Letters to the Editor
-
@SB4609
In his article, Hitchens characterizes humor (specifically irony) as the "glory of slaves", a clumsy tool developed by men for the cross-purposes of preserving their fragile self-worth while (hopefully) pleasing their female superiors. He explicitly claims that humor is a demonstration of the childishness (italicized) of men . . .
Yeah, but I don't really buy it. That's kind of like the old arguments that women are really the superior sex because we are too good and moral to wield power in the real world, or that we are better at all the tasks (like child care and homemaking) that happen to not be compensated with money or power.
I think humor is just a basic aspect of being a human being and being relatable. I see humor as a sign of maturity, not childishness.
-
@Pro-laugh
Well, from a purely practical perspective, those "answering" Hitchens haven't done their side any favors.
Just out of curiosity, is there any way to for anyone to disagree with Hitchens without proving him right?
The fact that Hitchens is smart, funny, and not exactly a reactionary is what explains the extent of the furor (yes! furor!).
I'd say for me it's more disappointment. I think he's great on religion in general, but he's a real Islamophobe and supported the Iraq War. To add such base and naked misogyny to the mix makes me disappointed in him -- someone I thought would be smarter than that.
I'd say that "a woman finding out a man she respected is actually a misogynist" is a special kind of bitter disappointment.
-
@ Brightstar
As a guy, I see a totally different interpretation of this paragraph than Le does.
Hitchens expresses an admiration for women's close connection to nature, outside of any procreative abilities.
While he does describe the lockets and crystals as examples of petty, frivolous things, it is because they are examples of things that almost universally only women appreciate.
So, women are closer to nature, their hormones and moods are more driven by outside factors, such as tides and astrological alignments, thus the emphasis on dreams and, by imputation of Hitchen's trajectory, on divination, coincidence, repeating events, and other mysterious factors tied to mind and nature. All a very respectful position really.
Well, first of all, not me. I don't care about lockets or trinkets or jewelry or dreams or crystals. But my boyfriend's dad is really into crystals.
Second of all, Hitchens' stance is not respectful or full of admiration. Yo should just really read the article.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701?currentPage=1
The sentences following the quote about tides and the moon (and this is the end of the article):
Good grief! Is there anything less funny than hearing a woman relate a dream she's just had? ("And then Quentin was there somehow. And so were you, in a strange sort of way. And it was all so peaceful." Peaceful?)
For men, it is a tragedy that the two things they prize the most—women and humor—should be so antithetical. But without tragedy there could be no comedy. My beloved said to me, when I told her I was going to have to address this melancholy topic, that I should cheer up because "women get funnier as they get older."
Observation suggests to me that this might indeed be true, but, excuse me, isn't that rather a long time to have to wait?
-
Women close to nature?
I think men who claim that women are closer to nature are engaging in so much wishful thinking. Guess what? We are all -- male and female -- limited by the needs and frailties of our physical bodies, and we all die.
I don't think I am any "closer to nature" (whatever that even means) than the guy in the office next to mine.
And even if we are closer to nature, I don't see what that has to do with humor. Nature seems to have a pretty good sense of humor quite a lot of the time.
-
LeCastor asks:
"Just out of curiosity, is there any way to for anyone to disagree with Hitchens without proving him right?"
Yes, the obvious answer is, crack a joke that makes people laugh.
-
I still do not see the misogyny
in Hitchen's writing.
Maybe if you constantly seek out misogyny, all you see is misogyny everywhere.
As to women being closer to nature. Guys are taught to challenge and conquer nature, maybe that is a way to be close to nature too, to challenge and conquer it. But with women it is a cooperative venture, with men it is oppositional.
Also, women are more hormonally driven, those hormones more closely intertwined with the moon and tides. Men largely drown their nature and instinct in likker or drugs or other distractions.
Not in all cases, but in most, this is true. I know I personally feel closer to nature and to my intuition and instinct, but then I am not even close to a normal male.
-
Go ahead: make me laugh
SB4609 is completely humorless.
Ok, go ahead and prove me wrong.
-
On nature.
I don't really see the women and nature thing, Brightstar. I don't see women being any more inclined than men to live somehow in sync with nature. I also was not aware that women are more hormonally driven; I seem to recall a little hormone called testosterone having quite an interesting effect on the menfolk.
I do see the whole "women are in touch with nature" idea as another way of saying that women are passive.
-
funny
I do see the whole "women are in touch with nature" idea as another way of saying that women are passive.
I see this phrase in the exact opposite way, as in that women are a 'force of nature', or unstoppable. I think many men would agree with this sentiment.
-
Oh, I never said I was funny.
I just sit here and look pretty.
-
Now, wait a minute...
What about Moms Mabley? What is she, chopped liver? And don't get me started on Minnie Pearl...hotness is not what I think of Moms, but I love her nonetheless.
-
I'm your huckleberry, Pendragon3...
I would disagree with that characterization of Hitchens. I don't think he is dumb, but I never heard him to be considered funny. And as far as "not exactly a reactionary . . . " -- my god! Everything he writes about women seems extremely reactionary. He's like the definition of reactionary.
C'mon sister, you "don't think he is dumb"? Look, to be fair--and I have no particular reason to be fair to Hitchens--it is a real stretch to use litotes when describing his intellect. And Hitchens is funny. (Simply because you've never heard him described as such doesn't mean he isn't...which you know very well.) He understands funny. He "gets it." He is always deploying humor in his articles and speeches. His objective is not to get a laugh every ten seconds or ten lines like a comedian, but the bons mots are sprinkled throughout. And if you think Hitchens is the "definition" of a reactionary vis-a-vis women, what would you consider, say, the Taliban? Yeesh.
But be that as it may, you seem to be conceding my point. People aren't responding to Hitchens assertion because it is true, but because of who Hitchens is -- i.e. a national celebrity -- and where he published his piece.
Nope, sorry if I wasn't clear enough. People are responding primarily because Hitchens is SMART and FUNNY and NOT A SQUARE. And yet--and yet!--he's saying that women aren't funny. Remember the Bob Novak example I adduced before? Think about it some more.
Well, that was EXACTLY what I was getting at in one of my earlier comments when I pointed out that women's alleged humorlessness is the ultimate sexist slur. Those who invoke the slur attempt to box women into a corner -- you can't answer it any kind of serious way without reinforcing the idea that women are humorless. At the same time, however, the slur reinforces a serious point about women being not-quite-human pains-in-the-ass. (Plenty of women have answered this idea in a humorous way, but personally, I don't care about trying to "prove" that I have a sense of humor.)
Really? The "ultimate sexist slur"? (You wouldn't be Canadian by any chance?) Madam, I don't think Hitchens is arguing that women are inferior, or not-quite-human. (You are, all of you, HUGE pains-in-the-ass.) He's saying you aren't generally funny. And I think he's right. (I also think Chinese people aren't generally tall, and I'd still think this while standing next to Yao Ming.) The Catch-22 rebuttal issue is your problem, of course, but I'll repeat what I said earlier: a slew of humorless personal attacks against Hitchens do not aid the women-are-funny cause.