>
 |
| Was it all based on a lie? |
You know what’s always hilarious? Humorless douchebags pontificating on “why women aren’t funny.”
Our text today: A set of comments on the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) proboards forum. Madashell gets the ball rolling:
In my entire life I haven’t met one single women who is funny especially compared to the numerous men who are able to make myself and many other people laugh. I’m sure this is true for almost all of us.
If you can’t think of a single funny women you’ve ever met, you either 1) have no sense of humor whatsoever, or 2) you’re such a flaming misogynist your brain simply can’t process humor when it comes from females or 3) you live in a hole in the ground eating bugs. Or some combination of the above. In the case of Madashell, I’m guessing it’s a mixture of 1) and 3). (He just seems like a bug-eater to me.)
Now, I’m not even going to bother to provide a little list of women in history who are fucking hilarious, because every single reasonable person on planet earth should be able to come up with a little list of their own.
Instead, let’s hear what the MGTOWers have to say on the subject. Here’s Whytry:
Because laughter is a sign of joy and women aren’t capable of emotion. They’re literally creatures of lust and animal behavior.
Hanzblinx, meanwhile, offers a little list:
1. humor is related to wit which is related to intelligence
2. humor requires seeing the world outside of the 1st person perspective
3. humor is used by men as a tool to attract women by display of wit, however, women attract men with display of skin, no wits required.
Of course, when a woman laughs at your joke, it doesn’t necessarily mean that she actually has a sense of humor. At least according to dontmarry, who suggests that laughter is sort of a female version of a boner:
Interesting theory, but I’m a little stuck on the notion that George Carlin and Rowan Atkinson represent the highest pinnacle of achievement in human humor history.
rebel has a somewhat more elaborate, if somewhat less coherent, explanation:
Because le rire est le propre de l’homme- laugh is specific to man.
MAN is the only creature on the planet that has a capacity for humour and laughter. When you really think about it, humour is a gift from God. It sets MAN apart from all other creatures: on a higher level of existence.
To me, the question is irrelevant. Does my dog have a sense of humor? The question is irrelevant because only Men have a sense of humor. By design.
Adam was the first sentient creature (so they say… I don’t know). Then Eve was produced to provide some blow jobs whenever Adam felt bored. Eve was content to be Adam’s receptacle (in Latin: vagina):she didn’t have to be funny: only have a deep throat. But that was before feminism took the bag away…but humor has not returned…
LOL!!!
“LOL!!!” Really?
I guess I just don’t understand humor after all.
EDIT: Looks like the humor-discussers have discovered this post.
>After 50 years of vile deconstructions and stereotyping of men by feminists the shoe might being going on the other foot, Im not saying that its right, Im saying look who set the bar so low.
>Eoghan, do you just have a set of anti-feminist macros set up that you push randomly when making comments here?Sexist men were convinced that women weren't funny (or capable of doing math, or giving public speeches, or having enough responsibility to be allowed to vote, etc etc etc) long before feminism ever existed. Blaming feminism for sexism against women is just bizarre.
>How do you read this stuff without projectile vomiting all over your screen?Although it is all so patently ridiculous I guess you can't help but just be really sad for them.
>Sure David, there were always sexist men and sexist women and Im sure a minority of men and women didn't support womens suffrage. But gender war is a new thing.
>Just stop David. Men as a whole are funnier than women. Yes there are women who are funny like Sarah Silverman etc. But this whole equality in every single fucking thing is bullshit. All you do is make equivelancies based on the canard that anything a man can do, so can a woman, but that doesn't mean that anything a man can do, women like to do just as much! Dolts like you like so say crap like: Women are just as good as men in math. Women are just as athletic as men. Women are just as funny as men. Women like sports just as much as men. All bullshit. There ARE things men TEND to like to do more than women and vice versa. The only things that feminuts like you will admit that men do more or are more prone to is crime. Get off it David. You're full of crap. Men tend to be funnier on the whole and you know it. But that wouldn't get your head pattied by your feminut masters now would it you groveling psuedo male?As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, the best like 100 comedians of all time are likely male, same with atheletes. Random Brother
>"Feminut masters." Oh, very witty. You're a regular Dortothy Parker aren't you?
>Eoghan, before feminism women were not allowed to vote, and were considered to be lesser people then men. It was well excepted that women were stupid and less capable then men, that education was wasted upon them, and that they could not handle the power to make decisions in their lives, let alone vote. A man owned his wife and could rape her and beat her as he pleased. So I think it's clear who set the bar low. And if we go back further, we can find a time where only landed gentry were wholey. human, so I guess it's clear who we can blame for this mess. Damn landed gentry.Or maybe we should blame the people actually spewing the sexist rhetoric, and not try to trace a vein of blame back through history.
>@ DavidThanks you had me waste a few seconds on Wikipedia looking up Dorothy Parker. Good job. Random Brother
>Does my feminist agenda make my ass look big? LOL.
>@Sandy"before feminism women were not allowed to vote": That's right, and now that they can, we have socialism, we piss away tax money on wymyn's empowyrmynt (so they can take up slots in medical schools, have a 5-year practice, and then get married, stay home, and watch Oprah nonstop), and we got President Osama"education was wasted upon [women]": That depends on the education. Learning to cook – good. Women's studies – bad. Learning to sew – good. Learning how to file for divorce and lie about domestic violence – very bad."A man owned his wife" – Smart men don't own a wife. You should never own a depreciating asset. Leasing makes much more business sense. "A man…could rape her" – I thought that getting married implied sexual availability. Silly me. In America marriage means a man can slave himself to death for a nagging wife who gets empowyred by watching hours upon hours of Oprah. SIGN ME UP!"maybe we should blame the people actually spewing the sexist rhetoric" – I agree; it's all the fault of feminists."not try to trace a vein of blame back through history" – This works for me too. It's all your fault.
>"Thanks you had me waste a few seconds on Wikipedia looking up Dorothy Parker. Good job. Random Brother"Man, do you who I trust to have a valid opinion on what's funny? Some guy who had to look up Dorothy Parker on Wikipedia.
>Sandy said… ….. before feminism … A man owned his wife and could rape her and beat her as he pleased. This is not true. Separation and divorce was always possible, even in the USA. A man could not force his wife to stay with him under any circumstances, as it was possible with slaves at that time in the United States.In case of death of the husband, the wife always had inheritage rights, while slaves had no rights at all. Many women were considerably rich before feminism, before they had voting rights, and many women had by far more rights than their male servants, not to talk about slaves. Servant was NOT the same as a slave at that time, but they also were sometimes badly treated regardless their gender.In USA there were also females who were owning male slaves. About 'rape' – this term was totally distorted by feminists and nowadays even judges and bar associations in Western countries have problems to understand the definiton of 'rape' in the lawbooks.There is a fairly number of countries, not only Islamic countries, where 'spousal rape' does not exist in the law. In those countries a spouse can be prosecuted for severe mistreatment however, which might result in a similar sentence as rape if convicted.Laws in feminist countries are treating a married man as a stranger, despite being married and sharing the same rooms. Between strangers in general a regular sexual relationship does not exist. However a regular sexual relationship between spouses is considered to be normal, the usual way in a marriage.The question is therefore, what does a marriage offer for a man in feminist countries? What does it offer to a woman?Is a marriage nowadays solely a meal ticket for a woman? To find a guy, who is willing to pay alimony even 40 years after divorce?
>@ SamSam said: "Man, do you who I trust to have a valid opinion on what's funny? Some guy who had to look up Dorothy Parker on Wikipedia."What?Random Brother
>@Yohan "This is not true. Separation and divorce was always possible, even in the USA." Not true at all. Divorce was virtually impossible in 1800s US, and abuse or rape were not considered grounds for divorce (and, yes, married women aren't property and their husbands do not have a right to rape them). There are, in old US law books, entire bodies of case law when women's families (because married women could not bring a suit in court at all) against husbands who beat their wives to severe injury or death in the name of 'discipline' and it was generally allowed."In case of death of the husband, the wife always had inheritage rights, while slaves had no rights at all. " Not true, well, not true if he had sons or other surviving male relatives. Inheritance laws were heavily biased and many explicitly forbade women from being executors of estates of deceased persons. The only way a woman would be likely to inherit is if she had not uncles, brothers, or sons, had never married, and got the money upon her father's death. Ownership of property by married women was highly contentious around the time of the civil war. It was, in fact, one of the reasons that Texas delayed becoming a state, because Mexican women could own property while married and had stronger inheritance rights. Free white men in pre-civil war US had unparralleled rights to property, legal participation, and access to the courts. Also worth noting is that HALF OF BLACK PEOPLE ARE WOMEN. I think this is about the millionth time that I have told you that women of color exist as well. Black women raised in slavery spoke at early feminist conferences. I suggest Sojouner Truth as a starting point if you want to see early black feminism. From her 1851 speech 'Ain't I a Woman'(in which she calls for equal rights for women):"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman? "
>@DarkSiteCatAll what you write in your interesting comment happened over 150 years ago. It's history.This what you are telling us about the year 1800 can be hardly considered to be a good argument for nowadays feminists demanding unreasonable advantages and privileges.You did not mention anything about the life of all these men 150 years ago. What about all these soldiers, sailors, miners, workers, servants? Some women were rich and others were mistreated, some men were rich and had powerful positions, but many other men had a miserable life. The feminist claim that in history ALL men were better off than ALL women is not true.Living conditions improved a lot after WWII, for both men and women – but especially for women.About voting rights for women, I never had a problem with that. When I was born, women had voting rights in USA and many other countries already and I am not a young man.
>Boy, it's easy to take apart those feminist arguments when you just make up what feminists say in the first place. But I suppose understanding feminism is not really necessary for all the foaming at the mouth. Learning just wastes time that could be spent on hating strawwomen!
>Sandymen couldnt vote either and few people had education because there is no point in educating people when an economy isnt providing jobs that require it, none whatsoever, we educate as the economy requires and women genuinely couldn't contribute like men until reliable birth control and the surplus of female friendly jobs were introduced. Previous attempts at equality pre reliable birth control and cosy jobs were rejected by women, for good reason too.Whats insulting to the intelligence of women is feminist revisionist history failing to provide this context and making women believe the unlikely story that men as a class oppressed women as a class.Im not going to go through your checklist of feminist rhetoric and revisionist history.
>In my experience, men like funny as in hilarious and women like cute.Laugh at what you like but don't blame me for not thinking cute is funny.
>"This blog collects and critiques examples of misogyny online. I focus especially on the often misogynistic Men's Rights Movement and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). Sometimes I mock. Note: Not everyone I write about is a misogynist; some are merely sexist, or retrograde, or just sort of creepy. I leave it up to you to decide who fits in which category."Or more likely, just well informed.
>Heres a funny female comedianhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwxAgoKi4k0
>That's it. The interwebs have finally rendered me to hysterical laughter. Men complaining about everything wrought at the hands of men as womens fault.We want to rape you! IT'S YOUR FAULT.We screwed up our economy and our country IT'S YOUR FAULT.You don't think we're as awesome and funny as we know we are IT'S YOUR FAULT.My god the privilege that you seep off is staggering.I pray for the women in your life. That you must hate them and yourselves so much.
>David, I don't know how you deal with so many misogynistic MRAs on every post. "That's right, and now that they can, we have socialism."As someone who studied political science in college, this makes me laugh. so. very. much. Next you'll say every Osama bin Laden is really a woman in disguise.
>@Yohan, I was specifically talking about the 1800s because you were talking about slavery, which was banned in the US in the 1860s. The 'women had it great because they weren't slaves' line does erase the full half of slaves who were women. Women also make up more than half of the poor. I suggest you look up something called 'intersectionality' and the numerous feminist writings on simultaneous privilege and oppression (Peggy Macintosh, who discussed having white privilege while being on the loosing end of male privilege, or Bell Hooks writings about patriarichal privilege in black communities would both be good starting points). White privilege and economic class privilege (in the simple sense, because the Marxist sense could include other forms of social privilege in such terms) both exist, so does male privilege. A person can be privileged in some or all of these areas (the same holds in other areas of privilege, such as able bodied privilege).
>Magnoliathe banking class screwed up the economy, and women held most the sub primes, not men collectively.Feminist thinking is along the same lines as "all *whatever group are *some pejorative.And of course, the wack comments that David cherry picks aren't in anyway representative of men collectively as you are suggesting either. Exercise your brain beyond feminism.
>@DarkSideCatYou did not answer my question, I said in my previous posting:You did not mention anything about the life of all these men 150 years ago. What about all these soldiers, sailors, miners, workers, servants? Do you really think, that simple men in general had a better life than women at this time?You see only some rich influencial men or better call that family clans, and you are claiming so many women were mistreated at that time.But ordinary men were also mistreated and had also a bad life.'…women had it great because they weren't slaves' line does erase the full half of slaves who were women. Yeah, but the other half of slaves were men… and they really had it so much better than all these white women who were oppressed by their husbands in 1800?I doubt that…Anyway, this was 1800, and now is 2010.And you still feel oppessed? Despite public fonds with million of USD into women issues, with laws totally biased against men, with all the rights you were claiming like voting rights…All what I can answer all these feminists, what about doing from now on some productive work by yourself instead of showing up all the time and demanding this and that? It sounds that feminism is rather expensive, and many Western countries do not have money anymore to pay for that.