"The Colbert Report": Week of 6/16/14

[trow125]

6/16 TA-NEHISI COATES - "The Case for Reparations," article in The Atlantic
6/17 DAVID BOIES & THEODORE B. OLSON - Authors, “Redeeming The Dream: The Case for Marriage Equality”
6/18 KATTY KAY & CLAIRE SHIPMAN - Co-authors, “The Confidence Code: The Science and Art of Self-Assurance---What Women Should Know”
6/19 JAY CARNEY - Former White House Press Secretary

[peeayebee]

Ta-Nehisi Coates' article is fantastic. I've seen him interviewed in a couple of places about it. Although I'm looking forward to his conversation with Stephen, there's just not enough time.

[Fremde Frau]

Oh, I can't wait for that one, either. Does Stephen ever do extended interviews, like Jon? I hope he plays this interview relatively straight.

[M. Darcy]

 

Does Stephen ever do extended interviews, like Jon?

 

Unless I am making things up in my head, I think he has.  I vaguely remember at least a couple of guests who got two segments. 

[Victor the Crab]

Good luck convincing white conservative Americans that reparations are needed, no matter how convincing a case Ta-Nehisi Coates makes.

[Fremde Frau]

Thank you, M. Darcy! I'll have to check their website to see if I can find some.

 

The interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates was fun. Coates seemed to enjoy it quite a bit, and I thought Stephen used his character well in bringing up typical arguments so that Coates could explain how inadequate they are. I just wish the interview had been longer!

[Victor the Crab]

Nice to see soccer hater Stephen get all excited over the U.S. victory over Ghana yesterday at the World Cup, and show it, unlike some people - soccer lover Jon, I'm looking at you!

[attica]

I gotta say, even I liked the Victory Foot. It leaves your hands free for adult beverages!

[peeayebee]

The Martin Luther King of soccer!

[Fremde Frau]

Loved his bit on the World Cup! The Victory Foot was hilarious.

 

I'd like to read the study he cited on racial identity. Not every culture has the same definition of race.

[trow125]

Here is a longer article about the study about racial identity.

[Fremde Frau]

Thank you, trow!

[Victor the Crab]

Maybe we can create a campaign to name that squirrel "Shitrat".

[attica]

I think it's great that HRC punctured the squirrel's jam by giving him a book. And it occurs to me, however many times this stunt has been pulled (I remember back to 'Chicken George' in '92), the 'victims' either didn't engage with the Furry or if they did, they looked foolish. Perhaps being a lady that has some experience in the judo of deflecting menz's insults is an asset here?  

 

Here's my problem with the Shipman-Kay hypothesis. It's not that women lack confidence that's necessarily the problem (although I'm willing to stipulate it's often the case); it's that they must often be twice as qualified as a dude to be considered even vaguely qualified. It's the standard, not the confidence. Women shy away from applying when they're not 100% qualified because they correctly perceive they won't be considered qualified unless they're twice as good as the men applying.

[FartyPants]

Here's my problem with the Shipman-Kay hypothesis. It's not that women lack confidence that's necessarily the problem (although I'm willing to stipulate it's often the case); it's that they must often be twice as qualified as a dude to be considered even vaguely qualified. It's the standard, not the confidence. Women shy away from applying when they're not 100% qualified because they correctly perceive they won't be considered qualified unless they're twice as good as the men applying.

 

Not watched the show yet, however, just a comment that "women must often be twice as good" is not always the case. I am sure it depends on the particular field and the particular position. In my 20+ years of experience of working with and hiring software professionals, I never saw women inherently considered less qualified. We get more men than women candidates in this field. More of the recruiters who are bringing in the resumes of candidates are women. So I would  imagine that they are not being filtered out by the recruiters for being women.

[attica]

I trust your anecdote, FartyPants, and I'm happy to see it. However, all the science on the subject  (and there's a lot) supports a less happy reality. Changing the gender id on a resume changes how it's viewed , for just one instance. 

[FartyPants]

Now I have watched the show and I am very interested in reading the book for my girls.

Like many parents I volunteer as sports coach and coach boys teams and girls teams at elementary and middle school levels. What I have found is boys WANT to try out the amazing atheltic move they saw on the TV while everyone including them know that they are going to fail. The risk they are taking in failing and getting ridiculed is rewarded as they get better at those skills. We encourage our teams to try new skills, not  be afraid to make mistakes, we promise to not yell if they do make those mistakes and yet, most girls play it safe. Boys on the other hand try things they shouldnt, get yelled at for that and still keep doing it. When I have tried to figure this out by asking sideways questions (direct questions get answers like I dont know to You dont get it) it usually boils down to not being seen as 'weirdo", "outlier", "the one that cost us the game",

 

I don't know the percentages, the authors claim 25%, but its more biology I think. And most of this need to fit in is coming from the group of girls and not boys/men. May be the book provides some ways to win over that fear of failure ..

 

attica, thanks for the link. the study clearly shows that the assumed gender of the candidate influenced how the scientist viewed the applicant. I would like to know how the scientists broke along the age group. I would like to think that younger folks dont have "girls are not that good at science" thought pattern.

 

Also, I would have rejected the research since the y axis does not start at 0. But then I recognize that the research is done by a woman, so those two abberations cancel out and I have to accept the results. Damn the logic!

Edited June 19, 2014 by FartyPants

[possibilities]

I also think there's a problem in that women who are and act confident are often punished for it, by being perceived as ballbreakers or otherwise stepping out of line. The same behavior that in men is rewarded as strong and confident in women is often perceived as needing to be softened or apologized for. Women do this to each other as much as men do it to us, so the "female recruiters are not going to prefer male applicants" theory doesn't hold water for me until I see actual data to prove it. In my experience, other women often expect a female boss, for example, to be "nicer" (not hold them accountable) in the same way they expect a male boss to do, and will resent another woman for stepping out of the submissive position.

 

Obviously, not all women (or men) are this kind of sexist, but I've seen it enough times to say it's more than a few who are.

[Fremde Frau]

My old boss was the only female general manager of the Japan-based company where I used to work (her department was Human Resources), and she was constantly under pressure to be "less of a woman" (hardline adherence to policy) when dealing with lower level personnel and "more of a woman" (acquiescent to demands) when dealing with equal to higher level personnel. I had to translate (Japanese-English) for the hiring process, and I've seen, for example, that of the three applicants for one particular, medium-level office position: the two (white) men were asked whether they'd like to travel or even relocate, and the sole (black) woman was asked if being expected to serve guests coffee would be offensive to her. Needless to say, the white men weren't asked that question. She ended up being hired because the men were seen as perhaps over-qualified and potentially impatient in a position that was not upper management.

 

This isn't representative of every instance, of course, but it has stayed with me a long time because it felt representative of how sexism and racism are normalized in business practice, at least here in Georgia.

[Victor the Crab]

I definitely think we should invade Dick Cheney's balls. Preferably with a steel toe boot worn by an Iraqi war veteran.

 

I laughed so hard at the large bag labelled PUT IT IN YOUR MOUTH, because it's probably just as healthy as a bag of non descriptent Doritos.

[peeayebee]

Dick Cheney and the rest of the Iraq Pack are so infuriating. That anyone wants to hear what they have to say about Iraq is confounding. I just… grrrrr.

 

Loved the whole Thought for Food segment, esp the Doritos part. I was wondering about the numbers. I figure 404 comes from Error 404, but I don't know 855 or 2653. Can someone explain? Anyway, so funny when Stephen took one little bite, described the progression of salty flavor, then said, "I'm going to finish that later." And yes, Put It In Your Mouth was hilarious.

 

Yo. Sheesh. That seems to be the pet rock of apps.

[sadiegirl]

I just watched last nights show and I just don't know what to think about Cheney.  Is he that deluded that he believes what he's saying, or is he so committed to this act that he will see it to the end, no matter the evidence?  Maybe it's his brain that Rove should be concerned about - because how can you look at what has happened in Iraq and the money spent during your administration and still think that what you did was right?  That the guy who came after you is the one who fucked everything up?   That is delusion beyond belief. 

 

Between this and last night's Daily Show, I want to cry.

[Julia]

Cheney and Rumsfeld tried to start the same war during the Bush 1 administration and were shut down. In the interim, Cheney went to work for a company which supplies equipment to oil companies, and he never divested himself of his stock. In one stroke, he earned hundreds of millions of dollars and got rid of a case of blue balls he'd been toting around for ten years (although WADR to Stephen I don't think they were that much of a burden).

 

Of course he thinks he was right. Only good things came out of the war for anyone Dick Cheney gives a shit about.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Julia

[DXD526]

Discussing the delusional and dangerous Cheneys is just too frustrating and depressing. Eating some Put It In Your Mouth will make me feel better, because as Stephen said, "Each bag is packed with its contents! What are those? Eat them and tell us! Tweet what you thought you ate and you could win more of whatever that was! Look for it at your local grocers; seriously, could you look for it? Because some of it has escaped the lab…”

[Captanne]

What pisses me off more than anything is the frustration in the fact that WE KNEW CHENEY AND GANG WERE POTENTIAL WAR CRIMINALS and we did nothing to stop it.  We KNEW it.

 

Rice and Powell just got caught up in the tank treads as they were rolling over them.

 

We, the American people, are as much to blame.

 

We have no right to clutch our pearls now and complain about "Poor Iraq War Veterans" and "Oh, Cheney is such a bad guy."

 

We knew that 20 years ago and we need to own our complicity.