Controversy
I’m a fan of Iliza Shlesinger; seen her live, watched all her specials. So when, on Monday (6/12/2017), Deadline’s Matt Grobar posted an interview with Iliza Shlesinger, promoting her third Netflix special, Confirmed Kills, her TV show, Truth & Iliza, her new short-film series for ABC, Forever 31, and her upcoming book, Girl Logic–she’s been busy–I heard about it.
In the interview, Shlesinger expresses that
I think the landscape of what’s available out there for women is not as extensive as it could be. That’s something that drives me; … I wanted to speak in an open and honest way that wasn’t always sexual, that didn’t always limit us to women that are desperate for marriage or babies.
Then she was asked, “How do you really feel about the way women are represented, or represent themselves, in this arena [comedy]?” and she said [I quote her here for clarity and reference – I’ll pull it apart below]:
As a comedian, I have a set of morals. I have a specific point of view. I think a lot of what I see out there, out in comedy clubs, watching contests, watching TV, watching movies—gathering data from these different matrixes…
When you’re a woman in comedy and you get a break, people get so excited about it, but while we have to work hard to get that attention, I do think many women think, “Oh if I just act like a guy, if I go for that low hanging fruit…” Everything’s about sex, or how weird I am. It all just kind of runs together.
I could walk into The Improv, close my eyes, and I can’t tell one girl’s act apart from another. That’s not saying that 30-something white guys don’t all sound the same sometimes, but I’m banging my head against the wall because women want to be treated as equals, and we want feminism to be a thing, but it’s really difficult when every woman makes the same point about her vagina, over and over. I think I’m the only woman out there that has a joke about World War II in my set.
I think shock value works well for women, but beyond that, there’s no substance. I want to see what else there is with such complex, smart creatures.
That’s why women like Tina Fey do well. It’s smart, and men can laugh at it, too. I consider myself one of those comics, and quite frankly, I’m appalled by what is expected of women, and what women offer in response in that.
As tracked by Megh Wright on Splitsider, the Twitter response was huge, and “pretty brutal.”
Sara Schaefer (@saraschaefer1) replied, “Iliza, you’ve joked about sex & vaginas. Why police what other women are saying? We can talk about whatever we want. Why focus on this?”
Eliza Skinner (@elizaskinner) Tweeted, “Suggesting that female comics should limit what subjects, words, or attitudes they use is just a way of trying to limit female comics.” And, “I don’t care if you think we’re too dirty, self-deprecating, sexual, or ukulele-dependent. Men get to use all their words, so do we.”
Many called Shlesinger a “bad feminist.” Shlesinger followed up with a series of Tweets, long since deleted, but archived by Wright, in which she further defends her position.
However, perhaps we’ve got enough here to work with. More than just a discussion about female comics, this is a discussion about the rules of stand-up comedy (or, at least, “good stand-up”).
Systemic rules
The first insight lost in the discussion is that Shlesinger points out the systemic problem, that “[W]e [women] have to work hard to get that attention,” from (primarily male) audiences, talent scouts, agents, promoters, club owners, producers – right up the line. Shlesinger’s ending line is: “[Q]uite frankly, I’m appalled by what is expected of women, and what women offer in response in that.” She clearly feels that women are offering a response to a felt or implicit expectation, and this is a systemic problem. However, it’s just as true, for her, that the reaction is too easy.
Specific reactions
Shlesinger’s problem is that women try to act like men within the system:
I do think many women think, ‘Oh if I just act like a guy, if I go for that low hanging fruit…’ Everything’s about sex, or how weird I am. It all just kind of runs together….
From a theoretical stand-point, it’s a knee-jerk reaction that perpetuates the system, instead of a thought out response that transcends the system – that tries to do something new and get us to laugh and think in a new way (Lyotard; Phillips).
What Shlesinger is calling out is originality. Reactions breed stale, pat, unoriginal responses. This is what she sees:
I could walk into The Improv, close my eyes, and I can’t tell one girl’s act apart from another…. every woman makes the same point about her vagina, over and over.
For my part, I’ve seen this just in our local scene – and I agree with Shlesinger,
That’s not saying that 30-something white guys don’t all sound the same sometimes,
They do. Oh my glob, do they. If I hear another joke about masturbation, even female masturbation….
Dick jokes
The decision to talk about a dick or a vagina isn’t really the issue for Shlesinger. She says,
I think shock value works well for women, but beyond that, there’s no substance. I want to see what else there is with such complex, smart creatures.
A good joke has more to it than a general topic or the use of a word. It’s gotta have substance, insight.
The problem with the true dick joke is it’s blue for blue’s sake. Contrast that with the sexual joke, which actually has something to say about sex, or feminine hygiene, or the plethora of other topics that occur in that area and can be mined for meaningful insights. Shlesinger’s problem is that a lot of comics–not just women, but she’s talking here about women–aren’t pushing for meaningful insight.
The problem is, shock and dick jokes often get a laugh, especially from a younger crowd. It’s believed–and therefore used calculatingly–to play on relief theory, as sex is a titillating topic. It’s taboo to talk about your dick, or your vagina, or your sex life, and perhaps women have more tension there because “good girls don’t do that.” Acting like a man is forbidden.
Relief as intervention
This, however, is where it becomes a feminist point: A woman speaking about her vagina and sex life is more of a social intervention than a man doing it because she’s not supposed to. However, when everyone is doing it, is it necessarily an intervention any more? Has the goal line moved?
Her critics say, “We [women] should get to use all our words and not be limited,” but if the words you choose to use, and the subjects you choose to discuss, and the way you choose to represent yourself is done in order to “fit-in” and excel (make money) by working within the rules of a sexist system, then are you not, already, “limited?”
Shlesinger’s follow-up tweets are pretty good here:
If you are actually upset that I am calling out female comics for imitating each other and doing the same pussy jokes over and over then perhaps you are part of the problem. If you are original then that’s awesome. We need more independent thinkers and less shock value.
How’s this- instead of thinking because you’re a girl that you can just yell “pussy” and think it’s a revelation, try doing better and working harder. That’s all there is to it. The comic women I’m friends with have done the same. I respect hustle and originality. Always.
The stakes are too high in comedy to phone it in. And if you work hard, you’re golden.
As comics, it’s our job not just to find something new and interesting to say, but also to transcend the rules and transform both ourselves, our audiences and stand-up itself. Keep pushing my friends.
References:
Lyotard, Jean François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1984/2002.
—. The Différend. Trans. George Van Den Abeele. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1988.
—. “Lessons in Paganism.” The Lyotard Reader. Ed. Andrew Benjamin. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1989/1993. 122-154.
Phillips, Kendall R. “The Spaces of Public Dissension: Reconsidering the Public Sphere.” Communication Monographs 63 (1996): 231-48.
—. “Space of Invention: Dissension, Freedom, and Thought in Foucault.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 35.4 (2002): 328-344.
Wilson, Nathan. Was That Supposed to be Funny? A Rhetorical Analysis of Politics, Problems and Contradictions in Contemporary Stand-Up Comedy. Dissertation in partial completion of the Ph.D. August, 2008.
