Are men funnier than women? In Hitchens’ Why Women Aren’t Funny, a number of opinionated remarks are expressed through drawing a line between men and women in terms of humor. Hitchens claims that “the chief task in life that a man has to perform is that of impressing the opposite sex.” On the other hand, he states that “women have no corresponding need to appeal to men in this way. What is his standard of such baseless generalizing this? This brings in the concept of sexism, because he’s saying that men appeal to women by making them laugh, but women don’t need to put such effort in humor because they themselves already provide pleasure, which in this case, is highly likely meaning their body figure and sex. He then establishes his credibility to the readers by backing up his blunt argument with his own personal experience, Hitchens writes men “had better be able to make the lady laugh. Making them laugh has been one of the crucial preoccupations of my life.” As he continues to expose his odd and biased thoughts, he attempts to logically appeal and therefore references a scientific study that highlights the distinction of men and women’s reactions towards humor.

In the middle of his argument, Fran Lebowitz asserts, “for a woman to say a man is funny is the equivalent of a man saying that a woman is pretty.” This is definitely not true. Someone being judged as pretty, handsome, or cute does not need any sort of ability whereas making someone laugh takes great amount of effort. Furthermore, he contends that his “argument doesn’t say that there are no decent women comedians” and that he’s not saying “women are humorless, or cannot make great wits and comedians.” However, he has already made claims that males are dominant in comedy and even looked down on one of the female poet and satirist Dorothy Parker by questioning “ask yourself, was Dorothy Parker ever really funny?” Moreover, it is said in the writing that “humor is a sign of intelligence.” This is somewhat true, but again, his generalization is ridiculous– if women aren’t funny, then are we all fools?

In the article ‘Just Kidding’ – But at Whose Expense written by Richard Berstein, the concept of “who can say what about whom, and under what circumstances” is questioned. From the start of the article, Berstein clearly distinguishes the different effects comedy presented in stand-up comedy or live performances versus that presented through television. Comedy theatre shows are known to express various perceptions, including socially sensitive topics, through “art”, whereas television “have always been arenas for mockery.”

To further explain this idea, Berstein gives an example of a CBS commentator named Andy Rooney and a stand-up comedian Eddie Murphy. Rooney had been severely criticized by the public for his offensive statement about the minority groups, which originally was done to bring out laughter. With the same comedic purpose, a black comedian Eddie Murphy’s impersonation about minority groups became popular, and still, people like to make jokes about his videotapes. According to Berstein, network television is considered “the tamest of all the media.” Even though people do the same exact things with same exact purposes, the outcomes drastically change due to what form of media they choose to use.

 

Towards the end of his article, Berstein claims that “onstage, a comedian can always invoke the phrase ‘just kidding'” unlike in the field of politics. Again, he draws a line between expression through “the tamest of all the media”: television, and expression through live performances. I do understand Berstein’s point of view, but I do not agree completely. It is true that people on television are often humiliated and censured; however, it is not always “arenas for mockery.” On the stage, a comedian can interact with the audience, which means that even though he or she says something offensive, one can always wrap up with the phrase “just kidding” and watch the audience’s reaction. On the television too, a comedian can escape the awkward situation by saying “just kidding”– but the only difference is that he or she cannot see the facial expressions of the audience, and that television has a much wider viewers, which then equals to a more delineated superiority theory. Moreover, art can be expressed through the medium of television– it is just that we, the public, see the same things differently with different perspective and values.

 

They Say I Say

1. Thomas Hobbes argues about superiority theory, by stating that “men laugh at mischances and indecencies” and that “men laugh at the infirmities of others.” Laughter results from the idea when one compares his or herself to others and feels that he or she is in a better position.

2. Immanuel Kant proposes relief theory  by bringing in the concept of health conditions; sensations and emotions are key factors that control our body, as Kant claims that “vibration of our organs [helps] restore their equilibrium and has beneficial influence on our health.”

3. Arthur Schopenhauer emphasizes the incongruity theory by asserting that “incongruity between a concept and real objects” is what causes the laughter– he also points out the significance of paradox which mainly starts one to laugh.

4. Herbert Spencer both argues about superiority and incongruity theory, explaining them through physiology. He starts the writing by a question stating “Why do we smile when a child puts on a man’s hat?” We laugh at that child because not only we see a visual mismatch, but also we feel more superior to that child.

Thomas Hobbes connects laughter to superiority theory. Many people think that laughter equals to positivity and joy, but according to Hobbes’ stance, it does not. We laugh at other people’s lack of physical or mental conditions. We mock at other people’s “mischances and indecencies.” We make fun of other people because we think, or more accurately, wish to feel that we are in a more superior position.