Austin Improv

boom. y'all just got o-Beeler-ated...fact check style!

(when white people are in the minority, does that mean we'll start making better music?)

Good research, Beeler!

Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell wrote:(when white people are in the minority, does that mean we'll start making better music?)

Not... taking... offense... at... all...

York99 wrote: I think the whole minority argument doesn't pass the sniff test. Someone already pointed out that women are not a minority. So it's been debunked among gender lines.

I'm at a total loss for words.

Spots wrote:

York99 wrote: I think the whole minority argument doesn't pass the sniff test. Someone already pointed out that women are not a minority. So it's been debunked among gender lines.

I'm at a total loss for words.

I keep reading over Justin's words and I honestly don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

kaci_beeler wrote:

Spots wrote:

York99 wrote: I think the whole minority argument doesn't pass the sniff test. Someone already pointed out that women are not a minority. So it's been debunked among gender lines.

I'm at a total loss for words.

I keep reading over Justin's words and I honestly don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

give the guy a break...he's clealy on edge about the angry bear hunting him down on the forums...

kaci_beeler wrote:

Spots wrote:

York99 wrote: I think the whole minority argument doesn't pass the sniff test. Someone already pointed out that women are not a minority. So it's been debunked among gender lines.

I'm at a total loss for words.

I keep reading over Justin's words and I honestly don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

OK, call off the attack dogs. There's nothing controversial here. I'm just linking some findings from this thread together to form a possible explanation.

I'm not sure what you don't understand. Between several of the replies after mine, including yours, it's been explained out... or so it seems to me. I'll try to explain further.

The question on this thread has boiled down to "Which specialty groups can acceptably have an improv troupe?" One answer posed was that minority* groups can.

*I, and I believe most other people reading and participating in this thread, have been using the term in the mathematical sense (smaller group) rather than the way that Beeler used it in her post. I think that Kaci's definition of the word actually proves my point in that you have to be of a group that is treated differently (read: oppressed, to use language from my post) in order for it to be OK to form an improv troupe together.

But if women are not a minority, then why is it OK for them to form a troupe together? The answer, I'm proposing, is that our society only smiles on groups of minorities as Kaci defines the word, not in the sense of fewer people.

Again, I'm not giving any opinions here. I'm just trying to identify where that double standard line lies as a summary of this conversation.

I'll respond to Jill's post in a different response.

Brad Hawkins wrote: That's exactly what it is. It's about the historical power (in most cases, continuing) power dynamic. The powerful (in most cases, the majority) do not need to have their rights or identity protected; society as a whole does a fine job of that. So when white people, straight people, men, etc. band together in celebration of their identity, it comes across as inappropriate given that there are so many ways that identity is already validated. (Which month is white history month? January through December.)

Brad's got it. Minorities band together for a sense of identity. This is why there are ethnic ghettos in every major city in America. This is why white suburban kids co-opt "urban culture". Because the majority doesn't naturally have to carve out a sense of identity in order to survive. (or keep perspective of their place)

However to call this "historical power" is a misnomer. In 500 years time the status quo could easily shift and men could become the minority. "Historical power" would then imply the social dominance of women over men.

jillybee72 wrote:

York99 wrote:I think the fact is that there IS a double standard. It's OK to intentionally group any division of people as long as its not a group that has the perception of having historic power (and thus the perception of oppression) (i.e. white males, Christians, bullies).

We've already given several examples of all-white-male groups defined by identity that exist and are popular. There are also plenty of Christian improv groups, identified as such.

I'm not saying that these DON'T exist. I'm saying that they're not looked as favorably by society as minority (Kaci's definition) troupes are.

Jill, you mentioned that Mantown gets mistaken as a gay group. That's because it is a little shocking to hear that a group of men formed a union on the basis of gender alone, so the assumption is that they must be part of some minority group--and gay makes the most sense. And I can't speak for anyone else, but I WOULD think of a Christian improv troupe differently than I would an all-Jewish troupe or an all-Muslim troupe. At least at first. I'm not saying that any of them are bad in any way, I'm just saying that society has programmed me to be taken aback by all-male, or all-Christian troupes. I imagine that most people reading this, if they're being honest with themselves, would react similarly.

The Political Correctness Movement worked... perhaps too well.

Spots wrote:However to call this "historical power" is a misnomer. In 500 years time the status quo could easily shift and men could become the minority. "Historical power" would then imply the social dominance of women over men.

Because getting down to semantics has benefited this thread so much already. Plus, we're talking about the here and now, and not forecasting what improv group dynamics are going to be like when the aliens come, so we can probably get away with that phrase.

As to the question at hand, to me what it comes down to any All-(Non-White Male) comedy team is going to be perceived as having a marketable novelty about them because they are in direct contrast with the status quo. I think that's just fine and so's the status quo, but any member of the status quo who thinks that they're going to be able to market based on that identity has got another thing coming. Of course that doesn't apply if those white male scamps decide to bring irony to the table with them. Then again, I'm in a troupe called Bad Boys, so what do I know?

Addendum:

York99 wrote: I'm not saying that these DON'T exist. I'm saying that they're not looked as favorably by society as minority (Kaci's definition) troupes are.

This is a far more succinct way of saying what I'm trying to say.

trabka wrote: Plus, we're talking about the here and now.

Thank you because that was exactly my point.

trabka wrote:

York99 wrote: I'm not saying that these DON'T exist. I'm saying that they're not looked as favorably by society as minority (Kaci's definition) troupes are.

This is a far more succinct way of saying what I'm trying to say.

Because it is commonly accepted by the majority that minorities cling to their sense of identity (amidst the majority).

i think the greater point is that such "preferential" perspective of such troupes (for lack of a better word) is not the cause of the double standard you mention, but in reaction to it in the greater social paradigm. white people have greater social advantages, both on a racial and more often than not a socioeconomic basis. men hold more power in government, religious and corporate institutions. the double standard already exists. people who say they want to be able to celebrate the fact that they're white, straight, male and/or Christian should work at evening out the double standard from the end of the cause, not the effect.

Spots wrote:

Brad Hawkins wrote: That's exactly what it is. It's about the historical power (in most cases, continuing) power dynamic. The powerful (in most cases, the majority) do not need to have their rights or identity protected; society as a whole does a fine job of that. So when white people, straight people, men, etc. band together in celebration of their identity, it comes across as inappropriate given that there are so many ways that identity is already validated. (Which month is white history month? January through December.)

Brad's got it. Minorities band together for a sense of identity. This is why there are ethnic ghettos in every major city in America. This is why white suburban kids co-opt "urban culture". Because the majority doesn't naturally have to carve out a sense of identity in order to survive. (or keep perspective of their place)

However to call this "historical power" is a misnomer. In 500 years time the status quo could easily shift and men could become the minority. "Historical power" would then imply the social dominance of women over men.

That quote from Brad sums up my previous point much better than any of the explanation I gave.

But as to the "historical power" that goal post changes a lot over time. I don't think anyone on any side of the debate is still mad at the Romans for enslaving Christians. Well, I guess I still hold a bit of a grudge.

York99 wrote: But as to the "historical power" that goal post changes a lot over time. I don't think anyone on any side of the debate is still mad at the Romans for enslaving Christians. Well, I guess I still hold a bit of a grudge.

i still slap Italians and lions every chance i get...

York99 wrote:I'm not sure what you don't understand. Between several of the replies after mine, including yours, it's been explained out... or so it seems to me. I'll try to explain further.

The question on this thread has boiled down to "Which specialty groups can acceptably have an improv troupe?" One answer posed was that minority* groups can.

*I, and I believe most other people reading and participating in this thread, have been using the term in the mathematical sense (smaller group) rather than the way that Beeler used it in her post. I think that Kaci's definition of the word actually proves my point in that you have to be of a group that is treated differently (read: oppressed, to use language from my post) in order for it to be OK to form an improv troupe together.

But if women are not a minority, then why is it OK for them to form a troupe together? The answer, I'm proposing, is that our society only smiles on groups of minorities as Kaci defines the word, not in the sense of fewer people.

Again, I'm not giving any opinions here. I'm just trying to identify where that double standard line lies as a summary of this conversation.

I'll respond to Jill's post in a different response.

But women are ALSO a "minority", population-wise, in the improv community.