bioephemera.com

Why Women Aren’t Funny

Vanity Fair: Christopher Hitchens On Why Women Aren’t Funny

This piece is titled “Provocation.” So I’m not really offended. I mean, come on; it’s Christopher Hitchens, what do you expect? Over at Scienceblogs, some bloggers have responded about the science, but I think they’re taking Hitchens too seriously. Here he goes:

Wit, after all, is the unfailing symptom of intelligence. Men will laugh at almost anything, often precisely because it is—or they are—extremely stupid. Women aren’t like that. And the wits and comics among them are formidable beyond compare: Dorothy Parker, Nora Ephron, Fran Lebowitz, Ellen DeGeneres. (Though ask yourself, was Dorothy Parker ever really funny?)

See? Provocation. But what does he mean about Dorothy Parker? Come on, Hitch, don’t be catty. Dorothy was vicious, but she was also very funny. Can’t a woman be both?

Hitchens later observes:

Precisely because humor is a sign of intelligence (and many women believe, or were taught by their mothers, that they become threatening to men if they appear too bright), it could be that in some way men do not want women to be funny. They want them as an audience, not as rivals.

I must agree with that. When women’s wit is mocking, it’s perceived as threatening. I admit, when I make people laugh, which I do, I’m usually being sarcastic. Uh-oh. Is that a bad idea?

In her entertaining yet depressing play-by-play of gender conflict, Are Men Necessary?: When Sexes Collide(Amazon), Maureen Dowd shares some pearls of philosophy from a book her mother gave her, How to Catch and Keep a Man:

Sarcasm is dangerous. Avoid it altogether. It ruins the aura of softness, womanliness, and kindness you should be attempting to create around yourself.

I’d laugh that off - after all, the book also advises that “men are fascinated by bright, shiny objects” - but as Dowd says a few pages later:

if there’s one thing men fear, it’s a woman who uses her critical faculties. Will she be critical of absolutely everything, even his manhood?

“Critical” and “funny” are not always the same thing. But they can be. They were for Dorothy Parker. That Hitchens thinks she wasn’t really funny is quite striking, because it supports Dowd’s contention. Perhaps he should have titled his piece, “Why Women Aren’t Funny To Men.” Or, “Why Women Aren’t Funny To Me.”

Anyway, I don’t like his generic, catch-all idea of humor. Humor is subjective. I’m bored by the Three Stooges, but adore Jon Stewart. Does that make me dour, or discriminating? Sarcastic humor and scatological humor - are they the same thing? Do they even activate the same part of the cortex? I doubt it. Although it’s amusing to contemplate the grant proposal for the PET study to find out.

At least, I think it’s amusing.

Oh dear.

Add comment December 17th, 2006

Let’s hit the pepper bar

The Examining Room of Dr. Charles: A Cure for Diabetes?

A very interesting blog entry (on a very interesting blog) about a Cell paper that’s gotten scant media attention. The paper implicates malfunctioning pancreatic neurons in autoimmune (Type I) diabetes. Dr. Charles’ explanation is very accessible, but if you want to go straight to the source, here’s the most relevant paragraph from the paper’s conclusion:

Elimination of TRPV1+ neurons by capsaicin, transient functional normalization by acute local sP injection, or replacement with wild-type trpv1 in Idd4 congenics has the same, islet-specific outcome: normalized insulin sensitivity and abrogation of insulitis, despite unimpeded generation of autoreactive lymphocytes that can transfer disease to untreated NOD hosts. The most parsimonious explanation unifying these observations is a local feedback interaction between β cells and the primary sensory neurons innervating islets (Figure S11), with nerve terminals responding to local insulin with release of neuropeptides that sustain β cell physiology in an optimal range. Normally, this interaction is in balance, but in the NOD mouse, hypofunction of TRPV1 unbalances the feedback, with β cell stress due to hyperinsulinism, insulin resistance, and infiltration by autoreactive T cell pools independently generated in the NOD mouse. Removing TRPV1 neurons leads to elimination of the unbalanced, pathogenic interaction, whereas administering sP exogenously may renormalize the interaction transiently.

Are you still reading this after that quote? Ha! Then you probably want the full text link for the Cell article. All one of you.

I always get a kick out of teaching pancreatic physiology and diabetes. Usually more than half my students have diabetic family members (mostly Type II) so the subject is relevant and personal. They always ask an unusual number of questions, most of which I can’t answer. So, like Dr. Charles, I’m also baffled that this paper didn’t get more media attention.

Still, given the way the media can garble science, perhaps anonymity is a good thing - I can anticipate people wolfing megadoses of hot peppers instead of injecting insulin. Ouch! Just in case, let me be clear: that wouldn’t work. Chili peppers do have promising health benefits, but simply eating them would not produce the effect seen in this Cell study, and eating excessive amounts may be a risk factor for gastric cancer.

Mmm, peppers. Now I want to go to Quizno’s.

Add comment December 17th, 2006