Weinergate 3: The Prequel

So, apparently this controversy still won't die, because now people are at the stage where they chronicle past politician affairs.  Mostly, I've been avoiding this, because I don't need to be encouraged to look down on politicians anymore than I already do.  But then someone decided to chronicle women in power who have affairs, and since I am interested in the history of women, I had to at least read this. 

The woman who piqued my interest the most was Victoria Woodhull, a presidential candidate in 1872.  I guess my ignorance is really showing, because I didn't even know we had women running all the way back then.  (And how awesome we did: women were running before they vote.  Try to tell me now that women didn't care about politics.)  The only women I could think of who ran were Jeannette Rankin and Shirley Chisholm, both who ran during the last century.   
Also, I need to research more on this crazy case involving Aimee Semple McPherson. It sounds like a Lifetime movie set at the turn of the century, though I find myself sympathetic, because she campaigned for William Jennings Bryant, and there's I love about that guy. 
Some of the behavior does strike me as rather stupid, such as Jacqui Smith apparently claiming pornography on an expense report.  Er...that's a bad idea.  A even worse idea?  Taking the blame for what was apparently really the husband.   

Forget This

One of the biggest reasons I hate this whole open window controversy is that I notice a distinct set of problems when I don't have enough sleep.  Nina doesn't see this because she isn't around, and it's part of the reason she's completely unfair. 
This morning, I left my bag somewhere.  It took me about four hours before I noticed it was gone.  I realized it was gone and then forgot again for another two hours before I finally went and got it.  It was sitting at the desk, waiting me, and I thanked the man there for keeping it.  I didn't have much of a panic because I realized it was probably safe, and even if it wasn't, there wasn't anything valuable in it. 
But what if I had left something valuable?  And it had gotten stolen? 
Later on in the day, I went to church, and I forgot to bring money.  It ended up being not a big deal, but it's not like me to forget things (and when I do, it's usually because of stress), and it's not like me to forget two different things within a few hours of each other. 
I don't think appealing to her will really work, but I wish it did. 

On the Jezebel Outrage

I've been really disappointed by the response people have had to the Jezebel article on the Daily Show's woman problem. 
I should probably start off by saying that I love the Daily Show.  I started watching it when I was about thirteen or fourteen, around 2002.  And I've regularly watched the show ever since, sometimes going years without missing an episode.  At the same time, I've only recently discovered Jezebel.  Even though I don't believe in everything the blog says, I like it.  I like that it's one of the few spaces on the Internet where women are unafraid to say something particular hurts women, and that the commentators are generally funny or interested in positive solutions to these problems.
First, I was really disappointed by the letter the Daily Show's women employees penned on the subject.  The letter did several things.  First, it dismissed Jezebel completely, which was unwise, since it defends the idea that the Daily Show is dismissive of women by being dismissive of a woman's article on a woman-centric blog mostly read by women.  Then it also discussed how there were lots of women who worked for the show, then went on to list them.  This would be fine if the article was about all the people on the show.  The article specifically focused on the writers and on-air talent, and, unfortunately, nothing Jezebel said appears to be a lie, since the numbers (or lack, in this case) are public knowledge.  The letter instead looks like a fearful, rash reaction, since it didn't correctly identify the point of the article.  In not correctly speaking to the problem that Jezebel pointed out, it looks like no one at the Daily Show actually read the article, just heard someone was unhappy and carried on from there. 
It would be easy, at this point, for the Daily Show to correct this problem, though the letter really hurts things.  They could offer to do the interviews which the Jezebel author specifically asked for before the article went to print.  Or, and this would be the smart move here, invite her to spend a week or so at the show's office.  Seriously.  She could blog about her time at the Daily Show office on the Jezebel blog, and then issue a final report after she's spent her time there and had time to consider it.  If it turns out that she still stands by what she said, then the Daily Show can say they wanted to get an outsider's point of view and that they're going to make some changes (which the Jezebel author already pointed to some easy ones.)  If she comes back and says things were fine, then presto! controversy over. 
Even if the Daily Show does handle this better in the future (which, given the sorry state of that letter, I'm afraid they won't), that won't cut down on the rest of the Internet obfuscating this whole thing.  Slate published an article on it that also misses the point and then decides to castrate the blog for asking questions.  The Slate article makes it about Olivia Munn, who is discussed in the Jezebel article because she is the first woman to be hired in seven years.  Seven years.  Jezebel complained that they hired Munn because she is pretty.  She is pretty, and there would be nothing wrong with this if writers on the show hadn't commented that they thought prettier woman did better because they were pretty or if Samantha Bee, the only regular woman correspondent over the recent years hadn't mentioned they were looking for older women, which Munn doesn't qualify as.  Slate took this part of the argument and made it sound in their article like it was the only thing the Jezebel article discussed, which it didn't.  Then it discussed how Jezebel was just trying to stir up controversy, again, dismissing a woman for asking questions about women's representation in media.  Jezebel should just rest its case at this point, because, once again, they're being willfully misunderstood and then dismissed for it.  And for an article that complains about Jezebel's ads, it doesn't mention how Slate has ads as well and in no way above this.  Nor does it mention how the author of the Slate piece left Gawker media, which owns Jezebel, though it does mention she formally was employed by them.
The reactions from some groups has really disappointed me.  There are positive, easy, non-reactionary responses to these issues.  The reactions so far have failed to reach that very high mark.