Funny Girl
I think Matt is just jerking my chain here, but the other day he was enthusiastically endorsing the notion that men are funnier than women. First of all, I reject the premise; this is total bullshit. This isn't like with philosophy, where I say, "granted that relatively few women like to get into cock-swinging arguments about cashing out various metaphysical intuitions, what's the mechanism at work?". Here, I just straight up deny; women and men are funny in equal numbers--IRL.
Now, it's undeniably true that there are fewer professional female comedians. Let's think for 5 milliseconds about why this might be true. I don't know, maybe sexism? Sounds crazy that sexism could play a role in our modern-day society, but bear with me here. Ugly guys can get on TV, and into movies, if they're really funny. Ugly chicks can't, full. stop. I don't want to hear about Roseanne, because one swallow does not make a spring, and anyway, I see your Roseanne and raise you Drew Carey and Steven Wright. What's that? Can't stand the heat and you best get out of the kitchen. SAM KINISON! DANNY DEVITO!! Boo-ya! Seriously, just consider the make-up of the Seinfeld cast. Julia Louis-Drefuss is not the single hottest chick ever, but how does she stack up against the random female on the bus? Pretty hot. Meanwhile, that Kramer guy? Once again, IN YOUR FACE!! Could any woman as wonky-looking as Michael Richards ever be on a prime-time series? Oh, what's that sound...could it be crickets? Funny female crickets who are cracking everyone in the hedgerow up, but then they can't make the big-time because they wear a cricket size 8, the "fat girls" size? Yeah, that's what I thought.
OK Julian Elson, you better bump me back up or I'm coming to your house with a cream pie. Nothing cracks'em up like a pie.
Your post is a perfect illustration that Matt is right. Don't quit your day job.
Steve
Posted by: Steve | February 07, 2005 at 08:57 PM
Merrill Markoe, the inventor of the Late Night Top Ten list, in her recent epistolary roman a clef The Psycho Ex Game, talks about how she was once hired to bring a 'female perspective' to an ensemble sitcom set in a gym, the writing staff being composed of what class clowns who follow their bliss end up doing, few of whom actually go to a gym. All guys of course.
She introduced a lot of relatively subtle humor about gender relationships to the scripts. It all got cut during staff meetings, except for one bit that was modified out of recognition into a typical "what comedy guys think jocks act like" joke.
In the novel, she won an award for that episode.
Incidentally, for a novel that looks like it was constructed by the co-authors saving their early relationship e-mails, and then searching and replacing thoroughly enough to avoid British libel laws, it's pretty good.
C.
Posted by: Carlos | February 07, 2005 at 09:17 PM
So Steve, it's not every day that someone deliberately puts himself in a no-win situation, but either you're kidding, in which case, that's not a funny joke; or you're serious, in which case it is a funny joke, but you're a big dummy.
Posted by: ogged | February 08, 2005 at 12:26 AM
I have to admit, with some trepidation, that what cracked me up about this post was
because one swallow does not make a spring
since even though I'm TEACHING that right now I was all "wait, is that a fat joke?"
Another explanation: standup comedy, like philosophy, seems to be full of fragile, combative egos; thinking about humor as like a physical confrontation might be less conducive to women. Or something.
Posted by: Fontana Labs | February 08, 2005 at 12:43 AM
Matt is wise beyond his years except when he is being infantile. I know more amusing women than I do men so I'm solidly in your corner, Belle. Or maybe there's a distinction between witty and funny for these women usually gifted in rapportee.
There's alot of facets to sexism but it occurs to me that pathetic is funnier in men than woman (am I expressing one of those facets now?). Irresponsibility is funnier in men than in woman. Pratfalls are funnier with men than with women. It may be because we are such a pathetic, irresponsible, clumsy group.
Posted by: LowLife | February 08, 2005 at 12:52 AM
Some ugly, plump, or at least weird-looking women who have been in comedy movies or TV:
-Gilda Radner
-Alex Borstein (MadTV, Cat Woman, Family Guy (guess animation doesn't count?)etc. very cute, but plump)
-Lucille Ball
-Rosie O'Donnell (some crappy movie I can't remember. I know she's not really funny, but that shouldn't matter.)
-Sandra Bernhard (Hudson Hawk)
I'm sure there's a bunch more. It may be true that their numbers are fewer, and don't come to mind as easily as the Jackie Gleason's and Chris Farley's of the world, but certainly non-hot female comedians can get into movies and tv if they're funny.
Posted by: marksteen | February 08, 2005 at 12:55 AM
I think I have an explanation for the phenomena noticed above by LowLife:
There's alot of facets to sexism but it occurs to me that pathetic is funnier in men than woman (am I expressing one of those facets now?). Irresponsibility is funnier in men than in woman. Pratfalls are funnier with men than with women. It may be because we are such a pathetic, irresponsible, clumsy group.
In each of these cases the humor operates by portraying as undignified a subject who is assumed to have a pretty substantial reserve of dignity. I'm not saying that men are, in any objective sense, more dignified than women. But they are granted dignity as a matter of course, and that gives them something to work with.
Don't believe me? Try to imagine a disabled comic whose schtick relies heavily on pratfalls. Not very funny.
Posted by: zwichenzug | February 08, 2005 at 01:14 AM
Lucille Ball was weird-looking? That's just nuts -- she was a physical comedian who pulled faces a lot, so you're probably picturing her grimacing, but look at any picture of her where she isn't making a silly face, and then come back here and call her weird-looking. She got her start as a model and a starlet in Hollywood movies (e.g., "Stage Door") -- not as a comic.
That you went for Ball as an example of a funny-looking female comic just shows how high the standard for women performers is -- you looked at a woman who, if you saw her on the street would be unambiguously stunning, and remembered her as ugly because she makes faces.
Sandra Bernhard less so -- probably couldn't have started out as a model, like Ball did -- but stacked up against the woman-on-the-street? Still remarkably attractive. Gilda Radner and Rosie O'Donnell probably make it down to average attractiveness, and I don't know your last example. Your post completely supports Belle's point.
Posted by: LizardBreath | February 08, 2005 at 01:19 AM
You know, it's OK to talk about all those good female comics that goose the female average up, but all I've got to do to refute Yglesias is mention two words.
Colin. Quinn.
Watching that guy in action is enough to convince you that no male could possibly be funny ever again. He takes our average and single-handedly hammers it down into the ground.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 08, 2005 at 01:36 AM
There is some notion that for men, fat equals funny; I think Gleason lost weight at some point, and had to put it back on, for such a reason. Hardy (or was it Laurel?), W.C. Fields, Gleason, Belushi, Farley, John Goodman, maybe Will Sasso, maybe Jason Alexander, Neumann-on-Seinfeld, Horatio Sanz: part of their funny is being fat.
Why isn't fat==funny for women, except maybe when they're opera singers? Sexism, maybe, but I don't feel like that's the only explanation. I don't even understand why it might be seen that way for men.
Posted by: Ken C. | February 08, 2005 at 01:54 AM
I'd also question the wisdom of drawing conclusions about the humorousness of the sexes by counting standup comedians on different grounds--by and large stand-up comedians aren't funny. No points for men here.
Posted by: djw | February 08, 2005 at 01:57 AM
Look, we can come up with all of the Whoopi Goldbergs and Janeanne Garofalos in the movies we can, but it still isn't going to equal the number of men comedians in movies because there are simply more men in the movies than women. Now THAT is due to sexism, surely. But it doesn't tell us anything empirical about whether men are funnier than women.
Posted by: Jay | February 08, 2005 at 02:08 AM
>Now, it's undeniably true that there are fewer
>professional female comedians. Let's think for 5
>milliseconds about why this might be true. I don't
>know, maybe sexism?
While a certain amount of active sexism may be at
work, I can think of other factors which make
professional comedy unappealing as a career choice
for most women in our culture:
1) Anti-social hours
2) Need for continuous travel
3) Need for relentless self-promotion
4) Much comedy involves an element of cruelty
Plus, speaking for myself, when I found a very
funny woman I married her, rather than encouraging
her to become a comedian :-)
Posted by: Richard Cownie | February 08, 2005 at 02:19 AM
I was going to back up the posters maintaing that men are, indeed, funnier than woman until the name of Horatio Sanz jolted me out of my comfortable, sexist delusion. Could a woman with such mediocre talent persist on SNL? I don't think so.
Also, Janeanne Garofalo is not unattractive. And Lucille Ball was hot!
Posted by: Jeff | February 08, 2005 at 02:20 AM
Richard's allusion to career pressure is one of many possible explanations; I prefer to think that I'm so fucking hilarious because countless generations of natural selection tend to produce smug assholes such as myself.
Posted by: Larry Summers | February 08, 2005 at 02:26 AM
Women are funnier than men. It's wit, not humor, though - men sit around trading other people's jokes. That's my 41 years of experience.
Posted by: John Isbell | February 08, 2005 at 02:38 AM
P.Z. Myers has made the definitive argument, I think. The fact that Tough Crowd With Rupert Pupkin survuved for two goadamned years pretty much destroys any arguments from quantity of comedians.
In addition, compare Quinn's Weekend Update with Fey/Pohler. Anyone want to make a case for the former?
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | February 08, 2005 at 02:39 AM
Colin Quinn was pretty funny on Remote Control. Whatever happened to Keith Ober anyway?
Posted by: blah | February 08, 2005 at 02:48 AM
Ogged-
Let's quote some of the comments in this discussion.
"I know more amusing women than I do men so I'm solidly in your corner, Belle."
"pathetic is funnier in men than woman (am I expressing one of those facets now?). Irresponsibility is funnier in men than in woman. Pratfalls are funnier with men than with women. It may be because we are such a pathetic, irresponsible, clumsy group."
"Women are funnier than men. It's wit, not humor, though - men sit around trading other people's jokes. That's my 41 years of experience."
Presumably, my comment offended because it could have actually accepted the argument that men are just funnier than women. The others don't offend even though they posit that women are just funnier than men. You must be an academic (or a wannabe). Noone else is so smugly and casually hypocritical.
Steve
Posted by: Steve | February 08, 2005 at 02:52 AM
It might be useful, so that people who should know better don't fall into a bizarre aesthetic abyss (eg Colin Quinn), to separate out the people who come up with the material from the people who deliver it. Sometimes, they are the same person. Other times, often, they are not.
I say this as someone who has been in close orbit around Teh Funny of his generation for the last goddam fifteen years.
C.
Posted by: Carlos | February 08, 2005 at 02:55 AM
BTW, while accepting the "fat-guys-are-supposed-
to-be-funny" theory - because really, how else do
you explain Horatio Sanz ? - I would also note that
this carries through as a huge obstacle to fat guys
in serious roles. The only one I can think of in
current TV shows is Edgar on 24, and he only ranks
as a minor character, even though last week he
reprogrammed half the nuclear reactors in the
country in half an hour from his desk, with his boss
and the Secretary of Defense helpfully looking over
his shoulder (just like my own everyday life as
a software engineer).
So, there's plenty of discrimination to go round.
Posted by: Richard Cownie | February 08, 2005 at 02:58 AM
Of course, the charge of active sexism could be
proved or disproved by research into the ratio of
male:female comedians at each level of the pyramid
of success. If we start at the bottom with a
70:30 ratio doing stand-up at open mikes, and we
end up with a 90:10 ratio in sitcoms and movies,
then that would be pretty clear evidence. But if
you start at the bottom with a 90:10 ratio, and
you end at the top with a 90:10 ratio, then it
would seem that there wasn't pro-male bias in the
promotion criteria.
You can see this kind of thing pretty clearly in
the NFL, where the coaches are almost all former
players, and the pool of players is heavily black,
but the at the top of the pyramid are very few
black head coaches (maybe 5 or 6 out of 31).
Anyway, I don't know what the figures are for
comics - the charge of sexism is plausible, but
numbers to back it up would be interesting.
Posted by: Richard Cownie | February 08, 2005 at 03:17 AM
Ok Steve, you are pretty funny. I don't care if people think that men are funnier than women; I think that's wrong, but unsurprising. Your comment offended because it came packaged as a gratuitous dig at Belle for what is, in fact, a very funny post.
Posted by: ogged | February 08, 2005 at 03:21 AM
It seems to me that another argument from the same premises is that women are, on average, so much more intrinsically less talented at comedy that only those women who are also beautiful can succeed at it. That is, women are so entirely less funny than men that only those who can augment their impaired comedic sense with beauty are able to succeed.
I don't think I like this idea, but there it is.
Posted by: tew | February 08, 2005 at 03:25 AM
Incidentally, it's been my observation that angry right-wing white men have much more poorly developed senses of humor than, well, everyone else.
Part of that Brain Eater thing, I guess.
C.
Posted by: Carlos | February 08, 2005 at 03:25 AM