Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The 'women aren't funny' myth
Comments
-
The Crowman wrote: »
Honestly, i never saw that video before, nor did I know what that Christopher hitchins thought the same.0 -
Being able to make someone laugh is attractive. In men, it's not always about looks and personality can get you there, especially if youre funny.
For women, being pretty is enough. They don't need to be funny...so they arent0 -
Being able to make someone laugh is attractive. In men, it's not always about looks and personality can get you there, especially if youre funny.
For women, being pretty is enough. They don't need to be funny...so they arent
That’s some pretty bad armchair evolutionary psychology.
What do the non-pretty women need to be?
Or are all women pretty in your mind because they’re the “fairer sex”?
Where do people get these ideas?0 -
That’s some pretty bad armchair evolutionary psychology.
What do the non-pretty women need to be?
Or are all women pretty in your mind because they’re the “fairer sex”?
Where do people get these ideas?
Is it really bad armchair evolutionary psychology? Or just not what you wanted to hear, for whatever reason. Reality isn't always palatable.
I think men generally are funnier and I think that genuinely is the reason why. Some women are very funny though, no doubt about that.0 -
LLMMLL wrote:Where do people get these ideas?
Same place as you get yours to be fair.
Their interpretation of the world due to their experience in living it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tell me how wrote: »Same place as you get yours to be fair.
Their interpretation of the world due to their experience in living it.
That’d be fine if their interpretation stood up to even the most basic questioning.
The poster seems to think that women don’t need to be funny because they’re pretty, while men need to be funny because they’re not pretty.
So are the vast majority of women pretty? Are there any non-pretty women? What do the non-pretty women do to get a partner?0 -
Is it really bad armchair evolutionary psychology? Or just not what you wanted to hear, for whatever reason. Reality isn't always palatable.
I think men generally are funnier and I think that genuinely is the reason why. Some women are very funny though, no doubt about that.
So could you explain your viewpoint by addressing some of the questions I put to you?0 -
So could you explain your viewpoint by addressing some of the questions I put to you?
Some more questions:
If men are funny to impress women, why do they tell jokes when there’s no women around?
Why whenever I see all female groups are they generally always laughing? Is there an Invisible man telling a joke?0 -
LLMMLL wrote:If men are funny to impress women, why do they tell jokes when there’s no women around?
Why whenever I see all female groups are they generally always laughing? Is there an Invisible man telling a joke?
I think you're taking the posters points too literally in that they were implying such behavior is absolute, in all environments. I think they mean "generally" speaking men developed a sense of humour, in part, to engage with women and that, again, generally speaking, women will get attention from the opposite sex more readily than men will and so haven't developed witty conversation in the same way.
I too am interpreting the posters comments in a particular way. Maybe I'm wrong.
I would say though, going by comments on online dating profiles, a lot of women do include "someone who can make me laugh" or some version in response to "what are you looking for type questions".0 -
Is there a biological reason why women can't be funny? No.
Is there a social reason why women traditionally don't appear to be as good at stand-up? Yeah, probably.
There's generally never been a problem with women doing scripted comedy, or even improv. Scripted, they're often given the "straight man" role, because a man playing the "stupid man" stereotype is more appealing, but especially in recent times, some of the best scripted comedy has come from women.
But stand-up has often been impenetrable for women, and that's probably because it relies on assuming no innocence on the part of the comic. It's going to be gritty, or a little disgusting, or a little risqué. Things which historically society has found distasteful in women.
When Jo Brand first became big, people really hated her. She was dry, uncouth, brash and disgusting. She hasn't changed her style much at all, but society has, and I think people enjoy her comedy quite a bit more now.
The success of any stand-up is as much to do with how much they push the boundaries as anything. Someone who pushes too much, will find their career very limited. Someone who doesn't push enough, who goes for safe humour, will have a safe career. To be a highly popular comic, you need to push the boundaries just enough to make people a little uncomfortable but not enough to disgust them.
For a long time, women doing stand-up was pushing the boundaries too much, and people weren't drawn to it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is there a biological reason why women can't be funny? No.
Is there a social reason why women traditionally don't appear to be as good at stand-up? Yeah, probably.
There's generally never been a problem with women doing scripted comedy, or even improv. Scripted, they're often given the "straight man" role, because a man playing the "stupid man" stereotype is more appealing, but especially in recent times, some of the best scripted comedy has come from women.
But stand-up has often been impenetrable for women, and that's probably because it relies on assuming no innocence on the part of the comic. It's going to be gritty, or a little disgusting, or a little risqué. Things which historically society has found distasteful in women.
When Jo Brand first became big, people really hated her. She was dry, uncouth, brash and disgusting. She hasn't changed her style much at all, but society has, and I think people enjoy her comedy quite a bit more now.
The success of any stand-up is as much to do with how much they push the boundaries as anything. Someone who pushes too much, will find their career very limited. Someone who doesn't push enough, who goes for safe humour, will have a safe career. To be a highly popular comic, you need to push the boundaries just enough to make people a little uncomfortable but not enough to disgust them.
For a long time, women doing stand-up was pushing the boundaries too much, and people weren't drawn to it.
Her comedy is still the same. E.g. I'm fat and I don't care + men are idiots
Yawn0 -
Tell me how wrote: »I think you're taking the posters points too literally in that they were implying such behavior is absolute, in all environments. I think they mean "generally" speaking men developed a sense of humour, in part, to engage with women and that, again, generally speaking, women will get attention from the opposite sex more readily than men will and so haven't developed witty conversation in the same way.
I too am interpreting the posters comments in a particular way. Maybe I'm wrong.
I would say though, going by comments on online dating profiles, a lot of women do include "someone who can make me laugh" or some version in response to "what are you looking for type questions".
I don’t think it’s taking it too literally.
If there was an evolutionary component to men supposedly being funnier than women then you would expect displays of humour to be a little more constrained. There would be no reason for same sex groups to use humour around each other. And even less reason for all-female groups than all-male groups. Yet humour is used in a Variety of social situations by both men and women.
You might think that’s pedantic but if you’re going to suggest evolution as a reason for a supposed observation, it should at least make sense within that theory.0 -
LLMMLL wrote:You might think that’s pedantic but if you’re going to suggest evolution as a reason for a supposed observation, it should at least make sense within that theory.
It makes sense in that it's a contributory element as opposed to the sole cause.
Likewise that there are additional benefits to using humour hence it's use in platonic environments.
I'm not advocating the original posters view as an absolute fact but I can see how it could be relevant.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »It makes sense in that it's a contributory element as opposed to the sole cause.
Likewise that there are additional benefits to using humour hence it's use in platonic environments.
I'm not advocating the original posters view as an absolute fact but I can see how it could be relevant.
There’s a bit of a difference between your position and bilbots:For women, being pretty is enough. They don't need to be funny...so they arent0 -
LLMMLL wrote:There’s a bit of a difference between your position and bilbots:
If you considered they meant "generally" would you agree or disagree.
P.S. I wouldn't take everything you read on the internet so literally.
0 -
Evolutionary psychology explanations are easy to come up with, can sound reasonable, but are very hard to test. You'd need to show actual genetic change on either the X chromosome or alterations in female hormone genes that can be directly linked to humour. Since we don't even know what humour is in the brain or how it evolved, this is a no-go.
I'd say a social explanation like seamus gave is more likely.0 -
Is there a biological reason why women can't be funny? No. (1)
Is there a social reason why women traditionally don't appear to be as good at stand-up? Yeah, probably.
There's generally never been a problem with women doing scripted comedy, or even improv. Scripted, they're often given the "straight man" role, because a man playing the "stupid man" stereotype is more appealing, but especially in recent times, some of the best scripted comedy has come from women. (2)
But stand-up has often been impenetrable for women, and that's probably because it relies on assuming no innocence on the part of the comic. It's going to be gritty, or a little disgusting, or a little risqué. Things which historically society has found distasteful in women. (3)
When Jo Brand first became big, people really hated her. She was dry, uncouth, brash and disgusting. She hasn't changed her style much at all, but society has, and I think people enjoy her comedy quite a bit more now.
The success of any stand-up is as much to do with how much they push the boundaries as anything. Someone who pushes too much, will find their career very limited. Someone who doesn't push enough, who goes for safe humour, will have a safe career. To be a highly popular comic, you need to push the boundaries just enough to make people a little uncomfortable but not enough to disgust them.
For a long time, women doing stand-up was pushing the boundaries too much, and people weren't drawn to it.
1) Are you stating opinion or fact there? I don't have an opinion either way there, but I think it's certainly a possibility that male brains/males have a greater propensity towards using humour than women. So it could be natural. Unless there's some sort of research either way there then I don't think it could be categorically stated in the affirmative or the negative (for either sex).
2) Are there? Which ones? By that I mean shows where women are the main contributors and there's an awareness that they are bringing the laughs rather than character development. It stands to reason that women would contribute towards comedy writing, particularly the likes of sitcoms. Are there specific comedies, written predominantly or solely by women that are proper "LOL" worthy though? I get that comedy is subjective so that's fair enough, but I can't think of any. Drifters was great, I think that might have been one now that I recall.
3) And? There's where risk-taking comes into play. It's not like the opportunity wasn't there for them. That's an entirely self-imposed barrier. At some point the onus is on the individual. Comedians find their audience, most probably after being given dogs abuse from hecklers early in their career where they are playing to small crowds of random strata of people who are there to see an unknown act for very little money. They'll piss off half the room and the other half (so long as it's funny) will go see them again. Eventually this happens enough times that they build up a niche and a following and it snowballs from there.
Frankie Boyle (as an example) makes jokes at times about people with Down Syndrome, mental illness and paedophiles. I dare say he puts up with some amount of pushback* against that, because these are things which historically society has found distasteful in COMEDY.....nothing to do with gender. If a woman made those jokes she's get similar heckling. He is successful because he perseveres and has built up enough of a support base to keep his career going.
*He definitely does, because it happens in pretty much every live show I've ever seen him do.....and these are from people who know his act! If that's now imagine what it was like when he was a nobody playing to a room of about 100 people total, and who weren't fanboys.
I'm not really seeing where this idea that women were pushing too far and that wasn't popular came from. I don't see how this is unique to women either even if it were true.0 -
3) And? There's where risk-taking comes into play. It's not like the opportunity wasn't there for them. That's an entirely self-imposed barrier. At some point the onus is on the individual. Comedians find their audience, most probably after being given dogs abuse from hecklers early in their career where they are playing to small crowds of random strata of people who are there to see an unknown act for very little money. They'll piss off half the room and the other half (so long as it's funny) will go see them again. Eventually this happens enough times that they build up a niche and a following and it snowballs from there.
it's hardly a self imposed barrier when there is a widely prevailing myth that women aren't funny, if that is the perception that exists then people who book comedy shows won't book people that the audience thinks aren't funny, if you can't get booked on a show because "women aren't funny" then how on earth do you get to a stage where you have your own show and fanboys who follow you around like Frankie Boyle.
Comedy is entirely subjective, some of the people mentioned on this thread are imo totally not funny at all. I think the truth is closer to this: men and women might find different things funny, some women are funny some men are funny, some men and women think they're funnier than they are. Nothing about gender precludes someone from being funny or unfunny.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »If you considered they meant "generally" would you agree or disagree.
P.S. I wouldn't take everything you read on the internet so literally.
No I wouldn’t. Generallly doesn’t mean anything in this context. He said himself he considers some women funny.
It still doesn’t make sense. If you change it to “generally women are pretty. Well that’s not really true. There’s probably a wide spectrum of typical attractiveness (which is of course subjective to a degree) and there’s plenty of pretty, plenty of average, and plenty of not very pretty women, just as there are with men. Saying something like “generally women are pretty so don’t need to be funny” wouldn’t make any more sense.
It’s not about taking something literally. If you invoke evolution you’re not using a metaphor. You’re making certain claims that have nothing to with literalness.0 -
Triceratops Ballet wrote: »it's hardly a self imposed barrier when there is a widely prevailing myth that women aren't funny, if that is the perception that exists then people who book comedy shows won't book people that the audience thinks aren't funny, if you can't get booked on a show because "women aren't funny" then how on earth do you get to a stage where you have your own show and fanboys who follow you around like Frankie Boyle.
Comedy is entirely subjective, some of the people mentioned on this thread are imo totally not funny at all. I think the truth is closer to this: men and women might find different things funny, some women are funny some men are funny, some men and women think they're funnier than they are. Nothing about gender precludes someone from being funny or unfunny.
To answer your first paragraph, there seems to be absolutely no problem in female comedians getting their places on panel shows and stand-up slots for the likes of Live at the Apollo and various other outlets. You're also responding to a point I didn't argue. The self-imposed barrier relates to their material, not the bookings. Trust me on this, everyone is prepared to give somebody a chance if they have a talent. There's nobody (or at least there's few people) out there refusing to enjoy something because it is done by a person of a specific group, particularly on something as inoffensive as a person's sex. There might be certain material that plays well to certain groups, and based on the fact that some comedians have a narrow target audience. That's fair enough. However, the good ones transcend these issues, and that's the difference. Amy Schumer talking about her smelly vag for 90 minutes might appeal to a small section of women who lap that up, but very few beyond that, and the reason isn't because she's a woman, the reason is that she's an abomination of a "comedian".
There seems to be an argument that women changed their act because of perception or that their approach wouldn't work and hence they were doomed to failure. Do people honestly think that controversial comedians who ended up successful at the end of it all didn't hear all sorts of "advice" and recommendations that they'd fail unless they change their act? I dare say you could count on one hand the amount of comedians who didn't at one stage or another face some serious questioning over their future in the business. If you're good enough and stick to the right process then they'll get the rewards.
There are exceptions to this of course, Ricky Gervais for example, who was in the writing, tv presenting then sitcom route before going into stand-up.
The market and venues don't care who they book, they care about bums on seats and that's the be all and end all. It a female comedian sells tickets then she will get bookings, end of story. This is different from a publicly funded organisation such as RTE or the BBC though, so no real surprise that they have a higher relative weighting towards female orientated/written comedy. People in the Dog and Duck would give anyone a chance, and its places like that where people start off from. Funny people build a crowd. The likes of Frankie Boyle didn't get a comedy career handed to them on a plate, they worked their arse off, and it paid off because they were good enough/had enough appeal to a large audience.
Comedy is subjective, but it's not entirely subjective. I think it's fair to debate who is better between say Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock, but a comparison of the ability of say Bill Burr over for example, Ed Byrne would seem rather ludicrous. The subjectivity angle can't be batted away willy nilly.
There really is no excuse anymore, and I'm not sure there ever was one. The chances of success are tiny for pretty much everyone, if it doesn't work out it's perhaps more because those people weren't very good, male or female.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm a woman and I've been told by men that I've a razor-sharp wit and humour. It's not about being afraid to display it openly for social/gender reasons. It tends to come out more so with people who actually get me/get it. I need to be 'in the zone' and in the state of flow but once I'm in it, it becomes alive at a rapid-fire pace.Points well made. So far I get the impression that women are as funny as men. However, due to societal and mating reasons the don't/won't show it as openly as us men.0 -
Zero Point wrote:I'm a woman and I've been told by men that I've a razor-sharp wit and humour. It's not about being afraid to display it openly for social/gender reasons. It tends to come out more so with people who actually get me/get it. I need to be 'in the zone' and in the state of flow but once I'm in it, it becomes alive at a rapid-fire pace.
That's the same for anyone who is funny to be honest.
Discussion here is just that it's more common amongst men.0 -
To answer your first paragraph, there seems to be absolutely no problem in female comedians getting their places on panel shows and stand-up slots for the likes of Live at the Apollo and various other outlets. You're also responding to a point I didn't argue. The self-imposed barrier relates to their material, not the bookings. Trust me on this, everyone is prepared to give somebody a chance if they have a talent. There's nobody (or at least there's few people) out there refusing to enjoy something because it is done by a person of a specific group, particularly on something as inoffensive as a person's sex. There might be certain material that plays well to certain groups, and based on the fact that some comedians have a narrow target audience. That's fair enough. However, the good ones transcend these issues, and that's the difference. Amy Schumer talking about her smelly vag for 90 minutes might appeal to a small section of women who lap that up, but very few beyond that, and the reason isn't because she's a woman, the reason is that she's an abomination of a "comedian".
Panel shows today are under actual pressure to have gender balances. Not so in the past. I just had a quick look at who were the guests in the first series of QI (just chose it as I thought it would be easy to find info on it and it’s got a long enough history).
Basically male host and regular male guest leaving 3 seats open. In the first series 2004, one episode had 2 women guests, a few episodes had one female guest and most had an all male lineup.
You may think comedy is a meritocracy but if the Booker is like some people on this thread and think that women don’t need to be funny because they’re pretty, or thinks the audience won’t respond to them for similar reasons then that will of course affect who gets a chance.
You’re right that there seems to be more equality of opportunity in things like panel shows currently but it’s also an uphill struggle to get some potential audience members to five female comedians a chance.
I’ve shown female comics to someone who “doesn’t think women are funny” and before the video started you can see them grimacing getting ready to hate it.0 -
Nina Conti is one of the funniest people ever. I want to marry her and have her puppets.0
-
Panel shows today are under actual pressure to have gender balances. Not so in the past. I just had a quick look at who were the guests in the first series of QI (just chose it as I thought it would be easy to find info on it and it’s got a long enough history).
Basically male host and regular male guest leaving 3 seats open. In the first series 2004, one episode had 2 women guests, a few episodes had one female guest and most had an all male lineup.
You may think comedy is a meritocracy but if the Booker is like some people on this thread and think that women don’t need to be funny because they’re pretty, or thinks the audience won’t respond to them for similar reasons then that will of course affect who gets a chance.
You’re right that there seems to be more equality of opportunity in things like panel shows currently but it’s also an uphill struggle to get some potential audience members to five female comedians a chance.
I’ve shown female comics to someone who “doesn’t think women are funny” and before the video started you can see them grimacing getting ready to hate it.
I'm aware of those quotas, and that almost certainly is the only reason how some of those ended up on those shows, I won't deny that. However, this highlights that they aren't really there on merit in many cases, they are token hires (not all the time). So in effect it's not the equality of opportunity, it's the equality of outcome, a heinous method in my opinion.
Funnily enough about those early series of QI, yes they were mostly male, they were also mostly cerebral and mostly great watches. Move forward in time and the show has declined massively in quality and in viewing figures.....it's no coincidence. Admittedly this is partly down to the show/format becoming a bit stale, and the tokenism doesn't just apply to gender it also applies to anything which could be considered different......so look for anyone that's not white, not a man, not heterosexual, not physically challenged, not from the right side of the tracks. Chances are these would have increased massively in relative share of appearances from the early days. This would be a contributing factor in a decline in quality. Not necessarily because these groups aren't as funny as the "non-quota" group i.e white guys, but because they have to hire a similar quantity of people from a much smaller selection pool. They have no choice but to choose people who really shouldn't be on there.....because they aren't funny. This is also to the detriment of those from that group who are clearly comfortable and right choices.
If you look at the early days of QI you'd see regular appearances from the likes of Jo Brand, Sue Perkins and Sandy Toksvig. Not a huge amount of anyone else but I think it's fair to say that all of these three more than hold their own on the show and are downright hilarious in those appearances and throughout......and I say that as someone who always found Perkins fairly annoying and over-hyper on other shows. There was no uproar about a lack of women back then as funnily enough that only happens when the show has had an opportunity to fail but ends up being successful, and we weren't living in a ridiculous quota demand society like now.
There's a similar phenomenon with 8 out of 10 Cats. The number of female panelists on the show went from an average of about 1.4 from series 1, which stayed steady in terms of trend up until series 18. In that time period the show averaged about 2 million viewers per episode. This is pretty much split into an early phase where they got about 2.5 million on average for the 1st 9 series, and then 1.5 million for the next 9.
Then for series 19 and 20 the average female panelists went from 1.4 to 3. This is partially explained by replacing Sean Lock and the other fella with Rob Beckett and Aisling Bea (increasing the Non-British element in the pie chart, a double win for the diversity perverts), but there's still a marked increase in average even if you account for the extra 1 woman panelist on each episode. The viewership went from 1.5 million to 400,000-500,000 immediately. Basically 2/3rd of viewers switched off. Obviously this is a small sample size, and isn't just explained by Bea and tokenism. It does however show that these policies are stupid, do not work, and more importantly not what people want. They can smell the diversity panel focus group from this a mile off.
I don't have enough info to make a judgment on your last paragraph. They might be grimacing because the comedian was someone they knew and knew to be not their cup of tea.
Caveat: I don't wish to be dogmatic. With the exception of the numbers and ratings I'm merely stating my opinion.0 -
I'm aware of those quotas, and that almost certainly is the only reason how some of those ended up on those shows, I won't deny that. However, this highlights that they aren't really there on merit in many cases, they are token hires (not all the time). So in effect it's not the equality of opportunity, it's the equality of outcome, a heinous method in my opinion.
Funnily enough about those early series of QI, yes they were mostly male, they were also mostly cerebral and mostly great watches. Move forward in time and the show has declined massively in quality and in viewing figures.....it's no coincidence. Admittedly this is partly down to the show/format becoming a bit stale, and the tokenism doesn't just apply to gender it also applies to anything which could be considered different......so look for anyone that's not white, not a man, not heterosexual, not physically challenged, not from the right side of the tracks. Chances are these would have increased massively in relative share of appearances from the early days. This would be a contributing factor in a decline in quality. Not necessarily because these groups aren't as funny as the "non-quota" group i.e white guys, but because they have to hire a similar quantity of people from a much smaller selection pool. They have no choice but to choose people who really shouldn't be on there.....because they aren't funny. This is also to the detriment of those from that group who are clearly comfortable and right choices.
If you look at the early days of QI you'd see regular appearances from the likes of Jo Brand, Sue Perkins and Sandy Toksvig. Not a huge amount of anyone else but I think it's fair to say that all of these three more than hold their own on the show and are downright hilarious in those appearances and throughout......and I say that as someone who always found Perkins fairly annoying and over-hyper on other shows. There was no uproar about a lack of women back then as funnily enough that only happens when the show has had an opportunity to fail but ends up being successful, and we weren't living in a ridiculous quota demand society like now.
There's a similar phenomenon with 8 out of 10 Cats. The number of female panelists on the show went from an average of about 1.4 from series 1, which stayed steady in terms of trend up until series 18. In that time period the show averaged about 2 million viewers per episode. This is pretty much split into an early phase where they got about 2.5 million on average for the 1st 9 series, and then 1.5 million for the next 9.
Then for series 19 and 20 the average female panelists went from 1.4 to 3. This is partially explained by replacing Sean Lock and the other fella with Rob Beckett and Aisling Bea (increasing the Non-British element in the pie chart, a double win for the diversity perverts), but there's still a marked increase in average even if you account for the extra 1 woman panelist on each episode. The viewership went from 1.5 million to 400,000-500,000 immediately. Basically 2/3rd of viewers switched off. Obviously this is a small sample size, and isn't just explained by Bea and tokenism. It does however show that these policies are stupid, do not work, and more importantly not what people want. They can smell the diversity panel focus group from this a mile off.
I don't have enough info to make a judgment on your last paragraph. They might be grimacing because the comedian was someone they knew and knew to be not their cup of tea.
Caveat: I don't wish to be dogmatic. With the exception of the numbers and ratings I'm merely stating my opinion.
I don’t think quotas mean that the individual who benefits isn’t there on merit. Not if there’s a genuine prejudice against them. If whoever does the booking for these shows is anti-female comedian, and this is not some outlandish idea, plenty on this thread seem to think the same thing, then a quota can address this. A quota does not mean they go out on the street and pick the first woman they see to be on television.
I don’t really find your numbers convincing for personal reasons. I watched the first few series of QI and stopped. Not because I found it had gotten unfunny but because I’d tired of the format. Unless you have a broad focus group that says that diversity measures turned them off it seems far More likely that the viewership declined for the exact same reason that the viewership of all shows (scripted drama or panel or reality) decline. Viewer fatigue. Happens to every single show.
My friend hadn’t heard of the comedia and yes he knew he wouldn’t like her. Because she’s a woman and “women aren’t funny”. That’s why he was grimacing. But if you start off watching a clip “knowing” you won’t like whoever it is it’s hardly giving them a fair shot, and it suggests to me that comedy is far from a meritocracy when it comes to gender.0 -
LLMMLL wrote:I don’t think quotas mean that the individual who benefits isn’t there on merit. Not if there’s a genuine prejudice against them. If whoever does the booking for these shows is anti-female comedian, and this is not some outlandish idea, plenty on this thread seem to think the same thing, then a quota can address this. A quota does not mean they go out on the street and pick the first woman they see to be on television.
You're assuming a prejudice. It's not necessarily true in reality. There are less women trying and failing than there are men trying and failing. Only a few make it from either group regardless. I mentioned their selection pool was smaller for women...it is. This clearly implies that there is no random choice, the choice is from female comedians, not from total randomers on the street. I was very clear on that point, to the point that I can only assume you deliberately choose to suggest I hadn't.
However, if you are left with having to choose a similar number of people from two pools, and one pool has fewer than the other, and you can't pick the same quality ones each time, eventually you will pick a substandard one from your smaller pool. It's not that the average quality from either pool is different, it's that you've a lower absolute number of high end acts from your smaller pool. You don't have to have social pressures and some sort of hidden hand keeping the women down to stop women from entering comedy, maybe, just maybe they have a lower propensity to get involved in it as a career.LLMMLL wrote:I don’t really find your numbers convincing for personal reasons. I watched the first few series of QI and stopped. Not because I found it had gotten unfunny but because I’d tired of the format. Unless you have a broad focus group that says that diversity measures turned them off it seems far More likely that the viewership declined for the exact same reason that the viewership of all shows (scripted drama or panel or reality) decline. Viewer fatigue. Happens to every single show.
They aren't my numbers, they are the numbers. They were 8 out of 10 cats numbers specifically, and they didn't just decline steadily. They were trending narrowly lower for 18 whole seasons.......then they completely collapsed when they stuck Bea and Beckett in there and made their panel average 50:50 of men and women. Viewer fatigue doesn't hit 66% of a viewer base in one go, after 18 series of something!
In terms of the QI sentiment I expressly said it was an opinion of mine, but it is one I strongly believe in. Funnily enough, and sad as it is, I only became properly familiar with this show about 18 months ago. I started watching it from series 1 right through and you could see the change in tone, approach and quality of discussion as moves from its original setup into the diversity quota mode.LLMMLL wrote:My friend hadn’t heard of the comedia and yes he knew he wouldn’t like her. Because she’s a woman and “women aren’t funnyâ€. That’s why he was grimacing. But if you start off watching a clip “knowing†you won’t like whoever it is it’s hardly giving them a fair shot, and it suggests to me that comedy is far from a meritocracy when it comes to gender.
That's one anecdote of something, a sample size of 1, and yes so is my 8 out of 10 cats thing, but it's inherent sample is a lot larger, and it's only natural to assume that people want to enjoy things. I bet your friend would have laughed had she been decent, regardless of what he says.
People inherently want to be entertained, it's why they give these types of shows a chance. If it's not working though they'll just turn off, and that's exactly what happens, the number collapse.0 -
You're assuming a prejudice. It's not necessarily true in reality. There are less women trying and failing than there are men trying and failing. Only a few make it from either group regardless. I mentioned their selection pool was smaller for women...it is. This clearly implies that there is no random choice, the choice is from female comedians, not from total randomers on the street. I was very clear on that point, to the point that I can only assume you deliberately choose to suggest I hadn't.
However, if you are left with having to choose a similar number of people from two pools, and one pool has fewer than the other, and you can't pick the same quality ones each time, eventually you will pick a substandard one from your smaller pool. It's not that the average quality from either pool is different, it's that you've a lower absolute number of high end acts from your smaller pool. You don't have to have social pressures and some sort of hidden hand keeping the women down to stop women from entering comedy, maybe, just maybe they have a lower propensity to get involved in it as a career.
If quality rises to the top then the women who are in this small pool shouldn’t be duds by your standards. If a booker goes to a pool of female comedians and audiences make comedians career based on merit, then any female comedian in the female comedian pool should be similar in talent to male comedians in the male pool.
I don’t find the new female captain in 8 out of 10 cats particularly funny (though I’ve only seen a few clips, haven’t watched a full episode in years), but I don’t find the new Male captain that funny either. If the supposed drop in quality is due to the female comedian coming from a small pool then the male comedian should be much funnier. He’s not.
Viewer fatigue doesn't hit 66% of a viewer base in one go, after 18 series of something!
Maybe not but moving the show from Channel 4 to More 4 does. Prior to that there had been a significant fall off with quite a few episodes getting lows of 0.9m whereas it used to get between 1.5-2.5m.
More 4 is a niche channel. It’s the same with bbc. BBC4 gets less viewers than BBC2 which gets less viewers than BBC1. Blaming the viewership drop on audiences hating diversity is a little odd when the much more obvious explanation of an already declining show being moved to a niche channel makes far more sense.That's one anecdote of something, a sample size of 1, and yes so is my 8 out of 10 cats thing, but it's inherent sample is a lot larger, and it's only natural to assume that people want to enjoy things. I bet your friend would have laughed had she been decent, regardless of what he says.
People inherently want to be entertained, it's why they give these types of shows a chance. If it's not working though they'll just turn off, and that's exactly what happens, the number collapse.
Sure it’s an anecdote but try it yourself. Tell a friend you want to show them a funny clip and see what their attitude is before you press play. Now tell a “women aren’t funny” person that you’re going to show them this hilarious female comedian and see their attitude before you press play.0 -
If quality rises to the top then the women who are in this small pool shouldn’t be duds by your standards. If a booker goes to a pool of female comedians and audiences make comedians career based on merit, then any female comedian in the female comedian pool should be similar in talent to male comedians in the male pool.
I don’t find the new female captain in 8 out of 10 cats particularly funny (though I’ve only seen a few clips, haven’t watched a full episode in years), but I don’t find the new Male captain that funny either. If the supposed drop in quality is due to the female comedian coming from a small pool then the male comedian should be much funnier. He’s not.
Maybe not but moving the show from Channel 4 to More 4 does. Prior to that there had been a significant fall off with quite a few episodes getting lows of 0.9m whereas it used to get between 1.5-2.5m.
More 4 is a niche channel. It’s the same with bbc. BBC4 gets less viewers than BBC2 which gets less viewers than BBC1. Blaming the viewership drop on audiences hating diversity is a little odd when the much more obvious explanation of an already declining show being moved to a niche channel makes far more sense.
Sure it’s an anecdote but try it yourself. Tell a friend you want to show them a funny clip and see what their attitude is before you press play. Now tell a “women aren’t funny” person that you’re going to show them this hilarious female comedian and see their attitude before you press play.
Well played my friend. You've argued well. I don't agree with paragraph 1 but the rest I'd have to say is fair.
For what it's worth I think Beckett is awful. Seems a nice lad, but a bit of a lightweight.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zero Point wrote: »I'm a woman and I've been told by men that I've a razor-sharp wit and humour. It's not about being afraid to display it openly for social/gender reasons. It tends to come out more so with people who actually get me/get it. I need to be 'in the zone' and in the state of flow but once I'm in it, it becomes alive at a rapid-fire pace.
Being somewhat funny amongst friends and colleagues is not the same as Stand Up funny0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA
Advertisement