessing why women are under-represented on shows.

I don't think anyone has said the under-representation of women is due to producers thinking 'women belong in the kitchen, not on my show'. The problem is that straight, white and male are often the default settings for anyone on TV, and it shouldn't be, because the population is not overwhelmingly straight, white and especially not male. Suggesting it's a coincidence that men are greatly over-represented in the media seems at best very naive.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing that women may be under-represented (I don't really notice TBH ) but my point was that I found it incredibly difficult to make the connection given the OP's specific examples.

The trouble is, the link I gave (www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/03/women-science-tv) had a female producer explaining how ensuring an even balanced cast doesn't come into her decision making. Thus when I read the OP and then do some basic research it is difficult for me to make any cast iron conclusions.

Also, from my experience of watching various programmes i.e. Rough Science and the 'How to Make...' series, I also gave solid examples where females were either interviewed (more or less) equally or made up at least 50% of the cast.

Irrespective of your opinions I am almost 100% certain that you cannot categorically say that the producer of QI specifically selects men over women for sexist reasons. Nether can you say that for any other of the examples given (Horizon or Michael McIntyre). I certainly can't so could not make the giant leap and say that there is a sexist agenda present. This is what I mean about 'confirmation bias' i.e. seeing something without actually knowing the facts. We may suspect but without evidence then our assumptions are just that. Personally I don't like to get upset over what may be.

The same goes for Dr Christian. I have no idea why he's more of a celebrity than Dr's Dawn or Pixie so wouldn't like to pass comment. However, other people clearly know better.

If I were to hold my own TV chat show and came up with a celebrity lineup then it may or may not consist of a 50/50 split. If there were more men than women it certainly wouldn't be because I am sexist or that women have no place on my show. Any under-representation would be completely innocent but it would be unnaceptable to some on here. God forbid that I may also be under-representing trans/gays/lesbians/Chinese/Blacks/Asians except I am not racist or homophobic etc. Therefore are you suggesting that I would have to talk to people that I wouldn't want to talk to just to ensure that there is a 50/50 cast of females/males? Would this make for entertaining viewing? I doubt it.

Re: the OP neglecting the QI show with an all female cast, I meant she would possibly have neglected the inclusion of females from her opinion that the show is completely sexist. Having worked in research I'm well aware that people use specific examples to support a hypothesis and have been known to discard any examples that contradict. When I did my own research into the show it was clear to me that the show wasn't completely sexist, hence my comment. For sure, it is biased toward males but like I said previously, unless you know 100% that the intent of the producer is untoward then I don't believe it's worth getting worried about it.

You could well be right, there ChristmasFayre, but I would think of them as more 'women friendly' than, say, Rupert Murdoch's lot.

Interesting that the BBC should be perceived as 'women-friendly' - I've never particularly felt that it was. Left-leaning yes, but that particular brand of lefty liberalism that wilfully refuses to examine its own misogyny.

Should say roll forward to 2012