It’s one thing to deny the existence of God and incur the relatively harmless wrath of theists. It’s been a long time since thumbscrews were applied to atheists. It’s quite another thing, much more dangerous, to assert that women as a species don’t need to be funny largely because beauty is magically attractive to men whose senses of humor are equally attractive to women. Hitchen's theory is that beautiful women simply don’t need humor; men need it to attract women. This mode of reasoning is full of logical pitfalls. If Hitchens is right, how does one account for non-beautiful women in his Darwinian universe, not to mention humorless men? But notice how the agile Hitchens overleaps these obstacles in this following – dare we say it? –fetchingly humorous clip:
5 comments:
I wonder if this article has impaired his standing with his wife? I don't know. There may be something to men having more incentive to be funny because it attracts women, but I don't think that that makes women unfunny. If it did, and women were humorless, why would they then be attracted to funny men?
You're thinking again Michael -- very dangerous.
As to any possible rupture with his wife, these things are common in marriages. According to his theory, she'll abide with him because of his wit and humor, which do not age. Beauty is a different thing "Gather ye'rosebuds while ye may" and all that. My own theory is that sound marriages are based on honor and fidelity, and not so fragile a thing as beauty and wit, though both help.
She has also probably come to expect a good range of surprising and passionately espoused opinions to come tumbling out of her husband.
BTW I'm not sure that Hitch actually maintains HitchensWeb himself. I think someone else does. Either way, it goes several months without being updated.
Post a Comment