Haven’t watched any of them for years now. I think broadcast media is declining in general. I can’t remember the last time I “tuned in” to watch anything specifically at a certain time.
Another big problem is news cycles, social media and lead time. 20 years ago doing topical satire weekly was quick - the stories would still be fresh and the jokes new. Nowadays stories are often passe the day after they break (or in extreme cases, by that evening) but the real killer is that there are a lot of actually funny people on social media (as well as many, many more who just think they are) and the good jokes have already been made and shared within hours of the story breaking. The HIGNFY twitter account is embarrassingly bad in this respect, but the main point is that by the time Friday night rolls round, we’ve seen either that joke or a better one already.
There’s still a lot of panel shows, in fact it seems like there’s a lot more coming around. I have a hard time keeping up. Being in the US I have to specifically go out and find them. I do agree that it’s harder for the networks to have topical shows, being that they don’t do as well in reruns.
But you can still find panel shows almost every day on UK tv. You’re never more than a stone’s throw away from Jimmy Carr!
Well, two questions: is the comedy scene actually “overwhelmingly white male,” and if so, why do you think that is? Women and minorities just not naturally funny? Or is there a persistent bias in stand up comedy that favors white men at the expense of other performers?
I doubt Sandy would appreciate being used to prop up your argument, given that she also sees a problem in how women are represented on BBC comedy shows.
There could be many reasons, the demographic make-up of the UK will ensure that it is overwhelmingly white and it is entirely plausible that comedy performance is something that males are more drawn to.
That would be an idiotic claim.
If you think that is the case then feel free to say so.
Nothing that she said spoke to the point I was making about quotas.
Would it?
Yes it would, the words of mine that you have quoted do not contradict each other.
Whether someone is drawn to performing is a different matter to whether they are naturally funny or not.
But, however tempting the opportunity, I wouldn’t act on it.
[Does anyone else think there’s a faint physical resemblance to Richard Nixon? I think it’s the nose]
Panel shows don’t seem to make it to any of the streaming services I use. I used to love QI, but haven’t watched it in years because it’s too much trouble going looking for anything other than random clips and episodes on YouTube. That could mean I’ve missed it arriving at a streaming service I have access to by force of The Algorithm though.
Yeah, there’s definitely a little bit there. Probably moreso before Carr lost weight.
I find BritBox seems to have a pretty good selection of UK panel shows, although I’m not that knowledgeable about the genre.
I suppose that’s technically true, in that “Women aren’t as funny as men,” is not the exact same statement as “Women aren’t as interested in performing as men are,” but I’m not really seeing how one is less - to use your term - idiotic than the other.
All the talk of women on panel shows just reminds me of this classic moment from QI:
YouTube is exactly where I tend to watch it. Watch enough QI stuff, and you start getting them recommended. Sure, it may be an older episode or clips, but that’s enough to remind me to type in a quick search and find the most recent episodes.
That was indeed a hilarious classic punchline! But see, it’s precisely this sort of reaction—where somebody’s go-to response to a discussion about sexist prejudice still operating against women in comedy is to bring up a decade-old sexist zinger about how women talk too much—that calls into question the sort of naive assumption of neutrality that Novelty_Bobble is advocating.
Sure, a joke can be sexist and still be funny; it’s not like the overwhelmingly male comedy scene of recent decades was coasting purely on sexism alone.
But the fact that sexist jokes are some of the ones that many male comedy fans are most emotionally attached to kind of undercuts the position that comedy must be some kind of pure meritocracy where prejudice plays no role in persistent underrepresentation.
If I wanted to say the former statement I’d have done so. You really shouldn’t be trying mental gymnastics to get the those two statements to mean they same. They don’t. One is about inherent capability and aptitude, the other is about preference in applying that capability.
Really? do you think it unlikely that there are any sex-based preferences regarding certain activities? I don’t find that concept a stretch at all.
It’s not really gymnastics, man. They’re basically identical sentiments, you’re just changing where the gendered expectation kicks in.
Yes, I think that’s generally pretty unlikely, particularly when it’s offered, with no evidence, as an explanation for high gender disparity in a professional industry. Doubly so when it’s an industry with as many gate keepers as the entertainment industry.
Context is everything. They were pointing towards sexism and discussing it. Jack Dee’s joke was perfectly timed and perfectly relevant. It had to be transgressive to work, it had to be referencing a classic sexist stereotype to be as funny as it was.
Like Sean Locke’s brilliant one-liner. “they say a woman’s work is never done, maybe that’s why they get paid less”
They simply are not, not even close.
You don’t think it possible that female and males have different preferences in the activities they undertake or the careers they choose?
Why would that make any difference to how unlikely it is?
I genuinely don’t see how they’re different. They’re both arguments predicated on the idea that women aren’t doing something because of something inherent in the nature of women. Whether that something is “be funny” or “be performers” is immaterial. The objection isn’t with the object of the sentence, it’s with the logic that starts with, “Women are inherently X,” and then uses that to dismiss a disparity in the workplace.
For someone who’s being very particular about word choice, it’s odd that you would so easily confuse “unlikely” with “impossible.”
Because the vastly more likely explanation is that women are under represented because of systematic and personal sexism in the industry.
I know you don’t. I know you want to hang the “women aren’t funny” comment on me by association but I reject that completely. Not only did I not say it, nor do I think it, I outright rejected it.
I dismissed nothing, I put forward a sexual difference in preferences that may go some way to explaining an observed disparity.
Do you think that, given a perfectly equal opportunity, males and females will naturally occupy all professions and activities 50:50?
There is no reason to think that there is only one factor at work here. Both could be true.