This study aims to investigate topic choices of humour as well as how humour is conjointly constructed in podcasts, with particular focus on the similarities and differences between men and women in both same- and mixed-gender groups. Six podcasts were chosen to be investigated through two different methods: 1. instances of humour were categorised based on the topic of the humour and 2. conversation analysis (CA) was used to analyse the contributions of the different groups of participants with a focus on the pragmatic force and the discursive effect of the contributions. The pragmatic force of the contributions could be supportive or contestive and the discursive effect could be maximally collaborative or minimally collaborative. This study found that the similarities were greater than the differences between same- and mixed-gender groups, regarding both topic choices and how the humour was constructed; however, there were some differences between the groups regarding both aspects. Men tended to make more self-deprecating jokes while women made more jokes about Personal Anecdotes; furthermore, contestive and minimally collaborative humour was more common in groups involving men. This study indicates that podcasts can be an important area of research for future studies regarding humour and gender.