Damn this tv "for men"
- Thread starter capitolgoga
- Start date
Maybe you think it's pointless cause you don't feel excluded or marginalized by mainstream comedy all of the time 
So, if you're an intellectual person - which most of us are - we're perpetually marginalized by the anti-intellectual tone of basic mainstream comedy.
Just a thought.
The problem is in the prideful exclusion of female audience.
And I think great comedy - like Kaufman - can be alienating, from a specific POV, etc - not for everybody - and high five on that.
That's different from marketing yourself proudly by excluding a demographic. Republicans do watch Daily Show and laugh at it - even when the jokes aren't on their side - because the jokes are that good, and that well done. Sure there's more liberals watching it - but the quality of writing is good enough, and the show BTW does poke fun at liberals as well.
Kaufman never "marketed" himself. He did his art. He didn't brand or package himself. I know this is the way business goes - but certain things that are done for business sake are douchey - no matter how profitable.
I'm calling out the douche factor here. That's all.
And I think great comedy - like Kaufman - can be alienating, from a specific POV, etc - not for everybody - and high five on that.
That's different from marketing yourself proudly by excluding a demographic. Republicans do watch Daily Show and laugh at it - even when the jokes aren't on their side - because the jokes are that good, and that well done. Sure there's more liberals watching it - but the quality of writing is good enough, and the show BTW does poke fun at liberals as well.
Kaufman never "marketed" himself. He did his art. He didn't brand or package himself. I know this is the way business goes - but certain things that are done for business sake are douchey - no matter how profitable.
I'm calling out the douche factor here. That's all.
you can find movies that court a female audience that are pretty good. same with movies that court a male audience. no one is going to argue that the vast majority of star wars fans are male, for example, but most people will say it was a good movie. likewise, love actually courted primarily a female audience, but it was pretty good too.
i don't think there's anything inherently douchey in saying 'i bet i know who'll like this,' though i do find it reductive and i can't think of a lot of great works of art that intentionally set out to woo a gender or ethnicity.
all of that said, i maintain that courting a demo can be done while making good work. buffy the vampire slayer knew its audience very well, and i think it was great. that you can find bad work that courts a demo doesn't mean courting the demo is the reason it failed.
i don't think there's anything inherently douchey in saying 'i bet i know who'll like this,' though i do find it reductive and i can't think of a lot of great works of art that intentionally set out to woo a gender or ethnicity.
all of that said, i maintain that courting a demo can be done while making good work. buffy the vampire slayer knew its audience very well, and i think it was great. that you can find bad work that courts a demo doesn't mean courting the demo is the reason it failed.
Oh no, did we jump into the hilarious man-bits already? The IRC was just starting to get good again! Let's chat about sexism and comedy, you guys!
I think where you run into problems (or where a lot of women start feeling sad and icky) is that part of courting a male audience involves women in bikinis.
Gadgets, electronics, action movies: all things that are "male" or marketed to males that many women also enjoy.
Moisturizers, footrubs, watching Hugh Grant romance movies while eating ice cream: "female" things that many men also enjoy.
But you can see, right, how women may have a problem with putting "chick in a bikini" into that list of first items? Because it's, um, a list of items?
Yeah, that is it, I think. Subconsciously, the women become the equivalent of ice cream.
I definitely agree with you. But the thing is, and the reason I suspect this whole thing bothered Heather, is that you just don't see that as often. Romance novels, maybe. Those "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" commercials with Fabio a few years ago? That one Bud Light ad where the woman could see through the jackhammering construction worker's clothes?
Okay, now compare that to decades of male-centric Bud Light ads (as well as the refreshing Schmitt's Gay). There just doesn't seem to be an equivalent legacy of women treating men as purely sexual objects.
I don't know why this is. Maybe men are biologically predisposed to stick their dick in you and women are biologically predisposed to cuddle?
Even so, you could see why sometimes--especially after watching a series of Axe Body Spray commercials, or maybe after seeing bikini-clad women in a College Humor promo--a lady gets tired of being seen as something you stick your dick into. And she vents her frustration on an improv message board.
Maybe men get tired of being seen as objects of cuddling. I dunno. I have not walked a mile in your comfortable man-shoes. (Well, actually, I walk in comfortable man-shoes a lot, but that is because I am lazy about my appearance.)
But to ask a basic question like "Why is it different for men than for women?"...? Well, that's pure theoretical talk, or just naïve. It's like asking why BET can exist while there is no All-Whites Channel. Because it's not really an equal playing field yet. Same with why there are improv classes just for women. Because it's not really an equal playing field yet, although we're getting there.
I'll buy into this to a certain extent, though obviously it marginalizes the sexism argument. It seems like it's part of a slippery-slope argument ending with things like "As a bald person, I am upset about centuries of comedy that features luxurious hair." And I don't think the slope is really all that slippery. There's certainly an argument to be made that anyone can get upset about anything, so you can't really justify getting upset about sexism, but I don't buy into that. I think it's okay to get more upset about certain things, like racism and sexism and war.
I assume by true misogyny you mean things like domestic abuse, the mass rapes in the Congo, and genital mutilation. Right on; I can see where you're coming from. But I don't think discussing the subtler side of misogyny is worthless. Just because your city has a raging crack problem doesn't mean you can't worry about the litter on your street; studies even show that cleaning up that litter may help in the long run.
Maybe discussing sexism on an improv message board is worthless. Hmmm.
I just worry that maybe some young lady improviser may read this without realizing that the IRC should never, ever, EVER be taken seriously, and I wanted this thread to be more than "Girl whines, bunch of dudes shoot her down."
(To cover my ass, I will point out that I very much enjoy the comedy stylings of both Casey Wilson and CH writer Dan Gurewitch. They're certainly both funnier than me and I don't think either of them are sexists. The only real sexist jerk in this thread is Gavin Speiller.)
I think where you run into problems (or where a lot of women start feeling sad and icky) is that part of courting a male audience involves women in bikinis.
Gadgets, electronics, action movies: all things that are "male" or marketed to males that many women also enjoy.
Moisturizers, footrubs, watching Hugh Grant romance movies while eating ice cream: "female" things that many men also enjoy.
But you can see, right, how women may have a problem with putting "chick in a bikini" into that list of first items? Because it's, um, a list of items?
Yeah, that is it, I think. Subconsciously, the women become the equivalent of ice cream.
I definitely agree with you. But the thing is, and the reason I suspect this whole thing bothered Heather, is that you just don't see that as often. Romance novels, maybe. Those "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" commercials with Fabio a few years ago? That one Bud Light ad where the woman could see through the jackhammering construction worker's clothes?
Okay, now compare that to decades of male-centric Bud Light ads (as well as the refreshing Schmitt's Gay). There just doesn't seem to be an equivalent legacy of women treating men as purely sexual objects.
I don't know why this is. Maybe men are biologically predisposed to stick their dick in you and women are biologically predisposed to cuddle?
Even so, you could see why sometimes--especially after watching a series of Axe Body Spray commercials, or maybe after seeing bikini-clad women in a College Humor promo--a lady gets tired of being seen as something you stick your dick into. And she vents her frustration on an improv message board.
Maybe men get tired of being seen as objects of cuddling. I dunno. I have not walked a mile in your comfortable man-shoes. (Well, actually, I walk in comfortable man-shoes a lot, but that is because I am lazy about my appearance.)
But to ask a basic question like "Why is it different for men than for women?"...? Well, that's pure theoretical talk, or just naïve. It's like asking why BET can exist while there is no All-Whites Channel. Because it's not really an equal playing field yet. Same with why there are improv classes just for women. Because it's not really an equal playing field yet, although we're getting there.
I'll buy into this to a certain extent, though obviously it marginalizes the sexism argument. It seems like it's part of a slippery-slope argument ending with things like "As a bald person, I am upset about centuries of comedy that features luxurious hair." And I don't think the slope is really all that slippery. There's certainly an argument to be made that anyone can get upset about anything, so you can't really justify getting upset about sexism, but I don't buy into that. I think it's okay to get more upset about certain things, like racism and sexism and war.
I assume by true misogyny you mean things like domestic abuse, the mass rapes in the Congo, and genital mutilation. Right on; I can see where you're coming from. But I don't think discussing the subtler side of misogyny is worthless. Just because your city has a raging crack problem doesn't mean you can't worry about the litter on your street; studies even show that cleaning up that litter may help in the long run.
Maybe discussing sexism on an improv message board is worthless. Hmmm.
I just worry that maybe some young lady improviser may read this without realizing that the IRC should never, ever, EVER be taken seriously, and I wanted this thread to be more than "Girl whines, bunch of dudes shoot her down."
(To cover my ass, I will point out that I very much enjoy the comedy stylings of both Casey Wilson and CH writer Dan Gurewitch. They're certainly both funnier than me and I don't think either of them are sexists. The only real sexist jerk in this thread is Gavin Speiller.)
i apologize. I was going for irony by being a little beavis/butthead. I didn't mean to detract from the excellent and interesting thread.
being married for 16 years as I am, i have developed an ability to find entertainment in the common ground between my tastes and my wife's. There is some out there, but it is hard to find at times.
anyway - threadjack and apology over
being married for 16 years as I am, i have developed an ability to find entertainment in the common ground between my tastes and my wife's. There is some out there, but it is hard to find at times.
anyway - threadjack and apology over
well, yeah, but i think the idea behind the clip we're discussing is that is a bad thing. the ch people don't present their actions in the clip as a good thing to do.
yes, of course i can see how women would be upset, generally, with that.
in this case, i don't think labeling the ch clip in question as misogynistic is particularly helpful. but that's me. i'm 30 and i just ate frozen peas and mustard for dinner, so whatever opinions i have should probably be entirely ignored.
and, also, i am a white male fortunate enough to lead a fairly privileged life, and it's very possible i have a blind spot due to that.
absolutely. i cannot help but wonder, if seeing repeated offenses would heighten awareness of the problem, into the realm of being overly attenuated to it. i don't know if that's the case here and i certainly don't think anyone is 'wrong' for how they feel, but i do think that misogyny is a matter of both interpretation and intent, and i doubt very much [solely on the basis, i should note, of watching the clip and knowing nothing about the process behind its creation] that the intention behind the clip was misogynistic. i don't think these dudes went out to hurt anyone.
as well as any number of hack comedians currently working. i defend the clip in question. i don't defend comedy generally. there's a lotta douche in it. and i agree with you that discussing the subtler side of misogyny is totally worthwhile, within the rubric that we are still chatting on the interwebs and, well, it's still the interwebs.
i like this conversation a lot.
yes, of course i can see how women would be upset, generally, with that.
in this case, i don't think labeling the ch clip in question as misogynistic is particularly helpful. but that's me. i'm 30 and i just ate frozen peas and mustard for dinner, so whatever opinions i have should probably be entirely ignored.
and, also, i am a white male fortunate enough to lead a fairly privileged life, and it's very possible i have a blind spot due to that.
absolutely. i cannot help but wonder, if seeing repeated offenses would heighten awareness of the problem, into the realm of being overly attenuated to it. i don't know if that's the case here and i certainly don't think anyone is 'wrong' for how they feel, but i do think that misogyny is a matter of both interpretation and intent, and i doubt very much [solely on the basis, i should note, of watching the clip and knowing nothing about the process behind its creation] that the intention behind the clip was misogynistic. i don't think these dudes went out to hurt anyone.
as well as any number of hack comedians currently working. i defend the clip in question. i don't defend comedy generally. there's a lotta douche in it. and i agree with you that discussing the subtler side of misogyny is totally worthwhile, within the rubric that we are still chatting on the interwebs and, well, it's still the interwebs.
i like this conversation a lot.
All of my IRC posts are intended exclusively for an audience of white male Jews. That said:
Maybe it's not exclusionary. I know women who would probably find the idea of "comedy for men" appealing. Maybe there's reverse psychology involved. Maybe most people share a similar idea of what "comedy for men" means, and calling it "comedy for men" is a quicker way of conveying that genre than writing a long, detailed description. Maybe it's "for men" not by intention, but by history: men have tended to like that genre and women have tended to not like it.
I'm a white guy who likes a lot of black music and the occasional chick flick. None of it was made with me as the intended audience. That's okay with me.
Maybe it's not exclusionary. I know women who would probably find the idea of "comedy for men" appealing. Maybe there's reverse psychology involved. Maybe most people share a similar idea of what "comedy for men" means, and calling it "comedy for men" is a quicker way of conveying that genre than writing a long, detailed description. Maybe it's "for men" not by intention, but by history: men have tended to like that genre and women have tended to not like it.
I'm a white guy who likes a lot of black music and the occasional chick flick. None of it was made with me as the intended audience. That's okay with me.
Silv, I agree with nearly everything you've said. I never perceived this as "Girl whines, bunch of dudes shoot her down." If the arguments are "Comedy isn't as inclusive as it could be" and "It's an unfair playing field." I agree completely and don't think any fair minded guy would disagree and I have no problem with someone venting about that. I hope I didn't come off any other way. The only two things I meant to dispute were that marketing to a specific audience was bullshit and that the specific promo in question was sexist. And because of that (and also because I love a good Silvija/Gavin debate) the one thing I will disagree with you on is this:
I'd like to think that most women would give intelligent men who respect women the benefit of doubt. We don't make that assumption. Subconscious or otherwise. Do you think the college humor guys intentions were to make that connection? I don't.
NOW STOP NAGGING ME BEFORE I STICK MY DICK IN YOU.
I'd like to think that most women would give intelligent men who respect women the benefit of doubt. We don't make that assumption. Subconscious or otherwise. Do you think the college humor guys intentions were to make that connection? I don't.
NOW STOP NAGGING ME BEFORE I STICK MY DICK IN YOU.
This is, I'd like to say, a fantastic thread! I wish more IRC threads took on issues like this one. Capitolgoga, great decision to kick this conversation off! I don't typically post here, but I read a lot of the threads every day. I hope it isn't too assumptive of me to throw my two cents in. If you think it is, stop reading now and save yourself the irritation.
To me, what is interesting about this thread are the questions:
1) Is this ad offensive?
2) Is this ad sexist?
What exactly is the joke in the ad? To me the joke seems to be, a bunch of young men and one woman get a bunch of money and spend it on frivolous things they like. One frivolous thing they like is ice cream. Another is almost naked women. Is it really only on a subconscious level that the women become the equivalent of the ice cream?
This ad tells us, on one level, that the ice cream was bought to be licked and eaten and that therefore this is what ice cream is good for. Nothing wrong with that. Then the ad tells us that women models were bought to be gawked at (why else the bikinis?) lusted after (why else the "should we talk to them?" comment?) and eventually dominated ("You're on the clock. Sorry."). The pattern established with the ice cream would therefore tell us that the women are "good for" the things they were bought for.
Is that offensive? I’ll tell you, I’m offended. I bet you anything that's effective marketing though. Is it sexist? One definition of sexism, according to dictionary.com is:
"Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."
Is a stereotype promoted in that ad through an attitude, condition or behavior? What is the behavior of the female models? They seem petulant as they slump from side to side in their pack, one chewing gum, another rolling her eyes, more than one examining her fingernails. Would male models be represented the same way in a comedy commercial? What stereotype would be used to communicate "male model" instead? (One stereotype I see a lot is the stupid gay male model. Also you can have the steamy dreamy male model. You rarely see the gifted at math male or female model stereotype, at least as far as I've noticed.)
If only female models would be represented this way could we say that a stereotype of a social role based on gender was promoted? I think the answer is, obviously yes. A very clear stereotype was promoted and that by definition is sexism.
Now maybe it isn't the worst thing in the world. I think it is pretty hard to create any piece of art that doesn't at the least unintentionally promote the prejudices of the creator. I doubt College Humor was trying to hurt the status of women in our society and so I look forward to watching their show on MTV and wish them great success. But isn't it important to be able to identify sexism in our art where it exists, even if we choose not to condemn it?
To me, what is interesting about this thread are the questions:
1) Is this ad offensive?
2) Is this ad sexist?
What exactly is the joke in the ad? To me the joke seems to be, a bunch of young men and one woman get a bunch of money and spend it on frivolous things they like. One frivolous thing they like is ice cream. Another is almost naked women. Is it really only on a subconscious level that the women become the equivalent of the ice cream?
This ad tells us, on one level, that the ice cream was bought to be licked and eaten and that therefore this is what ice cream is good for. Nothing wrong with that. Then the ad tells us that women models were bought to be gawked at (why else the bikinis?) lusted after (why else the "should we talk to them?" comment?) and eventually dominated ("You're on the clock. Sorry."). The pattern established with the ice cream would therefore tell us that the women are "good for" the things they were bought for.
Is that offensive? I’ll tell you, I’m offended. I bet you anything that's effective marketing though. Is it sexist? One definition of sexism, according to dictionary.com is:
"Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."
Is a stereotype promoted in that ad through an attitude, condition or behavior? What is the behavior of the female models? They seem petulant as they slump from side to side in their pack, one chewing gum, another rolling her eyes, more than one examining her fingernails. Would male models be represented the same way in a comedy commercial? What stereotype would be used to communicate "male model" instead? (One stereotype I see a lot is the stupid gay male model. Also you can have the steamy dreamy male model. You rarely see the gifted at math male or female model stereotype, at least as far as I've noticed.)
If only female models would be represented this way could we say that a stereotype of a social role based on gender was promoted? I think the answer is, obviously yes. A very clear stereotype was promoted and that by definition is sexism.
Now maybe it isn't the worst thing in the world. I think it is pretty hard to create any piece of art that doesn't at the least unintentionally promote the prejudices of the creator. I doubt College Humor was trying to hurt the status of women in our society and so I look forward to watching their show on MTV and wish them great success. But isn't it important to be able to identify sexism in our art where it exists, even if we choose not to condemn it?