Please don't pretend not to know what I'm talking about.

December 12, 2006 12:01 PM

Women aren't funny. Please don't pretend not to know what I'm talking about.

I don't know - I think if you filled in an ethnic group and some other behavioral stereotype, with a link to a simularly bigoted rant that contains no scientific information, this post would be seen as explicitly and obviously offensive.

I'm not sure what the best action is here - it's not so overtly offensive that I necissarily think it should be removed. Reading back on previous Meta discussions it seems that this type of post is generally left standing, and looking at the faq, I see that bigoted language is not necissarily a qualification for deleting, but posts that are just saying "this group of people is inherently bad at x compared to that group of people, don't pretend you don't agree with me, and here's a link to some wingnut saying that too" seem to serve no purpose but causing people to freak out. Thoughts?
posted by serazin to Etiquette/Policy at 12:01 PM (103 comments total)

*freaks out*
posted by felix betachat at 12:03 PM on December 12, 2006

Well, I don't know that the OP means it to be taken seriously. It is Hitchens, after all, who has been his own Onion parody for some years now.
posted by athenian at 12:05 PM on December 12, 2006

That is the lamest type of mefi post. The comments are always endless deconstructions of something not worth reading in the first place. Its a waste of everyone's time.
posted by vacapinta at 12:09 PM on December 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

My thoughts are that this is like a lot of the other ZOMGfilter posts where someone makes a one link post to someone making some sort of jackass claim in a major media outlet. They're rarely good posts and Hitchens is getting to be up there with Coulter in his needling. I think there is a difference in this case between talking shit about women and talking shit about, say, Korean people, mainly because something like being funny is different than something like being intelligent -- though Hitchens may disagree and I'm not reading that article to find out -- where they're saying "xyz sucks at living" or "xyz should get paid less at work/deserves what they get/shouldn't get the job" whatever.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:09 PM on December 12, 2006

Insofar as people freaking out, you seem to be in a minority of one. When you hold someone up for scorn, sometimes it's best just to use that person's words to explain why he's deserving.
posted by boo_radley at 12:09 PM on December 12, 2006

Let us put men and women together
See which one is smarter
Some say men, I say no
Women got the men like a puppet show
posted by fixedgear at 12:10 PM on December 12, 2006

posts that are just saying "this group of people is inherently bad at x compared to that group of people, don't pretend you don't agree with me, and here's a link to some wingnut saying that too"

You didn't read the article, did you? The post is a direct quote. Linking to and quoting from an article doesn't mean the poster holds the same beliefs.
posted by jack_mo at 12:12 PM on December 12, 2006

The link is not simply "simular;" the words of the FPP are quoted directly from the linked article.

I agree with vacapinta that I don't quite see the point of starting a 200 comment flame war over an article that wasn't worth reading in the first place.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:12 PM on December 12, 2006

Let us put men and women together,
See which one is wittier:
Women are just too busy shopping to be funny,
And men make the whole world shittier.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:19 PM on December 12, 2006

Also, if you read the comments, it's clear that nuclear_soup is a woman, which means the opinion is being held up to ridicule.

That said, I have no idea how one man could fall so far. I thought The Missionary Position was pretty awesome, but I worry now that I cannot take my own opinions seriously in light of the idiocy that Hitchens seems unable to keep from spouting.
posted by OmieWise at 12:20 PM on December 12, 2006

ikkyu2 writes "I agree with vacapinta that I don't quite see the point of starting a 200 comment flame war over an article that wasn't worth reading in the first place."

Neither does mathowie when it comes to Dawkin posts, which is why I say the same should be implemented with Hitchens. His material is well beyond three figurative FPP strikes, that's for sure. Throw it OUT.
posted by prostyle at 12:25 PM on December 12, 2006

Hmm. I didn't read enough of the comments to get it as critical I guess. I did read most of the article (unfortunately) although apparently I didn't memorize it. (Not to mention that I failed to use spell check! I am SO ashamed.)

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful responses. Makes sense and seems plausable that the poster doesn't necessarily have offensive intent.
posted by serazin at 12:26 PM on December 12, 2006

Have a look at the thread. Every one is in there with their own reasons why Hitchens is wrong, wrong, wrong. Every gets to feel really good about just how very gender-neutral their thinking is.

Really, it's kind of beautiful.
posted by EatTheWeek at 12:27 PM on December 12, 2006

Dear MetaFilter users:

Please stop linking to websites which:
1) are sarcastic or facetious,
2) employ humor either implicitly or explicitly,
3) discuss beliefs contrary to my own, or
4) no, that's it.

Thank you.
posted by Plutor at 12:28 PM on December 12, 2006

It seems like everyone in the world is missing the point of that Hitchens article. Glad to see Mefites are leading the charge.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:38 PM on December 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

I am the funniest woman on the face of the planet and the only thing I find annoying about the post is that it was linked to on every friggin' blog in Hell's Half-Acre last week. I don't get why people don't bother doing a cursory Technorati search before posting a single-link post to a Hitchens bloviation on VanityFair.com.
posted by veronica sawyer at 12:40 PM on December 12, 2006

And serazin, if you did sooo much research for this Metatalk thread, would it have killed you to read the damn post below and not post 3 paragraphs when 1 would have done nicely? Geesh.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:42 PM on December 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

TPS is not funny
posted by matteo at 12:45 PM on December 12, 2006

What does he have to say about Mother Teresa's standup work?
posted by cortex at 12:45 PM on December 12, 2006

And veronica sawyer makes an important point. I amend my statement:

It seems like everyone in the world is missing the point of that Hitchens article. Glad to see Mefites are bringing up the rear.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:46 PM on December 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

Thoughts?

It's poorly thought out and over written making a it a poor post, so delete it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:47 PM on December 12, 2006

What is the point then, TPS?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 12:50 PM on December 12, 2006

Metatalk threads are not funny. Until I arrive.
posted by jonmc at 12:54 PM on December 12, 2006

Seriously, what is the point? It's a piece of crap article, backed up by anecdote. There may be an interesting conversation to be had about the topic, but Hitchens is not contributing to it. I'm not sure how one misses the point of a pointless piece.
posted by occhiblu at 12:55 PM on December 12, 2006

The point is not about what women are lacking, it's that men are more frequently forced to use humor to compensate for what they lack, leading to more male humorists. It's still probably BS - it's just not exactly the BS we're making fun of.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:56 PM on December 12, 2006

Heh. I'll buy that, but again -- Hitchens' piece not exactly contributing to purposeful discourse on the topic.
posted by occhiblu at 12:57 PM on December 12, 2006

I'm not defending this point, you understand.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:57 PM on December 12, 2006

I think that it is funny how the internet phenomena of "trolling" plays out in real life. Threads are never as popular as when someone pops up in them and says something inflammatory that they in all likelihood don't even believe. However, trolls work the same way in RL too. Christopher Hitchens says that women aren't funny (apologies if I am missing the point, the article did not interest me so I did not read it or comment in the thread) or Ann Coulter says 911 widows are glad that their husbands are dead or John Gibson says that white people need to have more babies or that Beck guy asks a Muslim Congressperson to prove that they aren't the enemy, and these people make a good living doing this. I would imagine that everyone that I just listed is a goddamn millionaire. Just from spouting off the most asinine thing that they can think of and making people go crazy over it. 1. Talk out your ass 2. ??? 3. Profit. Except it works. I don't know if we should ban or allow posts like this. I think that they are kind of silly, but people seem to enjoy them, kind of like the Hicky-McStupid's-retarded-need-for-Jeebus posts (insert link to a video featuring Kirk Cameron here). However, here is what I do know: short people should be forced to work in copper mines making cancer healing bracelets for their 6ft tall and above overlords. It is their intended purpose, that is why God made them short. *watches the money roll in, apologizes to 5ft tall mother*.
posted by ND¢ at 12:58 PM on December 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

these people make a good living doing this. I would imagine that everyone that I just listed is a goddamn millionaire.

are they hiring?
posted by jonmc at 1:00 PM on December 12, 2006

*checks serazin's profile, figuring someone this whiny has to be female*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:00 PM on December 12, 2006

I'm not defending this point, you understand.

Yup, got that.
posted by occhiblu at 1:01 PM on December 12, 2006

short people should be forced to work in copper mines making cancer healing bracelets for their 6ft tall and above overlords.

*admires new jewelery*

oooh, pretty...
posted by jonmc at 1:02 PM on December 12, 2006

People are reading the article (or, more likely, blog posts about the article) and thinking the article says that women aren't as funny as men. It doesn't. Hitchens isn't saying women aren't as funny as men; he's saying that humor in women isn't as valued as humor in men, and he tries to examine what might be the cause (whether he succeeds in proving his point is another story). But everyone is too busy jumping up and down proving their personal superiority- OMG WOMEN ARE TOO AS FUNNY AS MEN, I KNOW PLENTY OF FUNNY WOMEN, SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE FUNNY WOMEN- to let there be any real debate about other reasons for this humor gap (that I have definitely seen and wondered about for years, which is why I find the roar surrounding this article so baffling).

On preview: Christopher Hitchens says that women aren't funny (apologies if I am missing the point, the article did not interest me so I did not read it or comment in the thread) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. ::feels her point has been proven::
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:03 PM on December 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

But there have been *plenty* of more articulate, well-reasoned things said about this topic, most of which did not manage to call women who are funny fat, dykey Jews in the process. Hence the uproar.
posted by occhiblu at 1:08 PM on December 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

Mother Teresa talked to herself?

Bad habit.
posted by cog_nate at 1:10 PM on December 12, 2006

I tried to read the article. I didn't even start out too biased, because I didn't read the byline. I started skimming partway through the first page, rolled my eyes, and realized that I'd just reached the end of the third page and couldn't tell you what it had said beyond 'blah blah blah' - in fact I had it pegged as an extroardinarily unfunny female comedian trying to justify her own lack of success. So then I read the mefi thread, and go 'Christopher Hitchens! oh, whatever.' And so I don't know what he was trying to say, but I think he definitely managed to communicate his complete lack of writing ability or humor. That wasn't worth an FPP.
posted by jacalata at 1:16 PM on December 12, 2006

::feels her point has been proven::

For the fourth time, natch.
posted by prostyle at 1:19 PM on December 12, 2006

Uh... I hear there's term called sarcasm.

Some might use it to make light and/or fun of something (the linked article, in this case) in way that is designed to make you think they could be serious.
posted by ninjew at 1:22 PM on December 12, 2006

"People are reading the article (or, more likely, blog posts about the article) and thinking the article says that women aren't as funny as men. It doesn't. Hitchens isn't saying women aren't as funny as men; he's saying that humor in women isn't as valued as humor in men, and he tries to examine what might be the cause (whether he succeeds in proving his point is another story). But everyone is too busy jumping up and down proving their personal superiority- OMG WOMEN ARE TOO AS FUNNY AS MEN, I KNOW PLENTY OF FUNNY WOMEN, SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE FUNNY WOMEN- to let there be any real debate about other reasons for this humor gap (that I have definitely seen and wondered about for years, which is why I find the roar surrounding this article so baffling)."

Y'know, though, he's basing his conclusions on a mediocre medical study when there are reams of actual academic data out there, much of which suggests that women are actually FUNNIER than men, just that they don't generally perform in front of men.

And the charge that people are missing the point is as disingenuous as Hitchens— he's trying to put forth the argument that WOMEN AREN'T FUNNY (you might find this in the headline, when you're done shopping, talking on the phone or driving poorly) without actually supporting that point and instead inflating the rather qualified claims of study into a trollish point. People ARE getting what he intends, in that he intends to inflame rather than examine.
So save your outrage for when Hitchens has written something worth reading instead of a collection of hackneyed and debunked stereotypes.

Matt, feel free to axe this one.
posted by klangklangston at 1:48 PM on December 12, 2006

mr_crash_davis, you are really turning me on! Will you come over to my place later, please?
posted by serazin at 1:50 PM on December 12, 2006

People are reading the article (or, more likely, blog posts about the article) and thinking the article says that women aren't as funny as men.

I think it would be more appropriate to say that they are not reading the article, because no one can reasonably come to that conclusion with all of his concessions.

Had it been written by someone else, there might have been a more constructive discussion given that this was clearly written in a light-hearted friendly conversation kind of way. But instead all we get is variations of the comment: "He is a drunk, teeheehee." (Point for discussion: does the utter lack of wit in making those kind of comments prove or disprove Hitchens' theory?) It's actually a shame it was written by Hitchens b/c it is an interesting thought which was stillborn by ad hominem.

Surely you, if you read the article, you can't really get offended by it. In fact, he bends over backwards to comment on how women are the fairer and superior sex. This is no where approaching some article about how white people are more intelligent because they don't have the physical gifts of black people and therefore have to compensate with their brains, or vice versa. That would be a shockingly stupid thing to say, but it would garner outrage. This is a bit of fluff presenting the thesis about sexual roles, sociology and constructions of humor. If you are outraged by this, then you are threshold for outrage is dangerously low. Of course, this is Metafilter....
posted by dios at 1:55 PM on December 12, 2006

"Surely you, if you read the article, you can't really get offended by it. In fact, he bends over backwards to comment on how women are the fairer and superior sex."

Which is an amazingly Victorian (hence the Kipling quotes) and limiting perspective on women, and the sort of thing that's really bizarre to put forth as a sincere compliment.
Further, though it's written conversationally, Hitchens seems to be out to prove that he isn't funny (and the bullshit about dykey or Jewish being the female comedian's options is retarded).
posted by klangklangston at 2:01 PM on December 12, 2006

Metafilter people read like this, metatalk people read like that.
posted by Stynxno at 2:02 PM on December 12, 2006

TPS, some links you might like:

Women's Humor as a Means of Connection and Resistance
Academic paper, but really nicely (I think) researched and supported. Major points seem to be: Women have to continually battle the stereotype that they're not funny, which often leads to their jokes being ignored. What men tend to define as "humor" is aggressive jockeying for position, often making others in the group (or others with less status) the butt of the joke. Women are encouraged to be compassionate and nice, and so they are discouraged from performing what men have traditionally defined as "humor." Also, the humor that women do engage in may not appear as such to men -- she's got some great historical examples from women joking about why women aren't allowed to vote that men very likely wouldn't "get."

And she makes an interesting point about accepted communication styles: When men talk, they tend to expect everyone's full attention more, and to dominate the conversation; they perform, and most of their listeners give them the non-verbal cues necessary to encourage this performance. Women tend to speak more collaboratively, and to yield the floor when challenged, and people don't tend to yield the floor to them as much or encourage them non-verbally as they do to men. For a traditional joke to work, "the performer must get (demand?) the attention of the audience, and the audience must signal their attention with eye contact, verbal response, and so on. The performer then presents a set of circumstances, often in the form of a question ('How does a Jewish-American Princess . . .'). This is a position of power for the performer in that he or she possesses information about these circumstances that the audience does not. The audience signals that they are allowing the performer to be funny by responding to the question ('I don't know. How does a Jewish-American Princess . . . ?'). The performer then delivers the punch line, an unexpected outcome of the circumstances, and expects the audience to be impressed or amused. The audience responds, showing that they 'get' the humor by laughing or rolling their eyes, or providing some other nonverbal response. " She goes on to say that women who demand this sort of status are often labelled as unfeminine or bitchy, and that their audience often doesn't laugh simply because the process of a woman transgressing these cultural norms may strike men (and other women) as threatening, rather than funny.

Shorter articles:

SWF-TV: They're gorgeous, they're talented--so why are the single white females of prime-time comedy so bad?
From the time period I first remember this conversation becoming popular, when "pretty tall woman falls a lot" was about the height of funny available to women on TV. Talks about how beauty double standards make it hard for women to succeed in mainstream comedy.

All for Laughs: Asian American women are yucking it up on stage as standup comics, despite the obstacles
Interesting in that it addresses some of the workplace issues keeping women out of comedy (low pay, weird hours, old boys' club) that certainly echo a lot of what I've heard in debates about women in academia.
posted by occhiblu at 2:03 PM on December 12, 2006 [4 favorites]

I forgot to add: unrelated to the substance of the article, I think it should be deleted on the grounds of the quality of the post. It's pretty weak. It could have been an interesting post, but a single link to a fluff and incendiary piece is not a very strong post. So I guess I should say that I support the axe, but not for the reason that the substance is offensive.
posted by dios at 2:04 PM on December 12, 2006

It's actually a shame it was written by Hitchens b/c it is an interesting thought which was stillborn by ad hominem.

Well, that and lousy writing. "Please do not pretend not to know what I am talking about"? Hideous, hideous syntax.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:07 PM on December 12, 2006

Further, though it's written conversationally, Hitchens seems to be out to prove that he isn't funny (and the bullshit about dykey or Jewish being the female comedian's options is retarded).
posted by klangklangston at 4:01 PM CST on December 12

One ought to reconsider seeking something other than "bullshitting" in a Vanity Fair article written for the "Provocation" section. In fact, it should be called "bullshitting" because that is all it is (and I suspect all that it was intended to be). He isn't presenting An Inquiry into the Origins of Humor in Gender or a Critique on Pure Funny or anything.
posted by dios at 2:07 PM on December 12, 2006

Taking a shit in your kitchen would be provacative, Dios, that doesn't mean it should be published.
posted by klangklangston at 2:12 PM on December 12, 2006

(Indeed, Occhiblu, the first two papers are ones we read in my humor theory class, though I ended up focusing on political humor so I can't wade in much further with references).
posted by klangklangston at 2:17 PM on December 12, 2006

dios!
posted by Stynxno at 2:19 PM on December 12, 2006

Humor theory! How neat. Is that a communications or linguistics or something else entirely field?
posted by occhiblu at 2:20 PM on December 12, 2006

And the charge that people are missing the point is as disingenuous as Hitchens— he's trying to put forth the argument that WOMEN AREN'T FUNNY

He actually isn't putting forth that argument. He lists many women who do humor well in the article. His point has everything to do with the reasons why humor isn't as valued in women and how that manifests in the world. He just used an eye-catching/trollish/ill-fitting title that seems to be confusing many mefites.

The article has many flaws, but incorrectly arguing that woment aren't funny isn't one of them.
posted by aburd at 2:20 PM on December 12, 2006

Taking a shit in your kitchen would be provacative, Dios, that doesn't mean it should be published.
posted by klangklangston at 4:12 PM CST on December 12

Well, that shouldn't be published because it is not interesting to a wide audience. Not many people would care to read/see my kitchen deuce. Hear, this is a section of the entertainment/culture section of Vanity Fair with the subject heading of "Provocation." Given the periodical's chops and what the apparent point is of that section of their periodical, I suspect that the topic fulfills its duties in creating something for people to talk about at dinner parties in a way that my sweet, sweet poo could not.
posted by dios at 2:20 PM on December 12, 2006

The Critique on Pure Funny was actually written by Macrina the Younger in response to Gregory of Nazianzus' charge that, "female Capadocians are about as humorous as a neoplatonist in a room full of Donatists."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 2:22 PM on December 12, 2006

in my humor theory class

I laughed
posted by matteo at 2:23 PM on December 12, 2006

(and I for one would definitely read a thread about dios taking a shit in his kitchen, especially if his wife came home before he could clean the mess up)
posted by matteo at 2:25 PM on December 12, 2006

Not many people would care to read/see my kitchen deuce.

As I read that sentence Donovan said, triumphantly, "Hail, Atlantis!" I practically plotzed.
posted by joseph_elmhurst at 2:35 PM on December 12, 2006

I can't believe anyone bothers reading Hitch any more. Must be the same people who kept reading Buchwald to the bitter end. Loyalty is a good thing, I guess. But posting Hitch's illiterate ravings to the front page of MeFi? Not such a great idea.
posted by languagehat at 2:39 PM on December 12, 2006

I think you have no sense of humor.
posted by LarryC at 3:10 PM on December 12, 2006

"Humor theory! How neat. Is that a communications or linguistics or something else entirely field?"

It's a mishmash. Like I said, I ended up focusing on political humor, and so found most of my stuff in political journals. The class was officially part of the English department, but could have easily been a Comm theory class or in sociology, psychology or philosophy. There was very little linguistics in what I read, but a lot of rhetoric. (I took it because it sounded like it'd be fun, and aside from the early start time it was).
posted by klangklangston at 3:41 PM on December 12, 2006

You know who else used humor to hide his shortcomings?
Stalin.
No, wait, he used genocide. Never mind.
posted by blue_beetle at 4:10 PM on December 12, 2006

Q: How many radical separatist lesbians does it take to screw in a light bulb?











A: That's not funny.
posted by mds35 at 4:27 PM on December 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

*slips on a banana peel*
posted by jonmc at 4:46 PM on December 12, 2006

Women aren't funny because their uteri contort and make them hysterical, and then their vaginas grow teeth.

Duh.
posted by bardic at 4:52 PM on December 12, 2006

Wander. The uterus wanders.
posted by occhiblu at 4:57 PM on December 12, 2006

I'm the type of womb that likes to roam around
where fetuses are you know where I'll be found..
posted by jonmc at 5:14 PM on December 12, 2006

Hitchen's literary criticism is still a joy to read-- informed, intelligent, elegantly written, all that stuff. I wish he'd stick to writing that instead of shaming himself with this kind of crap. I would like to believe that he's better than this, but I know it's no longer true. Sigh.
posted by jokeefe at 5:15 PM on December 12, 2006

Is this supposed to be a parody or something?
posted by Smedleyman at 5:18 PM on December 12, 2006

I was kinda disappointed to see this come up because I'd been thinking of basing a post around it, but was planning to include articles on women & humor (nice links, occhiblu!) and clips (got to get faster at gathering material...) I think it's a potentially interesting topic, but the one-link to hitchens is weak by itself.
posted by mdn at 5:23 PM on December 12, 2006

I liked the article, liked the post. I'm sure I'm in the minority. I usually prefer one-link posts.

The article was fairly well written, not great. However, it obviously touched a nerve and elicited a number of different and interesting opinions.

occhiblu, your first link is interesting. too bad it's on top of such a godawful HTML background... you should have posted it to the FPP, however, not here. the other two were sorta worthless.

I love it when I agree with dios. It makes me feel so dirty.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:43 PM on December 12, 2006

mrgrimm, you just sat on my whoopee cushion!

HAHAHAHAHA!

*pees self a little bit*
posted by jonmc at 5:50 PM on December 12, 2006

posted it to the FPP

*dies a little bit*
posted by gleuschk at 5:53 PM on December 12, 2006

Well, it seemed like occhiblu's links were relevant to the original post. If you're going to refute an argument, why do it in a different place where most of the readers of the original argument won't see it? Duh.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:18 PM on December 12, 2006

Because I wasn't trying to refute an argument, but give some links to TPS, who said she was interested in the topic?

It's that collaborative girl thing.
posted by occhiblu at 6:22 PM on December 12, 2006

I'm hoping this will be the thread that brings Sarah Silverman to Metafilter. Hubba hubba!
posted by mds35 at 6:46 PM on December 12, 2006

"mr_crash_davis, you are really turning me on! Will you come over to my place later, please?"

What are you cooking?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:47 PM on December 12, 2006

Please don't pretend not to know what I'm talking about.

I'm sorry, but I just don't... oh. I see what you did there.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:16 PM on December 12, 2006

Let me be the first to say it:

ALL people of ALL genders, ALL orientations, ALL races, ALL ages, ALL backgrounds, ALL classes, and ALL shoe sizes are ABSOLUTELY EQUAL AT EVERYTHING.
posted by scarabic at 9:00 PM on December 12, 2006

I'm not.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:16 PM on December 12, 2006

Some are more equal than others, though.
posted by diddlegnome at 9:26 PM on December 12, 2006

ALL people of ALL genders, ALL orientations, ALL races, ALL ages, ALL backgrounds, ALL classes, and ALL shoe sizes are ABSOLUTELY EQUAL AT EVERYTHING.

I'm not, I'm not, I'm not! I'm a unique snowflake, dammit, and don't you forget it!

*throws temper tantrum*
posted by deborah at 9:30 PM on December 12, 2006

"ALL people of ALL genders, ALL orientations, ALL races, ALL ages, ALL backgrounds, ALL classes, and ALL shoe sizes are ABSOLUTELY EQUAL AT EVERYTHING."

'You see, women aren't as funny as men.'
'Why's that again?'
'Because men decide what's funny.'
'Y'know, maybe your premise is bullshit.'
'Blah blah blah, you PC feminazi, blah blah blah.'
posted by klangklangston at 10:18 PM on December 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

The penis only thinks it knows where it's going. Thankfully the uterus keeps maps in the glove compartment.
posted by maryh at 11:41 PM on December 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

TPS is not funny.

PMS is not funny either.

The penis only thinks it knows where it's going. Thankfully the uterus keeps maps in the glove compartment.

Thankfully? That may or may not be something to be thankful about... ;-)
posted by flapjax at midnite at 12:39 AM on December 13, 2006

No kidding, flapjax. And that sounded like a total Rita Rudner line, too. Just shoot me.
posted by maryh at 12:48 AM on December 13, 2006

Is this supposed to be a parody or something?

Mr. Elinoff: That's a rather clever jab at inter-office politics, don't you think?

Elaine: Uh-huh, uh-huh . . . but why is it that the, that the animals enjoy reading the email?

Mr. Elinoff: Well, Miss Benes, cartoons are like gossamer. And one doesn't dissect gossamer.

Elaine: Well you don't have to dissect it, if you can just tell me why this is supposed to be funny.

Mr. Elinoff: It's merely a commentary on contemporary mores. (slides the magazine to her)

Elaine: But what is the comment? (she slides the magazine back to him)

Mr. Elinoff: It's a slice of life.

Elaine: No, it isn't.

Mr. Elinoff: Pun?

Elaine: I don't think so.

Mr Elinoff: Vorshtein?

Elaine: That's not a word. . . . You have no idea what this means, do you?

Mr Elinoff: No.

Elaine: Then why did you print it?

Mr. Elinoff: I liked the kitty.
posted by gompa at 12:58 AM on December 13, 2006

dios sez:

Had it been written by someone else, there might have been a more constructive discussion given that this was clearly written in a light-hearted friendly conversation kind of way. But instead all we get is variations of the comment: "He is a drunk, teeheehee.

Well put. Disappointing as Hitchens's recent writing has often been, his 'critics' generally have a good deal to say about him and little to say about his work. The thread was an embarrassment.
posted by waxbanks at 7:29 AM on December 13, 2006

So are bitches funny or not?
posted by Mister_A at 8:06 AM on December 13, 2006

"mr_crash_davis, you are really turning me on! Will you come over to my place later, please?"

What are you cooking?

Whatever you like sir! You are just so fucking sexy I'd be happy to serve you! You have me all wet! Sir!
posted by serazin at 8:23 AM on December 13, 2006

You'd think the uterus would be the first to stop and ask directions.

The penis, on the other hand, knows exactly where it's going.

It ties into the polymorphous perversity, you see. The uterus enjoys the process rather than focusing exclusively on the destination.
posted by occhiblu at 8:44 AM on December 13, 2006

Not wishing to be a pedant here, just trying to understand what the hey is going on ... am I supposed to be mentally substituting 'velvet fist' for 'uterus' here or not. I've been reading it as former, but I gues the latter could make sense too.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:03 AM on December 13, 2006

So are bitches funny or not?

The bitches? no. The ho's, yes
posted by jonmc at 9:15 AM on December 13, 2006

"Hysteria," during ancient time and I believe through Freud, was said to be caused by the uterus wandering through the body, bothering other organs. Joking follows from there.
posted by occhiblu at 9:16 AM on December 13, 2006

Interesting. Thanks.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:20 AM on December 13, 2006

"Whatever you like sir! You are just so fucking sexy I'd be happy to serve you! You have me all wet! Sir!"

Now that is funny.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:29 AM on December 13, 2006

Geez, you people are like a bunch of women at the senior center going off on Hitchens for grabbing the wrong tea today.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:21 AM on December 13, 2006

I ordered Scotch.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:26 AM on December 13, 2006

Too late—Hitchens got it all.
posted by languagehat at 10:33 AM on December 13, 2006

Yessshhh, it wuz Hitchens...he went zattaway...

*points fingers westward and eastward*
*passes out*
posted by jonmc at 10:35 AM on December 13, 2006

And loquacious ordered Oolong, not Earl Fucking Grey.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:35 AM on December 13, 2006

Earl's fucking greys now? I always figured he had a thing for the old broads.
posted by jonmc at 10:42 AM on December 13, 2006

He's a regular Aldo Kelrast, donchaknow.
posted by arto at 12:29 PM on December 13, 2006

He's a regular Aldo Kelrast, donchaknow.

*swoon*
posted by cortex at 2:20 PM on December 14, 2006