Ed Werder doesn't like women helping women

We got off course with the Carl Lewis BS for a minute and I merely told the person who started said BS to ignore your more strident posts.

 

Suggesting Ed Werder - who purports to be a teacher in distress over equal hiring opportunity - could help himself by helping young journalists of every color and gender is strident?

 

A smart friend shared this on Twitter today.

http://sports.mynorthwest.com/47287...inst-encouragement-for-women-in-sports-media/

I can state with absolute certainty that when white men view any discussion of diversity or inclusion from the perspective of what it’s going to cost people like them, they’re essentially arguing for the status quo in an industry that’s 90-percent male, and that is what is actually unfair.

 

Smug Post of the Day, congrats.

 

When I'm getting it from both sides, what can I say?

 

This comment in video form:

 

I agree with the internal logic here. I'd also add it's human to be self-interested even in the midst of benefiting from unfairness. I mean, Danny O'Neil didn't offer to resign and urge his bosses to hire a woman in his place, did he? Maybe he's referring to all journalism jobs from this point forward, with himself on the safe side. (Which, BTW, is human, too. I'm not suggesting O'Neil quit his job. I am suggesting someone's gonna lose their job, and I'm guessing O'Neil isn't volunteering.)

This internal logic, also from the piece, doesn't quite work for me:

There is a fundamental error in this line of thinking because it sees everything as a zero-sum game, assuming that any encouragement or advancement of someone who is not a white male will unfairly come at the expense of a white men. The reason that’s an error is because it presumes that things are fair to begin with.

It doesn't work because zero-sum games can and have been used to correct unfairness. It probably, is, to some degree, a zero-sum game. To which we say: Well, yeah, it's time for more women and fewer men and if some men have lose out, so be it. It's worth it get more women in the profession.

So, unless the number of media jobs increases, then, inevitably, if the field becomes 10% more of one gender demographic, it's going to become 10% less of the other demographic.

Which is OK. Hell, even necessary. But not everyone wins. Somebody's gonna be replaced over time, and that somebody probably isn't going to give up their job voluntarily, so it's going to be sad for said person even if it is in pursuit of something morally righteous.

 

We are assuming there are a ton of unemployed or underemployed and highly qualified female sports writers out there who are not getting opportunities. Are there also not a ton of unemployed or underemployed highly qualified male sports writers out there, as well? If there are entities that are not giving female sports writers an equal opportunity, and this bothers you, then the best course of action is to do something about it (i.e., boycott watching ESPN if ESPN is dramatically underserving the marketplace of qualified female sports talent). I get the sense from recent mass layoffs, however, that ESPN is laying off people of all genders as they try to deal with declining subscription rates.

 

as has always been the case.

The only difference now is that the pool of possible replacements is wider and deeper.

 

If it has always been, then perhaps the natural inclination towards wondering “how will this affect me?” isn’t much more than the usual self interest.

 

Maybe.

But in Mr. Werder's case he wondered sourly and aloud and in public. Hiding behind his students to do it.

A level playing field hurts no one.

Is the world a more competitive place? Sure.

And we are all at risk at all times of losing our jobs. As we have always been. In fact, most of us here have already lost several.

Adapt or die.

 

At times, I find the overall debate about this tricky. On the one hand, this industry offers little in the way of competitive compensation, security or a logical career path, and burns up a lot of idealism to keep functioning. Thus, if you have longterm sense, there’s less chance you get into it unless you’re very good.

I look at the first paper I worked for who somehow hired super qualified black and female sports writers relatively close together. I don’t think either lasted more than 6 months before moving up, one taking a very large leap, the other being on a major metro staff within a year or two. Folks should always be trying, but there will likely always be a pool issue to a degree. (There’s obviously a economic privilege bias in hiring too. I’d venture a guess that men have a little less long-term sense, but that’s only a guess)

And all of those goes to say, snapping at someone for encouraging people to go after a job is dumb as hell. We can agree more perspective would probably be good, and encouraging is basically a harmless act. Also, chances are, if you’re qualified enough for an entry-level position at SI on your merits, you’re qualified for all sorts of things. You’ll be fine, or you fucked it up.

It’s also worth noting life is neither smooth nor simple. My first job, I was the third choice, my second, I was the second choice and wouldn’t have gotten it had a coworker remembered to resubmit an application. My third job, I got because I knew someone, was overqualified and didn’t take too much money (I hated my current job and liked the town). If you’re good enough for this job, at worse, you’ll land somewhere fine and make your way. Ms. Wilder certainly did.

(Also, since unfairness came up, I was reminded of a de facto columnist at a mid-sized paper near where I grew up. His dad had been columnist forever and he was granted a prominant blog on a paper that’s pretty good. He’s been writing trash ham fisted hot takes for years now. Just terrible, haughty nonsense. It struck me as deeply unfair in my younger days, but that’s been life in this business for a long time)