the only thing that is indisputable here is that he was obviously bullied by girls on the playground for his entire childhood. And, I'm guessing no matter how hard old Christother makes girls laugh, they still aren't likely to want to sleep with him. In fact, speaking from experience, I laugh at lots of men who I'd never sleep with...
and yes, I realize what I just wrote is rude and sort of offensive, but I find this piece rude and offensive. I'd written a few paragraphs about power, identity and how women (and others) have to participate in hostile spaces all the time, and simply because those who are marginalized don't make the rules does not indict them as unable or without the need to participate in those spaces.
However, after watching this twice, I felt like it didn't actually qualify as something I'd like to put thoughtfulness and effort into.
i dunno. i'm not quite willing to take this at face value.
the little i know of hitchens, i feel like he's smarter than this.
so i'm wondering if it's somehow a publicity stunt/performance act (think andy kaufman insulting women, being a pro wrestler, etc) between him, the female comedians, and vanity fair.
i'm not saying it isn't offensive, but just that i think christopher hitchens is too smart to say something like "there are SOME who are pretty, sure, even though they're a bit jewish or dyke-looking" without being aware of how problematic that kind of statement is on so many levels.
the fact he finishes up by swigging a pint suggests to me there's some satire going on here.
I think it is satire, but I think to a certain extent, he means what he says, meaning:
Men are genetically, behaviourally, and socially endowed for humour, especially since it proves to be a beneficial mating strategy, inasmuch as braun, intellect, and a variety of other things work that way.
Women also have this skill, clearly, but the same pressures have not shaped this endowment when thinking in sociobiological terms, which in the case of Hitchens, is often a too simplistic account of reality, imo.
That said, I do agree with him at a basic, non-inflammatory level, yet I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the misogyny, at at satirical level, of course.
6 comments:
aaaaaand scene.
word verif: flessort. speaks for itself, me thinks.
hm. strange.
word verif: itrist
the only thing that is indisputable here is that he was obviously bullied by girls on the playground for his entire childhood. And, I'm guessing no matter how hard old Christother makes girls laugh, they still aren't likely to want to sleep with him. In fact, speaking from experience, I laugh at lots of men who I'd never sleep with...
and yes, I realize what I just wrote is rude and sort of offensive, but I find this piece rude and offensive. I'd written a few paragraphs about power, identity and how women (and others) have to participate in hostile spaces all the time, and simply because those who are marginalized don't make the rules does not indict them as unable or without the need to participate in those spaces.
However, after watching this twice, I felt like it didn't actually qualify as something I'd like to put thoughtfulness and effort into.
i dunno. i'm not quite willing to take this at face value.
the little i know of hitchens, i feel like he's smarter than this.
so i'm wondering if it's somehow a publicity stunt/performance act (think andy kaufman insulting women, being a pro wrestler, etc) between him, the female comedians, and vanity fair.
i'm not saying it isn't offensive, but just that i think christopher hitchens is too smart to say something like "there are SOME who are pretty, sure, even though they're a bit jewish or dyke-looking" without being aware of how problematic that kind of statement is on so many levels.
the fact he finishes up by swigging a pint suggests to me there's some satire going on here.
ya, maybe.
Funny, I just logged back on to say I found what he said offensive, not the piece of journalism (videomaking) itself.
hehe,
if it was satire, it makes my response really funny...i obviously didn't have much of a sense of humour today.
Is he a satirist? Was his initial piece of writing a satire?
I think it is satire, but I think to a certain extent, he means what he says, meaning:
Men are genetically, behaviourally, and socially endowed for humour, especially since it proves to be a beneficial mating strategy, inasmuch as braun, intellect, and a variety of other things work that way.
Women also have this skill, clearly, but the same pressures have not shaped this endowment when thinking in sociobiological terms, which in the case of Hitchens, is often a too simplistic account of reality, imo.
That said, I do agree with him at a basic, non-inflammatory level, yet I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the misogyny, at at satirical level, of course.
Hehehe.
Post a Comment