On Oct 28, 4:01 pm, "Pollak, Melissa F." <[email protected]> wrote: > Until Nell wrote her piece, what you say was true. That is, we really didn't > know whether it was a hostile work environment or not. Because no one had > said anything. Now, one person, "the first one" has said something. Others > may -- or may not -- come forward. It's been my experience -- and only my > experience -- that women never come forward. They do not speak up. Nell is > a good example. It took her almost 20 years to say something. > > From my personal experience -- a friend who was a victim of sexual harassment > -- by a congressman -- had the opportunity to meet Anita Hill about a year > after the Thomas-Hill hearings. They discussed what was said about Hill on > Capitol Hill: the Senators didn't believe her story because she had never > complained and if they had been in her situation, they would have complained. > My friend told Hill that she had never said anything either and that she > understood exactly why Hill had never spoken up. > > Women NEVER come forward. Because they fear losing jobs they love doing, > and, often careers they love. Another friend of mine would not even talk to > a Sixty Minutes producer about the harassment she had experienced when she > worked on Capitol Hill because she cared about her future, and even the > effect such a conversation could have on her husband and kids.
You're referring to women who claim to have been personally harassed. That's not the situation in Nell's case. She's only perceiving what she believed to be a "hostile work environment" based on what she claims she witnessed. But, as I first wrote, it had no bearing whatsoever on her own job status, responsibility, and security. > > As far as the dearth of women in the late night writers rooms...surely, > you're not going to tell me that there just aren't any women who could write > jokes that would work for Dave, Conan, etc.? Seriously, no women have that > capability? I doubt that Nell is that unique. I'm simply citing what a woman wrote in afl. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of donz5 > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:13 PM > To: TVorNotTV > Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: Well, here's the first one. > > On Oct 28, 3:00 pm, "Pollak, Melissa F." <[email protected]> wrote: > > She perceived a hostile work environment and decided that kind of > > environment wasn't for her. > > > It's really not any more complicated than that. > > But what's not determined is whether her perception was valid enough > -- or relevant enough to her own job security -- to complain about it > 19 years later. > > > And, she's dead-on right about female writers on late night talk shows > > being few and far between. I'm really surprised that so little has been > > said by TV watchdogs about that subject. I first became aware of it about > > 15 years ago -- when I joined a sitcom writers list. I doubt there are any > > more female writers today working in late night than there were then. > > A woman in afl has this take in regards to writing for Dave: > > "It's not whether what they write is funny or not - it's whether it's funny > in the context of Dave's TV Funhouse. > > "BTW - When mentioning funny women who write their own stuff, don't forget > Rita Rudner. I think she's very funny, but not a goddamn one of her jokes > would work for Dave." > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > On Behalf Of donz5 > > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:32 AM > > To: TVorNotTV > > Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: Well, here's the first one. > > > On Oct 28, 11:09 am, "Mark J." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Oct 28, 10:04 am, "Pollak, Melissa F." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ex-Letterman Writer Calls Workplace Hostile > > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/27/arts/AP-US-TV-David-Lett > > > >er > > > >man > > > > .html?em > > > > Paul has a direct link to the VF article on the other recent > > > Letterman thread. > > > I commented on this in the afl: > > > Nell writes: > > > "Without naming names or digging up decades-old dirt, let's address the > > pertinent questions. Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra > > attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors > > that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I > > aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships > > with female staffers? Yes. Did these female staffers have access to > > information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did > > that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female > > staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? > > Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely. Did I say anything at the > > time? Sadly, no." > > > Here's the flaw in her argument: Writers rarely advance to higher > > positions on LN and/or LS, Rob Burnett, Maria Pope, and the Stangels > > being the only exceptions I can think of offhand. (While the Stangels > > have been promoted to co-producers, they've retained their positions > > as co-head-writers.) > > > Nell was there for three months (mid-July to mid-October 1990). Her > > (standard) 13-week contract was up, and, by her own acknowledgment, the > > producers picked up her option. Which means her work as a writer was > > determined to be acceptable and valuable enough to continue her employment > > on the show. > > > Therefore, she can't claim that any favoritism she perceived were given to > > others had worked to her detriment. Three months was hardly enough time to > > warrant any sort of promotion, especially when her job position was already > > pretty high up there to begin with. > > > If Dave were boinking one of his assistants, it would not have affected > > Nell's job position. If Dave were boinking one of the interns, it would not > > have affected Nell's job position. > > > So despite her perception that there were others who were "benefitting > > professionally from their personal relationships," it had no bearing on her > > own work responsibilities or advancement potential. > > > Thus, she has little basis to claim "hostile work environment," as whatever > > occurred elsewhere in the building had zero effect on her own job. > > > Again -- she was there for three months. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
