Slashdot Mirror


A 60 Minutes Story on Gender Equality Accidentally Proved the Persistence of Patriarchy (qz.com)

Over at Quartz, Ephrat Livni reports that a 60 Minutes story about gender equality accidentally proved the persistence of patriarchy. Reader theodp shares the report: Good intentions are nice, but they aren't enough, the TV news show 60 Minutes recently proved. The show's producers apparently meant well when they decided to do a segment on women in technology and the gender gap, which aired on March 4. But they ended up punching women in the gut, as the founder and CEO of Girls Who Code, Reshma Saujani, puts it in her response to the segment. Ultimately, 60 Minutes featured a man, Code.org CEO Hadi Partovi. His [tech-backed] organization's mission is to expand access to computer science education in schools.

Women technologists like Saujani who were tapped to appear on the show about a year ago and worked with producers to provide research and interviews, ended up on the cutting room floor while Partovi spoke on their behalf. Here is the cruel irony: As a result, 60 Minutes' segment was accidentally exceptionally effective-it proved that women in tech really can't catch a break. [...] Ayah Bdeir, the founder of STEM learning toy company littleBits, also responded to the episode in a Medium post. She noted that she worked with 60 Minutes for a year, planning interviews, providing research, talking to the producers and reporters, telling her story and that of her organization, which is focused on closing the gender gap in technology. Yet producers wrote to her last August to say that the focus of the segment had shifted and that littleBits would no longer be central in the story. In an email, a producer explained to her, 'It's not that the important points you made in your interview are ignored in the story, or that you didn't make them very effectively, they're just made by others'.

11 of 529 comments (clear)

  1. I have a feeling there's more going on here... by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's be honest, this is about marketing. The interviewed people get named with their companies and their products, correct? How much do you want to bet someone just wanted to have their name front and center and paid a pretty penny for it?

    1. Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know 60 Minutes but from what I read it's a heavyweight long-form bit of journalism, meant to enlighten the viewer and maybe even push the discussion forward a bit by providing a forum to air views on the subject, as well as to investigate.

      So it's kinda sad that it's apparently failing so badly to do that. Society needs good journalism to inform and question and reveal, otherwise it's just partisans on soap boxes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Oh damn by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In an email, a producer explained to her, 'It's not that the important points you made in your interview are ignored in the story, or that you didn't make them very effectively, they're just made by others'.

    I'm not normally an activist type when it comes to women's rights, but that was pretty damn harsh.

    You know, speaking of 60 Minutes, someone should contact them about a good story they should investigate. It has to do with a periodical news show that tried to do a segment about gender equality but ended up offending women everywhere. Does anyone know a good producer over there that can explain the whole process to the women so it can get done right?

    1. Re:Oh damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not 60 Minutes, but I've done extensive work with NPR producing programs. Generally the reason someone ends up on cutting room floors (at least on radio) is that they sound bad. The tone or timber of their voice is grating, the pacing of their speech is off, their speech is loaded with ums and uhs, something like that. Not that I've worked in television, but I suspect the methodology is the same - an interviewee doesn't look photogenic, doesn't maintain eye contact with the camera or maintains a kind of psychopathic stare. At NPR we would often interview three or four people who said essentially the same thing, and picked the best one or two to air. The rest is dropped.

      And others have said this as well, but I suspect the real reason the CEO of Littlebits is upset is because she missed out on 3 or 4 minutes of free advertising (albeit with the 60 Minutes demographic, which I think is people over 60, so probably not her target audience anyway).

  3. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by green1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nurses are majority female, and there's no talk at all about encouraging more men to join that high paying profession.
    Paramedics are majority male (slim majority, not nearly the imbalance of nurses) and there's constant pressure to "fix" the situation.

    There's never pressure to get more women in to menial or low paying jobs, and there's never pressure to get more men in to any job. There's also no pressure to get more men to win custody battles, or to believe men who have been victims of domestic violence or sexual assault. There's also a gigantic funding difference in research to cure diseases that hit mainly women (i.e. breast cancer) vs those that hit mainly men (i.e. prostate cancer).

  4. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by malkavian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interestingly, under 30, the average pay of a woman is greater than the average pay of a male. This is left out of all the 'gap' stories, as it indicates exactly what the media don't want people perceiving; women aren't oppressed, they're actually doing rather better than average.

  5. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by Evtim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ha, dream on....

    Did you hear about the particle physics conference dedicated to gender equality (what?!?) where one of the attendants showed clearly by bibliometric data that women in physics are taken into positions with half the credentials of the male candidates. So not only there is no glass roof, but women are promoted unfairly against more competent males.

    Few days later 1600 cunts, most of them men, singed a petition called "Particles for justice"(LOL!) where they condemned "the dehumanization of women" apparently exhibited by that guy. Yes, in fact this is dehumanization as you look at the SCIENTIFIC credentials of the candidates, both male and female. Perefecly fine for males, unacceptable and dehumanizing for females....So what's the alternative? Look at their horoscope?

    BTW, there is nothing worse than a woman who is a dick and man who is a cunt! To"quote the great philosopher Sir Bronn of the Blackwater, "There is no cure for being a cunt".

  6. It doesn't, it's click bait by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a massive SJW backlash on the Internet right now. It's generating a ton of advert revenue. This is just more false controversy drummed up for clicks. Like the Captain Marvel/Rotten Tomatoes story. They're winding us up and sending us off to make money off our eyeballs.

    The same thing's been going on with the YouTube skeptic community. A bunch of skeptic channels I rather liked became 24/7 rants about SJWs and feminism because the anti-Homeopath and pro-vaccine stuff they were running wasn't paying the bills...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  7. Re: Does this mean.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Color-blindness doesn't help solve the problem of systemic oppression though

    Can you give examples of "systemic oppression" in recent decades? Didn't think so.

    t denies the insidious influence of white supremacy, heteronormativity, cissexism, etc. For diversity to be truly meaningful, it needs to actually fight against the oppressors and not just be complacent.

    Well, as a gay man, I find that my "oppressors" these days are found in the progressive movement, the social justice movement, and the Democratic party.

  8. Re: Does this mean.. by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Indeed people today in western majority-white countries are far less racist than other countries, it just happens to be more widely publicised because the media and/or authorities might actually do something about it.
    In many non white countries, racism simply happens and is part of daily life and you have no recourse against it whatsoever.
    It's also mostly white countries that have allowed mass immigration, and mostly white countries where immigrants can gain the same citizenship rights as those born locally.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  9. SJW propaganda by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I worked for a company back in the early 90s. Most of my fellow programmers were male, but a few of them were female. One of the ladies on my team decided that she wanted to get laid off for a severance check since she didn't really want to work anymore. She tried everything to be a part of the next round of 'reduction in force'. She came in late every day and went home early. She played games on her computer. She was behind on nearly all of her tasks. At the next 2 layoffs she was not among those picked to leave. Finally, she just quit without any severance because all her attempts failed. If I had tried even a tenth of the stunts she pulled, I would have been out on the street in a New York Minute.