|
Edited on Tue Mar-25-08 11:49 PM by antigone382
...is based on viewing humor as a reproductive tactic that evolved out of necessity in men but not women. This ignores the biological reality that a genetic predisposition for humor would be passed on in the DNA of both male and female offspring. Unless you can identify genes linked with humor and prove that they are sex-linked or are somehow expressed differently due to the effects of hormones, that's a pretty difficult premise to defend scientifically. Give me a genetically verifiable reason why the daughter of a funny man is not going to be funny as well, or you can flush your entire theory down the toilet.
It also falls into the all too common, and frankly boring paradigm of all human behavior being an outgrowth of the need to fuck. Sure, humor has helped some guys get laid...and contrary to Hitchens' assertion that women don't need to be funny, I find that my attractiveness increases if I demonstrate the ability to crack a few good ones. But it has also served several other crucial purposes in human development, particularly in our ability to survive oppression and adversity; look at the Vaudevillian style performances held secretly in concentration camps during the Holocaust, for example. Laughter in the face of suffering and torment strengthens the oppressed and builds nearly unshakable bonds between them. It still has to do with survival, sure...but it has very little to do with sex.
Further, what one finds humorous comes from one's experiences. Perhaps Hitchens finds women less funny simply because he doesn't relate to their humor. You may not dig a joke about buying a purse, doing the dishes, going through menstrual cramps or childbirth, etc. if it isn't something you deal with on a regular basis. In all honesty I find the humor of the men around me...a seemingly tireless recycling of the same fart and boob jokes a little tiresome.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
