In the January Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens attempts to answer the age-old question, "Why are men funnier than women?" (Read about it here.) He covers the topic in some depth, including results from an unfunny study on the topic and concluding that "the explanation for the superior funniness of men is much the same as for the inferior funniness of women. Men have to pretend, to themselves as well as to women, that they are not the servants and supplicants. Women, cunning minxes that they are, have to affect not to be the potentates. This is the unspoken compromise."
I've been mulling over possible responses, most of them remarkably unfunny, which would just provide further support for his underlying assumption that (most) women aren't particularly funny, or that women don't feel the pressure to be funny that men do. I know some very funny women, but they're not professionally funny--their humor is not a career in itself but a byproduct that bubbles out while they're otherwise occupied. This suggests that Hitchens is right, sort of, but this annoys me because I want him to be wrong, but proving him wrong would require a whole lot of serious, articulate prose, preferably with a coherent argument involving bullet points and scientific studies quantifying differences in humor levels. And you know what? That's just not funny.
So let Christopher Hitchens be funny today. I'll go back to being morose.
1 comment:
Your summary didn't exactly make me want to read the article, so I'll ask you instead: why does being funny imply that you are *not* a servant or supplicant? Humor is one way of dealing with being a servant or supplicant, right (like jesters)? So wouldn't men, by being funnier, be pretending that they *were* servants or supplicants?
Feel free to ignore this if it stimulates non-funny thinking...
Post a Comment