It was apparent that sexism at the Oscars was going to be a huge morning-after conversation when, less than two hours into the broadcast, Buzzfeed posted a list of “6 Sexist Things That Have Already Happened At The Oscars” (later amended to “9 Sexist Things”). Shortly thereafter, New York Magazine’s The Cut offered “Seth MacFarlane's Sexist Jokes, Transcribed.”

Slate’s movie critic Dana Stevens, in her review of the show, wrote that despite the show’s theme—“a defensive anxiety about the ascendant power of women”— it “was a night dominated by a trio of powerful, glittering, seemingly indomitable women.”

But the key word there is seemingly.

It’s clear it was the women who rocked the broadcast awards, from Adele to Jennifer Hudson to Michelle Obama. But when the time came to hand out statuettes, it was still the men who took home all the prizes.

Across 19 categories, 140 men were nominated for awards versus 35 women. In the end, just seven women took home non-acting Oscars. (Women won in categories for Animated Feature Film, Documentary Short, Costume Design, Makeup and Hairstyling, Sound Editing and Music, Original Song.)

It would have been great if all 35 women nominated had taken home prizes, but even that still wouldn’t have fixed the huge imbalance in the nominations. For that, we have to look deeper at the structure of Hollywood, of which the Academy Awards are really just a snapshot.

As we noted in our newly released Status of Women in the U.S. Media 2013 report, exactly how women’s voices are missing in nearly all the behind-the-scenes positions in Hollywood feature films – as writers, as editors, as cinematographers. Women were only nine percent of directors of the 250 top-grossing domestic films of 2012. Says Martha M. Lauzen, executive director of Center for the Study of Women in Television & Film, which releases an annual “Celluloid Ceiling” report, “[the] director role is traditionally the most male role. With narrative films, whether they are independently produced or produced by a studio, there is still that celluloid ceiling women have to overcome.”

Women do represent a larger share of directors when it comes to independent films particularly on documentaries where, according to a study of high-profile film festivals, women made up 39 percent of documentary directors.

But when it comes to narrative films – which where most of Hollywood’s attention lies – there is still a gap for women directors. According to the same study of film festivals women accounted for only 18 percent of directors of narrative films.

Is it simply a lack of experience that is keeping women out of the director’s chair? It’s not as if resumes keep men from being given keys to big budget films. As Women’s Media Center Co-Founder Jane Fonda recently remarked on Women’s Media Center Live with Robin Morgan, director Marc Webb made a low-budget film, (500) Days of Summer, and then was given a budget of $230 million to make The Amazing Spiderman, while Rupert Sanders had no prior feature film experience before directing the $170-million Snow White and the Huntsman.

As Robin Morgan says, the “director's chair is perceived as a place of command and control”—and studios seem to mostly perceive that role as reserved for men.

But what’s interesting is that female directors bring more women into behind-the-scenes positions. Sundance Institute and Women in Film commissioned Stacy Smith, Ph.D. and University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism for a report, Exploring the Barriers and Opportunities for Independent Women Filmmakers. They found female directors facilitate behind-the-camera equality. When compared to films directed by men, those directed by women feature more women content creators (writers, producers, cinematographers, editors) behind the camera. This is true in both narratives and documentaries.

So when we finally get to the Oscar night and find seven categories (including Directing, Cinematography, and Writing, original screenplay) that have no women nominated and five with exactly one woman nominated, we’ve come to the culmination of a long process of women’s voices being squeezed out, ignored, or entirely missing from production of some of our most influential cultural products.

This could be why the Academy Awards sees nothing wrong with picking a host who starts off the night with a joke about actresses’ breasts, makes an 9-year-old in the audience the subject of sexual innuendo, and tags a movie about a dedicated female CIA officer with an eye-roll-inducing joke direct from 1950 about how women “never let anything go.”

Normally, sexism in Hollywood hides beneath the surface, but during last’s night Oscars we got to see it on full display—a solid reminder how our sexist media culture works. Hollywood is organized by power, and the Academy Awards are a reflection of that: white men on top, women and people of color at the bottom.

It’s telling that the Academy might not even think a lack of viewpoint diversity is a problem for them. During last year’s Oscars season, the Los Angeles Times quoted the now-late Frank Pierson, a governor and former president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, as stating, “I don’t see any reason why the academy should represent the entire American population . . . We represent the professional filmmakers, and if that doesn’t reflect the general population, so be it.”

Still, it seems that drumbeat about the lack of women behind the camera is getting louder. Reports like The Status of the Women in the U.S. Media, Celluloid Ceiling and Exploring the Barriers and Opportunities for Independent Women Filmmakers have been making more and more people aware of the lack of women’s voices in Hollywood films. Meanwhile, during the Oscars, many other people joined our conversation at #OscarWomen on Twitter, or started their own talk about sexism, racism, and homophobia in Hollywood and in the Oscars broadcast itself. The almost instantaneous critique of sexist and other offensive commentary during the broadcast from all quarters is a good sign that change is on its way.

When the audience speaks up, Hollywood will listen. The 2014 Academy Awards show can have a less sexist host (and here, at last, we agree with Seth MacFarlane: why can’t Tina and Amy host everything?) but we’re also hoping the 2014 awards will have more women overall.

What is a radio host’s responsibility when their guest crosses a line? More to the point, what should a radio host do when their guest suddenly calls a U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz a “seditious whore?” Should they remark that the comment is out of line or should they essentially ignore it and move on?

The latter is what happened on Voice of Russia American Edition on Monday, January 29. (Voice of Russia, is heard on AM 1390 Washington, DC; AM 1430 New York City; and 99.9 HD-2 Miami, FL).

Host Rob Sachs had on Andrew Auernheimer, an internet “hacktivist” to discuss the suicide of Aaron Swartz, co-founder of Reddit and co-creator of RSS, who had been charged by the federal government for unauthorized downloading of academic journal articles from JSTOR, in what many believed constituted a case of overzealous prosecution by Ortiz.

Auernheimer said on the program (at the 4:25 mark):

I think it’s quite ironic that [Carmen] Ortiz, who tried to steal a man’s motel business because she thought he was weak, has comments like that to make about respect for property. I think she’s a seditious whore.

To which Host Rob Sachs merely stammered: “Okay. Well, getting…apart from that…”

We’re not unsympathetic to those that believe the government’s treatment of Swartz was wrong. But, regardless of those strong feelings, using certain epithets, like whore, hurts of the standing of all women.

A radio host has a responsibility when a guest crosses the line. The correct and proper response is to call attention to the unfair term.  The host doesn't have to "win the point" by engaging in a debate of whether that’s acceptable, but they certainly must not let it stand.

Sachs could have said, "I'm surprised to hear you say that."  Or even "I don't know how to respond," or  "I'm speechless at that."

Sachs fell down on the job by glossing over the gross insult. It's no different than hearing any truly off-color statement from a guest where he might say, "I don't agree,” or “I don't think that's true.” He shouldn’t have let Auernheimer’s comment slide by without an appropriate reaction.

We understand that any program host might be surprised by what their guests say. But part of being a host is being able to react, and interact, with their guests. Being caught off guard isn’t an excuse for failing to react when a guest crosses a line.

The nominees for the 85th Academy Awards are out this morning and once again it’s women who’ve been left out of the picture.

Across 19 categories 140 men were nominated for awards versus 35 women.**  This year there are no female nominees for Directing, Cinematography, Film Editing, Writing (Original Screenplay) or Music (Original Score). The single woman nominated for a writing award, for best adapted screenplay, is Lucy Alibar for Beasts of the Southern Wild, who shares credit with Benhn Zeitlin (who’s also been nominated for Best Director). 

Awards nominees provide a “snapshot” of the film industry, and the image that emerges is one where men fill all of the top roles, and most of the other positions as well. Click here to compare how the ratios stacked up last year.

Academy Award Categories with No Women Nominated*

Directing (Number of Men Nominated: 5)
Number of women nominated last year: 0

Cinematography (Number of Men Nominated: 5)
Number of women nominated last year: 0

Writing, original screenplay (Number of Men Nominated: 5)
Number of women nominated last year: 2

Film Editing (Number of Men Nominated: 7)
Number of women nominated last year: 2

Music, original score (Number of Men Nominated: 5
Number of women nominated last year: 0

Visual Effects (Number of Men Nominated: 20)
Number of women nominated last year: 0

Sound Mixing (Number of Men Nominated: 15)
Number of women nominated last year: 1

Academy Award Categories with Exactly 1 Woman Nominated

Writing, adapted screenplay (Number of Men Nominated: 5)
Number of women nominated last year: 1

Animated Feature Film (Number of Men Nominated: 6)
Number of women nominated last year: 1

Sound Editing (Number of Men Nominated: 7)
Number of women nominated last year: 1

Short Film, live action (Number of Men Nominated: 7)
Number of women nominated last year: 2

Short Film, animated (Number of Men Nominated: 4)
Number of women nominated last year: 3

Academy Award Categories with 2 or More Women Nominated

Best Picture: 8 women nominated, 16 men
Documentary, short subject: 5 women nominated, 5 men
Documentary, feature: 3 women nominated, 8 men
Makeup & Hairstyling: 3 women nominated, 5 men
Production Design: 5 women nominated, 6 men
Music, original song: 2 women nominated, 8 men
Costume Design: 4 women nominated, 1 man

*As of 1 pm 1/10/13 under some categories the Academy Awards currently list TBA under the names nominated. This is why the nominees for Documentary Feature are not listed at this time. We will update the figures when the Academy Awards releases the names for that category. Numbers reflect all people mentioned in nomination, including multiple names for same film.

** Updated 1/30/13 to include figures for Documentary Feature.

The numbers come from a selection of 35 influential newspapers from across the country. Today we wanted to share some of the byline breakdowns for individual newspapers. The numbers reflect only news reports and excludes blogs and opinion columns. For any article with two bylines, the gender of the first name was coded for the entire article.

Click the image to enlarge:

Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, in an interview for St. Louis’s KTVI, said something nearly every functioning adult understands to be inaccurate, that women “rarely” conceive from “legitimate rape” because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

It’s a statement so bizarre and inaccurate that even the original interviewer has acknowledged it was a mistake not to follow up during the interview.

In the first day of stories surrounding Akin’s remarks it seems some reporters were so eager to talk about the political fallout that they never got around to even mentioning it wasn’t true. (Some reporters, although not all. A standout example is The Washington Post’s coverage which not only spelled out that the science is closed on this issue, but put Akin’s comments in context of others who have said similar things.)

But too often the initial reporting was similar to NPR’s “Morning Edition,” which only said that “journalists and bloggers” were asking which doctors Akin’s got his facts from? Rather than using their own reporting or authority to correct the inaccuracy, “Morning Edition” instead punted to the Washington Post which they said “cited a study that tens of thousands of women become pregnant through rape each year.”

An Associated Press story by Jim Salter quotes Akin, but never explicitly says his views are inaccurate. Relying instead on a quote from Mitt Romney as the only refutation of Akin’s misguided beliefs in how biology works. 

The New York Times story “Senate Candidate Provokes Ire With ‘Legitimate Rape’ Comment” manages to squeeze in that the remarks “provoked howls of outrage from Democrats and women’s rights organizations” (“howls” seems to be code for “it’s politically expedient to for them to be upset”), but no mention at all that Akin’s views are flat out wrong.

Most GOP-connected media pundits, or at least the ones not running for office, also seemed to have little interest correcting the misconception, instead complaining the “outrage” over the remarks is already greater than their offense.

But shouldn’t the public expect more clarity and accuracy from so-called legacy media? There’s no wiggle room on this, just like the earth isn’t flat and the sun doesn’t rise in the West, women can and do get pregnant from rape. Reporters have studies to back them up on this if they need it, but anyone with a functioning grasp of biology or world history already knows this.

The most boneheaded response from a non-politically connected media personality was probably Politico reporter David Catanese, whose initial reaction wasn’t to point out how wrong Akin was but have a debate about what he might have meant, like maybe some rapes aren’t “real.” What’s the science, he asks, on real rapes not causing pregnancy? The population of Twitter seemed to get mightily offended that Catanese wanted to show how everyone was just misunderstanding Akin’s actual words. For a short while Catanese tried to argue that he was just talking about a narrow point (real rape verses those-who-lie-about-rape?) and folks were unfairly getting angry at him. He tweeted back that “The left is often 1st to shut down debate as ‘off limits’ when it deems so” and “So perhaps some can agree that all rapes that are reported are not actually rapes? Or are we gonna really deny that for PC sake?”

By the next morning however, Catanese gave up fighting about it, although with a statement that seemed to blame everyone’s response when he just wanted to have “nuanced conversation on highly charged issue on here.” Subsequently a public memo from Politico editor-in-chief John Harris, said that Catanese "crossed a line a reporter shouldn't cross on Twitter” requiring that they remove him from further Akin coverage.

If Monday’s news is any judge this story looks like it has legs. While it’s good to see some follow-up reporting, including Politico’s, have spent time debunking the inaccuracy, it’s still sad that in the initial reporting correcting flat-out inaccuracies, even in passing, wasn’t in many reporters’ stories. This should have been an easy call since it’s both easily debunked and widely accepted that women can get pregnant from rape.

Of course, while most people on the planet accept that fact, and Akin has since clarified that when he said “legitimate rape” he meant “forcible rape” – whatever that’s supposed to mean – his view is hardly unique. Dave Weigel of Slate mentions that Bryan Fischer from American Family Association took to Twitter to defend Akin and linked to a 1999 essay from the former president of the National Right to Life Committee that seems to hold the same belief as Akin.

Strange as it sounds, some people (apparently including someone who's been a member of the House of Representatives since 2001) do believe this is how biology works. If news reporters can’t bother to correct the record even once, then they should understand how such attitudes fester and sometimes become the unspoken basis for bills regarding rape victims.

Mitchell quotes Women's Media Center's Name It. Change It. project's blog:

Since her debut in the political arena, Elizabeth Warren has been a lightning rod for media attention from both supporters and oppenents. However, there comes a time when it is vital to draw distinctions between the legitimate commentary she receives based on her politics and the repeated attacks launched against her because of her age and gender.

However, Mitchell suggests that if the Herald thinks it's hurting Warren's candidacy, it may be barking up the wrong tree:

But sexism, indeed, might work in Warren's favor, given the usual breakdown of voters in the state, meaning more than half are women.  Far more effective will be constructing a class divide, which the Herald works even harder at.

We would like to think that the Herald's sexism would backfire but we have yet to see any evidence that it does anything but make everyone involved look bad. This is why calling out sexism, and making it recognizable as such, is so important.

Read Mitchell's full column at The Nation's blog, and for more media monitoring of sexist coverage of female political candidates, visit the Name It. Change It. site.

Says Gloria, "Women's physical appearance and their sexuality is so often the first thing that you hear about, before you hear about what they believe about issues, or how they've voted on important legislation... We heard about Hillary's ankles, her turquoise pantsuit, we heard about her hair, we heard about her cleavage, but how much did we hear about what she really thought about the issues. That's the thing."

ARNN co-host Molly Paige responds, "That's true, you really never hear about Mitt Romney's ankles."

You can listen to the entire clip at ARNN's website.

In the wake of the House passing the Cantor/Adams version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization – a version which fails to extent protections against domestic violence to immigrant, Native American and same sex communities – it should come as little surprise that Fox News and some conservatives are hard at work minimizing and misrepresenting the issue.

Fox News anchor Jon Scott said on Wednesday that it was a “slippery slope” to extending protection against domestic violence to immigrant communities because it “could apply to all kinds of other laws.”

Meanwhile his guest, Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan, said “it started out as the Violence Against Women Act -- violence against women. It has nothing to do with undocumented workers, Native Americans, nor gays and lesbians” which ignores the history of the bill.

As Michelle Kinsey Bruns wrote last month, “The 2005 VAWA reauthorization specifically instructed agencies operating with VAWA funds to gather data to identify which demographic groups who were most urgently in need of the services funded by the Act.”

The agencies gathered their data that told them that immigrant, Native American and same sex group were urgently in need of such services.

Of course it’s not just Fox News that was misrepresenting the need for the bill. Columnist S.E. Cupp on MSNBC’s Now with Alex Wagner said the bill was unnecessary and “redundant.”

Funny but law enforcement as well as whole lot of organizations that have more insight into domestic violence than S.E. Cupp don’t seem to think so.

As Feminist Majority points out, “some 200 law enforcement agencies as well as more than 300 women's rights, human rights, civil rights, religious organizations and victim advocacy groups vigorously opposed [the Cantor/Adams version of the bill].”

Media Matters also cites a letter voicing opposition to the bill, where police officials write that it will "undermine our work as police officers in successfully apprehending criminals” and “will turn back the clock on over seventeen years' of progress made by law enforcement in reducing violence against women and children in our communities…”

Maybe it’s easy for Fox News hosts to ask “why not just pass the simpler House version?” because it seems they don’t want to ask how much domestic violence should we accept amongst marginalized populations.

Here are some of the details they chose to publish:

She was 25 and curvaceous, and she often drew admiring glances in the gritty Brooklyn neighborhood where she was known to invite men for visits to her apartment, her neighbors and the authorities said.

Oscar Hernandez, 30, a mechanic, said she had had some of her ribs removed in an effort to slim her waist.

“For a man, he was gorgeous…” “hourglass figure.”

A debris pile outside the apartment, which is above a funeral home, contained many colorful items. Among them were wigs, women’s shoes, coins from around the world, makeup, hair spray, handbags, a shopping bag from Spandex House, a red feather boa and a pamphlet on how to quit smoking.

The article uses Escalera’s private life as fodder for a sensationalized news bit, relying primarily on the rubbernecking shock value of her gender identification, but refusing to identify her as a trans woman. Baker and Schweber use the term “transgender” only once in the article, to describe the performance group Escalera worked for. When referring to Escalera herself, Baker and Schweber write that she was “called Lorena” and “according to neighbors, she was born male.”

Baker and Schweber do not explicitly state that Escalera worked in the sex industry, but they certainly insinuate it.

Gary Hernandez, 25, a neighbor, said that Ms. Escalera had worked as an escort and that he regularly saw her advertising her service on an adult Web site.
“She was always on her laptop posting ads about herself,” said Mr. Hernandez (who is not related to Oscar Hernandez). “Still, she was a nice person.”

Escalera’s identity as a transgender woman made her especially vulnerable to marginalization, and we are disappointed and outraged at the New York Times for perpetuating the dehumanization of trans individuals even after Escalera’s death. Baker and Schweber’s implicit marking of Escalera as a sex worker appears to have further justified their overt sexualization of her in this piece.

We are reminded of the victim blaming that followed Guinean-born Nafissatou Diallo’s allegations of sexual assault by Former Director of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Nafissatou’s status as a foreign-born woman of color working in the service industry prompted many mainstream media outlets to blame her for her own victimization. Similarly, coverage of the NYPD rape trial last year was ripe with victim-blaming descriptions of how much the defendant had had to drink the night of her attack; CBS reporter Lara Logan was said to have invited her own sexual assault in Tahrir Square because she’d once shown cleavage at an awards dinner; and even an eleven-year-old girl gang-raped in Texas was the target of victim-blaming after her brutal assault.

No one, regardless of sex, race, gender identification, or profession, deserves to be treated as anything less than human by our media.

For more resources, check out the Colorlines, TransFeminism, GLAAD, Feministing, and Transgender activist Autumn Sandeen, who have called out the New York Times for this exploitative and biased reporting. 

Check out the “report” from CBS New York, a local affiliate. The headline “Many Women Would Trade IQ Points For Bigger Breasts” (the video, broadcast on April 9, below must be seen to be believed.)

What is the basis for the story? The report says a “leading consumer website” released a survey that found 41 percent of 18 to 25 year old women would rather have larger breasts to more intelligence.

But the website in question turns out to be the link-bait generator CouponCodes4u.com and the “survey” is an “unscientific, online survey.” Meaning they could have polled four women in their building and it would have been just as accurate. But considering we can’t even find the original “survey” anymore we highly doubt there were even unscientific numbers to trust.

Women’s Media Center staff called CBS 2 New York and asked where the idea for the piece came from. They cited a New York Post column by Andrea Peyser, who does, at the very end of her April 9 column, talk about CouponCodes4u’s survey. But Peyser doesn’t even mention it’s a meaningless “survey” from a completely untrustworthy website and instead uses the so-called “results” to make herself feel superior to the supposed 41 percent of women who would trade bigger breasts for brains.

We’re left scratching our heads how a meaningless “survey” from a link-bait website first earned a mention from a New York Post columnist and then went through another editorial process (that clearly included multiple decision-makers) where it was decided that it was newsworthy enough to devote two and a half minutes of broadcast airtime to discuss this bogus report.  The next time we see a news curmudgeon tut-tutting that college kids get their news from The Daily Show, we’re going to send them this link to demonstrate exactly what counts as “newsworthy” for a New York affiliate of CBS.   

These kind of ridiculous “news” pieces not only waste viewers’ time, but is also pushes the idea that “women are stupid" for everyone's amusement. It’s no wonder that nearly every actual women CBS 2 reporter Emily Smith spoke with could hardly believe the question was being asked.

On Saturday morning a friend and I were engaging in a bit of thought-experiment: If Rush Limbaugh actually felt like he had crossed a line with his three days of remarks about Sandra Fluke, what would a truly repentant person do in this case? Promising never to use such misogynist language again would be de rigueur of course, but what other steps would a truly repentant media personality take?

If he truly was sorry, we decided, Limbaugh would first personally call Sandra Fluke and profusely apologize. He would not try to mitigate or explain anyway any of his behavior. He would say he was absolutely in the wrong to call her and any woman a slut and a prostitute, or suggest that they post sex videos of themselves online, and all of the long string of items he said about Fluke, the women of Georgetown University, and any woman who merely asks that her prescription birth control be covered by her health insurance provider.

He would also have to make a donation to an organization that provide free or low-income birth control for women who truly can’t afford it, like say, Planned Parenthood, because he would now understand that as a very rich white man, perhaps he’s not in a position to understand what women, both poor and low-income, can afford to spend on their health care.

He would also make a public apology on his show where he’d explain why he knows what he said, repeatedly, was misogynist and hurtful to all women. He would invite Sandra Fluke to be on his show as well to explain to his audience the points she was making to Congress. If Fluke declined then he would reach out to another organization to find an advocate who would be happy to make that point. It’s a free country, Limbaugh still doesn’t have to agree with Fluke’s politics, but in his responsibility as a citizen, and a person with a prominent position in the media, is expected not to try to damage civil society with dialogue that goes beyond hurtful to dehumanizing of women.

Limbaugh didn’t just “call Fluke names,” he ultimately was trying to declassify her standing as a person with normal human rights. The “W” word as I like to call it, (whore) and its synonyms dehumanize women. Describing women, especially women who are simply making argument with which you disagree, in sexual or sexualized terms, not only demeans them but all women. Using such terms, especially in a public forum for hours a day --- as Limbaugh did – spreads this poison out to society that it’s acceptable to put down women using these terms.

Sexism, and open misogyny like Limbaugh’s, is harmful to society, not just to the women like Fluke, to whom the words are directed. Because the public sexism on his radio show is demonstrating to society how everyone can treat women, like garbage. Explaining this innate harm sexism causes to society is why the Women’s Media Center speaks out so strongly against it.

Of course, I told my friend on Saturday morning, Limbaugh would never go through all that to show he was actually contrite. “Instead he’ll probably issue some lame half-hearted apology, probably on Monday,” I said.

I was off on my prediction only by when it would come. On Saturday night a “lame half-hearted” apology appeared on RushLimbaugh.com.

In a statement of 192 words long Limbaugh uses only 55 words to say he was sorry and the other 137 to continue to argue that he’s actually right (just not about those particular words). He demonstrates no understanding of why what he did was wrong or even promise he’ll try not to do it again in the future. This apparently is on par with how Limbaugh “apologizes” in the rare times he ever feels the need to even slightly take back something he’s said.

No one, not Limbaugh’s sponsors, not the media, not women, should feel this “apology” suffices. Limbaugh, I’m sure, thinks that now he’s said the requisite minimum number of words (apparently 55), we can all calm down and his life can return to normal. I’m sorry Rush but this is not what’s going to happen.

Just last week when the Women’s Media Center reported a sports anchor in San Diego called NASCAR driver Danica Patrick a “bitch” on-air, he at least was suspended a week without pay to demonstrate how seriously the station took the incident. There were actual consequences. Limbaugh spent three days spewing the most vile words about Sandra Fluke and he thinks 55 words of “I’m sorry” posted on his website are enough?

If Limbaugh had followed my steps to show contrition, he might -- just barely -- be able to win back some of his advertisers (and of course he would have to not spew sexism anymore). But his actions demonstrate that he shows no understanding at all of the situation, and any advertiser, current or potentially future, should look at his behavior and ask themselves if they want to sponsor a person who dehumanizes half the population of the world with his hateful rhetoric? Because while what Limbaugh says is reflective of him, when an advertiser continues to sponsor a program like his, after reviewing this incident, continued sponsorship becomes reflective of the sponsor’s beliefs that dehumanizing women with sexism is acceptable to them.

At the beginning of each year, most of us consider changes we would like to make in our personal lives. I decided to bypass the usual weight and fitness resolutions and focus on institutions I’d like to change. The list is long, but I have prioritized mass-market advertisements because they are pervasive and have the power to shape viewers’ attitudes toward much more than the products they are promoting.

I hope after reading this piece, you will join me in a campaign to improve advertisers’ practices.

My particular concern relates to advertisements that objectify women. If a woman is objectified, she is made less than human. Once she is less than human, violence towards her becomes more acceptable.

The hallmarks of objectification include: (1) interchangeability; (2) reduction to appearance; (3) being an instrument for someone else’s purpose; (4) inertness or passivity; and (5) capacity to being violated or lacking bodily integrity.

Many current advertisements meet most, if not all, of these criteria. Consider this promotion:

Because we do not see the woman’s face, she is fully interchangeable with another well-portioned model. She has been reduced to her appearance with her body used as a display platform, an instrument. Her pose is a passive and vulnerable one.

The advertisements below take objectification further by dismembering the models in addition to containing the other characteristics described above.

A woman who is objectified becomes something and ceases to be someone. She has no autonomy, much less inherent value. She is a thing to be used, abused, and discarded as a man chooses.

If that seems extreme, consider advertisements that portray violence against women or the death of women, showing just their corpses.

Advertisements depicting violence against women are harmful for several reasons. One is that they may be seen as mocking the serious consequences of violence. Another is the possibility that the scenes will inspire a copycat to re-enact them. Most damaging is their message that violence against women is acceptable.

Andrea Dworkin stated that “pornography functions to perpetuate male supremacy and crimes of violence because it conditions, trains, educates, and inspires men to despise women, to use women, to hurt women.” I believe advertisements depicting violence against women have the same effects.

This conclusion is supported by recent research on mirror neurons, those switches in our brains that operate virtually outside our consciousness to cause us to mimic others’ behaviors that we witness. (Yawning is an example.) Clever marketers play on mirror neurons to incent us to engage in the behavior they desire. One would have to study the psychology of the ad executives who envision portrayals of violence against women to know if they intend to engage mirror neurons to that end. But regardless of their motive, that may be the effect of their hateful creations.

Using the power of our pocketbooks and social media, we have the ability to discourage the publication of advertisements that objectify women or depict violence against women. Don’t buy products that are promoted in these ads. Don’t buy magazines that publish them.

Use Twitter to register your revulsion. Post a photo or a description of the ad on Twitter with the hashtag #NotBuyingIt and include the actual Twitter handle of the seller of the product or the name of the publication.

Feel the power of Margaret Mead’s words: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Let’s do it!

This piece, Killer Advertising, was first published at Role/Reboot and has been republished with permission.

Kate McGuinness is a lawyer who spent 17 years at Biglaw before becoming the general counsel of a Fortune 500 corporation. After leaving that position, she studied creative writing and is the author of a legal suspense novel Terminal Ambition, which will be published early in 2012. She is an advocate for women and tweets as @womnsrightswrter.

*** ***

Robert Greenblatt
Chairman, NBC Entertainment
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10020

Re: Women's Media Center says “YOU CANT LIE TO WOMEN!”

Dear Mr. Greenblatt,

“That NBC’s Playboy Club TV series set a record for fast failure proves that you can’t lie to women about what was good for us in the past and what wasn’t. AMC’s Mad Men tries to tell the truth, but NBC’s Playboy Club was history according to Hefner.” - Gloria Steinem, co-founder of the Women's Media Center.

As the Women’s Media Center and Gloria Steinem predicted, Playboy Club was canceled because today’s audiences want to be told the truth: “I expect that ‘Playboy Club’ will be a net minus… It’s just not telling the truth about the era.”

Executive Producer Chad Hodge told TV reporters that the program was "all about empowering these women to be whatever they want to be.” Lead actress Amber Heard said “It's about women who were being independent…It was their chance to live their own life, to do whatever they wanted on their own terms."

While only three episodes aired, the show’s relentless sloganeering of the benefits of Playboy for women was condescending. Characters repeatedly delivered carefully crafted talking points like “the Playboy Club empowers women” and “a Playboy Bunny is focused on what she wants, not what men want.” And then there was the appalling depiction of Gloria Steinem’s real life under-cover expose, “I was a Playboy Bunny”, re-imagined to make the “fictional reporter” into a conniving schemer who printed lies and failed to see the Playboy Club’s benefit for women. To suggest that the exploitation of women that actually occurred at the real Playboy Clubs was in any way related to women’s empowerment is not factual and, indeed, insulting.

Women represent 51% of the population and 86% of purchasing power. If you want them in the NBC audience, you can’t rewrite history.

Today’s audiences, male and female, want complex, truthful characters that have depth, sophistication and historical accuracy. The fact that NBC’s Playboy Club did not accurately portray the plight of women and minorities greatly contributed to its downfall. Who did you think was watching on Monday night opposite Monday Night Football?

The Women's Media Center is a network of journalists and media experts. We have valuable resources that are available to you and your executives to help you better understand contemporary television audiences. In the future, we hope you will call on us, and our network of experts for assistance when making programming decisions.

Sincerely,

Julie Burton
President, Women’s Media Center

Julie Burton, president and CEO of the Women’s Media Center said today:

“Is it too much to ask the Daily Caller to feature women leaders, rather than to objectify women as ornaments?  How about:  Here are the top 10 women leaders speaking at Occupy Wall Street?"

In terms of netiquette, stealing another person’s photos is bad form Fores, but in terms of sexism this ranks at the top of the Women’s Media Center’s lists.

The cancellation of Charlie’s Angels as well as The Playboy Club should prove to network executives that it’s not enough to have “hot women on TV doing stuff.” You need good writing. You need a good story. Those males ages 18-35 whom advertisers are looking for (ignoring women as well as anyone outside of that narrow age range) can look at hot women anywhere. And a show that was a remake of a show whose only selling point 35 years ago was called “jiggle TV” didn’t really have a rich, literary history from which to create strong, interesting characters.

This should start hitting TV executives on their Neanderthal-slow-to-evolve-heads that for network television to survive its standards for writing need to go UP not DOWN. Back in 1976 when the first Charlie’s Angels premiered it was also hit with bad reviews, but the show survived. Why? How about the fact that there were only three networks, very limited cable shows and no online pornography? If you were a teenage boy or a young man, let’s say your “access” to “jiggle” was limited.

Not to glorify a slower age, but the number of screens for entertainment was also pretty much limited to the TV.  Computer games did experience some growth in this period, (as in going from zero to some) but the seminal Apple IIe wouldn’t be released until 1983, nor the Commodore 64 until 1982.  So in 1976 for most young men, the only thing competing for their free time besides television was…real life.

Does the Women’s Media Center even need to list the number of other screens besides network television anyone might be looking at in 2011 on Thursday at 8 pm? If the only appeal of a show is the good looking women why would anyone want to waste their time when there’s so much better TV out there, even on network, let alone cable (or via Netflix or Hulu or DVDs). If audiences can watch shows like Mad Men, or Project Runway or even a show with real nudity like True Blood, why would they need to watch a show that was called “offensive to every actor and writer currently out of work.”

For networks to be able to compete they should be raising their game, not trying to narrowcast like it’s 1976 to a male population that doesn’t need network TV to get their “jiggle” anymore.  Maybe the continued trends of fast cancellations of bad 70s and 80s throwbacks will remind Hollywood to respect women viewers like it's the 21st century...even if the shows are set in the 20th.

In response to the news of the show’s cancellation, Steinem today said:

"That the Playboy Club TV series set a record for fast failure proves that you can't lie to women about what was good for us in the past and what wasn't.  Mad Men tried to tell the truth, but the Playboy Club was history according to Hefner."

NBC had come under fire from both progressive feminist groups and conservative morality groups for its celebration of the Hugh Hefner brand. If the show had been a hit, NBC likely would have ignored any cultural or social criticism in favor of advertisers’ dollars, but after dismal ratings for the pilot episode, and successive episodes with even less viewers, they pulled out. (Although the show will remain in production till October 10 and there is potential for it to reemerge on cable).

What probably doomed the TV show even more than the conservative groups is the real question of who the audience for such a show could have even been? It certainly wasn’t a show that would have appealed to most women who likely understood that despite the show’s über-text that PLAYBOY CLUB IS GOOD FOR WOMEN – this was a bill of goods. (During the only three episodes the show’s relentless sloganeering of the benefits of Playboy for women sometimes seemed more reminiscent of kids’ TV shows like Power Rangers than a sophisticated adult drama. Characters repeatedly told each carefully crafted talking points like “the Playboy Club empowers women” and “a Playboy Bunny is focuses on what she wants, not what men want.”). Clearly the show had some kind of ironclad agreement between the producers, Hugh Hefner, and Playboy Enterprises that the neither the company nor Hef would ever be shown in an unflattering light. This is great for marketing but terrible for drama, especially with a message that is about 40 years out of date.

While Hef is now making noise that the show should have been on cable (where it would have had more license to show skin and sex) what both NBC and the Playboy Club producers failed to get is that what makes Mad Men work isn’t just that it’s set in the 1960s and it’s on cable. Mad Men’s show is all about the subtext; “nothing is as perfect as it seems,” not the situation for women, nor for people of color, not even for the Alpha men who’s marriages fail because they aren’t equal partnerships. Meanwhile the Playboy Club was all about the text: “there’s NOTHING seedy or shady about women living in their employer’s house and working in the Playboy Club.” Apparently most of the Bunnies lived in the Playboy Mansion, danced half-naked only with other women, had lots of parties, but were never pressured into having sex with Hef, his friends or anyone else. This version turned the Playboy Mansion into an anodyne sorority house with an off-screen father-figure. Did anyone swallow this version of history?

But we’d be remiss if we failed to mention that the last aired episode was the “Gloria Steinem” plot.

In a way, Gloria Steinem’s 1963 expose on her experience as a Playboy Bunny has cast a harsh pallor over the entire series. It was usually the first item mentioned when a TV critic wanted to compare the show’s treatment of Bunnies to Steinem’s experience.

So how did the show deal with this titular incident in Playboy history? It recast events to make the reporter into conniving schemer who printed lies and failed to see the glory of the Playboy Club’s benefit for women.

For those who didn’t see the episode (and it seems almost no one did): The episode titled “An Act of Simple Duplicity” featured a Bunny named Doris, who after only a few days turns out to have been a reporter for the Chicago Daily News.  (Apparently “Doris” was terminally incompetent about her secret identity. She felt the need to meet with her editor, while in costume, right outside the club. She also carried a press badge in her purse. That might have seemed suspicious.)

While Doris certainly could have written about the Playboy Club’s gynecological exams for waitresses, what it felt like to work in 3-inch heels, or how well the Bunnies were actually treated by management, issues the actual Gloria Steinem article explored, the character in the show instead sneaks into the manager’s office, steals a bunch of HR files, and writes a story with the headline “Bloody Bunny: A Murder Tail.” (Yes, a real headline would use such puns.)

While the lead Bunny, played by Amber Heard, is worried the article is about to expose that she accidentally killed a mob boss – something that happened in the pilot -- it turns out another Bunny had a secret. Apparently many years ago she and her husband robbed stores and one time while driving away they ran over an old man. She got off lightly, but they locked up her husband, who she is now petrified will find out where she lives.

In the episode The Daily News promises that the following day the paper will reveal the name of the Bunny murderer (though it actually sounds more like a case of manslaughter). But no worries, Eddie Cibrian’s character, Nick Dalton, visits Doris at the paper. Despite the fact she says she has her facts down cold, Dalton says “murder is a specific legal term.” And the next scene is…Dalton meeting with all the Bunnies at the club saying the so-called murder was “sensational accident” and the paper has promised to print a “retraction and apology.” Really? Cause I think running an old man down while escaping from a robbery could be charged as murder or at least manslaughter. More importantly was NOTHING in Doris’s article accurate? Because even in 1961 papers pretty rarely issued retractions and apologies.

But let’s share the show’s moral lesson of Doris’s reporting when she returns to the club one last time to bring back her Bunny costume. Confronted by Carol Lynne the Bunny Mother, they share this piece of dialogue.

Carol Lynne: These are wonderful girls from all walks of life trying to go somewhere better. We give these girls a chance and I don’t know why you would want to destroy that.

Doris: I came here to find a big story. I thought this was the kind of place where terrible illicit things happened.

Carol: And instead you found a group of hard-working girls just trying to make a life for themselves – why don’t you write about that?

Doris: Because that kind of story doesn’t sell newspapers.

Carol: Maybe not but at least it’s the truth.

Moral of the story: reporters are ambitious, conniving people and they lie all the time just to sell papers. Also there was nothing newsworthy going on at the Playboy Club except “hard working girls.”

Goodbye Playboy Club. Thank god no one watched 'ya .

The Census Bureau’s latest figures on poverty show that U.S. women are hit hardest in every category, but somehow the major media omitted that in their reports. Leslie Bennetts reveals what was missed.

When the U.S. Census Bureau released the latest poverty statistics this week, the news was predictably bleak—or at least the news that people were given. But there was a little something the major media omitted from their coverage.

That minor detail? Half the population.

The larger half.

And when it comes to the latest economic data on women, the news is even worse than most people seem to realize. But you couldn’t learn that by reading The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, neither of which even mentioned women in their front-page stories about the rise in the poverty rate, which has soared to its highest level since 1993.

When it comes to discovering what that means for the majority of the American population, one had to look elsewhere. For the news the big guys didn’t see fit to print, we can thank the National Women’s Law Center, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that focuses on women’s economic security and legal rights.

When the NWLC crunched the latest numbers from the Census Bureau, the results showed that record numbers of women are living in poverty. And in news that should surprise no one, the findings reveal that millions of those women do not have health insurance.

The poverty rate among women rose to 14.5 percent last year, up from 13.9 percent in 2009—the highest rate in 17 years. The “extreme poverty rate” among women was the highest ever recorded, climbing to 6.3 percent in 2010 from 5.9 percent in 2009.

“Extreme poverty” means that your income is below half of the federal poverty line—and by 2010, more than 7.5 million women had fallen into that dire category.

What all those statistics add up to is that more than 17 million women were living in poverty last year, compared with 12.6 million men. As usual, things were worse for older women; twice as many women over 65 were living in poverty, compared with men.

And those numbers just represented the population-wide average. For Hispanic and black women, the poverty rate increased even faster and rose higher—to 25 percent for Hispanic women and to 25.6 percent for black women.

As usual, single mothers are having the hardest time of all. More than 40 percent of women who head families are now living in poverty. With more than half of poor children living in female-headed families in 2010, the child poverty rate jumped to 22 percent.

The trends are equally alarming when it comes to health insurance. Nearly one in five women is now living without health insurance. The percentage of women aged 18 to 64 who don’t have health insurance increased from 19.2 percent in 2009 to 19.7 percent in 2010—the highest rate recorded in more than a decade.

“More than 19 million women younger than 65 were without health care coverage in 2010,” the NWLC reported.

Private insurance isn’t coming to the rescue. The percentage of women covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined to 60.6 percent in 2010, down from 61.7 percent in 2009—a decrease that affected more than 600,000 women.

Government assistance is also going down; the percentage of women covered by Medicaid declined to 11.5 percent from 11.7 percent the previous year.

The news on women’s earnings was just as dismal. “Women working full-time year-round continued to be paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts,” reported the NWLC.

“The wage gap, which has been stuck at 77 cents for the last three years, has been virtually stagnant over the last decade and means an average of more than $10,000 in lost wages for women each year,” said Fatima Goss Graves, NWLC’s vice president of education and employment. “Nearly 40 percent of mothers are primary breadwinners today. In these difficult times, no family can afford women’s salaries to be discounted.”

And what about everyone else, from the politicians to the pundits? If government leaders are going to deal with the enormous amount of deprivation and suffering out there, they have to start focusing on women and children.

Because as usual, they’re suffering more than anyone else.

And as usual, most of the powers that be aren’t paying attention.

So why are the mainstream media ignoring them?

When it comes to picking members of the "Super Committee" -- a group that will decide the future of many social programs relied upon by millions of Americans -- the Women's Media Center is urging Congressional leaders from both sides, Republican Speaker John Boehner, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to appoint an equal number of men and women to this 12-person bipartisan committee.

It is imperative that women are at the table and that women's voices are heard in equal numbers to men's voices. The "Super Committee" will be tasked with making critical judgments that will likely affect social programs that women disproportionately depend on - like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Additionally, the Women's Media Center urges Boehner, Pelosi, McConnell, and Reid -- who will inevitably be the subjects of increased media attention as they compose the "Super Committee" -- to grant interviews to press who are equally male and female. The media is the lifeblood of our democracy, and greatly affects public discourse.

The positions, priorities, and perspectives of women need to be heard.

Sign a letter to Boehner, Pelosi, McConnell, and Reid urging them to include women in the "Super Committee" and the crucial press interviews the House and Senate leadership engage in.

But this is not to say that women are completely underrepresented. Chilean women head the six most prominent journalism schools and have made huge strides in the world or newspapers, magazines and television. The changing political and social world of Chile means a changing in the influence of women.

Politically, there has been a large effort to close around 100 coffee shops where women serve coffee in bikinis. As Santiago congresswoman Maria Antonieta Saa said, "On the surface, they’re selling coffee, but really they’re selling women’s bodies.” Further points where made that if a coffee shop, which can be seen as a family-friendly location, has it's waitresses dressing in barely anything, then what standard is that setting for other stores to follow in? It clearly shows the male dominated society of Chile. Yet more than 50% of Chile’s population is made up of women and this number is increasing.

There have been very few studies on the portrayal of women in Chilean advertising and no official studies on how females are represented in media. This limits the amount of solid information available but also implies that the larger culture not see it important to be aware of how its women are represented. If it has not done any investigation on how to improve the depiction of women through media then no real advancements can be made.

In the world of advertising, Chilean women are usually depicted as mothers or housewives where household products are usually marketed towards them. Men on the other hand are targeted for cars, technology, sports and the like. Research has been done to show that gender-defining roles within Chile were criticized as harshly as the sexualization of women in advertising. It is interesting that in both these forms of manipulating the women via advertising she is made into an object. Yet when it is to fit into societal norms it is more accepted than when a woman's body is changed to fit a physical standard.

Through television and movies, "content was showing progress in projecting an image of women in accordance with reality." Although Chile has insisted improvements in its depiction of women in daytime TV, many are not convinced and feel soap operas show women as "completely alienated beings, which creates false expectations and distorted value scales." The shows are also said to not emphasize so much the gender-defined roles of society, only to help define behavioral norms that develop character interaction.

The stubbornness of the country so recognize problems of objectification in its media limits capacity for change. The negative ways in which women are depicted in media is a worldwide problem. If a country will not address, research, and solve the problems in its media's depiction of women, positive attitudes of citizens and positive representations are not possible.

Ms Steinem states: "This ad against Janice Hahn by supporters of Craig Huey not only wins the sweepstakes for obscenity, woman-hating and racism, but also for urging murder. It ends with a rifle, the sound of shots, and the words, Keep her out of Congress. Wasn't one Arizona enough? Yelling Fire! in a crowded theater isn't covered by freedom of speech, and neither is this ad. Republicans behind it should be condemned by their party, and TV executives who accepted it should by fired.”

The Women’s Media Center harshly condemns this ad, and such tactics that use race and gender baiting to disparage entire communities.

Throughout the campaign, Hahn’s opponents have ruthlessly attacked her; yet this video takes the attacks to their most extreme (and the WMC is not going to help get any more traffic by posting it).  The ad was created by the radical conservative organization RightTurn USA.  The video depicts an underwear-clad, pole-dancing women; Janice Hahn’s face is poorly superimposed over the dancer’s, who gyrates as black men stuff dollar bills into her clothing, call her misogynist obscenities, and wave guns in the air.  The men, the video explains, are “hard core gang members” whom they claim Hahn “coddled” in her time as a Los Angeles councilwoman.  The video’s description reads, “Janice Hahn Hearts Gangsters.”  At the end of the video, the narrator disguises a threat as a call to action, urging, “Let’s keep her out of Congress, homies” as a shotgun blinks on the screen.  The video explicitly criminalizes African American men and demeans and objectifies women.

The Women’s Media Center joins our co-founder, Gloria Steinem, in calling for the Republicans behind it to be condemned by their party, and TV executives who accepted it to be fired.

This past weekend, 78 women were elected to represent the Turkish people. This is still only 14.1% of the deputies elected though. There is a far greater female population in Turkey than male and the government still lacks any representation by a woman with experience in women's rights or activism. Only eleven women were elected from the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party, or BDP, who embody most of the Women Rights ideals.

Through many programs throughout Turkey women have gained opportunities to work within technological and written media companies. Although a large amount of women work within the technological fields of the Turkish media world (television and movies), drastically smaller amounts work within the written media world (newspapers and magazines).

When researching this topic many of the sources talk of the positive influences Turkish media has upon the representation of women. But recently, with the rising technological advances, many of Turkey's hidden ideals of sexism and racial bias have been revealed. Media headlines such as the following have been revealed via the 'Online Revolution' against Turkish media; “Once a favorite for men, now she is so old,” “She lost the struggle to hide her cellulite,” “Half-Armenian pro-Kurdish,” and “Are you gay, or are you normal?” These along with countless other degrading and norm abiding quotations of Turkish media have recently been brought to attention through the new wave of blogging, Twitter, Facebook, and such.

There is also large concentration of the westernization of Turkish beauty. The changing of skin tones and body shapes through photo manipulation are impressing ideals of the western women's physical appearance on more than just western women. [caption id="attachment_12438" align="alignright" width="300" caption="This ad t is from a company who uses cheap Photoshop skills and makeup to reveal large breasted women that society idolizes. Images such as this are hard to find on the Internet because of countless blockages by Turkey to prevent any negative view of their media sources."]

Sexist Turkish media degrades women by "invading women’s personal lives, revealing the identities of women who have been assaulted in sexual or violent crimes, making sexist judgments, questioning the morality and lifestyle of women assaulted in sex crimes, portraying women only as sex symbols and giving little time to stories on women," according to MEDiZ.

The problems within Turkish media's depiction of women will only be fixed by changing sexist attitudes in culture and developing a more professional and responsible form of reporting. The degrading of women through media has a larger impact than many people understand it does. It affects all of us on some level, consciously or subconsciously. Within Turkey, the pressure to fit into western ideals of beauty is especially harmful. It goes against many traditional and even religious values along with depicting an askew reality of when western women actually look like.

The article focused on how Callista Gingrich was the sole cause of the fallout. Not only is this inaccurate (as several other new stories covered how it appears several aspects led to the breakup), but the article paints Callista Gingrich as the reason behind every decision that caused the rift with Newt Gingrich being the poor soul caught in between.

While this is certainly an original approach to the news story, it is not fair to portray his wife as the problem in the campaign fallout. As far as the statements that have been released in regards to the incident, none point fingers at Callista Gingrich. Smells like sexism to us!

Stories of assault, adultery, and sexual misconduct from high profile male politicians such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dominique Strauss-Kahn have garnered much media attention in the past weeks. In each of these stories, the women involved bore the brunt of media coverage on the wrongdoings of male leaders.

Since the story on Anthony Weiner’s photo tweets broke last week, media immediately began delving into the identity and other personal details of the women allegedly involved.

And already since Rep. Weiner’s admission yesterday, some harmful media coverage has turned to the women. Last night on MSNBC, Chris Matthews said of Rep. Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin: “Maybe she’s partly responsible.”

Placing blame on women, and outing lurid details of women involved in this issue hurts those women because it places them in a negative spotlight they do not deserve, just as excessive prying into Rep. Weiner’s personal life is also unproductive.  As the Women’s Media Center urges media to cover the latest news about Rep. Weiner story in a fair and unbiased fashion, we ask you to be our eyes and ears. If you spot sexist coverage of the Weiner story, tell us on Facebook, Twitter, or report it on our website.

Even more importantly, media should focus their scrutiny and concern on our current cultural and political climate, and delve into why certain high powered male leaders use their positions of power to access women sexually — instead of obsessing on harmful, irrelevant personal details of the women and leaders involved. Media has the power to lead the conversation on these issues in a responsible manner.  And we’re here to remind them of their power and responsibility!

Thanks for all you do,

The Women’s Media Center

Condemning Sexist Remarks by TV Host Ed Schultz, Women’s Media Center Thanks MSNBC for Swift Suspension

Schultz Apology on Tonight’s 10 pm Show also Praised by Group

New York: Earlier today the Women's Media Center called on MSNBC to rebuke TV host Ed Schultz for calling conservative radio personality Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" on his Tuesday radio program.  And this evening, WMC President Julie Burton praised MSNBC for suspending Schultz from his TV program and this evening, announced that the network and host Ed Schultz have agreed to meet with her organization to discuss how to make sure his inappropriate and degrading language will not be used again.

Schultz's apology and promise to never use that language again was heartfelt, and praised by the group. Women’s Media Center President, Julie Burton, commended MSNBC's management and Ed Schultz for acknowledging the inappropriate and sexist language and for taking swift public action to apologize.  She said, “When you demean one woman, you demean all women.  Anti-women slurs and epithets are beyond inappropriate - they harm women.”

"Laura Ingraham is no friend to women, and while we disagree with many of her views, the type of language Ed Schultz used, whether accidentally or on purpose, has the effect of legitimizing sexism and undermines the credibility of all women. Two wrongs don't make a right."

In praising MSNBC and Schultz for their quick action in response to the group’s online protests, Burton said she was pleased with the message it sends:  “Such vile attacks that perpetuate inequality in newsrooms and in politics will not be tolerated.  We look forward to working with MSNBC's leadership to discuss how commentators may critique women leaders based on their political views and comments, not their gender."

She also noted that, unlike some chronic offenders, “Ed Schultz has long been a friend and supporter of women’s issues and an opponent of sexism in the society.  That’s another reason why we expected him to make an apology for his slip – and to do it on the air.  We have to expect high standards from media people on the left and on the right of the political spectrum."

In a media climate where Talkers Magazine’s “Heavy Hundred” list of the top talk radio hosts only included 12 women with their own programs, (plus two women co-hosts), such comments dissuade women from entering into political talk radio careers. Thus, such comments widen gender disparities in media even further and contrubute to a climate where half of America's voices and priorities are not heard.

MSNBC has reprimanded several male commentators and anchors who have espoused some moderately sexist to severely misogynist views over the years, from Chris Matthews' derogatory coverage of Hilary Clinton's presidential race, to David Shuster's suspension by the network for comments about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out" by the Clinton campaign.

Yana Walton, VP of Communications for the Women's Media Center, said "MSNBC's decision to place the issue of media sexism front and center was commendable, and today they set the example for other networks who are often guilty of media sexism yet aren't even beginning to address the problem. We will be especially vigilant as coverage gears up of women candidates in the 2012 elections, and are happy to have partnered with Change.org on this issue."

Then, that same year, David Shuster was suspended by the network for comments about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out" by the Clinton campaign, using a prostitution metaphor.

Yet, the networks' "progressive" male anchors and commentators aren't learning their lessons. Just yesterday, Ed Schulz called incindiary right-wing talk show host Laura Ingraham, a "right-wing slut" and a "talk slut" on the air.

While conservative bloggers and watchdog organizations are highlighting Schultz's remark,  the Women's Media Center also calls on MSNBC to suspend Schultz for his comments, since they not only attack Ingraham, but all women. Ms. Ingraham is no friend to the Women's Media Center, but a sexist and misogynist attack based on her gender and not her political views or comments is harmful to women in media, politics, and beyond.

Ingraham provides enough fodder for progressive criticism that such base attacks have no place in coverage. As a new generation of women enter media and politics, such comments dissuade women from exposing themselves to vile attacks, and perpetuate inequality in newsrooms and in congress.

Join us in telling MSNBC that Schultz's comments are just as worthy of suspension as Shuster's, and to send a message to their on-air personalities that sexism is harmful and unacceptable! Click here to tell send a letter to MSNBC's leadership: http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-msnbc-to-suspend-ed-schultz-for-calling-extremist-host-a-right-wing-slut

"One high-powered lawyer, who was amont those trying to reach her to offer to rep her, said 'She could make $6 million, maybe more, just by shutting her mouth."

As heinous as the NY Post’s piece was, they’re not the only ones who are guilty of harmful coverage. The Daily Beast ran this commentary by Bernard-Henri Levy in which he questioned the alleged victim's legitimacy:

"I do not know—but, on the other hand, it would be nice to know, and without delay—how a chambermaid could have walked in alone, contrary to the habitual practice of most of New York’s grand hotels of sending a 'cleaning brigade' of two people, into the room of one of the most closely watched figures on the planet."

If that wasn’t bad enough, The American Spectator published this despicable piece by Ben Stein yesterday, in which he ranted:

"The prosecutors say that Mr. Strauss-Kahn 'forced' the complainant to have oral and other sex with him. How? Did he have a gun? Did he have a knife? He's a short fat old man. They were in a hotel with people passing by the room constantly, if it's anything like the many hotels I am in. How did he intimidate her in that situation? And if he was so intimidating, why did she immediately feel un-intimidated enough to alert the authorities as to her story?

People accuse other people of crimes all of the time. What do we know about the complainant besides that she is a hotel maid? I love and admire hotel maids. They have incredibly hard jobs and they do them uncomplainingly. I am sure she is a fine woman. On the other hand, I have had hotel maids that were complete lunatics, stealing airline tickets from me, stealing money from me, throwing away important papers, stealing medications from me. How do we know that this woman's word was good enough to put Mr. Strauss-Kahn straight into a horrific jail?"

After all this media coverage, all women (and men) may have more to worry about than the possibility that an international leader is guilty of sexual assault. This type of coverage reinforces the power structures that legitimize sexism and rape, and works directly against the elimination of sexual violence in our culture. In a country where a woman is sexually assaulted every two minutes, such pieces do real harm.

Tell the NY Post, the Daily Beast, and the American Spectator that media have a responsibility to work towards the elimination of rape culture and sexism--not to legitimize it! Send a letter by clicking here.

The wage gap was recently recalculated by the United States Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showing that women still earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. Then why did the Wall Street Journal choose to run this anti-fair pay Op Ed by Carrie Lukas against fair pay for equal work on their Editorial Page, without at least running a balanced opinion piece along side by anyone on the National Committee on Pay Equity  - ON EQUAL PAY DAY!?

Here's what you can do to demand balanced coverage:

1. Submit a Letter to the Editor demanding that fair and balanced opinion pieces on equal pay for women to Tim Lemmer  at: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com

2. Email Editorial Page Editors (sample email to cute & paste below) to demand they run fair and balanced opinion pieces on equal pay for women:

paul.gigot@wsj.com, robert.pollock@wsj.com, henninger@wsj.com, bret.stephens@wsj.com

Dear Editors,

Despite the fact that today is Equal Pay Day, the WSJ chose to run a very unbalanced OpEd on fair pay in our country that didn't even address today's reintroduction of the Paycheck Fairness Act in the Senate, nor new data from the United States Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that women still earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. Further, as CNN & Fortune report, none of the current top 20 paid CEOs are women.

I'm writing to demand balanced opinion coverage of the wage gap in our country. It is only fair and balanced to cover both sides of this issue on Equal Pay Day by running a balanced OpEd in order to adhere to the high journalistic standards WSJ attempts to embody. There are several members of the National Coalition for Pay Equity to choose from.

Sincerely, Your Name

3. Call the Editorial Page Editor demanding fair and balanced opinion pieces on equal pay for women at:  212.416.2255.

Thanks for all you to do ensure media is held accountable to standards of fairness and equity. Yours in Action, The Women's Media Center To support our continued work on this issue, donate to the Women’s Media Center here.

Women do bring up new perspectives on issues and alternate solutions to such crises, but this isn't about men vs. women. It’s about the ability of diverse leadership to solve a human rights crisis.

When media cover this story as a gender battle, the larger story of a democratic struggle is lost, and it's simply unproductive. Media Matters has called out CNN contributor Erik Erickson for blaming women in the Obama administration for our recent actions towards Libya, claiming Obama "manufactured" this human rights crisis, and Jezebel shows just how prevalent these types of conversations have been.

Holding to this sexist framework isn't helping Libya's democracy, and it's certainly not helping ours.