![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have to seriously adjust my view of reality. It turns out I am probably not funny. It's because I'm a woman. Nothing to do with being a feminist, either. It's an absolute relief to know that I have been misinterpreting humour all my life and that the reason for this is beyond my control. And that my feminism is irrelevant. And so is Judy Horacek's. It makes such sense of reality. I can now turn to the true female vocation and spend the rest of my existence laughing at the jokes men make.
Christopher Hitchens asks "Why are men, taken on average and as a whole, funnier than women?" My answer is because he stopped listening to women properly before he was old enough to understand senses of humour other than his own. Either that or my first paragraph needed more irony.
Read the article, I dare you. Read it for Hitchens' use of evidence, if nothing else. He begins from the assumptions that he's funny *and* representative and then warps things wonderfully in an attempt to prove it.
He thinks being funny will guarantee him success with the opposite sex, while also arguing that women have lower senses of humour. Set it as an algebraic problem and it might make sense.
a = men making jokes
b = women laughing at jokes
He argues that a + b = women not having senses of humour
Mind you, he also argues that b is basically wrong because women don't laugh at punchlines, so he is really arguing that a + a = men having the capacity to win women and spawn offspring regardless of the sense of humour of the one they are trying to amuse.
No, it doesn't make sense even in quasi-algebric form. Pity. I like algebra.
I think my favourite bit is where a Stanford study proves that women tend to use ongoing verbal analysis as an aspect of their humour and that the punchlines in jokes are not the whole of the joke for women, which Hitchens interprets as women being "Slower to get it, more pleased when they do, and swift to locate the unfunny—for this we need the Stanford University School of Medicine? And remember, this is women when confronted with humor. Is it any wonder that they are backward in generating it?"
Later on he grants some women humour, but only if they are "hefty or dykey or Jewish". So I sneak in by virtue of being overweight and Jewish and thus almost-masculine in my angst and self-deprecation. Note to self that angst and self-depreciation aren't frillypink feminine values and that intellect will drive men away. Also note to self that I'm meant to *care* about this. Any man who is driven away by my intellect and my unfrillypink sense of humour would probably not be someone with whom I should be having a relationship.
An interesting thing Hitchens' article shows that at least one man doesn't realise that not all of a woman's life is conducted in his presence. He is oblivious to the reality that groups have different dynamics and senses of humour when only men are present, only women are present, only men or women of a certain age are present. Not that I'm going to invite him to a dinner party to discover women's business and the jokes of my female friends. There's nothing worse at a dinner party than someone who doesn't pay attention to any of the other guests.
Christopher Hitchens asks "Why are men, taken on average and as a whole, funnier than women?" My answer is because he stopped listening to women properly before he was old enough to understand senses of humour other than his own. Either that or my first paragraph needed more irony.
Read the article, I dare you. Read it for Hitchens' use of evidence, if nothing else. He begins from the assumptions that he's funny *and* representative and then warps things wonderfully in an attempt to prove it.
He thinks being funny will guarantee him success with the opposite sex, while also arguing that women have lower senses of humour. Set it as an algebraic problem and it might make sense.
a = men making jokes
b = women laughing at jokes
He argues that a + b = women not having senses of humour
Mind you, he also argues that b is basically wrong because women don't laugh at punchlines, so he is really arguing that a + a = men having the capacity to win women and spawn offspring regardless of the sense of humour of the one they are trying to amuse.
No, it doesn't make sense even in quasi-algebric form. Pity. I like algebra.
I think my favourite bit is where a Stanford study proves that women tend to use ongoing verbal analysis as an aspect of their humour and that the punchlines in jokes are not the whole of the joke for women, which Hitchens interprets as women being "Slower to get it, more pleased when they do, and swift to locate the unfunny—for this we need the Stanford University School of Medicine? And remember, this is women when confronted with humor. Is it any wonder that they are backward in generating it?"
Later on he grants some women humour, but only if they are "hefty or dykey or Jewish". So I sneak in by virtue of being overweight and Jewish and thus almost-masculine in my angst and self-deprecation. Note to self that angst and self-depreciation aren't frillypink feminine values and that intellect will drive men away. Also note to self that I'm meant to *care* about this. Any man who is driven away by my intellect and my unfrillypink sense of humour would probably not be someone with whom I should be having a relationship.
An interesting thing Hitchens' article shows that at least one man doesn't realise that not all of a woman's life is conducted in his presence. He is oblivious to the reality that groups have different dynamics and senses of humour when only men are present, only women are present, only men or women of a certain age are present. Not that I'm going to invite him to a dinner party to discover women's business and the jokes of my female friends. There's nothing worse at a dinner party than someone who doesn't pay attention to any of the other guests.