Women and Comedy: Are Women Funny?

Christopher Hitchens says no in this arrogant rant. This understandably upset a lot of people. Unfortunately, research has shown that women don't make audiences laugh as much as men. Here's a clip from the British comedy panel show QI:



This doesn't mean the case is closed. Just like nearly everything in the feminist blogosphere, this can be traced back to cultural influences, at least in part. Women aren't SUPPOSED to be funny. Men are. Certainly not all men feel threatened by a funny woman's wit, but surely some do. Certainly not all women laugh less at other women, but if people believe that women are not funny, why wouldn't they laugh more at men? At a certain point, the belief that women can't make us laugh as effectively as men is sure to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Audiences will expect that women are merely chuckle-worthy and will ignore or downplay the hilarity that women are capable of.

Though Ronni Ancona joked about there being equal numbers of men and women, it does seem that there are fewer females who choose to make a living making people laugh. Perhaps this is because they won't get as many laughs, or because they've never seen themselves as or wanted to be comedians. There could be any number of reasons, but the more we see women being funny, the more we'll start to believe that they are. Funny women have been around for ages, but it wasn't until recently- due to the success and critical acclaim of women like Tina Fey, Amy Sedaris, and Sarah Silverman- that being a comedian was a normal thing for a female to do, not just an anomaly.

And finally, the obvious: humor is subjective. Maybe one woman doesn't share your sense of humor, but she is hilarious to someone else. One woman doesn't represent all women, just as anyone from any group cannot encompass everyone.

So even if you aren't a comedian, go ahead and tell your joke, no matter what your gender. Folks from all walks of life are capable of injecting some much-needed humor into our world.

Pro-Choice Is Pro-Life

I usually try to avoid this topic. Everyone has a strongly-held opinion which is extremely unlikely to change. Bringing it up will only spur arguments and strain friendships.

And then there's Kermit Gosnell. If you haven't heard about this, well, I'm afraid I can't fill you in. His actions are abhorrent and make my stomach turn. Here is a link for background.

Many people will use this to argue that abortion is unsafe. Many will use this to argue that abortion shouldn't even be legal. The first step in this process is the soon-to-be-voted-upon HR 3 , or the Smith Insurance Ban. But before we go down that road, two arguments:

First, just because one person is willing and able to perform such atrocities does not mean that all providers are dangerous, ill-trained, or unconscionable. Imagine a dentist who has had a little education in another field, say obstetrics or some type of surgery. The dentist never completes the training, yet operates outside established legal parameters and performs these services on the cheap. Would the result of these actions be to call for a moratorium on this other field? Of course not. We'd all realize that one person's actions could not render an entire field of medicine dangerous. In fact, in nearly any other situation, the discussion of safety and legality wouldn't be broached.

But most importantly, this case highlights the need for safe, affordable abortion services for women. No matter what your stance on this debate, you surely would agree that keeping women alive and well is extremely important. Hmmm. Or maybe you don't. Well then, I would argue that, if abortion becomes illegal or inaccessible, cases like these will only increase. If women are going to search out abortion services no matter what the regulations are (and history tells us that they will), I believe that having a healthy woman is more important than creating a serious risk to her well-being or even her life.

The moral of the story: this case only highlights the need for legitimate abortion providers. Let's keep that in mind and not use this as an excuse to cut services. Let's not create an environment conducive to producing the next Kermit Gosnell.

Hey Facebook

This picture is OK with Facebook. So are advertisements with topless models.

(So is joining a group denying that millions of people died in the holocaust, or one that allows hate speech against overweight folks.)

Want to post a picture of a woman nursing her child? No way, says Facebook. A warning will be sent. Pictures will be deleted. Accounts have been suspended. “Exposed breast” violates Facebook's terms of use. But looking at the above photo, I have to ask “What constitutes an exposed breast?”

So people can't post pictures of themselves breastfeeding. Who cares? When you think about it that way, it doesn't sound so terrible. There are larger issues behind this small one, though, and that makes it a big deal.

First of all, it seems to be OK to post a topless photo (with no nipple) as long as it is for profit or explicitly sexual (or oftentimes, both). Somehow, nursing a child is disgusting but turning people on is not. This seems to be true in a larger context, as well. Hooters is fine, but feeding your child in a restaurant isn't. (Does this mean one can nurse freely at Hooters?)

Second, this reflects attitudes all over the real world. If this is a punishable offense on a private Facebook page or a breastfeeding group page, what does that mean for mothers in real life? Women are shamed for feeding their infants in public. Contrary to popular belief, mothers can't necessarily “plan ahead” (thank you, Bill Maher) because babies aren't yet capable of advance planning (“I should eat now because mom wants to go out and I might offend someone if I need to eat”). Perhaps folks can cover up, but who wants to eat under a sheet? (Maybe the adults who choose not to avert their eyes when offended could use a blanket as a cover up.) When using a sheet, the chances of having a peacefully nursing baby decline and having a fussy, noisy baby becomes an ever-likelier scenario. Obviously, averting your eyes is easier than plugging you ears while trying to eat. Is it because women are so sexualized that people seem to be unable to tear themselves away from something they claim to find repellent?

Being a mom means giving up a lot. It's hard to do anything- even grocery shopping or running errands- with a small child in tow. It seems nearly impossible to leave the house and not eventually have to feed your child in public. I suppose that could be avoided if you chose to feed from formula, but the benefits of breastfeeding to both mother and baby have been well-documented, and formula can be cost-prohibitive. You could pump ahead of time (if possible) or leave your child with a babysitter or with a partner every time you wanted to go out in public. But how many times per week do people need to leave the house? That seems like a fairly unrealistic plan for most regular people. Most importantly, women should not be forced to stay at home because someone else finds the act of feeding a child obscene. Mothers shouldn't be isolated. They, too, need to be social, go to restaurants, take their older children to play in parks and learn in the world outside the home. Anyone who believes that mothers and their children should be cloistered away because “that's what you get for having a child” needs to rethink things. Their mothers surely made immeasurable sacrifices so they can espouse their anti-family attitudes, which I find completely repulsive and simplistic.

In summary: Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene! If people don't like it, they can look away.

Drink the Spit

Your tax dollars, hard at work:

I Believe Anita Hill

Long time, no blog. Sorry, folks. Life gets busy, internet stops working. Doubts creep in. Is feminism really what needs to be at the forefront of our minds right now? Gay teenagers are being bullied into committing suicide in disturbingly high numbers. Climate change feels like a noose tightening around our neck. What good is a blog, for crying out loud?

Still, I knew I had to write after Virginia Thomas demanded Anita Hill's apology to her husband, Clarence. (She called this “an olive branch.” Hmmm.) Why, you ask, would such a thing wake me from a two-month, blog-free slumber? I was still a kid when the Clarence Thomas hearings happened, and it made a huge impression on me. It was more than just the first time I realized why there was a need for feminists; it was when I started identifying as one.

My thought process at the time went much the same as now: What does Anita Hill have to gain personally by doing this? People claimed she was “put up to it.” Maybe she was encouraged to speak up- but so what? The reward that Hill got for her bravery was vilification and accusation of falsification. And now Virginia Thomas has the gall to ask for an apology?!

No, no. Let me.

I'm sorry that this has been so painful for you, Ms. Thomas. Honestly, I can't imagine what you must have felt standing by a man who sexually harassed other women. I'm sorry that your drama played out on a public stage, and that back then, leaving your husband was even less of an option than it is today. I can't imagine the pressure you must have felt to stay and play the role of the trusting wife, to keep up appearances despite any doubts you may have held. Obviously, this ordeal has been stewing for 19 years, and for whatever reason, it boiled over a few days ago, resulting in the ultimate act of denial: asking for an apology from one of your husband's victims. It's a shame for you that you didn't get what you wanted. But I would be lying if I said I didn't cheer when I heard of her refusal to make your desperate action seem legitimate.

You want to know what really makes me feel sorrow? When women like Anita Hill are bold enough to take their harassers to task and garner nothing but disbelief. I'm truly sorry that you, like much of our world, don't seem to understand that there is nothing for these women but threats, name-calling and a small possibility of seeing the person who wronged them brought to justice. Do you and all the others who question the validity of a woman's statement every time she is attacked, abused or harassed, really believe that she wants to add to her misery? Do you think women enjoy that kind of attention? Or is it just too horrible to hear that such things can and do happen? I couldn't be more sorry that they do. I'm sorry that it's easier to live in a state of denial than to admit that, for as they say, admitting the problem is the first step. I'm sorry that you don't recognize just how brave women who stand up for their rights really are. It seems to me like a basic thing, freedom from harassment. I'm sorry that you, and so many others, have failed to recognize that.

I know that I don't need to say it, but obviously it hasn't been said enough: I still believe Anita Hill.

Sex in Public

I'm a little out of touch with popular culture, hence the reason I was “reading” an issue of Rolling Stone from June of 2010. And honestly, I was a little shocked. Until this wake-up call, I thought the avalanche of writings about sexualized advertisements was overdone. “Surely we're moving beyond that now,” I thought. “Yes, you see the occasional over-sexed ad, but things are getting better!”

Turns out I was wrong.

Everywhere you turn, the magazine is selling you sex- and something else that you could actually buy. Orbit gum “unwraps” both itself and its blonde model. TV show ads display women lounging in tight, cleavage-bearing dresses. Midway through the magazine, there is a series of ads for Absolut Vodka, featuring famous women in various degrees of undress. The crowning achievement is the ad for “Absolut Crush”, where Kate Beckinsale dons a tiny gold loin cloth and large gold high heels, towering sexily above a flimsy-looking city.

"Perhaps Rolling Stone is still a boys club, just as much of the music it covers is," I thought. But upon further reflection, I realized that most TV shows, advertisements, movies, and even book covers show women as sex objects. Even magazines marketed to women demonstrate this trend. Women are the attention-getters, wearing make-up and the latest fashions (or not wearing them, as is often the case). And apparently, wanting nothing more than to attract men. What else do these women want? We don't know. And that's a lot of the problem.

Important questions are raised by thinking about women in advertisement, such as how airbrushing can effect a women's psyche, how skinny models should be, or whether they make women feel pressure to wear make-up. But the question it raises most in my mind is this: when is it OK? As a person whose beliefs often align with third wave feminism (you may have noticed), I believe that we should encourage women to express themselves. Yes, sometimes sexually. But sometimes it just feels forced or disrespectful. Degrading.

Sexuality can be very powerful, and there is obviously more than one reason to strut one's stuff. But where is the line drawn? When does expressing yourself become detrimental? There's no real way to answer this for everyone, of course, and no way to know when it becomes exploitative for the individual involved.

For me, personally, stripping down to sell something seems like the first thing to avoid. You are shedding your identity and losing control of your image to someone else's gain. Perhaps it's partially that you can't really sell sexuality- though many advertisers seem to think you can, or at least, can entwine the sexual and the material in people's minds. But this goes beyond advertising. Gratuitous sex and nudity in movies and TV can often generate enough buzz to boost viewership. Virtually all pop stars are sexualized to help sell records. Or perhaps it's become so common that it's expected of women in mainstream music.

The flip side of this is that sometimes, on a smaller scale, this is how women make a living. Is stripping OK? Depending upon circumstances, perhaps. As Kathleen Hanna sang: “I can sell my body if I wanna/God knows you've already sold your mind./I may sell my body for money sometimes/but you can't stop the fire that burns inside of me.” Indeed.

Many questions can be asked of a woman in any situation that might call this issue into question. What are the reasons? Do you enjoy what you're doing? Do you feel obligated? Is it for attention (a common accusation)? It can be hard to tease all of this apart. Do women feel sexual in one way because that's how they've been socialized? Or is their brand of sexuality merely a reaction to the status quo? Is it possible to truly show the world who you are in a culture of media bombardment? No wonder so many women have decided to keep sexuality out of public life. It is so much easier in so many ways.

Somehow, even though women's sexuality is always on display, women aren't supposed to want to be that way. Wearing a short skirt garners accusations. Women's motives are called into question. If you are a teacher or a mother, it's even worse. Why is our culture scared of sexuality? This makes me think that women who want to should definitely be showing off. Perhaps we should take on the question of when public sexuality is appropriate or damaging.

It seems to boil down to control. If you are expressing yourself how you want, when you want, for the reasons you want, then it is OK with me. If you feel coerced, obligated, or uncomfortable, then perhaps it isn't the right circumstance.

Women can be sexy and still be in control. I'll use the example of a friend of mine. She owns low-cut dresses and leather boots, but wears pants just as often as not. Her sole motivation is not to be seen as sexy, though she isn't afraid to be cast in that light. She doesn't conform to society's ideas about sexuality all the time, but isn't hesitant to pick conventional ideas that also match her own. Even though she is neither a supermodel-type nor obsessed about looks, more men speak of her beauty and attractiveness than almost any other woman I know. Why? She's confident. She projects her sexuality without needing attention. And perhaps most importantly, she's being who she is. Her sexuality is for no one but herself. And that, dear readers, is hot.

(S)he Who Is Without Sin

It's been many weeks since I meant to write this. This is a delicate topic, so how to start?

By telling you the good stuff. I have many friends who are Roman Catholic or who resonate with Catholic beliefs in some way. They are amazing folks who lead incredibly helpful and loving lives. Their doctrines guide them. They make the world a better place. They are the best possible example of how religion can be enriching to both individuals and society at large. They are the embodiment of all that is positive about Catholicism.

Weren't expecting that, we're you? I'm not anti-religion or anti-spirituality. I would never question how a person's religious beliefs can and do benefit them. It seems to me like everyone could use some sort of personal spirituality, be it meditating, taking a walk in nature, or going to church. But that being said...

How could this go on for so long? So many children. Priests sheltered. We all know the story. The Catholic church dropped the ball in absolutely the worst possible way. I'll throw in a little trigger warning before saying it: These priests raped, molested, and abused children. Children. Precious few things in this world could be more terrible.

The argument about whether or not the church should have to answer to police and other authorities is a tricky one, but no matter what your stance, this much can probably be agreed upon: these acts were in no way compatible with Catholic doctrine. Why did these men get shelter rather than being instantly defrocked and put into rehabilitation? Why didn't the church step up and try to help these children rather than ignoring their complaints?

And now, folks, we come to the reason these thoughts have been placed on a feminist forum. The church finally made an official policy to deal with child molesters. Then in the same breath, they redoubled their efforts to condemn females. Both raping children and ordaining women were classified as grave sins against the church. The punishment for attempting female priesthood for both ordainer and ordainee? Excommunication.

So let me get this straight. Child molesters get defrocked and forgiven but women get excommunicated? Hmmm. One group has sexual relations with children (outside the bonds of marriage, I hasten to add), wrecking lives at a very young age. The other group tries to get more deeply in touch with their spirituality and their God, and to give back to their spiritual community. Which one would you forgive? And which would you excommunicate?

Perhaps the Vatican is just using some extremely poor distraction tactics. Otherwise... well, they didn't quite come out and say that female = bad. But they have implied that men who are willing to assert their sexual dominance over children are more worthy of becoming priests than women. Could they have possibly chosen a distraction that wasn't completely offensive, hateful, and baseless? Almost anything else would do. Seriously.

What exactly makes men and women so spiritually different that one can inherently be a leader and one cannot? According to many religions, all people have souls, no matter what their gender. How can anatomy get in the way of the spiritual development of a person? How can reproductive organs and hormones limit one's capacity to lead a congregation?

And here come the onslaught of Bible verses, proof positive. Look, don't even think about quoting the Bible to me. I can do that, too. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you've worn mixed fabrics (Lev. 19:19) or eaten shellfish (Lev. 11:10). Maybe you even built a fire on Sunday (Exodus 35:3). I'll give you some leeway if you're a snake handler (Mark 16:17-18) but otherwise, enough of your picking and choosing. We wouldn't do many things in the Bible today: stone people to death, sell our daughters into slavery, or commit genocide. Why are women still being kept down?

One can only hope for a schism. The old church can continue to stand for corruption and sexism if it wants. I wait for a branch of Catholicism which recognizes the innate spiritual capacity of all people.