Christopher Hitchens writes a condescending article titled Why Women Aren’t Funny, full of contradictions, gross over-generalizations, and a general lack of understanding of the opposite sex. To begin with, Hitchens attempts to make the point that men’s survival relies on their ability to be funny, whereas women simply get by with their looks: “They already appeal to men, if you catch my drift” (Hitchens 2007). So in the beginning of his article he claims that humor boils done to sex. By the end, however, he concludes that humor is merely a coping mechanism – belonging exclusively to men – for a inevitably sad life.
        Hitchens then makes a grand attempt at appealing to his audiences’ logic by citing a study at Stanford University School of Medicine. The study states that women take longer to understand a joke, are more satisfied by the joke when they finally get it, and are quick to identify a bad joke. All this data from the study seems to prove that women are actually more thoughtful and receptive to humor than their male counterparts, but Hitchens is quick to interpret it in a way that fits his argument. He asks a rhetorical question, “Is it any wonder that they are backward in generating it?” (Hitchens 2007), before the reader has any chance to make up their own mind.
       Hitchens attempts to appeal to women by complimenting them on something other than their looks. He puts down his own sex by stating that men are stupid, and therefore more receptacle to comedy. Women could not possibly swoop to the level of being funny because they are too damn smart. Then, just a few paragraphs later, he introduces the theory that humor is actually a sign of intelligence, and since women are taught to suppress their smarts, they have to pretend they do not want to be funny. This undermines his interpretation of the Stanford study, which he claims prove that psychologically, women do not enjoy humor as much as men. So which is it Christopher? Do women hate humor or are they just pretending so that no one thinks they could have any trace of intelligence?
        The rest of his article is full of cringey, untrue remarks that only further his arguments from the truth, it is almost not worth giving Hitchens the dignity of analyzing his far-fetched assertions. Instead, taking a look at the way he writes gives light to his use of rhetoric. He wrote this to instigate an argument that is not worth having. His attempt at ethos is shown when he talks in a comedic tone, condescending women by saying, “Where women, bless their tender hearts, would prefer that life be fair, and even sweet, rather than the sordid mess it actually is” (Hitchens 2007). As if cynicism belongs to men, and men alone.