Funny Girl(s)?

I read this examination of an article first posted in Guardian by Germain Greer on Salon.com. The post, "Women aren't funny, redux," by Kate Harding makes a great number of points in reference to the perceived humor diaspora between men and women. I'm copying a couple of passages I feel the need to address:

For men, "having a good sense of humor" is defined as being funny; for women, "having a good sense of humor" is defined as laughing at men's jokes.
I love this statement, because it sums up some of the more awkward moments in my history of relating to other people. I cannot hang with someone who doesn't get me. Men or women who can't laugh at me being funny (or thinking I'm being funny) are not likely to stay around. And heaven forbid, I have to spend time with someone else who finds themselves more humorous than I do. Blech.

"Quiz show Mock the Week usually invites one woman every other week or so, and every time I have been watching she has been eclipsed by the furiously competing six males who complete the cast of the show. Before she can get a word out, one or other of them will have snatched the microphone and gone riffing away on something he prepared earlier and has adjusted for the precise occasion." This, of course, has nothing to do with sexism, with how little our culture values women's voices, with men feeling entitled to speak while women have been trained to listen like good girls. It has nothing to do with the women being outnumbered 6 to 1 -- and we won't consider why that is in the first place, either. The problem is, "There is, after all, an element of trainspotting, of one-track-mindism in comedy that is alien to women." Oh yeah, and we're not competitive enough. Which is also totally not learned behavior.
There is so much wrong with the assumptions drawn in this passage, it's hard to know where to begin. First, why on earth would they have one female participant every other week and expect to see equal performance abilities? That's like being surprised when a male guest on the view gets that deer-in-the-headlights look. And when it comes to being "competitive," I can attest to playing on a sports team with men where I was knocked out of the way for the guys to make a play which may or may not have been better than the one I would have made. All this illustrates is that, sure guys may step in quickly, but that never guarantees that their contributions are more valid or effective. And, in my case, when I had put in the time and personally built my own confidence, I was able to step up and make my own well-reasoned plays. I think we are too quick to equate foolhardiness with competitiveness.

My final commentary on the post is one that the author didn't include. There are references made to comedy competitions and festivals and how these events include mixed audiences and that just goes to show that even women think men are funnier. But lets talk about real life. When it comes to expendable income and time, the typical scenario is that men choose to spend theirs in different ways than women. So when we look at sales and consumption of movies, dvd's, and cd's of comedy, I imagine that we would find much higher instances of of this spending by men. Thusly, if we follow the tenet that part of the humor of comedy is the ability of the audience to identify with the artist, it stands to reason that male comedians enjoy a greater proportion of success than female artists.

Anyway, I may just be tooting my own horn because I think I'm funny. But it seems like maybe more of us should start tooting to get the attention of those 'wild and crazy competitive guys.'

Federal tax tithing?

Faith-based initiatives.

What’s so wrong with grassroots faith-based organizations stepping up the plate and supporting the health, happiness, and well-being of those in the local community? Absolutely nothing is wrong with that concept. What is wrong, is the federal government setting aside an entire bureau to support such initiatives.

Tax monies paid to the government are payment for goods and services rendered. To be provided by the government they are paid to. I don’t donate money to the United Way and expect the roads to be maintained or my bank account to be insured. The federal government is uniquely suited to collecting large amounts of money and overseeing the distribution of said funds.

Imagine that a group of kids wants to build a tree house. They can each pitch in ten or twenty dollars. They give the money to a neighborhood parent. This parent decides to distribute the money to several friends who know a little about construction. Each is told that they are to assist in building a tree house. With no “general contractor,” each plans away and puts his or her small sum of money to use in purchasing supplies and constructing some part of the structure. What the kids might end up with is three ladders, a window, and maybe a few walls. When money is spread out, it rarely goes as far in purchasing goods or services. This trend and the desire of many Americans to put their money into bulk purchases is evidenced by the success of Sam’s Club and Costco. If your average citizen realizes that utilizing bulk economics is a reasonable way to stretch a dollar, why would the government, with its enormous purchasing power, choose to portion out tax dollars in what is the equivalent of buying toilet paper at a convenience store?

Another problem is the oversight of each of these mini spending sprees. That’s where we would end up with a tree house with duplicate ladders and no floor. Throughout the country, people have countless ideas about how to help each other. The issue comes in when there’s no coordination amongst all these people. When faith organizations work together within a community they can bounce ideas off each other and hopefully figure out how to put each of their skills to use in concert. When each of these groups is faced toward Washington D.C. for sustenance and some small amount of guidance, local events may be overlooked.

One last concern I harbor as a civil libertarian, is that I don’t feel that government should support any religious organization past the tax-deductions already afforded said organizations just as I don’t feel that faith groups should have to pay taxes in the event that the beliefs and actions of the government come in conflict with doctrine. When the government gives money to support faith-based initiatives, the government gives official credence to the groups backing the initiatives. What is my recourse if the government decides to disburse my tax dollars to a group that does not support my ideals and ethics? And what recourse is there when the government imposes regulations on the people a faith-based organization must serve or even hire? Both the federal government and faith-based groups tread a disastrously slippery slope when they become entangled.

I do believe that faith-based groups should be just as eligible to apply for grant money as any other not for profit organization. I don’t believe money should be set aside specifically for these groups when there are many offices already established to release and oversee grant funds. If these groups are as effective as our government would have us believe, they should be a shoe-in for grant funding and in no need of a specific bureau from which to receive money for public service.

Kid Rock is a Hero. Really?

I went to the movies today. I’m not going to bitch and moan about the barrage of commercials shown before the previews even start. I’m just going to express my seething distaste for one particular commercial.

First, this was one of those commercials-marauding as a music video. I’m sure you’ve seen them lately. They’ve been used to pitch sporting events, television shows, and car insurance. While these bursts of faux entertainment are annoying, the display I witnessed at the theater was nothing less than reprehensible. To set the stage: the two ‘stars’ of the video were Kid Rock and Dale Earnhardt Jr. We all know what a phenomenal musician he is. Then there’s the premise of the song. Kid Rock is singing all about being a hero and refusing to back down, no matter what the circumstances. Here’s the best part: the whole production was a shallow, mocking, ‘tribute’ to the National Guard.

I’m sure that some marketing genius did the math. Scruffy, free-living, Pamela Anderson dating ‘rocker’ plus Nascar legacy equals instant admiration from the type of people just itching to be recognized, perhaps by donning a uniform and likely being sent into one of the interminable battle zones the United States has laid claim to around the world.

I’m not sure which I find to be more insulting. Is it the obvious ploy for the affections of lower-middle class middle Americans by the use of pseudo-rugged ‘B’ list celebrities? Or is it the way that one of those so-called celebrities is claiming that he is some sort of civilian hero when the closest thing I’m sure he’s ever come to service is getting head from a groupie in the local ROTC?

I have no problem with the men and women serving in the National Guard. I think that they are an undeniable strength when the country is beset by disaster. I can’t help but admire someone who dedicates time and energy to training all year long. And when those people drop everything to serve within the United States and abroad, that is a selfish act I’m not sure I could match. But why would anyone think it’s appropriate to ply actual heroes with such a condescending attempt at entertainment bribery?