The Un-Hitch
Will Smith as Hitch was adept at endearing himself to the chicas. Alfred Hitchcock as Hitch preferred blondes. Christopher Hitchens as Hitch prefers . . . the company of men, I suppose. But then, as the great Homer Simpson once said, who doesn't?
Hitchens does have a point, though. I mean, really, when was the last time Queen Elizabeth said something funny? Genuinely funny. You know, funny enough to make men in bars elbow each other and say, "She's hot."
Hitchens does have a point, though. I mean, really, when was the last time Queen Elizabeth said something funny? Genuinely funny. You know, funny enough to make men in bars elbow each other and say, "She's hot."
posted by juvenal_urbino | 2:40 PM
5 Comments:
I assume this was intended to get a response from me. I have not read the article, just a summary of it, nor do I intend to read it. As I've said in this forum before, I'm not a fan of Hitchens. More often than not he says things with the intent to offend rather than enlighten, which I find unconstructive and immature. The few times I agree with him on the merits of an issue, I feel kind of icky about it. Humor is inherently subjective, and if men as a group don't tend to get women's senses of humor as a group, then that's their loss as far as I'm concerned. Personally, the funniest people I have ever known (including Jeneen Metz, easily the funniest person ever to be in my life) were all women. My view is that Hitchens was just stirring s**t with this rather than trying to contribute anything of value to the cultural dialogue.
I assume this was intended to get a response from me.
Why? Have I given you reason to think I wish to needle you?
My view is that Hitchens was just stirring s**t with this rather than trying to contribute anything of value to the cultural dialogue.
I don't care for Hitchens, either, and generally for the same reason. However, in this case, it was declared up-front that bombast was all the article was. The name of the column, after all, is "Provocation." That gives Hitchens' usual bumptiousness more of a self-mocking tone, if that's not an oxymoron.
In that context, I thought it was rather funny in places, in a distinctly British way. I would've thought my comments on it made it abundantly clear I didn't take it to be a serious argument. (Though I think there are some keen observations in it -- e.g., Fran Lebowitz's that being funny is the male equivalent of being pretty; and Hitchens' elaboration thereof, that men have to be funny: it's our only entree into women's society.)
I didn't mean it in a bad way, JU! I thought people liked getting reactions from me! :) I also didn't think you took the argument seriously, well, necessarily. The use of Queen Elizabeth as an example of all women was the giveaway there. I was just being my cranky self in my response -- not directed at anyone in particular. (It's my way of being funny ... again showing how subjective humor is).
In seriousness, though, I wonder whether even self-conscious provocation has much redeeming value. When I was in college, I had a boyfriend who would take the side of an argument that he didn't even believe in (i.e., women provoke men to rape them) just to see how I would react. It was a waste of time to engage since there was no mind to change with an argument. And the whole dynamic reeked a bit of lording one's superior social position over a less powerful person in order to get off on it. Like making me defend women (because how could I not, otherwise I would be devaluing myself) was entertainment. He was basically a very good, sensitive guy, but I think some part of him felt threatened nonetheless. I get the same sense from Hitchens, a privileged person if there ever was one. Sort of a pulling pigtails thing with a side of hostility.
Pretty much everything I've ever heard Hitchens say on any subject has had a distinctly hostile undertone. It's a shame, too, because he's a bright guy, and obscenely well read.
I wonder whether even self-conscious provocation has much redeeming value.
I think it does, though not when used as a means of emotional manipulation, as your ex did. All satire is self-conscious provocation, after all. And sometimes provocation serves to generate interesting discussion.
Which why I posted Hitchens' article here.
I'm guessing it's generally the case that women laugh hardest when they're with their girlfriends, and men laugh hardest among their guy friends. There's an extra layer of caution and self-consciousness in mixed company that sort of dampens things.
I always found it unfortunate for those guys who were really sly funny--who had that dry humor that I find pretty great--who ended up with women who didn't get them 1/2 the time. Wouldn't that be rather boring?
'twould. For both, I would think.
Post a Comment
<< Home