Evidence for Wollstonecraft: The Evolution of Women in Comedy
In 2019, Tiffany Haddish admitted in The Hollywood Reporter that she would leave her purse in the deliberation room with casting directors or club bookers, record the conversations, then return claiming she “forgot her purse.” Exposing herself to harsh ridicule, Haddish replayed claims she was “not as urban as [they] thought she would be” and “her boobs aren’t big enough.” This year, Haddish just released a new Netflix short series entitled They Ready, showcasing six hand-picked women comedians. In many ways, in order to lift others around her, Haddish would need to endure unrestricted criticism. She could have easily committed to and believed in Edumund Burke’s illusion of fairness within a set hierarchy, establishing women as inferior to men. Yet, she rudely tore off the “decent drapery of life” and exposed a marginalized, inequitable system that utilized gendered language to separate standards for performance.
Women could only control an audience by demeaning their own existence.
Haddish is not alone in her quest for understanding perceived truths and in fact, comedy houses one of the greatest case studies for the evolution of women’s rights. Inherently, comedy is shocking; laughter is an uncontrolled response to the unexpected. Therefore, comedians by definition should be novel and complex, yet how can a woman be effectively contradictory is she’s perceived as one-dimensional? Phyllis Diller and her 1950s caricature set mocks the housewife culture following World War II. In addition to her flamboyant sets, she would dress in drag to attend all-male clubs; the largest contribution to her success was de-sexualizing and separating herself from her true feminine identity. Joan Rivers also paved a path for femininity and risque content, yet did so through extreme criticism of other women’s physical appearances and flaws. These founding mothers of women’s stand-up could only control an audience by demeaning their own existence.
Comedy is an intersection of intellect, charisma and control, all of which the ascriptive identity of women have lacked. Mary Wollstonecraft in her essay Vindication of the Rights of Women examines her society through explaining that “pleasure is a women’s business in life” and that many would choose the “sovereignty of beauty” than the “sober pleasures that arise from equality.” Tacit consent perpetuates the notion that separate measures of equal power, of sexuality for women and of reason for men, are truly equal. Because, according to Wollstonecraft, women mature earlier, there’s a modern argument that humor is a frivolous addition the women’s identity. In a 2007 Vanity Fair interview, Christopher Hitchens supports this view, exclaiming that “women have no corresponding need to appeal to men [through comedy]. They already appeal to men, if you catch my drift.” Additionally, Men use sexualization in their humor, yet this disparity enables men to objectify women, and women to continue to demean themselves. A 1976 content analysis revealed that men utilized self-deprecation in comedy 12% of the time, while women employed it 63% of the time. Especially through a medium built on expectations, traditional audiences will support traditional acts. Apparently, subverting expectations and rebellion has strict gender lines. Predating the questions posed in The Feminine Mystique, the origins of female comedy began to parallel the women’s labor movement; not only were women unwelcome in comedy, but they were unwelcome in the public sphere completely.
Methodology separated genders.
Even when women entered the spotlight through sketch comedy, such as when Gilda, Newman and Curtain joined Saturday Night Live, methodology separated genders. Feminine humor became character-based, while male humor was concept-based. Breaking the barriers of cliché characters required an “unlady-like” persona and a delicate balance of power, one that appeared threatening or aggressive. Again, the inconsistent measurement of equality prohibited equity. As Wollstonecraft asserts, women aren’t automatically completed through “loveliness,” but through the opportunity to express their raw personas.
Beginning in the seventies, the alternative comedy movement was accompanied by a boom in night clubs. As comedians became bookers themselves, many of whom rid of quotas, there was room for experimentation. Thus, the social epistemology of Burke and Mill diverged as many began to consider reforming customs. While Burke argues for traditional practices, Mill advocates for experimentation. In fact in the Beth Labpide’s Un-Cabaret, Mill’s philosophy reigned supreme: the club’s only rule was to not repeat yourself. The rise of Second City and Compass Players in Chicago accompanied Elaine May, who was one of the first appreciated female for sharpness and wit. These schools provided an opportunity for women to strengthen their technique and be amongst some of the greatest minds in the field. Wollstonecraft urges for education to lead to freedom, for she wishes for women not “to have power over men, but over themselves.” She alludes to Rousseau as he asserted, “Educate women like men […] and the more they resemble our sex the less power they will have over us.” In years prior, the strongest producers of novel and critical societal thoughts were men, while women sat and received their wisdom. Originally, women were pawns, yet as the male ‘bourgeois’ class began to be questioned, education and refining technique catapulted women to greater equality.
Women should have the privilege and platform to use their femininity to inform their art.
Primarily, the nineties mirrored the liberation movement, where women took ownership of their own sexuality. Tina Fey, Amy Phoeler, Sarah Silverman, Margaret Cho and Chelsea Handler each developed individual voices, which is the most dominant trait to develop a long career. Even Wollstonecraft explains that men who develop their identity and “arrive slow at maturity, are the longest lived.” Specifically, Whoopie Goldberg forced many to question traditional and white-washed understandings of femininity. Sarah Silverman is commonly attributed to strikingly contradict every generalization of women’s humor. Many believe she signifies the powerful, self-sexualized women while simultaneously indiscriminately critiquing men and women alike. In the horizon of modernity, one may question if gender norms should or could be separated from the artists. But, contrary to former comedians, Silverman has the privilege and platform to use her femininity to inform her art. Thus is the freedom Wollstonecraft advocates for: a true sovereign beauty. Even though Silverman faces double-standards, she holds power over her own audience, subverting their expectations the way men have for decades. Because comedy is about power, it’s a story about politics. In fact, Gloria Steinham herself believes the power of laughter is the power of planting a realization in the audience, which is integral for a common citizen to think creatively and critically about oppressed communities. A comedy set is a form of democracy and through exposing inequality and increasing representation in the media, a more diverse leadership can be formed.
Can complete marginalization be eliminated?
Although there have been many trailblazers, there’s still inequities in comedy. These micro-aggressions include off-stage ageism, linguistic relativity and negative rhetoric surrounding the trans community. Tina Fey explains that as women age, they appear increasingly “crazy.” Words such as “problematic,” “irrelevant,” and “hysterical” are more likely to be used for women in power than men. Common thought indicates that as women age, delusion accumulates rather than wisdom. Additionally, in improv, women are traditionally supporting partners while men are the active and primary contributors to story. If a woman steps out of these social boundaries, she’s considered to be selfish or asking for attention. These factors accumulate to a culture of enabling sexualization and at times, sexual violence. Ultimately, men and women alike must assess unnecessary prejudice that is a greater reflection of androcentrism and social conditioning than the attributes of the marginalized themselves.
Yet, can this marginalization ever be eliminated? When the basis of the field is rooted in personal experience and a narrative artform, how can gender be separated from it? Additionally, should men be restricted from demeaning rhetoric if its purpose furthers a joke? It’s difficult to simultaneously limit and respect a community whose identity derives from counterculture. W. E. B. Dubois explains the difference between unconscious discrimination, such as the United States education system, and intentional discrimination, such as purposefully using slurs. In the case of comedy, Dubois’ intentional discrimination is utilized for the profit of laughs. However, although identity informs a comic’s work, the social kinds, or man-made constructs, associated with gender can be bent to the individual. This rare conflict between impossible separation and striving equality can only be resolved through eliminating unnecessary cultural stigmas and supporting the individual reason for which Wollstonecraft argues.
