Jerry Seinfeld doesn't care about racial and gender diversity: it's "P.C. nonsense" and "anti-comedy."

Asked about overrepresentation of white males on his comedy show, he says: "People think it's the census or something? I mean, does this represent the actual pie chart of America? Who cares? Funny is the world I live in. If you're funny, I'm interested. If you're not funny, I'm not interested. And I have no interest in race or gender or anything like that. But everyone else is kinda, like, with their little calculating. 'Is this the exact right mix?' You know, I think, that's like... to me, it's anti-comedy. It's more about P.C. nonsense than 'Are you making us laugh or not?'"



ADDED: In case you don't watch the clip, I wanted to transcribe Jerry's sarcasm when the topic of racial diversity if first introduced: "Take a look around" — gesturing at the audience — "what do you see? A lot of whities! What's going on here? Oh, this really pisses me off!"

Apparently, Seinfeld is getting criticized for this. I see Dave, in the comments, said:

Seinfeld's response is intriguing because a safer answer would have been so easy — "well, that's just who I've had on so far, it's been a random walk, there are plenty of funny women/minorities in the industry, I'm sure I'll have more of them on in the future, yadda yadda yadda." Say that, and no critical pieces get written about him.

But he didn't. This sentiment must have been festering inside him. He must have wanted to get this out there. I wonder why that is. Fascinating really.

I don't think that would have been a safe answer, because he's done so many of his shows — "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee" — with white males, too many to fit the excuse that he just hasn't gotten around to it yet. I think what we're reading there is safer than other things he thinks: The coffee conversation works best when he's with someone who's more like him. He is favoring his own kind — and his own kind is a minority group that has done especially well in comedy. He was being P.C. not to mention that. Quotas were used against Jews in the old days, and any sort of counting and calculating in an effort to make the comedy community look like America, would hurt Jewish males  the most. His people.

An appeal to race-and-gender blindness may be the best he can do. When I first blogged the clip, I thought Seinfeld chose to tweak us with something he knew would go viral. He's pushing a show. People need to see that he has a show and bother to watch it. But this morning, reading Dave's comment, I'm more willing to think the interviewer's question opened a portal to an angry place inside him. Notice that his very first outburst is a hostile "Yeah, let's get into that."

"Why don't men pursue women anymore?"

A question someone Googled, which brought them to this old blog post of mine, which links to a 2006 NYT Magazine article that I remember very well. Coincidentally, I had reread that post a couple days ago and had been wanting to re-blog it.  My post title is a quote from the article: "Men don’t marry because women like myself don't need to rely on them." I'd said:

Who called Meg Whitman a "whore"? And who cares?

"The person who said that word is someone who can't be fired... Jerry's wife can't be fired" — according to an anonymous source.

By the way, who cares if the word "whore" is used in private conversations to refer to politicians who sell themselves in one way or another? Virtually all politicians take money and much of that money is given by people that are hoping/expecting to get something. In that sense, they are all whores. It's unremarkable that rough language is used. So what's the problem with calling Meg Whitman a whore? Jerry's a whore too, isn't he?

This fuss is phony. The only way it has any substance is if you think there's something especially wrong with using the standard rough language against a woman. If you think that, you don't believe in the full equality of the sexes. And it would mean that women don't belong in politics or wielding great power in the public sphere. If we can't criticize women the same way we criticize men, then we shouldn't trust them with power.

When I wrote "Jerry's a whore too, isn't he?" maybe you started thinking about the substance of the charge. Who has Jerry taken money (or other support) from and how has he, in the past, served the interests of the people who helped him? Well, the same thing goes for Meg Whitman! What was the substantive criticism? Why aren't we talking about that? Let's treat male and female politicians the same.

IN THE COMMENTS: YoungHegelian said:

If Prof Althouse thinks that politicians are "whores" because they take others' money, shouldn't Ms Whitman get a pass because her campaign is self-funded?

I mean, she may be a political masturbatrix, but she's not a whore!

I think apologies are owed here, Professor!

I said, the discussion should shift to the substance of it, and I agree that, with so much of her own money, Whitman has more chance of winning on the substance than most politicians.

Dave points me to PJ O'Rourke's "Parliament of Whores." O'Rourke wrote:  "Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us."