Mostly from my parents. Or why there are fewer women than men in the industry. Or some other gender-angled query about the work I do. It makes me tired. Know what I mean? I still get that question. Not everything has changed since , when educator Kate Sanborn tried to refute the conventional male wisdom in her book The Wit of Women.
Sanborn pointed out that women have good reason to keep their one-liners to themselves. It used to be that women were not funny. Now a female comedian has to be pretty—even sexy—to get a laugh. Lucille Ball would wear almost anything—Carmen Miranda dresses, muumuus, and crazy hats—to transform herself into the childish and braying Lucy Ricardo.
When Phyllis Diller stripped off her false lashes and cotton-candy wigs, she actually looked attractive. Lampanelli says her Sex and the City look is part of her act, but she may also want to look hot. How this evolution happened is not entirely clear.
Joan Rivers blames the entertainment industry and the men who still control it. On the other hand, the comedy business offers more opportunity and cachet for women than ever before. It could be that after decades of insecurity—and self-derision—women finally feel they can look good and still be taken seriously as comics.
It has become a supply-and-demand issue: the supply of good-looking female comedians is growing, and the industry demands that they keep growing prettier. Chelsea Handler, the host of Chelsea Lately, a talk show on E! I know our show and The Office have normal people. But when you open us up to real, professional attractive people—I do not want to run with those horses. Obviously, though, pretty comics still have to be willing at times to put their looks aside. Cleaned up, Amy Sedaris is a bubbly champagne blonde with a seditious edge, like Kyra Sedgwick; in Strangers with Candy, her Comedy Central series, Sedaris squinted, slumped, and drooped her mouth downward so deeply she looked like Martha Raye with fetal alcohol syndrome.
What else do you have? May 11, PM. Matt books view quotes. May 10, PM. Alexandra 21 books view quotes. Paula books view quotes. Bethany 2, books view quotes. May 01, PM. Angieromines 47 books view quotes. Tracy 4, books view quotes. Rosa 2, books view quotes.
Apr 29, PM. Lauren 4, books view quotes. Gemma 3, books view quotes. Leafsfan68 64 books view quotes. Jade books view quotes. Apr 28, PM. Nouha 47 books view quotes. Jan 31, PM. Rj 35 books view quotes. Jan 29, AM. Dana books view quotes. Dec 08, AM. Rajshree books view quotes. Oct 21, AM. Wordweaverlynn 2, books view quotes. Evie books view quotes. Laura Sunny 4, books view quotes. Jennifer 12 books view quotes. May 27, PM. Valeria 0 books view quotes. Siow books view quotes.
Apr 26, AM. Ruchika books view quotes. Mar 02, AM. Katie 3, books view quotes. Feb 08, PM. Kayla 94 books view quotes. Dec 20, PM. Cassie books view quotes.
Dec 05, AM. Following my response to another individual on this message board, that particular response was to further inflame the very people that did not understand his argument that the entire notion of dichotomizing comedy was frivolous; it was intellectual trolling, if you will. He did not take the position that group of people are inherently superior to another, and if "Hitchens is a chauvinist pig" is the conclusion that you achieved despite the context of the entire fiasco saying the contrary, then perhaps you individually do need to learn how to read.
I dunno. I don't think I'm a total outlier in that respect. Human brains operate that way sometimes. Testosterone certainly doesn't seem to help the matter. You know, I used to like Hitchens. But, not to speak ill of the dead, I would imagine then he wouldn't have taken my thoughts seriously if I had ever the 'pleasure' of meeting him. That's rather crushing, to realise that your idol wouldn't give you time of day simply because of your gender, not because of your actual wit.
Jesus Christ, can't we be judged individually, we are all so different? That is false; Christopher was a liberal feminist in, every sense of the word, who took rationalism as the core of the human experience. The reason that this article was taken as it was -- and how his subsequent response was considered chauvinistic -- is because there are too many ignorant individuals out there that do make similar arguments with different conclusions. While Hitchens argued that in terms of evolution, generally it was the female population that had the ultimate say in their reproductive partners What can be gleaned from this article is that females were the ones to have been placated in the human race, and as males strived to appease them, they were in fact the ones that took initiative to further advances in human capital knowledge.
This is rather unfortunate for females, as society has developed in a patriarchal manner as opposed to one that gives equal consideration to all individuals. However, we do acknowledge that civilization has advanced to the point where child-rearing has become a marginal function of females, therefore they can participate in a more full manner, as it were. The specific point that Christopher makes in regard to comedy being the realm of "men" and women being parrots of their testosterone-laden peers is the poverty of the idea that we dichotomize in the first place.
This salient point, of comedy being gender-neutral, is overlooked because pundits do not want to acknowledge that their fundamental approach to the argument may have been wrong in the first place, with both men and women taking up the idea of protecting their narcissistic "identities.
With that, it has to be recognized that Hitchens saw himself as a purveyor of criticism Also, if you watch his video response on YouTube regarding that very essay, he definitely comes off as flippant, but that attitude has to be put in context of the individual. I have never met -- yes, I've personally talked to him on two occasions -- a person who has such a encyclopedic bank of knowledge and, in the same token, convey his messages as lucidly as he did.
To sum everything up, Christopher Hitchens was not one to judge someone on anything other than their merits. Many of the opinions that Hitchens possessed were contentious, yet he always presented a reason for his polemics.
Nice to read brief history about female gender which emphasizes women psychology. Well, its nice to read about all the writers their thoughts. I've always found it amusing that the definition behind the statement is actually "women aren't funny" Now, this still isn't true, but even if it was, the judgement is that if men don't find value in it, it's not funny. It's a ridiculous argument. Culture has a lot to do with this.
I think men are told that they're "supposed" to be funny to get women, so maybe they make more attempts at humor than women do on a daily basis. Also, sometimes the reaction to humor from women is so cold that it dissuades them from trying again. This is just considering the number of attempts at humor, not how funny people actually are.
There are a lot of men who try frequently at humor and fail. It's also a question of who finds what funny. Many of these quotes come from men who all seem to have a fairly similar sense of humor.
As they're the ones being quoted, they're the ones setting the standard of what counts as funny. This viewpoint also tends to find The Three Stooges funny.
0コメント