0
How It Works
Splitsider Presents is a digital comedy store selling great comedy directly to you. There are no hoops to jump through, and you don't need to hand over your identity. Buying is simple and straightforward; you don't need a credit card or an existing account. You can complete payment and be watching a show in seconds, choosing to pay via either Amazon or Paypal.
Splitsider keeps only 20% of the cost of the purchase after transaction, bandwidth and legal costs, with about 70% going directly to the artist.
You can stream your purchases on whatever device you like, or download them to your computer to keep forever in DRM-free file formats.
Purchase/Playback Info
For $5 you get 5 HD or SD DRM-free downloads and 3 streams, allowing you to watch on your computer or any other device. You can choose to pay via either Amazon or PayPal, and you'll be able to log into the site whenever you want to re-download or stream your purchases.
Need Help?
Buying and watching shows on Splitsider Presents should be simple, quick and undemanding, but if you run into trouble, we have an excellent <A href="http://splitsider.com/store/docs/help">help section and customer service</a> to assist you.
On The Lost Roles of Gilda Radner
@Bradford Evans, it's patronizing to both genders, by definition of the word. But it definitely makes a difference what context it's used in. For example, there's a difference between Shane McGowan singing "Let me go, boys" in a Pogues song and someone saying the phrase "Boys will be boys," which (when people are talking about men, not actual boys) can be used to dismiss asshole behavior, but also implies men have no control over themselves. I don't like calling women girls (or calling men boys) in any context, but there's a difference between calling women girls just as a counterpart to "guy" and, say, using a term like "girl's basketball." I have friends of both genders who use the word the same way they would "guy," and while I don't like it, I don't find it as disturbing as when people use it in reference to a woman in a field hostile to them or where women have to claw through a lot of bullshit just to be taken seriously. I'm not an athlete or a comedian, but I sympathize a lot with women in those fields because they have to put up with more bullshit than what perhaps a woman doctor or lawyer would (although, I'm not a doctor or lawyer, so I could be wrong there). To be fair, what made seeing the word "girls" in your article frustrating to me is that I was coming to it from the context of knowing women comedians have to put up with a lot of bullshit, and you obviously just meant "girl" as "female guy." I know calling a someone in her early 20's a woman doesn't feel natural for most people, so the problem there is more that there isn't a "guys" or "bros" or "dudes" for women as it is blatant sexism. I think it was especially jarring for me to see the word right away in your article because even though Gilda Radner was the first person hired for SNL, she still had to deal with that "women can't be funny" attitude. I saw a doc about the show's early years that talked about how Jane Curtin couldn't stand John Belushi because he had that attitude, although he would say Gilda was an exception. We're both just looking at the word's use differently, which is not the worst thing in the world. As I've said I don't like the word in any context, but what people say isn't up to me (nor would I want it to be). We're not going to feel the same way about the word "girl." Not a huge deal. @Jason Farr@facebook, you're right that everyone should be mindful of what they say, but there's a difference between being careful that what you say doesn't stereotype an entire group of people and being careful that what you say doesn't come across as hostile to an individual. Both are nice things to think about, but when I see something that is condescending to a whole group, it's hard for me to give a fuck about individual feelings. Again, I think it comes back to the context you're bringing to it, and I think it's harder to understand that attitude of "Fuck it, I don't have to explain myself to you" when you're coming from a position of privelege. I honestly think it's really awesome that you talked to a friend about the calling adult women girls issue. Internet comment boards are a place where you can be an asshole with impunity if you want to, so it's refreshing to see you see an issue and actually think about it and discuss it. The fact is the woman you talked to isn't offended by the use of the word "girls" across the board and I am. She doesn't speak for me and I don't speak for her, and (I'm assuming) neither of us claims to speak for the other. As I said above, calling women girls and calling men boys is patronizing by definition, so when I say I'm bothered by the use in any context, it's for that reason, not that I think all women would agree with me. But I think you've hit the nail on the head about two things: it is a colloquially used word, and the tone matters. We're not going to agree about whether it's OK to use, and that's not a big deal. We'd probably be living in a post-apocalyptic nightmare at this point if it actually made a difference when people on the internet don't agree. But one last bone to pick: I don't think "this might not have been the best example of a man dismissing women" is a good enough reason for why I shouldn't say anything or be bothered by the sentence that I posted on initially. No matter what the issue is you see people discussing, it's almost invariably going to be at best a microcosm of a larger problem. If people only talked about or worried about the most egregious examples of social issues, we'd spend more energy trying to determine what the most egregious examples are, and worse, it sort of gives people a license not to think about what they say. I mean, you've pinpointed Hugh Hefner as someone who seems to dismiss women, and I doubt many women are clamoring to argue with you. But there's a men's rights movement out there with some members crazy enough to register feminists and post personal information about them online. (I think the site's called register-her.com. Trust me, it's not worth my energy to look it up.) It's INSANE, and it's certainly worse than anything Hugh Hefner could say about women, but does it mean I shouldn't worry about what good ole Hugh says now? No matter what the issue, there's always going to be someone saying something more offensive, but sometimes the problem isn't which idea is the worst, but which idea is the most widespread.