Post: #1

#solidarityisforwhitewomen



http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/me...new-editor

The announcement two weeks ago that Emma Carmichael, editor of The Hairpin, will succeed Jessica Coen as editor-in-chief of Jezebel left some Jezebel staffers feeling conflicted—both happy for Carmichael and disappointed that management passed over deputy editor Dodai Stewart for the top job.

“I wouldn’t say that we’re unhappy with Emma at all, but...we had like a really optimal choice that they passed over,” one staffer, who asked to be quoted anonymously, told Capital.

Stewart is one of the few women of color on Jezebel’s masthead and the longest-serving staffer at the site, having been hired by founding editor Anna Holmes shortly after the site launched in 2007. In the past year, she has also assumed a larger role in running the site, three people familiar with the site's internal workings told Capital.

___________________________________________________

LOL. I'm trying to contain my mirth, but this is laugh out loud funny. A chick who's been down for the Jezebel cause for its entire life, gets tossed to the side for some chick that takes a decent pic.

I'm not surprised in the least, but I'm wondering who's going to call out Jezebel. Essence already got into the mix, but no one gives a fuck about what some minority mag has to say.

Will the established media say something? Or would that shine a light on their own poor practices.

WIA

Post: #2

I had meant to post about this.

The woman they chose is 25 years old. Never been affiliated with the site and comes from a sports background (Deadspin.com).

They sure look bad, especially after calling out those teens for racist Tweets a few years ago.

But more importantly, the Jezebel editor is the "public face" for the operation. It's important to look good and a thin white woman plays better to their audience than an overweight black one.

Did Gawker Media choose Emma Carmichael for her looks? That would be the ultimate irony (and a good Return of Kings headline).

Previous editor Jessica Coen (below) was camera-ready for talk shows and live panels. This is important to the Gawker folks.

Post: #3

Maybe Stewart grew too fat recently. Fat people are always regarded as less competitive no matter how much anti-fat-shaming campaigns are started.

Feminism has always been part of the control grid and who knows how well connected this Emma Carmichael is. You cannot really talk about a choice of merit with a 25-year-old. Certainly reaches the younger deluded demographic and fits the long-standing tradition of CIA-embedded journalists.

Post: #4

I don't know why, but this reminded me of:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-fin...st-m,2338/

Man Finally Put In Charge Of Struggling Feminist Movement

In all seriousness, based on that article, clearly Stewart is more qualified. She probably didn't complain enough. As someone who has worked with many feminist women, the biggest whiners usually get ahead, or at least to a point of middle management to placate them for a while.

Post: #5

Comment on the article:

Quote:Well. That sucks. Thought more of Jezebel than that.

Jezebel is a site for bored white girls in college, angry at the world but not sure why. Let one of their kind lead them.

Post: #6

Jezebel is a Gawker property, and Gawker and its gay proprietor will hire whoever will maximize profits. People, myself included, are more likely to click on articles with a cute chick's picture attached.

And the way Gawker runs things, they probably care more about how well you run and monetize a website than how passionate you are about the site's ethos. Manager over activist.

Assuming the same level of attractiveness, would Jezebel garner less engagement from white girl feminists with a black girl than with a white girl? Do white girl feminists have any racial affinity for their own?

Carmichael WB, Stewart WNB.

I'm sensing that Jezebel will become less stridently, overtly feminist. It already pretty much has - the few times I've looked at the front page, it came off as a dorkier, snarkier, more embittered Us Weekly with readers who think they're reading a literary journal.

Post: #7

I just found an article from May that champions Dodai Stewart and says she was the leading candidate for editor. They really must not have liked something about her to have passed her over.

From the article:
"Stewart acknowledged that she's talked to (Gawker contributor Maureen) O’Connor, Johnson about the job, and Johnson told Capital she'd make an excellent candidate."

O'Connor was tapped for the job but passed it up.

"Jezebel founding editor Anna Holmes, who worked with Stewart from June 2007 until June 2010, told Capital that Stewart would be a good choice for editor in chief."

So that means she also had a very public recommendation from the founding editor, with whom she helped get the site off the ground...almost ten years ago.

Other than this source, Capital New York, and the black media (Ebony, the Grio), no news media organization has written anything about this. Let's consider the morality of that.

Feminists in places like the Washington Post and Salon will drone on about how Robin Thicke's music is supposedly "rapey" and why men need to sit differently on the subway. But they won't come to the defense of a woman who helped create the very brand on which they built their own writing!

Source:
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/me...ai-stewart

Post: #8

(07-08-2014 08:08 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Feminists in places like the Washington Post and Salon will drone on about how Robin Thicke's music is supposedly "rapey" and why men need to sit differently on the subway. But they won't come to the defense of a woman who helped create the very brand on which they built their own writing!

And ruin their possibility of one day working for them?

Women are cowards.

Post: #9

First hashtag that came to mind assuming the infighting starts:

#keepworkingforthepatriarchy


EDIT: of course it's already started:

http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2014/07/j...d-website/

Post: #10

(07-08-2014 07:55 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Jezebel is a Gawker property, and Gawker and its gay proprietor will hire whoever will maximize profits. People, myself included, are more likely to click on articles with a cute chick's picture attached.

But they don't post the author's picture next to the stories. It's not XoJane.

Why do I even know that?

I want to take a second to blame this forum for my interest in this story.

~2 years ago? I couldn't give a damn about "those evil feminazis"

But because of YOU PEOPLE, I'm always one click away from either
- laughter
- face palming

Endless entertainment....It's worse than 2048

(07-08-2014 07:55 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Assuming the same level of attractiveness, would Jezebel garner less engagement from white girl feminists with a black girl than with a white girl? Do white girl feminists have any racial affinity for their own?

I think that's obvious.

White girls relate more to other white girls.
Especially the privileged one.

That whole "lonely black woman in my yoga class" post from earlier this year, where skinny white girl is "concerned" about some anonymous black girl being the only speck of pepper in the cream gravy of upper class white "exercise"....

(07-08-2014 07:55 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Carmichael WB, Stewart WNB.

I'm sensing that Jezebel will become less stridently, overtly feminist. It already pretty much has - the few times I've looked at the front page, it came off as a dorkier, snarkier, more embittered Us Weekly with readers who think they're reading a literary journal.

I don't think there's too much relationship between a girl's hotness and whether or not she adheres to the tenets of Feminism.

The homey Rollo would posit that the Feminine Imperative allows for a hot chick to take advantages from anywhere they come. That's what i've seen. Feminist to get the job, play damsel in distress when it comes time to do the work.

I wonder if this drives a wedge between
- the gay owner (who I believe is dating/engaged to a black guy)
- white girl feminists
- black girl feminists

WIA

Post: #11

I think a return of kings article aimed at Jezebels blatant racism is in order.

Post: #12

This actually gets worse the deeper you look.

Turns out Dodai Stewart's Jezebel essays have been reprinted in at least two books and she's also been published in the New York Times.

Her work at Jezebel has also been quoted virtually everywhere, including the Washington Post.

She's also done some TV work for them as well (see photo), appearing on CNN to be interviewed. I've worked in media; they don't pay you extra for this -- you do it because you're going the extra mile.



I'm making sure to get this all in writing in case she employs a lawyer to sue Gawker, that way the legal team can have it all in one place if he's doing Web searches on this. Plus, this puts it in the permanent Google record. (I'll mention here I did a quickie search -- who knows what else is out there?)

I could not think of a company I'd like to see tainted by charges of racism more than Gawker. If it's not racism it's cronyism -- or something -- but it looks like Stewart was so much more qualified for this position than Emma Carmichael it's laughable.

Post: #13

This is great news to me. We need more feminists kicking black women to the curb...God knows our community has been far too plagued by it, arguably more than other communities.

Post: #14

But qualifications don't really matter, it's Jezebel for crying out loud. Just run a bunch of pieces on hot celebrities, more articles about why X/Y/Z is racist, sexist or something and some articles on "OMG, check out this cute video of a cat taking a shit in a litterbox."

I think part of reason the white girl got picked was to inspire young, college-age women to aspire to write articles for Jezebel for free. Gawker gets a lot of its content produced by poorly paid writers that they toss out on rotation. I've looked through archives of the site and it looks like some writers only hang around for a year or so before they never write another article.

Further, no young girl aspires to be a chubby, fairly unattractive black chick approaching 40 with no boyfriend or husband. Stewart's life is exactly what Jezebel wants to avoid promoting to their demo: a careerist who isn't pretty and feminine and with no identifiable love life.

Sure, the readers want to have a career (creative, fun and empowering!) but they also want to have an exciting love life. A portly black woman doesn't suggest at all exciting, romantic nights or steamy sack sessions.

We are talking about media here: you want to succeed? Be good-looking. Don't be old.

Post: #15

"If it's not racism it's cronyism -- or something -- but it looks like Stewart was so much more qualified for this position than Emma Carmichael it's laughable."

Qualified to do what? Appeal to the Jezebel faithful? If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense.

It's not surprising that some feminists are crying racism - they cried sexism when the difference in earnings between men and women is discussed. There are simple reasons why men earn more, and there are probably simple reasons why Dodai was not selected. The idea that Gawker and co hate black women enough to risk their profits, and thus passed on Stewart, is a silly and superstitious charge in the absence of supporting evidence. Is Gawker willing to pass on a black feminist chick in the name of money? Sure, but that isn't racism.

Post: #16

^^^

Yes, appeal to the Jezebel faithful. Exactly. She's been there from the beginning and helped build that following. Even if the site is all about cat videos and the like, she helped establish that brand.

2Wycked: "But qualifications don't really matter, it's Jezebel for crying out loud."

Gawker is a media company. You might not take what they do seriously, but they pay their editors and have a lot of readers, so a lot of other people do. If a media company like CBS did this, they'd be staring down a lawsuit; so should Gawker. The product isn't the point. They could be making widgets.

"The idea that Gawker and co hate black women enough to risk their profits, and thus passed on Stewart, is a silly and superstitious charge in the absence of supporting evidence."

Never said they "hated" black women. Only that they passed up one specific black woman who helped establish the site in favor of a 25-year-old who didn't and who has scads less experience. Nothing "silly" about that. I gathered quite a bit of supporting evidence as to why Stewart was more qualified.

And this is not the same as Jezebel whining "men earn more!" because this is not a general, ideologically-based issue. This is an issue about two specific candidates for a job.

From my vantage point, it seems the qualified one was passed over. She happens to be black. If I'm wrong, I hope they have a good reason for their decision, esp. if they have to tell it to a jury. Out in the real world when you pull that, you get hit with a lawsuit. Having worked with these types of media people, I know they give jobs first and foremost to their friends. Fine. But when you pull that and there is a minority you screwed, it's perceived as racism. Might not have been their intent, but they left themselves wide open to the charge.

"Further, no young girl aspires to be a chubby, fairly unattractive black chick approaching 40 with no boyfriend or husband. Stewart's life is exactly what Jezebel wants to avoid promoting to their demo: a careerist who isn't pretty and feminine and with no identifiable love life."

This would also be a good argument for not giving Oprah a TV show. Or Wendy Williams. Women don't have to be exactly like the women in media they follow. In fact, some white women like the idea of a minority woman advising them, if Oprah's ratings were any indication (and granted, print and the Web are different than TV, but the general idea is the same).

Finally, if "youth" and "looks" matter, they can be taken to court for discrimination, at least for the first. Again, nothing would please me more than having Gawker's dirty laundry splayed all over media land.

It doesn't matter if we agree with the laws or like their product. If the Post and the Times have to play by the rules, so should Gawker.

Post: #17

"From my vantage point, it seems the qualified one was passed over. She happens to be black. If I'm wrong, I hope they have a good reason for their decision, esp. if they have to tell it to a jury. Out in the real world when you pull that, you get hit with a lawsuit. "

'Qualification' is measured in clicks and views. This is the same web network that published pictures of Treyvon Martin's corpse. You're treating the editorial position of Jezebel like it's an academic professorship at a non-profit university, or the head of a literary journal. The position might as well be the executive of a publicly traded company, except with views and clicks as the prime concern instead of oscillating stock prices.

Post: #18

Further, no young girl aspires to be a chubby, fairly unattractive black chick approaching 40 with no boyfriend or husband. Stewart's life is exactly what Jezebel wants to avoid promoting to their demo: a careerist who isn't pretty and feminine and with no identifiable love life.

Lindy West is perhaps their most popular writer!

In all seriousness, I think their demo certainly does include chubby, unattractive chicks. Jezebel (and feminism itself) couldn't survive without em.

Post: #19

How smart are you?

from an article titled "8 Signs You’re About To Hire The Wrong Person"

_________________________________________________________
6. They want to move up the ladder too quickly. When you ask the candidate about their career goals, they say they expect to be promoted to vice president within the next few years. But you know your company’s career trajectories aren’t quite so linear and that people don't usually advance until someone retires. Recognize that at some point in the near future, this person is going to feel held back and is likely to become disengaged.
__________________________________________________________

1) cut and paste or highlight the offending sentences
2) explain what exactly is wrong with them

3) *this is where the magic happens*

WIA

Post: #20

Does anyone have that behind the scenes photo of Jezebel's entirely male programming staff?

Post: #21

Not sure what WIA's beef is with this. Jezebel is a site catering to a market (internet feminists in America) that is something like 80% white. It was originally founded by a white woman. I just don't see why appointing a minority "CEO" is the only right, just course of action and the move to bring on a "random white girl" is some kind of attack of the cosmic balance that must be called out. The tenure argument is completely irrelevant. Only very, very, VERY poorly run organizations make decisions regarding executive level management based primarily on tenure. In any case, the "random white girl" in question was selected over not just a black women with more tenure but many many white women with more tenure as well so its a moot point.

Post: #22

(07-08-2014 06:34 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Maybe Stewart grew too fat recently. Fat people are always regarded as less competitive no matter how much anti-fat-shaming campaigns are started.

Feminism has always been part of the control grid and who knows how well connected this Emma Carmichael is. You cannot really talk about a choice of merit with a 25-year-old. Certainly reaches the younger deluded demographic and fits the long-standing tradition of CIA-embedded journalists.

Post: #23

Recent article by the new head of Jezebel:

http://deadspin.com/5831225/dropping-in-...e-juggalos

I'm just gonna leave this here.

Post: #24

(07-09-2014 10:30 AM)runsonmagic Wrote:  Recent article by the new head of Jezebel:

http://deadspin.com/5831225/dropping-in-...e-juggalos

I'm just gonna leave this here.

Heh - that is a far cry from Gloria Steinem

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fem...lly-hurts/
http://www.rense.com/general21/hw.htm

Feminism is already so far ingrained in society, that a smarter pretty party-girl is probably enough to not put off the young sluts, who might reconsider, when seeing the real face of feminism - fat barren existence of career women and dykes who hate both men and feminity itself.

Post: #25

(07-09-2014 10:48 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Heh - that is a far cry from Gloria Steinem

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fem...lly-hurts/
http://www.rense.com/general21/hw.htm

Feminism is already so far ingrained in society, that a smarter pretty party-girl is probably enough to not put off the young sluts, who might reconsider, when seeing the real face of feminism - fat barren existence of career women and dykes who hate both men and feminity itself.

Very well said.

I got in an argument (more that my friend's gf got mad at me) the other day when they wanted to meet me for dinner, but it had to be at a time that worked for them (her) and a place of their (her) choosing. I offered to meet somewhere everyone would enjoy and was convenient for everyone. Not only was that out of the question, but they couldn't understand why I wouldn't just meet their demands.

I know this all sounds silly, and it is, but it is typical in that a woman's demands can't even be questioned now or the man is being an asshole.