Mike James responds to a 'reductionist' article

Chris Hallam’s Correspondents article, Female comics, you’ve never had it so good is essentially a list of women he likes on television. Now, don’t get me wrong I agree with Chris’s list, these women are smart, funny and dangerously talented. However, such a reductionist view of women in comedy is of no benefit to anyone.

Essentially Chris’s article boils down to this line, his rousing conclusion, ‘What is indisputable is that there are undoubtedly a large number of very funny British women around today.’ This line not only suggests that somehow funny women, previously didn’t exist, and have recently spawned from the comedic progeny of Linda Smith, Jenny Eclair, Victoria Wood, et al. but that Chris has suddenly had an eureka moment, in which as funny women are now being presented to him on television he has realised that they exist.

Of his list only a handful of the women are stand up comedians, with others being actors, journalists and TV personalities, which is where much of the problem here lies. A male stand-up comedian would not be categorised alongside a TV personality – apart from possibly someone like Charlie Brooker or David Mitchell, neither of whom are stand–ups – in such a way, especially on a website like Chortle.

This would be left to the homogenising selection committee of the British Comedy Awards or such like, in which ‘packaging’ is of uppermost importance. What Chris is doing through simply listing all the women who have made him laugh on television is suggesting that funny women can/should/are still judged on their gender alone. That it needs to be pointed out to people that it is women who are making them laugh, not men in incredibly convincing drag.

I honestly think Chris has attempted to produce an article in which he highlights the gender imbalance, or perceptions of funny women, that seem to exist as a debate in the media on a rotation of every few months. A debate in which very little is actually said, and very little forward movement made.

However, the fact he feels that such a list needs to be created and made available for public consumption and scrutiny means that he is fuelling the problem. Especially as his article seems to focus solely on those at the higher echelons of comedic exposure, and many women who have been consistently fantastic for years.

On a website like Chortle, whose readership you can presume is comedy literate, to miss out (neglect, or simply think they are not recognisable enough) so many women working in comedy, those who are not found on terrestrial television or radio, is to draw attention to a still very visible cultural black spot.

All this article does is confound the idea that yes there are funny women, but that they can be categorised by gender as opposed to what they actually do or produce, and that there are few enough that we can list them, because otherwise how are we supposed to know where the funny women are?

Published: 5 Feb 2013