Why Women Aren't Funny, and Apparently Can't Read According to Christopher Hitchens

I hate women because they always know where things are.
Voltaire

In a provocational piece by Christopher Hitchens first published in January 2007 he proclaimed that "Women Aren't Funny". Now, more than a year later, Alessandra Stanley strikes back at Hitchens in a rebuttal which she has simply entitled "Who Says Women Aren't Funny?". Apparently, Hitchens doesn't feel convinced and has lashed back in this video called "Why Women Still Aren't Funny". The debate seems to have heated up, and such a story does not go unnoticed by Mcmoogol. Today he gives his take on the disagreement, and tackles the core issue itself.

Ok, so this whole thing started over a year ago. It was a good essay by Hitchens then, and it's still a very good read. So if you haven't read it yet, click on to the first link I provided. Hitchens main argument has always been that women don't "need" to be funny on a evolutionary level, while men on the other hand often only have humour to impress and seduce the opposite sex. As he puts it "most men are tremendously ugly". He goes on to explain his argument by saying that women always will be attractive to men. However, men must make themselves attractive by separating from the proverbial "crowd". So far I find it difficult to disagree.

Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph and Tina Fey doing girl-stuff (while apparently still being funny)

In her piece Stanley hits back by displaying to Hitchens and the world the many funny comediennes on todays comedy scene. These include, but are not limited to, Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph, Kristen Wiig, Susie Essman, Sarah Silverman, Amy Peohler and Chelsea Handler. Some of you might be thinking "that's a pretty strong lineup". Yes, says Hitchens, before he adds his second point: these are females projecting "male comedy". Hitchens say that these lady's play by men's rules, with their lewd and often cross style of comedy. He adds that his initial essay already commented upon this, and that the angry women who's been sending him hate mail ever since the piece first was published also have proved that they apparently "can't read either".

It's definitely a interesting story to follow, and Hitchens' semi-promise of a second essay on the issue is a mouth-watering thought. Personally I feel the issue needs more investigating and research before one can make final judgment. I will conceed that I have yet to meet many funny women face-to-face, and is therefore leaning towards Hitchens' corner at this point in time. However, seeing as I need more info to make up my mind I'll do some digging.

To start this quest (for knowledge) I thought to myself - when do I laugh the most? The answer, of course, is: when there is alcohol in my body (and preferably lots of it!). So tonight I will go undercover, and do some real investigative journalism. I will submerge myself in alcohol (in all it's delightful forms) and try to keep track of how many of my laughs is produced by something a female said or did. It will only count if the female is intending to make me laugh. If the laugh is produced without her being aware of it - it's not registered (but it'll probably still be funny).

So look for my conclusion on this debate tomorrow, and look forward to my "hard-hitting" undercover piece.