# Why are there so few women comedians?



## Niles (25 May 2004)

One of the Nualas has written an article on page 16 in today's Irish Times bemoaning the lack of female stand-up comedians. At the forthcoming Cat Laughs Festival, there will be 3 women out of 49 performers. 

She says that this is because audiences are more prepared to laugh at men because convention says women aren't funny. I don't think that convention has that much to do with it. Perhaps expectation plays a minor part. If you expect someone to be funny, you will be more prepared to laugh. But I don't think it could explain why only 6% of the funny stand ups are female.

I, for one, could not find anything remotely funny about the Nualas. Nor do I find anything remotely funny about the article today. She quotes the best lines from 6 female comics, and they simply aren't funny. Ok maybe "that's not cellulite, I sat on a hairbrush". 

Come to think of it, I can't name one female comic who I think is funny. That's probably just a bad memory. There are some great comic actresses but I don't think that they write their own material. I've never seen Deirdre O'Kane but I have been told that she is funny.

Can anyone think of a really top class female comedian nationally or internationally?  Do women find female comedians funnier than men?

Niles


----------



## icantbelieveitstaken (25 May 2004)

A bit rich that one of the Nuala's is writing about the lack of female stand-ups given that their seriously unfunny and have to some extent soured the market for any budding talent coming behind them.
I remember seeing Rhona Cameron (I think that's her name, she was on I'm a Celebrity) a few years ago doing stand up on tv and she was really funny in an early Alanis Morrisette bitter and twisted kind of way.
I find Deirdre O'Kane very hit and miss, more often miss and I reckon that it's a mainly male profession because men don't mind being laughed at, have a better sense of humour, have been told that women like "men who make them laugh", are fairly childish and also easily amused.


----------



## stobear (25 May 2004)

Victoria Wood makes me laugh. DOK just gets on my nerves.

On news today Spike Milligan had his epitaph done, reads 'I told you I was ill'. Genius and hilarious.


----------



## MissRibena (25 May 2004)

*It's not just comedians ....*

I'm genuinely not trying to start a feminist rant on this one but I believe the problem is far more widespread than comedy or even the established arts.  Look at politics; where are the women there?  And it's not just in Ireland - it's all over the so-called developed world.  There are less successful women artists, writers, managers etc. - despite greater access to these professions.  Even many of the women I know in business (at management level) seem happy enough to play the game by male rules.  I think the reasons behind womens' absence are necessarily complex but at the crux of the issue is that even by relaxing all the rules and conventions we are asking women to participate in a world that they haven't had much of a part in creating and is based on a male perspective.  The bleak part is that I would have expected more radical change by now but perhaps that's just impatience, we can't expect 50 years of (relative) freedom to rebalance 3000 years of (relative) supression.  

I'm disappointed that there aren't more women participating more vocally; demanding to be involved on their own terms, rather than just providing a female mirror to a man's world.  I'm very sad that the feminist movement has been so easily blighted and even sadder at the apathy of my friends.  The bit that really scares me (and I certainly wouldn't go admitting this too often) is that maybe we just don't generally have it in us.

I'm off to jump in the Shannon now  

Rebecca


----------



## piggy (25 May 2004)

*Re: It's not just comedians ....*

*"I'm genuinely not trying to start a feminist rant on this one"*

Yes you are  

*"Look at politics; where are the women there?"*

Ask yourself what type of person you need to be to be a politician and then thank god there aren't that many women. It might actually be saying something positive about your sex.  

*"Even many of the women I know in business (at management level) seem happy enough to play the game by male rules"*

What does that mean?

*"I'm disappointed that there aren't more women participating more vocally; demanding to be involved on their own terms, rather than just providing a female mirror to a man's world"*

The last company i worked in was run by women. They exhibited all the bad qualities that men do (liek giving all the nice jobs to their female collegues for instance), but much, much worse. I'm not saying all women are like that...just one of my experiences. Anecdotal. 

*"The bit that really scares me (and I certainly wouldn't go admitting this too often) is that maybe we just don't generally have it in us."*

:lol ....I'm not saying a word!!


----------



## MCP (25 May 2004)

*Women just don't cut it*

What gender do you instinctively conjure up when you hear the following terms:

Genius
Scientist
Chess Master
Bridge Champion
Maniac

I have deliberately chosen areas where women's physical stature should not naturally act against them.

QED :smokin


----------



## PMU (25 May 2004)

*Re: Women just don't cut it*

That’s a bit rich coming from one of the Nualas.  Their songs were mildly amusing but there is a  limit to the comic potential of three gank looking women talking dirty.


----------



## MissRibena (25 May 2004)

*Re: It's not just comedians ....*

Hi piggy 

Thanks for reply (and not shooting me down!!).  I don't really know enough about feminism (although evidently far more than many of my friends) so I can't go on a rant or defend women everywhere - like you, much of what I have to say on this issue is annecdotal or based on "hunches".  But I do welcome the chance to talk about this issue anywhere; people generally don't want to know.

*"Even many of the women I know in business (at management level) seem happy enough to play the game by male rules"  The last company i worked in was run by women. They exhibited all the bad qualities that men do (liek giving all the nice jobs to their female collegues for instance), but much, much worse. I'm not saying all women are like that...just one of my experiences. Anecdotal.* 

These are part of the same thing as I see it.  Because business, industry, science etc. were founded and developed by men essentially and have only recently been infiltrated by women and on a limited basis (fewer numbers, lesser roles, generally speaking) the organisational structures and policies reflect that.  I wonder whetherwomen basically have to adopt more "masculine" qualities to succeed.  Even if we don't count ruthlessness (e.g.) as a particularly masculine quality maybe men are more inclined to adopt it than women, hence more men at the top.  Or perhaps men don't have to be so ruthless and get to the top more easily.  I feel that whatever you look at it, men invented the game and women are just joining in rather than really taking the bull by the horns and really making a more balanced world (which I think would benefit men just as much as women).

And maybe my feminist antennae is up a bit because I found this bit:
*Ask yourself what type of person you need to be to be a politician and then thank god there aren't that many women. It might actually be saying something positive about your sex*
really partronising, although i know (from your other posts) that that is probably not how you meant it - but it smells of "what would you be worrying your pretty little head about politics for, it's a filthy business".   

Rebecca


----------



## daltonr (25 May 2004)

*Re: It's not just comedians ....*



> I've never seen Deirdre O'Kane but I have been told that she is funny.



I like Comedy A LOT, and I think Deirdre O'Kane is rubbish.  I'm sorry but I do and that's that.  She proved she was rubbish by doing a Nissan Micra Ad.  As Bill Hicks would say "Once you do an ad for anything, you forfeit your right to be taken seriously.

(Not to start a chauvanist rant) but the best comedians are Men.  Who know's why??????

Maybe women spend too much time reading self help books and Magazine articles about women who married someone on Death Row.  (Not very conducive to humour)

The men I know are far more likely to crack a joke than the women I know.  Perhaps there's a psychological difference.  I don't know.

The best Chefs, Chess Players, Racing Drivers, Musicians, Artists, Sculptors, Poets, Architects, etc.  Are also Men.  
Who know's why?????

Maybe men are just better at Stuff.  Wouldn't that be a pisser for Germaine Greer?

I've seen a few good American women do good standup, so there are lots of exceptions to the rule.  But the best women standups don't come close to Bill Hicks, or Robin Williams, or Billy Connolly, or Chris Rock, etc, etc, etc.

This ex-Nuala was actually calling for positive discrimination at a comedy festival!?!?!   That's the funniest thing an Irish female comic has come up with in years.

If you're a woman and you can do stand up, then do it.  If you're funny, we'll laugh.  If we don't laugh, don't go whining to the Irish Times, like a girl.

-Rd


----------



## MissRibena (25 May 2004)

*Re: It's not just comedians ....*

I'm trying really hard not to go BLOODY MENTAL.    It's not easy.  Are there no other girls who can back me up in responding to this:

*The best Chefs, Chess Players, Racing Drivers, Musicians, Artists, Sculptors, Poets, Architects, etc. Are also Men. 
Who know's why?????*

I don't believe it's because women aren't as good as men at all those things.  For a start, I don't know if I buy into the idea that men and women are good at different things (apart from the obvious physcial strength difference, which I guess plays a part in racing drivers and sport).  I can never figure out how even the best (male) chefs will say that their mothers were the best "cooks" they knew and they all seem to have their grandmothers' risotto/bakewell/bread-and-butter pudding recipes!! So much for sauce for the goose ... 

Historically (and I'm not talking about the IceAge here folks - only 50 years ago in some instances!), women were denied access to the academies and institutions that taught and fostered talent in the arts.  And association with any of the arts tended to taint a women's reputation and blight her marriage prospects - and since they had no vote or legal status, could not participate without male approval.  That's not even 3 generations ago.  It is definitely true for artists, sculptors, poets and architects.  It is also true that the arts are generally the preserve of those who have free time - women were generally afforded less and even those that were, were encouraged in arts that held lesser status.  Like I say, it's hard to right 3000 years of repression in 50 years of limited freedom.

Maybe I am just the only one who feels that there's still huge untapped potential in women and that there's still a long way to go on these kinds of issues.  

Rebecca


----------



## ttraces (25 May 2004)

*?*

a contridiction in terms?


----------



## piggy (25 May 2004)

*Re: It's not just comedians ....*

*"And maybe my feminist antennae is up a bit because I found this bit:
Ask yourself what type of person you need to be to be a politician and then thank god there aren't that many women. It might actually be saying something positive about your sex
really partronising, although i know (from your other posts) that that is probably not how you meant it - but it smells of "what would you be worrying your pretty little head about politics for, it's a filthy business". "*


No...I didn't mean anything derogatory about it. I don't like/trust politicians that much. That's what I meant. It seems that you have to be a particular type of lying piece of slime to be one in the first place.

Anyway, don't you be worrying your pre....only joking of course


----------



## daltonr (25 May 2004)

*Re: It's not just comedians ....*

OK,  relax.  My comment about men being better at "Stuff" was a joke.   You see!!!! That's why there are only 3 women at the Cat laughs festival.  No sense of humour.

I don't want to make light of your argument (other than the odd joke since this is a thread about being funny).

But I've heard the argument you are putting forward before and I'm not entirely convinced by it.  I agree women today may have to work harder to get ahead, but so what?   People from inner cities have to work harder too, catholics had to work harder in the North, Blacks have to work harder in the USA,  People with disabilities can work as hard as they wan't it'll do them very little good.

On the grand scheme of things I find it hard to have sympathy for comediennes who can't get a gig in Kilkenny, or for the many career women who are having trouble becomming MD.

I hate listening to Healty, Wealthy, well eduacted White Middle class women moan about how they're downtrodden.  

I'm not saying the world is perfect and these women get treated just like their male counterparts.   But really, on the grand scale of unfairness in humanity,  it ranks pretty low.

There is more legislation in place now to protect equal opportunities that there has ever been.  Apart from Priest I can't think of many jobs that women are prevented from pursuing.   If you wan't to do something and you're good enough then JUST DO IT.

On top of all the equality legislation women are routinely favoured by the family law courts, and men are treated disgracefully.

Sorry if this mail offends you but if a Healthy Wealthy Well Educated White Male complained about discrimination I'd say exactly the same thing.

-Rd


----------



## MissRibena (25 May 2004)

*Re: It's not just comedians ....*

Thanks for the clarification daltonr and piggy.  Am relieved it was meant jokingly.  Maybe feminism and a sense of humour are mutually exclusive  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not giving out about men really.  I don't believe that men are holding women back any longer.  But it feels like the world got so far with feminism and women got enough to keep the majority happy and then got bored.  

I don't think feminism should be just about women sharing what men already had, it should have been about adding something new - changing things or creating (the arts, institutions, industry etc. etc.) to suit women instead of just getting the right to participate in a man's world.  Feminism didn't ask enough "what do women want to be/do?", it seems to have just decided that we wanted what men had rather than striking out with a new vision.

But even judging by this thread I'm in a very small minority of women who feel like this and I guess I just have to accept that and shut up about how frustrated I feel with womens' acceptance of so little as being enough.  

Rebecca

PS It's a minor point but I don't believe that comparisons with ethnic minorities, the poor, disabled etc. groups is accurate, because all those groups are made up by 50% women and women in those groups have it doubly hard as their male counterparts.


----------



## adrian (25 May 2004)

*we're just funnier!!*

I don't think it's convention. I think your average man is funnier than the average woman. You can see this even in young children. Who's nearly always the "class clown" in schools. A boy. Boys are just generally cheekier, and born messers. Tommy Tiernan was saying how he and Hector Ó hEochagain went to the same school in Navan and were both pure messers. 

Who's the funniest in Friends, for example? Well it's not Monica or Rachel, Phoebe is funnier, but more likely Joey or Chandler.

Think of the witty people at your workplace, are they men, women, both? The funniest people I know are men... But women are better to look at of course so that balances things out a bit!


----------



## piggy (25 May 2004)

*Re: we're just funnier!!*

*"Who's the funniest in Friends, for example? Well it's not Monica or Rachel, Phoebe is funnier, but more likely Joey or Chandler."*

In fairness...that'd because the script writers make them funnier and has nothing to do with how funny they are as people. They are actors.


----------



## adrian (25 May 2004)

*nope*

Friends is a comedy, so all of the actors are given funny scripts.


----------



## daltonr (25 May 2004)

*Re: we're just funnier!!*



> it seems to have just decided that we wanted what men had rather than striking out with a new vision.



Give me an example of how women could get something different out of the Arts or achieve something different, rather than accept what men have had.  I don't see what you mean.  

You're right about the ethnic minorities etc.  But what you're referring to is compound discrimination.  Where a person falls into more than one category and is doubly discriminated.  

I stand by my point that well educated women have it much easier than they ever have and if they are held back they at least have at their disposal tools to address the inequality.



> But women are better to look at of course so that balances things out a bit!



You're going straight to Feminist Hell for that one.   
But you're right,  they are.

-Rd


----------



## MissRibena (25 May 2004)

*Re: we're just funnier!!*

Hi daltonr

As a very minor example, I'm sure when feminism was on its crest in the seventies, that it would have been expected that acceptance of institutional art such as painting and sculpture would have been overthrown, or at least greatly questioned.  I would have liked to have seen new formats explored and established or perhaps a resurgence of arts hitherto seen as "women's art" e.g. tapestry etc.  I can't guess as to what these new formats might have been or will be (hopefully) because I don't have the talent but it seems strange taht women were allowed to engage properly in the arts and just followed in men's footsteps.  I would have thought that something different/new/exciting would have come about.  Maybe this anti-climax is all there is and I just need to deal with it but I find it hard to accept that this is as good as it gets.

Like I say, I don't have an issue with men holding women back - I've decided to excuse the balance of the dodgy remarks on this thread as being meant in jest    I just feel frustrated that more women don't share my feeling that there's loads more left in us to do.  Look at this thread, no other woman wants to talk about this - only guys.   I'd love to be able to engage in dialectic debates to tease out the issues and maybe find new ideas and ways forward, but most women don't want to know, and that's my answer really.  The couple of friends that are interested in this stuff are far more radical than me and seem a bit blinkered to the fact that most women can't be bothered or don't see anything wrong in the first place.

Rebecca


----------



## piggy (25 May 2004)

*Re: we're just funnier!!*

*"Look at this thread, no other woman wants to talk about this - only guys"*

At a guess, I'd say you were pretty much in a room full of men. My gut feeling tells me there aren't all that many women who post here.

Await torrent of female posters telling me how wrong I am


----------



## daltonr (25 May 2004)

*Re: we're just funnier!!*



> I don't have the talent but it seems strange that women were allowed to engage properly in the arts and just followed in men's footsteps. I would have thought that something different/new/exciting would have come about.



I don't think that's strange at all.  It's an intersting perspective though.  One I hadn't thought about.

I'd have though that if there was something new and exciting in Art, men would have discovered it.  Unless you think women have some insight to enable them to take art in new direction simply by virtue of being women.

Interesting idea.

-Rd


----------



## icantbelieveitstaken (25 May 2004)

*Re: we're just funnier!!*

you mean piggy's a man


----------



## piggy (25 May 2004)

*Re: we're just funnier!!*

*"you mean piggy's a man "*


Why do I always get this????  


Yes...I'm a 


Maybe there's a way I could change my username to something else. Butch perhaps!!


----------



## adrian (25 May 2004)

*miss piggy?*

Piggy,

I had thought that too, until recently. It's the association with "Miss" Piggy. You could change your name to boar, but that's a bit boaring...


----------



## piggy (26 May 2004)

*Re: miss piggy?*

I wonder can you change your name? Or do you just have to register as a new person. Maybe a mod can answer that one.


----------



## MissRibena (26 May 2004)

*Re: we're just funnier!!*

Hi daltonr

It's not that I think women are "better" but I do think we would have a different perspective and something different to bring to the table of art etc. but I don't see it. 

Other groups previously excluded from society have added to and changed the culture of the society they subsequently joined.  Look at the black community; how they have changed the face of American (and therefore modern Western) culture.  They may not have taken over painting and sculpture (yet) but there's a very tangible, discernable African American contribution to the arts (dance, music, fashion etc).   I don't think that case of women is directly analogous to groups such as African Americans but it does illustrate what I might have expected to happen.  

If we accept that men are led more by different visual stimulii to women (and I think they are), then a big change in the arts should have happened.  And if there is no difference, how do we explain the proliferation of the female nude in art and pornography without an equivalent for women.

I should probably read more books on these subjects - it would probably save you all having to read this    Don't worry, I do have a life, promise!

Rebecca


----------



## icantbelieveitstaken (26 May 2004)

*Re: we're just funnier!!*

Perhaps women's outlet for stimulii is fashion, surely during the course of the last century the amount of creative effort put into fashion in its various forms, from actual clothes to interior design demonstrates this. A lot of what is considered fashion is quiet alien to men who just can't see it leading to the inexplicable (to me) phenomenon of the (hopefully deceased) new man and gay men telling us how to dress (shudder).


----------



## MissRibena (26 May 2004)

*Re: we're just funnier!!*

Hi ican'tbelieveitstaken

I'm afraid it's not so alien to men at all: Versace, Gucci, Jon Rocha, Dior, Laurence Llewelyn Bowen, Vidal Sassoon, Max Factor, Tommy Hilfigger, Calvin Klein etc. etc.  Women are as poorly represented in interior design, couture, perfume, hair and make-up as they are in many other areas.  There are some exceptions here too of course; Coco Chanel, Eileen Gray, Linda Barker. 

The notion of women's creative juices resting in the decorative or applied arts is an old one.  The Victorians were the first ones to really run with interior design but as with many other areas and not dissimilar to the situation today, interior design was led by men, such as William Morris.  Women didn't actually design anything; they might have painted some tiles, or done a bit of embroidery in a workshop or had some sway in loosening their husband's purse-strings but they weren't (and aren't) the leaders.  Back then they couldn't but now they simply don't even though they can.  

The only really famous couture designer I can think of at the moment is Stella McCartney, daughter of Paul, and even at that, she's closer to the fringe than the epicentre.  When feminism was on the rise, there was a bit more female involvement; Biba, Mary Quant, Vivienne Westwood but it wasn't sustained.

Rebecca


----------



## Niles (26 May 2004)

*An evolutionary explanation*

I started this discussion about comedy and now we are on to lots of other areas. Let's go back about 2 million years. Men and women evolved differently. It's a bit of a simplification, but men hunted and women nested. 

Different characteristics would have been favoured for the two roles. Men probably grew bigger and stronger over time as that would favour the hunter.Evolution definitely favoured aggression and risk taking in men. Evolution probably weeded out aggression and risk taking in women. Evolution would have strongly favoured competitive behaviour, leadership skills and dominance activity in men.

On the other hand, it seems that women have evolved better verbal skills and some people skills. 

So the relative proportions of men vs women who were stronger, more aggressive, more competitive,more risk taking and more dominant increased over the past two million years. That gives men a huge natural biological advantage over women in areas where these skills are rewarded, for example business and politics. 100 years or so of feminism and 20 years of equality laws cannot overcome millions of years of evolution. 

While woman's better verbal skills are a help in these areas, they don't compensate for the lack of aggression and competitiveness.

I still don't know why women are not funny. Women always say that they want a man with a GSOH. Maybe men have had to evolve a GSOH to live with women  

Niles


----------



## Niles (26 May 2004)

*What do women think*

By the way Ms. Ribena, would you agree that women are inherently less funny than men? Not just at the very top, but at all levels. Are your male children and nephews funnier than your female children and nieces? Are your adult female friends more or less funny than your male friends? 

Niles


----------



## MissRibena (26 May 2004)

*Re: What do women think*

Hi Niles

I don't buy into many of your claims on the evolutionary differences of the sexes.  They can actually prove very little of the caveman stuff; the jury is still deliberating on the balance between nature and nuture.  Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate" is an interesting read in that area.

And no I wouldn't necessarily agree that men are funnier on the basis that men dominate stand-up - they dominate many areas but it doesn't make them "better" at it than women.  I also think humour is "in the eye of the beholder".  Some jokes  seem childish to me and many women have a more wry, cynical sense of humour.  I can appreciate both, at times.  Anyway, "sense" of humour isn't actually a sense of course, as it is culturally conditioned and changes from country to country and over time.  We all know the stereotype of the Germans' lack of sense of humour and many of us can remember a time when racist and sexist jokes were ok; although I suppose they probably still are in some circles.

Rebecca


----------



## MCP (26 May 2004)

*Please close this topic*

This is becoming embarrassing, women are so obviously inferior in almost every aspect of human endeavour, why continue this humiliation?  Some moderator please do a mercy killing on this thread.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (26 May 2004)

*scotland*

Wow! - there are some mighty long posts in this thread. I have a vague recollection that in Ancient Egypt at some stage, women were the bosses.



> Maybe there's a way I could change my username to something else. Butch perhaps!!



People will just think you're a lesbian if you do that.


----------



## piggy (26 May 2004)

*Re: scotland*

*"People will just think you're a lesbian if you do that."*

Good point.
But at least if everyone is gonna think I'm a burd I might as well be a lesbian. 


Rebecca,

The reason you don't get a lot of jokes (or think they're childish) is probably similar to the way I just don't get Sex and the City or films like Little Women!!  
We're just very different in a lot of ways.


----------



## Niles (26 May 2004)

*Evolution*

Lads - this is an important subject. Can we try to keep it civil. Ms. Ribena is on her own it appears and fair play to her for arguing her side of the story.

Ms. Ribena

You don't accept this evolutionary stuff. Lots of people don't, but most scientists do. 

Presumably you accept some of it?

There are huge physical differences between men and women e.g. height, bone structure, reproductive biology, hair and skin quality. Presumably you accept that these are 100% biological or evolutionary and nothng at all to do with culture? 

Niles


----------



## MissRibena (26 May 2004)

*Re: Evolution*

Piggy, 

You've kinda hit the nail on the head for me. How different are we exactly?  The problem is nobody really knows.  I think a lot of women shy away from dealing with that question properly in case the hard-won equality rights are clawed back.  People (esp. women) might not want to discuss this too much but I believe that we need to get down to the nitty gritty of this issue to reach the next level of human maturity.  Personally, I used to suspect that women weren't featuring more highly in lots of roles because the roles themselves were designed by men for a masculine world and therefore women couldn't/wouldn't ever be as good as men in them.  I would be fine with that if I had seen women come out with a new take on everything, but they/we haven't and that is what I dispair about. 

Niles,
Of course I accept the Theory of Evolution (which is about humans relationship to other species, not to one another)!!  I just argue with your extrapolation of it; there is very little scientific evidence to establish how much gender difference is learned and perpetuated in society and how much is down to genes.  

But hey whatever about a feminist rant, I certainly didn't mean to hijack Niles's thread to get up on a personal soapbox. I honestly thought when I mentioned anything like this on the thread that some women would have put their oar in, if only to tell me I'm talking muck on their behalf.  Back to dispair!!  

Rebecca


----------



## piggy (26 May 2004)

*Re: Evolution*

Rebecca,

Strictly speaking this should be in the craic but I think it illustrates my point quite well. Very funny too...


*HOW TO SHOWER LIKE A WOMAN:*

Get in shower - use face cloth, arm cloth, leg cloth, long

loofah, wide loofah and pumice stone. Wash hair once with cucumber and
sage

shampoo with 43 added vitamins.

Wash hair again to make sure it is clean.

Condition hair with grapefruit mint conditioner enhanced with natural

avocado oil, leave on hair for 15 minutes.

Wash face with crushed apricot facial, scrub for 10 minutes until red.

Wash entire rest of body with gingernut and jaffa cake body wash.

Shave armpits and legs.

Turn off shower.

Squeegee off all wet surfaces in shower, spray mould spots with Tilex.

Get out of shower.

Dry with towel the size of small country.

Wrap hair in super absorbent towel.

Check entire body for spots & tweeze hairs.

Return to bedroom wearing long dressing gown and towel on head.

If you see husband along the way, cover any exposed areas.



*HOW TO SHOWER LIKE A MAN:*

Take off clothes while sitting on the edge of the bed.

Leave in a pile.

Walk naked to the bathroom.

If you see wife along the way, shake knob at her making woo-hoo sound.

Look at manly physique in the mirror.

Admire the size of your knob and scratch your ass.

Get in the shower.

Wash your face. Wash your armpits.

Blow your nose in your hands and let the water rinse them off.

Make fart noises (real or artificial) and laugh at how loud they sound
in

the shower.

Spend majority of time washing privates and surrounding area.

Wash your butt leaving those coarse hairs stuck on the soap.

Shampoo hair. Make shampoo mohawk.

Pee.

Rinse off shampoo and get out of shower.

Partially dry off. Fail to notice water on floor.

Admire knob size in mirror again.

Leave shower door open, wet mat on floor, light on and fan on.

Return to bedroom with towel around waist.

If you pass your wife, pull off towel, shake knob at her and make
woo-hoo

noises again.

Throw wet towel on bed.


----------



## car (26 May 2004)

*humour*

sorry for coming in late on this.  I'll bypass all the later evolution/feminism stuff and go straight to the comedy point..   
I must have seen most Irish comics over the last 10 years and can never remember once laughing a comediennes joke so I am of the mind that women, as a whole (tongue firmly in cheek) are just not funny. 
So I think, the only women who make it to the top in this country are the ones who play the game and put on a visual gag (nualas, DOK).  Again, I think DOK rode on the back of "Paths to Freedom", where her stuff was pretty much wrote for her.  There is the delivery aspect to a joke, but if the material is bad, its bad.  I think its pretty much a closed shop at the top due to RTE.  Take fair city, didnt Keith Duffy say he would have liked to start his acting carrer in fair city but it was impossible to get past the front door in montrose? (enough about his acting skills tho).  It looks like the same goes for the comedians/comediennes, if someone in RTE thinks it makes for good tv, they'll be put on.  DOK is obviously loved, as were the nualas, whom I as well as everyone else here seems to think they were an absolute pox on womens chance of making it in comedy.  
But then again, Jason Byrne is loved, he truly is funny, but to be honest, he doesnt make for good tv.  It just doesnt translate well.  
Funniest female of all time in my book has to go to ruby wax.  joan rivers next.  

btw, I went to see Reuben(check out [broken link removed] ) and Dave McSavage in a duble bill last week in crawdaddy, hilarious stuff, I heartily recommend you try and see either of them. (quick plug for reuben playing in vicar street 11th june)


----------



## wavejumper (26 May 2004)

*torch*

i can only think of smack the pony for something very funny acted out by girls...i think its down to the fact that guys like comedians more than girls.  Girls being more mature they always go for the more serious or a kind of humour most guys don't really pick up.  flame on!


----------



## Rebecca Loos (26 May 2004)

*re*

-----------------------------------------------------
Girls being more mature they always go for the more serious or a kind of humour most guys don't really pick up
-----------------------------------------------------

You mean unfunny stuff?


----------



## icantbelieveitstaken (26 May 2004)

*Re: humour*

Tried, but failed, to think of funny female participants on comedy programmes that lasted several years as these would have used virtually every comic in existence. 
Whose line is it anyway - Josie Lawrence drove me nuts
Have I got News for you - any funny female guests were usualy those who had a biting sense of humour but weren't actually comediennes
Harry Enfield show - Kathy Burke is priceless and without knowing if she ever did do standup I reckon I'd pay to see her if she was in Vickers Street tomorrow
Satruday Night Live - (remember this, Ben Elton, the Dangerous brothers) can't remember any funny women but to be fair memories of this have faded into the mists of time.
I did like Jennifer Saunders in the early stages of her career but again did she ever do standup?
Maybe its because women are more mentally balanced than men, if you ever really want to depress yourself watch documentaries on the lives of carry on team, frankie howard, spike milligan, keny evertt, hancock, peter sellars the list could get much bigger.


----------



## MCP (26 May 2004)

*And another thing*

Why do women have absolutely NO interest in sport (Irealnd in the World Cup a notable exception)?


----------



## MissRibena (26 May 2004)

*Re: humour*

I'm sticking with the comedy side of it, I swear   ...

Are we sure it's not just a case of taste? It's hard to see that because a few men in Ireland think there are more/better men stand-ups that men are the funnier sex fullstop - it feels like quite a leap.  Would you think it's that more men find stand-up more funny (live or otherwise) than women do?   Loads of guys I know had a Billy Connolly video somewhere but I don't know any woman with one.  I think he's brilliant myself but not enough to go and get a video.

Black Books.  Most guys I know think that's priceless but it's totally (and I mean completely) lost on me.  It's mildly humourous at best, but that's about it.  And Jason Byrne, can't really see the big deal there either.  Tommy Tiernan is funny but to me, he's as much of a one-trick pony as Deirdre O'Kane, just hasn't been so over-exposed.

Women characters/ actresses feature in most comedies, so women must be able to get some "universal" jokes and deliver them, even if they didn't write them.  Some funny women characters/actresses/comedians that come to me; Keeping Up Appearances, Absolutely Fabulous, (can't think of the name of the Asian woman who does the granny on the Kumars), Julie Waters, Vicar of Dibley, Connie Booth wrote Fawlty Towers with John Cleese and others have mentioned Victoria Wood, Joan Rivers, Ruby Wax, and my personal favourite is Kathy Burke.

Rebecca


----------



## Cahir (26 May 2004)

*Re: humour*

I went to some comedy thing in vicar street a while ago in aid of a cancer charity and there was a female comedian who was actually quite funny.  Can't remember her name but she was singing songs and dressed badly.

As a huge comedy fan, I've seen most irish comedians many times and have to say that some of the more popular blokes are worse than any female comics - Tommy Tiernan being the first to spring to mind (used to be ok in the comedy night in the GPO in Galway but has gone downhill since then).  The worst have to be the cuban brothers who used to always play in the laughter lounge - a woman wouldn't dare lower her standards by performing their "act".

There was a really funny woman on the comedy stand up thing on paramount 2 a couple of weeks ago, must take note of her name next time I see her.


----------



## car (26 May 2004)

*humour*

The thing I find with Jason Byrne and Tommy Tiernan is they were funnier when they werent doing tv. I preferred them on a thursday night upstairs in the norseman much more so then I ever did in vicar street.  Both of them werent great on tv, although tiernan did come across a lot more human.  The money for these guys is in writing for tv so after a while they lose what got them there and try to work tv humour into their standup.  The edge is gone for them.  Again I blame RTE.

I was trying to think of drop the dead donkey.  Again, very funny females.  More original humour can be found with those 3 black girls late at night, bbc2 I think.   Very funny.   Much too  "out there" for RTE.


----------



## Niles (26 May 2004)

*Some good comediennes*

Now that people are suggesting names, I can think of some good comediennes.

How could I have forgotten Caroline Ahern who played Mrs Merton and who co-wrote the Royle Family? One of my favourites in recent years. I would certainly go to see her live. Has she had a problem with alcoholism/heavy drinking recently, which suggests that really funny people may need to be a bit unstable. She wrote another series which wasn't funny.

The three black women were great the first few times. I don't know if I got embarrassed watching it or got bored or maybe it's a double whammy,  I am not genetically predisposed to finding black women funny.

Niles


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (27 May 2004)

*Re: Some good comediennes*

Maybe the 'unstable' people are the most stable people.
How can people be truely stable, when we're all living on a minute rock, with limited life spans? The whole thing is insane. Anyway, I've veered OT. I think Gwenith, the welsh woman, was hilarious.


----------



## zinger (27 May 2004)

*Tommy*

Tommy Tiernan is utter rubbish , i went to see him in Vicar street , the warm up guy was the much funnier. All he does is shout and have a go at the cheeky Dubs and the think lads from the country , well i walked out before the end it was about as funny as a kick in the nuts.

For me i love the below:

Bill Hicks , Jerry Seinfeld , Roy Chubby Brown , Bob Monkhouse , Rodney Dangerfield oh and not forgeting Dermot Morgan.


----------



## piggy (27 May 2004)

*Re: Tommy*

Yeah. Have to agree. Tommy Tiernan is just not funny.
Saw him at last years Cat Laughs. Extremely unfunny. People were cringing in the audience. Absolute rubbish.

Jason Byrne on the other hand is brilliant. Saw him at the cat laughs too and vicar street last year.

The highlight of the cat laughs was Jimmy Carr. I wasn't expecting anything from him and he had me literally rolling on the floor. Very un-pc humour though.


----------



## casiopea (28 May 2004)

*another female comic*

I think ronnie ancona (I think that is how you spell her name)
is very good.  She used to be on channel 4 on alastair mcgowans big impressions and did everyone from posh to vets in practice to audrey hepburn.  

On the feminist argument, as a female I would say Ive never fretted about why there arent more females in the arts, MDs, racing car drivers etc.  I know if I want to do it, I can, there is nothing holding us back.  

There are simply more important things to worry about than feminism.

cas.


----------



## daltonr (2 Jun 2004)

*Re: another female comic*



> There are simply more important things to worry about than feminism.



Unless you're a man.  Feminists worry the hell out of me!

 

-Rd


----------



## DOBBER22 (2 Jun 2004)

*Re: another female comic*

I think there is more holding women back then you think folks we all know women get broody at some stage and want to raise a child and we all know children are a 24/7 job, not that it's a womans job to raise the kids lots of men these days are happy to do it but most women prefer to do it they prefer to be around to put the plasters on and kiss it better, the maternal instinct kicks in and mammydrive takes over most women will agree that kids come before the career and they are happy to take that leading role.
Any woman who is successful in their career has the sprog with a creche/childminder or even decide not to have kids until later in life or not at all to pursue a career.
I may be wrong but thats what I see :\ 
Fair play to the mammies they have the greatest career in the world moulding and teaching the next generation


----------



## Protocol (2 Jun 2004)

*balance*

Indeed, mothers have the most important, and a very difficult, job.

While not 50/50, there are a good few funny female comics. British TV contains several.

Interestingly, there are very few *female chess players*. And I don't think there are that many female *philosophers* or *mathematicians*.

(At least I don't think so anyway)


----------



## MissRibena (2 Jun 2004)

*I didn't start it this time....!! *

I'm so glad someone started this up again ... I wanted so badly to reply to the comment that there are more important things to worry about than feminism.  Of course there are, but then there are more important things to worry about than many of the issues raised on AAM and it's not just feminism; any kind of injustice gets me all worked up.  Worrying about the bigger picture and things like feminism, politics etc. and trying to improve the situation directly effects the day-to-day "more important" issues of everybody in society.

The problem with philosopy and mathematics as I understand is that women were traditionally not allowed to enter academies and study.  Philosphy is one of my fav. subjects but there is no denying the chauvanistic nature of the subject at large and of particular philosophers.  Looking at how badly the "greatest minds" got women wrong makes me wonder for the whole subject.  I went to an all-girl convent and only 13 years ago we had to go to the board of education to get the right to study physics which was only taught at the CBS; a man's subject.  I had to fight very hard to be allowed to keep up honours maths when the numbers dropped too and we ended up having to go to the CBS for that and eventually we helped the lads gain access to home economics classes in the girls' school.  That was only 13 years ago .. things have a long long way to go.

But don't be fooled, there's still room for huge improvement with regard to feminist issues - it's the idea that it might be all "sorted" and the passivity of women in accepting so little that drives me really crazy.  Don't forget we live in a society that gives more tax advantages to the women who go out to work and many women have no choice; so much for the great Irish stay-at-home mammy.  

Rebecca


----------



## daltonr (2 Jun 2004)

*Re: balance*



> and we all know children are a 24/7 job



The following comments may be a little controvercial.
Apologies in advance.

One thing that annoys me is when I hear women complain that it's hard to get to the top in business and raise a family.  Well of course it is, but that doesn't mean business has to change to accomodate you.  

If a man took a year or two or three out for whatever reason he'd similarly find it hard to rise to the top, his earnings would be hit, he'd find himself out side the loop to an extent.

If there are other factors stopping your climb, or if women are earning less based on equivalent experience etc to a man then fine, I'd be very interested in tackling that.  

But I worry when women who left work for a year or two talk about being discriminated when they return because they are now out of the loop to an extent, or they're not as high on the promotion ladder as they would have been if they'd stayed working.

This is a bit jumbled, sorry if the point I'm making isn't clear.
Please don't hurt me.  It's just an opinion.

-Rd


----------



## MissRibena (2 Jun 2004)

*Women in jobs*

Hi daltonr

I agree with you.  I don't think it's fair on men who have stayed in their jobs that women who take career breaks to have children or extended maternity leave or whatever expect to get equal chances at career progression.  As a single woman with no children, it's not fair on me either.  However, these women are gone to have children; not have a gap year getting drunk in Australia.  They are providing a service to society at large and in fairness, wouldn't there be an equal proportion of men gone on maternity leave if they could actually have babies in the first place?! In any case, I have seen stats (although I don't know their reliability so I won't quote them) that show that women are more or less proportionately represented as lower and middle management grades but still don't make it to senior management of board level in anything even approaching a proportionate level.  

I disagree with you though; it's not *just* business that needs to change (in fairness business has changed far more than most areas and has the best stats on the inclusion of women).  It's the whole of society that needs to shift; the fundamentals governing society are male and that's why women (with their inconvenient child bearing issues) don't fit into them properly.  And the point I was making earlier is that I'm really disappointed that the greater inclusion of women in society (business, politics, the arts etc) has not resulted in far more fundamental changes.  We have just accepted what we could persuade men to give us and not really shaken the thing up properly to accomodate ourselves.  Like I say the thing I dispair about is not men at all; it's the complete apathy of women and their blindness to what is going on around them.  Piggy said earlier that he suspected women would enter the debate but the only woman other than me doesn't see a problem.

Rebecca

PS  My replies are probably not that coherent either, so apologies to anyone confused.


----------



## casiopea (2 Jun 2004)

*passivity of women in accepting so little*

Hi Miss Ribena,



> passivity of women in accepting so little



I assume you didnt mean offense by this but I do feel I have to address it; just because I feel there are more important things to worry than feminism does not mean Im passive or accepting so little.

For example, if I want to become comedienne in the morning I have the same things holding me back as daltonr, rainyday or piggy.

- Am I funny?
- Can I stand up in front of crowd?
- Can I afford to quit my job to pursue this full time?
- Can I get a gig?
- Do i need to get a manager?

Being a woman doesnt come into it....I think we (women) are our own worse enemy if we feel that feminism is an issue here.

I also went to an all girls convent school and did my leaving cert 13 yrs ago.  Im sorry to hear of the trouble you had and yes I agree with you, if a person is discriminated because of sex, (or other reasons ie colour of skin or religion) then htere is a problem and you are right to be concerned. Im glad that your year probably changed the way that school operated from there on forward (well done).  This wasnt the case in our school, so I think it must vary on a school by school basis (?) I studied both honours physics and maths  (classes were small too).  Im now a management consultant and while most (but not all) of my peers are men, again, being a woman didnt hold me back.  And yes, if I wish, I can leave and become a mammy someday please God. 

Im not accepting so little at all.


----------



## MissRibena (2 Jun 2004)

*Feminism*

No Casiopea, I didn't mean to offend you and sorry if it came across that way.  You actually replied which isn't passive at all - the fact that we disagree doesn't worry me.

I only used my personal case as an example of the small things that are still out there and wasn't whinging at my experience but it's a fairly common problem (I see my niece with a similar issue at the moment).  The leaving cert. results still show gendering of subjects and employment statistics reflect the results of that and that's what I'm questioning.  Incidentally I did the leaving cert. 9 years ago but had the fight on the subjects 13 years ago so it's even less far back than you think. 

Maybe you were lucky - I know I consider myself lucky.  I come from a stable family background, got a good education (subject problem notwithstanding), am reasonably bright, was encouraged by my family in everything I did, took a couple of risks along the way and was lucky.  But how many women are not in such a lucky position?  And how many wind up pregnant before they get a chance?  But all that is kinda beside the point.  I would suggest that you are very lucky if you have not found yourself fighting harder than your male counterparts on occasion.  I have certainly come across this but luckily there's no better woman to fight her corner than me    It's not always big issues, sometimes it's really small ones.  I could list them but I really really don't want to seem like a whinger because I'm not.

No matter what our personal experiences the facts show that women aren't participating in society 50%.  And I believe that is a problem and there is something seriously wrong.  You and I might be alright but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem or at the very least something that warrants fairly fundamental investigation.  And as I've said I see the problem being with women rather than men.  It's as worrying for me if women don't want to be involved as it is if they want to but find it difficult.

Rebecca


----------



## casiopea (2 Jun 2004)

*feminism*

Hi Miss Ribena,

Thanks for your reply.  Its always interesting to debate these things!

Yes, I have a similiar background to yourself, so yes I was lucky (as were my brothers), especially as we had parents who always encouraged us.



> But how many women are not in such a lucky position? And how many wind up pregnant before they get a chance?



I understand what you are saying, dont get me wrong, but the problem I have with this is that this could effect men too. 
A boy born into a family that doesnt support him has as many obstacles as a girl born into such a family.  (Yes I know he cant get pregnant !!!). Such a boy will face obstacles in school, will unfortunately be more prone to bullying or being bullied, will be suscepitible to drugs, wont be encouraged to pursue college or a career.  Will not be encouraged to follow his hearts desire (to become a comedian  ) ). All joking aside will face a bleak future.



> No matter what our personal experiences the facts show that women aren't participating in society 50%



I dont dispute this.  But is feminism the answer here?  Just because women dont participate does not mean that they cant.  There is a difference.  I might not be coherent here
but I would  see 

1- feminism and not being allowed to do something 
2- women not being fully involved in all aspects of society 

as two different things.  

What do you think?

cas.


----------



## MissRibena (2 Jun 2004)

*Feminism*

Hi casiopea

Yeah it is great to get to discuss this - thanks for the reply again.

I see what you are saying about guys coming from disadvantaged backgrounds facing equal problems, but thats just not what happens on the ground.  The ESRI and National Council for Women state that women are far more likely to live in poverty than men (www.nwci.ie).  One parent families are more likely to live in poverty and since most one parent families are headed by women this compounds the issue, especially combined with the fact that women over 65 are again more likely to live in poverty than male counterparts.  I knew these statistics weren't great but when I read over it now it struck me that maybe it's no wonder society isn't seeing a full quota of female participation but it is a wonder they aren't a lot more angry.

I think the reason we are having a problem agreeing on feminism is because I think it's been tarred with a kind of radical image and become somewhat of a dirty word.  There are all kinds of feminists and many types of feminism.  If we changed the discussion to be about "women's issues" I'd be afraid everyone would think it was diets and lipsticks, the way MSN do.  (It's a pet hate, not a vital issue but MSN categorise their sub-websites on a menu bar and "Women" are just one of many others like "Money", "Cars" "Entertainment" but there is no "Men" category!).  Anyway no matter what we call the issue; feminism, women's issues  - there is something seriously wrong and I still despair that it's not higher on the agenda.

Rebecca


----------



## daltonr (2 Jun 2004)

*Re: Feminism*

You need to be very careful with those statistics.  There's a lot of double counting.  A single mother would be counted as a woman, and as the head of a single parent family, so it skews the statistics.

If single parent families are likely to live in poverty then that skews the statistics for women in general. 

It could be that all of the things that lead to woman living in poverty are more to do with the type of lifestyle women tend to have as compared with men.

E.g. Women are involved in less accidents than men, but somen drive MUCH less than men also.  In a couple where both people drive it is still more common for the male partner to drive than the female.  So the statistics are not a meaningful or clear cut as they first appear.

The only question here is:  Are there factors in society which actually prohibit women from pursuing the same life choices as a male counterpart.  Apart from joining certain golf clubs it seems to me that there are no such prohibitions.

So if women are not getting ahead, if we don't have enough in politics, in business, in the Arts, etc.  Then women need to start making the running on this.  We've intervened enough to balance the scales.

I hope this doesn't sound patronising, but has anyone stopped to think that the same factors the "supposedly" make women better drivers (less prone to Risk etc) is also the factor that is holding them back in Business, The Arts etc.

Maybe Men and Women are just different.  

-Rd


----------



## MissRibena (2 Jun 2004)

*Re: Feminism*

Hi daltonr

We've been over the "how different are the sexes" bit and the moral of the story seems to be that nobody really knows.  There are claims and counterclaims but science has not come up with the answers.

I understand that statistics, particularly poverty ones, can be subjective but they can't be simply dismissed by anecdotes either.  Anyway, I was so shocked myself at what I read earlier that it's inspired me to look into this area more so I'll come back with (hopefully) more comprehensive stats.  I'd be more than happy to be wrong about my earlier claims.



> It could be that all of the things that lead to woman living in poverty are more to do with the type of lifestyle women tend to have as compared with men.


I don't see how that justifies anything.  Nobody should be living in poverty but if women do make up the highest proportion of those living in poverty it could very well explain why they are not involved in society.  To use casiopea's words; they really do have more important things to worry about than feminism.

Blatant discrimination can be legislated against and has been and has helped to correct the situation but discrimination isn't always blatant.  It's difficult to prove (like the poverty issue) and it's easy to brush aside.  It doesn't mean it's not a problem or an issue that deserves proper investigation and debate.



> We've intervened enough to balance the scales.


Who says "you've" intervened enough?  Maybe if "you" still see it as an "us (men) and them (women)" problem, then maybe if you scratch the politically correct surface, not that much has really changed. 

Rebecca


----------



## daltonr (3 Jun 2004)

*Re: Feminism*



> Maybe if "you" still see it as an "us (men) and them (women)"



I didn't mean that we (men) have intervened enough,  I meant that we (society) have intervened enough.  And I believe we have.

If a woman wants to pursue the same life decisions as a man there is nothing stopping her.  (Idiotic Golf courses aside).

Beyond affording women the same opportunities and freedom to carve out the life they want I don't see what else society can or should do.

It should be pointed out that just because YOU believe that more women should be in the highest echelons of business and society, does not mean that WOMEN in general aspire to that.  Perhaps the current participation levels accurately reflect their aspirations, perhaps they have more balanced lives than the men (and a few women) who climb higher.

Perhaps women have more sense than to engage in high stress jobs that consume a persons life.  Perhaps men like having their life consumed by work.   We need to start thinking beyond the idea that women are downtrodden to understand how society works.



> We've been over the "how different are the sexes" bit and the moral of the story seems to be that nobody really knows.



All the more reason to stop trying to engineer a society in which both participate in the same way.  Opening the doors equally is fine.  Pushing people through to maintain a balance is not fine.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that you are right, that there are thousands of woman who are held back, excluded, etc.  That may well be the case.  But it's not an open and shut case and it's a view that needs to be challenged to see if it holds up.  So far I've seen nothing to suggest that it does hold up.

-Rd


----------



## MissRibena (3 Jun 2004)

*Re: Feminism*

Daltonr

You are more or less making the same point as me now, I think.  I never said women were downtrodden by society.  I said that it is very strange that the increase in women's equality rights has not been met by their taking advantage of those rights.  I don't know why they are not; I originally said that I believe they have chosen not to, which would be fine with me if they had used the power to carve out a new way forward for themselves; but they haven't.  

Like you and casiopea it didn't really occur to me that women "couldn't" participate until I came across the alarming poverty statistics and while I'm still investigating this, if it's true then the situation is far more grave than I thought.  I've said time and again that whatever the reason women are not there, we should investigate it; something is wrong.  And I also said that I was worried it was because we may not have it in us.  However if women were not interested in pursuing these kinds of roles, why the big fight in the first place?  Society in general can only benefit from finding out what's going on here.

Things are not as black and white as identifying something is wrong, legislate and hey presto it's fixed.  There are laws against all kinds of discrimination but it doesn't mean that racism (e.g.) doesn't exist.  

No woman I went to school with wanted to work a work-a-day job and none of them wanted to simply be mothers or wives either.  We had the same dreams as the lads.  Our school (and girls in general) did far better in the Leaving Cert.  So what happened since - where are they and shouldn't they be leading the way now? Did the ambition that got them such good Leaving Cert marks just vanish and get replaced by some kind of fatalistic attitude in the space of a few years?  And if so, what does that make the likes of casiopea whose ambition didn't desert her?  Do men really find that their sisters, wives and mothers happier to settle for what they have than men?   If ambition is genetically related to gender then how come before women entered the work place the male managers still had plenty of male subordinates ?  Again, I have my doubts about the genetics and gender claims.  

Many of my friends are of the marrying age and have all wondered how they would manage their jobs when kids come along.  None of their partners are particularly concerned about this.  You've already stated and I agreed that women who leave for child bearing/rearing issues should not necessarily be given the same treatment as their male counterparts and their childless female counterparts, so my friends have a valid worry (and their husbands don't!).  One friend of mine who is separated has accepted that she can't go beyond a Grade 5 in her Local Authority (i.e. government!) job because there is no flexi-time available at higher grades and she can't work it any other way with the childminder.   I'm not saying either of these things are right or wrong but they might be part of the reason why there aren't so many women in so many professions and if they are part of the reason then it's not really equality, is it.

I saw first hand three women with a combined total of 50 years of experience and two degrees being passed over for a sales manager's job in favour of a guy who failed his Leaving and had never worked in the industry in question; why?  He had great contacts and kudos from his high profile GAA career - how does a woman match that?  Despite the obvious discrimination, I had sympathy for the company - the guy really could sell more because of his profile but are these kinds of "network" issues another barrier for women?

Maybe not-so-blatant discrimination (such as the annecdotes above) is more widespread than we think and maybe we don't examine it closely enough.  To be honest, the more I've explored why women aren't more involved in society through this thread, the more I start to suspect it has less to do with choice than I originally thought.  On the one hand I find it deeply depressing that that might be the case but on the other at least it is preferable to "not having it in us".  I still can't figure out why there aren't more people interested in the whole debate though.

Rebecca


----------

