To me, the idea of a true meritocracy feels about as fictional as a fairy godmother. It's a lovely concept that would imbue many with hope, but the majority of us know it doesn't exist.

Obviously, hard work and dedication are important traits and can only help propel you towards your goals. However, when it comes to open doors in entertainment (or any industry) a lot comes down to who deems you palatable, and whether you hit it off with the right people.

As with everything else, being white, or straight, or cis, or male, helps in the networking process immensely - since other white men still hold the majority of the keys in the entertainment industry.

Despite all of this, in a recent interview Jimmy Kimmel essentially defended Louis CK's comeback by claiming comedy is at it's core a democratic and meritocratic process. He then went on to apply the same logic to slough off the question of diversity, and whether he's intentionally inclusive.

"Comedy is very democratic. The people who are great, rise to the top; the people who are good, rise to the middle; and the people who aren’t good, don’t make it. I don’t focus on their gender or their skin color. I’d never want a woman to think that the reason she’s booked to be on stage at a club is because she’s a woman. The reason she’ll be booked to be on stage is because she’s funny.”

Unsurprisingly, while likely well-meant, Kimmel's statement came off a bit naive and privileged.

The NPR host Linda Holmes wrote a great thread laying out why Kimmel's concept of meritocracy in comedy overlooks a handful of huge factors.

I want to address something Jimmy Kimmel says here. "Comedy is very democratic. The people who are great, rise to the top; the people who are good, rise to the middle; and the people who aren’t good, don’t make it." https://t.co/LcAMeuzopd
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

First of all, it's incredibly naive at this point to believe in absolute meritocracy in any endeavor, but to blow off the influences of any kind of discrimination in comedy is ludicrous.
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

When it comes to predators like Louis CK being given stage time, Holmes pointed out that it's not the audience, but the bookers who ultimately decided.

Second of all: Right in this same piece, they're talking about CK being given a spot on stage. A spot many people would kill for. Giving him that spot is a specific choice made by a specific person or people. That doesn't just *happen*.
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

There are people who would give him that spot -- people who think his comedy is funny -- and people who don't. The idea that it's like the hot air balloon in The Good Place and you walk near a stage and it turns red or green? That's fake.
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

She also said it's rather disingenuous to pretend good comedians magically rise to the top, and there aren't a series of meetings, networking, and general acceptance by gatekeepers required to get exposure.

I hate this depersonalization of the ways that people become famous, get opportunities to remain famous, and get opportunities to recover from stumbles. Those are all choices. It's not an algorithm.
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

Shoot. And one more thing, too. The thing about "no, I don't consider whether my shows are inclusive, because I'd never want a woman to think she got a spot because she's a woman" is so broken.
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

When it comes to diversity, Holmes says that making effort to curate diverse line-ups isn't a matter of tokenizing people, but rather -- a concerted effort to make sure audiences are exposed to good voices that get less automatic play.

The reason you have to be aware of whether your shows are inclusive is not because women otherwise aren't good enough. It's because you, as a curator, have antennae that are naturally more likely to hear some voices than others. That's true, in my opinion, of basically everyone.
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

In my own life, I think of it like turning up the levels on your microphone, not because other people aren't speaking at the same volume, but because *you don't hear all frequencies well*. You have to make a specific effort to hear across a spectrum.
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

Your effort is to compensate for your own limitations, not to compensate for other people's not being able to compete. And those limitations aren't necessarily because you're a bad person! Two equally aware, thoughtful people can have totally different references.
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

I am much more likely to *naturally notice* things that vibrate on a frequency that thrums in my head, but as a curator, I can't confuse that with quality or meritocracy. So if you don't notice gender, if you "don't see color" with comics? You'll perpetuate your own limits.
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

Okay bye. I have to stop thinking about this, because it's maddening.
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

One Twitter user pointed out how ludicrous Kimmel's statement is given the fact that there are multiple white men named Jimmy in late night alone.

Christ on a soda cracker
— Greg Proops (@GregProops) October 3, 2018

There are three men named Jim hosting late night comedy/chat shows.
— Greg Proops (@GregProops) October 3, 2018

White men
— Greg Proops (@GregProops) October 3, 2018

Apparently they're just genetically the most gifted.
— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) October 3, 2018

Democracy in action
— Greg Proops (@GregProops) October 3, 2018

Jim-ocracy?
— Ted Kusio (@DigitalWheelie) October 3, 2018

There are more executives named John than the sum total of female CEOs.
— R. Sterling Dew (@dewsterling) October 3, 2018

While others noted that this perspective is common in people who don't want to admit the ways privilege helped their career.

Sounds like every guy with a room full of people preparing his work for him, trying to convince himself he does it all on his own. It's why I've always preferred Seth Meyers. There's someone who appreciates and elevates talent that contributes to his success.
— Aleph from Malakhim (@malakhstudios) October 3, 2018

Even for men it isn't a meritocracy. If by merit you mean who's the funniest. It's about who's best at playing the self-promotion game, who's best at shmoozing, who's best at marketing. No club anywhere in the country wants the "funniest" comics, they want the ones that can...
— Squid Pro Quo (@LisaKaplan13) October 3, 2018

bring in the most people. Which is fair since they're businesses. But to say it's about who's the funniest is just untrue. When I was doing standup I knew lots of very funny people who didn't get anywhere because they didn’t have that part of the equation.
— Squid Pro Quo (@LisaKaplan13) October 3, 2018

When it comes to valuing representation over nepotism - comedy has a long ways to go. Luckily, conversations like this help gradually shift the cultural tide.

Woman takes down Jimmy Kimmel’s ignorant take on representation in comedy.