Comedy Too

Comedy research, diversity, Gender, Reclaiming spaces

mic

So it’s happening. Just as with the wider entertainment industries before them, stand-up comedy is having another moment of reckoning with itself in relation to abuses of power. We can look back to the impact of the Louis CK affair for a template here – CK admitted to masturbating in front of non-consenting women comics. The incident highlighted both how, depressingly, other comics defended his behaviour, and how quickly the US comedy industry welcomed him back to the stage (despite the justified disgust of women in the industry).

This particular moment has been provoked by a combination of things. The reporting of comic and actor Chis D’elia’s behaviour with underaged fans and the resurfacing of footage from The Joe Rogan Experience podcast (from 2011), in which Joey Diaz talks about forcing women comics to give him blow-jobs in exchange for assistance furthering their careers (referring to this practice as ‘the fucking gateway to Hollywood’). The mind-blowing ease with which Diaz wheels out this story and the other male guests (including Rogan, the host) laugh along with each other is genuinely disturbing. As a result of the press attention (and the sharing of this footage via Twitter), the US (where the two examples above originate), UK and Irish comedy scenes are coming under scrutiny. What is of course disconcerting is that so few people (mostly women) working in this industry are surprised…. And those people that are surprised need to really think about why this is.

Women have come forward via social media with tales of abuses of power and the numerous ways in which people have exploited and disadvantaged them and their careers. As someone who isn’t a comic, but has spent the last 7 years researching the UK comedy circuit and its inclusion (and marginalisation) of women, I just thought I’d lay out a few of the key things I observed as part of my study. I believe the points below highlight how the live comedy industry often creates a perfect environment for these abuses to occur.

1) The comic environment and ‘just-joking defence’:

Comedy is a place where taboos can be explored and norms subverted…. But it is also an art form that has a loooong ol’ history with gender/ racial/ homophobic and ableist stereotypes. Your ability as a performer (a freelancer) to make and sustain working relationships is key for being successful in this setting (‘who you know’ etc) – and this has meant that for a number of women trying to make a career in comedy, simply putting up with a lot of bullshit (that’s the academic term) has become the norm. In society more widely, we see in many instances of abuse or sexism (and racism) the classic ‘just joking’ rhetorical defence is provided for inappropriate behaviour or language. So, when someone (say another comic or a promoter) crosses a line it’s easy for the abused party to become the issue (they ‘don’t have a sense of humour’, they are ‘over-reacting’). The joking around in a comedy context means inappropriateness can be snuck in easily and be really hard for someone to pin down as inappropriate. And the issue here is that to have a sense of humour in the comedy industry is LITERALLY a stand-up’s job, so it becomes about their professionalism really quickly. Opportunities for lines to be crossed or professional boundaries breached is, in many ways, baked into the context of live comic performance.

2) Lone working:

Up until relatively recently, women, when they were included in stand-up line-ups, worked alone. When I started my research project back in 2013 this came up all the time and is a key theme of my findings. It was felt that more than one woman was unnecessary as the box had been ticked – the quota of femaleness reached. This lone working for women comics is changing (indeed it has changed since my research began) but the issue with working alone is two-fold here in the way it relates to abuse of power. Firstly, it creates and upholds a power discrepancy – the woman is placed in the position of representing all women and therefore othered (by audiences and other comics on- and off-stage). The need to assimilate into a male dominated workplace is already a challenge, so those working in these environments already have to work harder to fit in / get on. Secondly in terms of maintaining a toxic working environment, divide and conquer is a textbook tactic. How are women supposed to know what is happening if they never get to work along-side each other? It’s the ideal space for gaslighting and making women doubt their experiences and blame themselves when things go wrong. Who do you turn to in moments where abuses of power are occurring? Do you appeal to the other men in the space to step in and acknowledge the inappropriateness of the behaviour – you’ll be waiting a while (watch the clip again – observe the affiliative laughter at the blowjob story). That’s the kicker here – in order for this to change it needs men in positions of power to step the fuck up. It is not up to the oppressed or victimised parties in cases of abuse to make the change, or to put in the additional work to make the things better. This is an argument clearly relevant to the dismanteling of structural racism too, and of course it is important to note that black women and women of colour face additional challenges in these spaces.

There is hope. Women-led organisations and nights are pushing forward in reaction to the points I articulate above (The UK Women in Comedy Festival, Funny Women are providing specific spaces for women comics, and nights such as Kiri Pritchard-McLean’s Suspiciously Cheap Comedy and Sophie Duker’s Wacky Racistsare trying to establish new and more inclusive environments where this shit would not fly). The recent establishment of the Live Comedy Association provides a newly established framework for collective action on matters such as this.

With the current pandemic causing a huge amount of problems for the performance industry (and with specific issues for comedy) an opportunity exists to develop a more inclusive circuit when live performance returns. Perhaps choosing to leave the sexism and abuse behind would be a good idea – the best start to that process would be to listen to what women are saying.

Edinburgh 2018

Comedians, Comedy research, diversity, Uncategorized

Edinburgh’s Royal Mile

I have just returned from the Edinburgh Fringe Festival where I spent a few days seeing as much comedy as possible (as well as writing a response to a CFP and proofing a chapter of my thesis – its a 6hr round train trip from MCR, reclaim that time!)

Here’s a list of what I managed to catch:

Sindhu Vee – Sandhog

Lauren Pattison – Peachy

Luisa Omielan – Politics for Bitches

Eleanor Teirnan – Success Without a Sex Tape

Sofie Hagen and Jodie Mitchell – Sofie Hagen Tries Something (podcast recording)

Athena Kugblenu – Follow the Leader

Jen Brister – Meaningless

Lou Conran – At Least I’m Not Dog Poo Darren

Evelyn Mok – Bubble Butt

Andrew Lawrence – Clean (Lawrence gets a shout out in the ‘backlash’ part of my thesis)

Eleanor Morton – Great title, Glamorous Photo

Tamar Broadbent – Best Life

4 shows a day is my absolute limit. I can’t concentrate for any longer than that. The shows I saw were pretty varied, musical comedy, confessional calls to political action, traditional club-style stand-up and character comedy. For me it was a really good way to see a lot of comedy in a short space of time but there were many subtle reminders of just how middle class the festival continues to be. The trip was a living breathing reminder of the importance of the Panic! report by Brook, O’Brien and Taylor (2018).

I stayed in the Edinburgh University halls of residence (which were fine, but a bit further out than where I’d stayed previously – in total I walked 25miles in 3 days and Edinburgh is a good 80% hill). How anyone manages to afford to stay up for the whole month when the cost of accommodation is so high is totally beyond me.

Missing something?

BBC, Comedians, Comedy research, diversity, Gender

The audience after the panel

Last night I went along to the launch of the BBC Comedy Caroline Aherne Bursary, a new initiative promising to award £5k and a development opportunity to a ‘Funny Northern Woman’ in memory of the legendary comic. The bursary was launched at the BBC’s offices in MediaCity Salford and was preceded by a ‘Women in Comedy panel’ where several women from across the industry discussed their careers in comedy and tips for new entrants.

Having been researching the UK comedy industry since 2013 I was particularly interested to see how this new initiative was presented to an audience (made up of the ticketed public as part of the Salford Sitcom Showcase events). I should note that none of my criticisms are directed at the panel members themselves, all of whom were talented women with a lot of experience to offer. However, several stark issues were brought home for me both during the panel discussion and the subsequent hasty ‘launch’ of the bursary.

An all white panel. In 2017 this is not acceptable. It is especially relevant to consider when the issue under discussion is about diversifying comedy with ‘new voices’. A panel of 5 cis-gendered white women (and confusingly, considering the subject matter, only one northern voice) does not send out a message of inclusion, it simply perpetuates a situation of privilege. This was compounded by the fact that when all the panel members were asked about their comedy heroes all comics referenced were also white (as were the performers featured on video clips played at the event). What I found astonishing was knowing that the Women in Comedy Festival, an organisation without any core funding which is staffed by volunteers (whom I have been working alongside since 2014), regularly consider this issue and adapts to find ways to be more inclusive across all aspects of diversity. I have witnessed and been involved in these honest and difficult conversations about our responsibility to be inclusive (something the festival’s director Hazel O’Keefe is incredibly passionate about) and for a huge organisation like the BBC to not have considered this is frankly unbelievable. You cannot just replace white men with white women – that is not inclusive and it is certainly not any kind of feminism I recognise. (More a post-feminist denial of the need to collectively challenge structures that continue to exclude and marginalise?)
Complexity of language. The first comment made by the host was that often the panel members (herself included) get invited along to ‘women in’ panels and that often they make the point that they are just ‘people in’ a particular field. This was confusing as the chair was from the BBC, who I’d imagine had control of the name of the event…. so maybe simply give the panel another name rather than starting off on this awkward note? The first question after this statement was ‘which women inspired you to go into comedy?’ – if gender really is irrelevant (I’m not saying it is, but this seemed the position of the chair) then why kick off with a gendered question? This was further complicated by the chair using the term ‘ladies and gentlemen’ and a panel member’s repeated use of the word ‘comedienne’. You cannot make a statement erasing the need to discuss the ways in which systems ‘other’ people (along gendered, racial, classist or ability lines) whilst simultaneously using language that reinforces and maintains difference.
Will this change anything? The timing of this event, in the week after high profile revelations about the BBC’s pay gap across racial, gender and class lines, meant that structural considerations were fresh in my mind when listening to the speakers. Although, of course we must bear in mind that these inequalities exist across all broadcast organisations, and not just those required to publish the data publicly. A question I was left with after the panel was ‘How does this initiative fit with the BBC’s overall strategy to be more inclusive in its comedy output?’. As with the 2014 ‘no more all-male panel shows’ announcement it felt very much like this initiative needed to be connected up to a wider strategy about what happens behind the cameras too. Don’t get me wrong, it is great that a new Northern female voice will be given an opportunity to be heard, but at the same time we have to ask ourselves will this person just be dragged into a faulty system? A system that continues to discriminate along gendered and racial lines? Will this bursary be used to tick a box without making any real tangible change that will impact many more women than just the winner? The bursary was hastily mentioned at the end of the panel with the key advice seeming to be ‘look on the website for how to apply’ and there was no opportunity to publicly ask questions after the bursary was announced.

I didn’t feel as if I could articulate a (non-confrontational) question during the Q&A (which consisted of three comments disguised as questions about pitching to/ approaching commissioners….which is kind of understandable in a way considering the event was supposed to be about launching the bursary). These are just my initial thoughts and I think and feel many other things about this event too – I will find a way to articulate the complexity of this experience and the initiative within my research. My concern is that small one-off initiatives and awards from large organisations are used to distract from much more complex and challenging structural issues which need addressing.