That’s fair enough, I should correct that. Is it possible that there is a sexual preference for comedy performance as a career?
No, you’ve badly misunderstood what I’m saying here. I get that you’re not saying “women aren’t funny.” I’m saying that what you are saying is exactly as problematic as “women aren’t funny,” for exactly the same reasons.
Literally your first post in this thread:
That’s not dismissive? “Who cares?” isn’t dismissive?
Outside of a few occupations that are highly dependent on physical strength, yes. Are you saying that you don’t?
I mean, it doesn’t involve any explicitly supernatural elements, so I guess it’s possible, but in terms of likelihood, it’s… well, it’s right there, neck-and-neck with “Women aren’t naturally funny.”
I don’t care if all the panellists are female, nor if they are all male, nor if they are a perfect mix. I’m not sure what you think that is dismissive of.
Correct, I don’t. There is a vanishingly small likelihood that, absent any external restrictions, all human communities will be perfectly represented in careers and activities.
I’m suprised you are so dismissive of the possibility. Would you be surprised to learn that when societies increase equal opportunities they do not necessarily see an equalisation of career or activity choices across the sexes? Why would comedy performance be immune from that?
Well, then I’m confused why you reacted to vehemently to “Women naturally aren’t funny.” What, specifically, do you find “idiotic” about that statement, that doesn’t apply to what you just wrote here?
Because plenty of women are naturally funny. It is a statement easily contradicted by observable facts. It is an absolutist statement that doesn’t stand up to to scrutiny.
When I say “it is entirely plausible that males are more drawn to comedy performance” it is a careful statement of relative general preference that still allows for the fact that females can be naturally funny and females can also be drawn to comedy performance, just possibly not in the same numbers as males.
If true it would go some way to explain the disparities seen. I’m not sure why you think such a possibility would be so outrageous.
Hmm. I didn’t consider the statement to be absolutist, just a (bad) generalization. I certainly didn’t think it would be taken as “No women are ever funny.” But I can see where we’re miscommunicating there.
So, I take it “Women aren’t naturally as funny as men,” would not be an objectionable statement to you?
Because it’s one of the biggest cliches when discussing racial and gender disparities in employment, and it’s almost always bullshit.
Exactly: it’s this very fact that comedians can get a two-for-one payoff with this kind of joke, where audiences can be simultaneously tickled by sexist mockery of women and by the “transgressiveness” of sexist mockery of women, that contributes to my skepticism about your naive assumption of neutrality concerning women in comedy.
I mean, you don’t have to just trust my perceptions here, either: you can read what people actually working in the comedy industry say about sexism and harassment of women.
So I’ve been skimming this thread. Are TV panel shows declining because women are not funny?
I’m not sure it’s been established that TV panel shows are declining, even specifically in the case of British ones which is what the OP was asking about. The OP mentioned the cancellation of a couple long-established British panel shows in recent years, but left the broader question open.
Wendell_Wagner in post #15 proposed that “the decline of them on British television is a belated version of the decline of them on American television”. (AFAIK, American television has no “quota” requirements like that of the BBC for representing female participants on panel shows.) But subsequent posters had some other takes.
No, I don’t think anybody in this thread has suggested that the hypothesized potential decline of UK panel shows is due to diversity efforts on the part of producers, in the case of either women or minorities. (In which case I guess some of us [looks in mirror] should probably shut up about that side issue, huh.)
You are still couching it in absolutist terms. Some women are funnier than some men.
What I said has nothing to do with racial issues.
I have no problem in accepting that innate differences of sexual preferences go some way to explaining disparities seen in some professions and activities. When and how much is something to debate. To dismiss it as bullshit seems extreme.
In Iceland, the country that has done more for female/male equality of opportunity there is still exists a widening gap in the choices that are actually made. The same seems to be the case in other similar countries. There is no uniform move to equal representation across all fields.
If you do not accept the above then you are doomed to see every disparity as evidence of discrimination.
Exactly what “naive assumption of neutrality” have I made? I’m against quotas, I’m also against discrimination for exactly the same reasons.
Women in many areas of society face harassment and discrimination. No-one denies this. Controversially I think that is a bad thing and should be eliminated, along with quotas.
Again, I think this tangent is at least 10 years too late.
No-one doubts that there are lots of funny women now.
(On a personal note, I recently went to a standup comedy event here in Bristol and felt all the funniest people were female and the men struggled)
I think the quotas did help though. Bear in mind the quota was not equal numbers, it was to always have at least one woman on.
I’m with Novelty_Bobble on this.
Saying women have less ability than men in a particular field or activity is definitely not the same as saying women don’t want to do that activity.
There are numerous examples of women being discriminated against when they tried to join in.
Soccer
In 1921, the English Football Association banned all women’s teams from playing on Association-affiliated grounds, arguing that the game is “not fitted for females”, citing the high costs of player expenses, and alleging financial corruption
Politics
The first ever female MP to take her seat in the House of Commons was the Conservative Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor, she sat in the House from 1919-1945, her election led the way for women in society to become increasingly more involved in politics and for many they later represented their respected party in Parliament.
Even after women were allowed to become politicians, they are still treated disrespectfully.
The sexiest female MPs - Mirror Online
At this point the general subject of the decline of the panel shows in view of the cancellation of MTW seems to have been subsumed by a discussion about representation of women. Way to go whoever mentioned quotas.
I must however be in agreement with something mentioned earlier. The Brit style that to this outsider looks like having a show’s season (“series”) happen sort of whenever it does happen and then only for six or eight shows and Og knows when it will be back on, is kind of at a disadvantage in the age of the stream and the podcast. Especially with programming that is dependent on current topicality, and on casts made up of people who at any given time may be on tour or otherwise filming.
So it may simply be that it’s becoming time for the format to evolve and something different to fill the niche.
(Of course some people have been bemoaning the ruin of Mock The Week since Frankie left and I’m pretty sure the same has happened to other panels as they have lost long-standing “regulars”. Yet many have gone on for quite a bit.)
Apologies for the diversion, that’s very much on me. I just have a visceral distaste for quotas. I will drop the subject.
There is probably something in that. There is also the “Dave” effect in that all the episodes of the panel shows get repeated ad-infinitum on freeview channels in the UK and potentially that over-exposure might bring on a degree of disinterest in any new series. Why get excited over the new series when all the old good stuff is at your fingertips.
ETA “Dave” is an ironically named TV channel in the UK that contains a lot of repeats of that type.
It was just my subtle and extremely clever way pointing out how far the thread has veered from its subject.
I loved Frankie on MtW, but him leaving has ended up better for both the show and his own work, I think.
And I had the clear impression it was set up/semi-scripted by/for both sides.
I don’t think so, QI isn’t scripted as far as I know. Not sure it would work as well if it was. Certainly that quip seemed to be off-the-cuff.
It’s not scripted, but the panelists used to be offered the questions if they wanted to see them in advance. Almost none do except for guest panelists(like Dan Radcliffe, who was very nervous).
One panelist did request all the questions and became an insufferable know-it-all on air. Stephen Fry would not reveal who it was, but it was recently revealed to have been John Sessions, who they stopped inviting at some point. I believe Dara Ó Briain revealed it after John Sessions died.
Anyway, the vast majority of panelists don’t see the questions and none of the quips are scripted in advance. And Jack Dee? He definitely would not prepare like that. He’s too funny.