Watch Amy Schumer Talk About The Kurt Metzger Scandal On Charlie Rose

[Primetimer]

She likes Metzger as a person, but pretty much hates everything he says. That makes sense, I guess.

View the full article

[Swellcatt]

Kurt Metzger is vile. So based on what's she's saying, Kurt gives the gross male point of view during their show meetings? I do feel bad for her though. She's not his representative.

[ajay]

It's so nice of Charlie Rose to help her with the answers.

[mascan42]

If you break down what Kurt said (aside from the extremely blunt way he said it) all it amounts to is "Why are we persecuting someone based on anonymous allegations without any evidence? Why are these allegations being made to comedy club owners rather than the police?" These are valid questions, but because Kurt is a comic with a fairly caustic sense of humor, he raises them in what some people see as an offensive way.

Anyway, this is already on its way to being forgotten and replaced by outrage over a misplaced skyscraper on a movie poster.

[mascan42]

I also find it interesting that people are more outraged that someone made a joke about rape than that someone allegedly raped a bunch of women.

[paramitch]

I was interested to see the Charlie Rose segment, because Amy had a clear PR choice here: To dissemble, or to clearly bemoan Mezger's statements, to stand by the victims of assault, and yet to also say, "Look, he worked for me and I liked him. I'm sorry he can't continue to work on my show as someone with the opinion and point of view he has freely, publicly adopted. But I wish him well."

So sorry to see that she chose the easy, noncommittal, political, say-nothing response: "Um, well, um, I don't actually have a show anymore, I mean, not technically, although yes technically, okay, but still, so he doesn't work for me although yeah I guess he does, and yes he's been misogynistic in the past, but that was such a fun point of view in the writer's room, right, but yeah, I don't like what he said although I won't say why, um... what was the question?"

Metzger is a sexist ass, but I reluctantly admit that he did have a point about publicly crucifying someone (and essentially ending their career) on social media without a trial. But he has buried that one salient point in so much nastiness, misogyny and vitriol that I can't possibly root for the guy. Add to that the fact that the accused rapist has a seriously traceable questionable history, as well as an accusation sheet from a lengthy number of potential female victims -- and it gets even grosser from there.

Meanwhile, while I get that the revelation that one of her writers was a misogynistic and rape-supporting ass is not a pleasant thing to comment on, I really dislike Amy Schumer's reactions here, which have been consistently coy, vague, and noncommittal throughout the entire scenario.

I mean, she says she's upset at what he said... and then she won't commit. She says she's disappointed in him and then pretty blatantly lies about his remaining as a writer on her show (which, as renewed, certainly exists). Further, she won't engage even cursorily or intelligently on the issue (this, from a woman who once wrote an over-the-top "Friday Night Lights" segment for IAS called "Don't rape") and instantly blocks anyone on Twitter who simply asks her about the situation or to comment on it. No matter how civil they are, she seems to block them instantly, cutting off any further opportunity for debate or conversation.

Which really bothers me, since Schumer is supposedly all about being confrontational, about inspiring and creating opportunities to challenge publicly accepted mores and approaches. But I guess it's only relevant when the question is whether or not she's cute enough to be on TV -- not on whether a writer on her staff should publicly and vocally be supporting an accused serial rapist (and blaming victims of sexual assault).

I feel like we saw this same Schumer in a Hollywood Reporter roundtable last year (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETKNKbi3KhY) with other comedy actresses -- instead of speaking intelligently on women, comedy, performing arts, or entertainment, she instead said the word "pussy" as many times as possible (because she's shocking! and funny!) and had nothing interesting to add at all.

Ultimately, for me, this scenario reveals Amy to be something of a hypocrite. Which doesn't really surprise me. I find most of her humor really simplistic and unsophisticated, and only like a handful of sketches (I love her "12 Angry Men" piece, her "Last Fuckable Day," and the Aaron Sorkin fast-food parody (far more than the "Friday Night Lights" "Don't Rape" parody, which really bothered me because it was about as complex and subtle as a sledgehammer). But -- especially with "12 Angry Men" -- I also suspect the best moments are not written by Schumer herself.

So... I think she likes being the object of conversation, but doesn't like to have to actually take part in it. I'm less disappointed in Metzger than I am in Schumer. He's an ass. Case closed. She should know better -- and she had the chance to make a difference on a crucial issue, and took the coward's way out.

[Princess Sparkle]

Yeah, I have to say, I've defended Amy pretty hard in the past (and there are some things I'm sure I'd still back her on), but she really handled this whole situation terribly and it saddens me.  The "he no longer works on my show....because there is no more show....but it's not really cancelled....so when we're back in session, he'll be there" line of explanation was, quite honestly, mealy mouthed and pathetic.  I get that she was in a difficult situation, because she was basically being put on the hook for something one of her writer's said, and she isn't responsible for that.  However, if you still want to employ him because you like the perspective he brings to the table, or because he's a friend, or because he's funny (or whatever the reason) then stand behind your decision to keep him employed.  Don't try and use a lie by omission that barely even passes the sniff test.  A statement like "I'm very disappointed in what he said, and I don't agree with it whatsoever.  However, not only is he a friend, he is also a valuable writer who brings a unique perspective to the show, and will still be a writer on IAS.  I understand if some of you are disappointed in that decision" would've been just fine.  She probably would've lost some fans and viewers, but at least it wouldn't seem like she was being completely disingenuous with her statements.  

However, I do sincerely question how valuable his "perspective" actually is in the writer's room.  I think of the other show on Comedy Central I consider extremely feminist - Broad City - and I can't fathom that they would keep someone like Kurt Metzger on staff, just for "perspective."  The real answer is that Amy Schumer thinks he's funny, and that's fine, but then don't act coy and say you hired him because he gives some much needed counterpoint in the writers room.  Not to mention that this isn't the first time Kurt Metzger has found himself in hot water; he has a long history of making misogynistic threats against women he disagrees with, has called himself "pro-rape", and has admitted to criminally choking an ex-girlfriend.  No wonder Tig Notaro high-tailed it out of the writers room.  

Edited August 23, 2016 by Princess Sparkle

[zxy556575]

1 hour ago, paramitch said:

Metzger is a sexist ass, but I reluctantly admit that he did have a point about publicly crucifying someone (and essentially ending their career) on social media without a trial.

Thanks, @paramitch. You articulated this much better than I did on the celebrity gossip thread. I would also remind Kurt that the court of public opinion has existed back to the era of town criers, and a better tactic for him would be to make a case for supporting the accused if he feels that's warranted rather than spewing random, misogynist vitriol online.

I was already in a bit of Schumer burnout and deleted her show from my season pass this year, but her mealy-mouthed reaction on this moved me a lot more towards the "dislike" side of her Q score

[paramitch]

3 hours ago, Princess Sparkle said:

However, if you still want to employ him because you like the perspective he brings to the table, or because he's a friend, or because he's funny (or whatever the reason) then stand behind your decision to keep him employed.  Don't try and use a lie by omission that barely even passes the sniff test. 

Beautifully put. This exactly is my main issue. Not even that she's tacitly supporting a rape-culture apologist -- but rather, that she won't make a stand either way.

1 hour ago, lordonia said:

Thanks, @paramitch. You articulated this much better than I did on the celebrity gossip thread. I would also remind Kurt that the court of public opinion has existed back to the era of town criers, and a better tactic for him would be to make a case for supporting the accused if he feels that's warranted rather than spewing random, misogynist vitriol online.

Thanks very much!

My main frustration is: Amy Schumer delights in being a lightning-rod on feminist issues, on pointing out things people are too afraid to speak about. It's the foundation of her entire brand, her persona as a comedian.

And here, she had a serious issue that everyone was talking about right in her own writing room, had the chance -- was begged for it -- to speak publicly about it -- and quailed.

I would have respected her a heck of a lot more if she had been honest.

Even if she had supported this putz but said, "Look, I am absolutely against rape and remain a passionate activist against sexual assault. But he was upset about the accused being convicted on social media, acted out emotionally, and said some things that he now regrets and wishes to take back. I understand that in the height of emotion, we may all say things we're not proud of. While I regret his comments, I still count myself among his friends and he remains a member of my staff."

Or, on the other side: "I have valued Metzger as a talented contributor to IAS for ______ years now. I understand his frustration with the idea of conviction on social media (well before a trial ever takes place). But as a sexual assault survivor, I cannot condone his words or decisions, and he will not be returning as a contributor to my show."

Sorry for letting my PR colors fly but: She failed this on pretty much every level. She had the chance to address a genuinely timely and important issue for women (and men). And she couldn't bring herself to take a stand.

I do think this may be a defining moment for her in many ways. And for me -- she failed. It's too bad.

[kwnyc]

The book is not fiction, aka a "novel." It's a collection of non-fiction essays. The very first fact in this piece is wrong, which makes me tend not to trust the writer.

[Irlandesa]

On 8/20/2016 at 7:46 AM, mascan42 said:

If you break down what Kurt said (aside from the extremely blunt way he said it) all it amounts to is "Why are we persecuting someone based on anonymous allegations without any evidence? Why are these allegations being made to comedy club owners rather than the police?" These are valid questions.

I'm going to flat out admit that, after learning of yet another rapist being given a lenient sentence because the judge was concerned about his future, I'm close to having zero fucks to give about whether or not it's fair to discuss the rapist on social media in terms of his rapiness.  But had he been arrested, it'd be just as much public record as it is now.

Only 4% of reported rapes are referred to prosecutors and only 2% end in a felony conviction.  Getting a conviction is an uphill battle due to many factors such as the he said/she said aspect of it, hazy memories because of the trauma, potentially alcohol and potentially being drugged.  There's a reason a majority of assaults are allegedly not reported. 

I don't know for sure what happened in this instance but I do know of creeps in small professional circles.  Each of these women were likely attacked by this guy and chose not to go to the police for whatever reason (not worth the stress, fear of not being believed, fear of being "that" woman who made such accusations against poor innocent rapist.)  But they likely confided in their friends in that same professional circle.  They also likely warned other women about him.  I've heard of this happening when a creep infested the conference scene in my profession.  And as the stories are shared, eventually these women realize they weren't the only targets of this guy.

So instead of worrying that they'd be in a he said/she said situation, they realized they were going to be in a he said/she said and she said and she said situation.  So they went to their "boss" at the UCB and let him know about this guy.  To his credit, he valued creating a safe space for the female performers and did something about it.

 

On 8/20/2016 at 8:03 AM, mascan42 said:

I also find it interesting that people are more outraged that someone made a joke about rape than that someone allegedly raped a bunch of women.

How do you determine  outrage hierarchy?   It's appropriate to discuss how we feel about what he said and how his boss reacts to it here because he's a writer on a TV show and this is a TV board.    I'm outraged by a lot of things, including this rapist, unless it's related to TV, I'm not likely to be discussing it on this board.

 

8 hours ago, paramitch said:

Metzger is a sexist ass, but I reluctantly admit that he did have a point about publicly crucifying someone (and essentially ending their career) on social media without a trial. But he has buried that one salient point in so much nastiness, misogyny and vitriol that I can't possibly root for the guy. Add to that the fact that the accused rapist has a seriously traceable questionable history, as well as an accusation sheet from a lengthy number of potential female victims -- and it gets even grosser from there.
 

I know sometimes we can get out of hand with public shaming but there were multiple reports.  Sometimes public sharming is a necessary warning.