For some unknown reason, Senate Republicans do not appear to be interested in closing the wage gap for working women…
Why, exactly, is all of late night still geared only to satisfy the tastes of my Uncle Jack?
Clearly, someone out there thinks that it’s just too risky to put a woman behind that desk, that we’re not ready yet. I’m not sure who that someone is, because I think the audience is there, so it must be someone powerful – an old-school executive, a nervous sponsor, a lazy senior makeup artist. Or maybe that someone just doesn’t want to pay to remodel the host’s bathroom.
But the more I think about it, the more I realize CBS is taking a big risk with Stephen Colbert. I know what my Uncle Jack will say when he hears the news: he’ll say, “Who?” And it will be tough for me to explain. The only reassuring thing I could tell him is, “He looks like someone you’re going to like. It’ll seem familiar.”
Here is the kicker: the only one cited article mentions Chelsea Handler.
…I obviously didn’t expect or want to be a focal point of the piece, and I really just appreciated the photo of me at the top of the article placed alongside my late night contemporaries that featured my new haircut — the feedback has been overwhelming. What bothered me was that when I was listed in a paragraph with the late-night hosts, I was the only name put in parentheses. Mr. Carter wrote, “(The only female host in late-night is Chelsea Handler, 38, on E!).”
I wanted to confirm what a parenthetical suggests, so I looked up the definition. The first few definitions that came up were: incidental, subordinate in significance, minor or casual.
The particular paragraph I was mentioned in was about the competition Jimmy faces for younger viewers. Depending upon whose research you look at, I share the distinction of having the youngest average viewership with Colbert, The Daily Show and Conan. So from a purely statistical standpoint how, in this paragraph, could I only be mentioned as an aside? Was it because I’m a woman?
"Some people think it’s insensitive," Goldsmith said. "I can’t address that. That’s what practicing law is."
Wrong Jan and you know it. Pervasive surveillance of a private citizen is not what “practicing law is” for government officials when those officials openly admit that their government client hired a “dirtbag” cop who harassed this woman. Excessively titillating descriptions of ordinary behavior (“kissing and hugging her boyfriend in public; attired in shorts and bending fully over … on several occasions”) filed in official court (government) records is not what “practicing law is” for government officials who admit that their client hired a “dirtbag” cop who harassed this woman.
Quit acting like an ambulance-chasing bottom feeder and start acting like a City Attorney who knows what “practicing law is” in the context of the duties of a government lawyer.
If you find this kind of slut shaming by an elected official objectionable, tell Goldsmith - don’t forget to cite the source article.