Analysis of "Why Women Aren't Funny" by Christopher Hitchens

In my opinion, Christopher Hitchens wrote his overtly controversial article “Why Women Aren’t Funny” in order to bring to light the fact that, in general, the female sex is not immediately linked with the characteristic of humor. As Hitchens said in the beginning of his article, a male does not typically think of finding a female counterpart based off her natural ability to make him laugh. Because it is majorly aggressive, pre-emptive, and controversial, humor does not seem to set well with the publics’ consensus that the female sex is naturally thoughtful and nurturing. Undoubtedly, Vanity Fair is mainly known as a female magazine that stays faithful to traditional values of women. A feminine activist who rides a motorcycle to work and wears oversized t-shirts would most likely not be caught dead reading the latest issue of Vanity Fair. As a rhetor, Hitchens chose a great audience because they typically believe that there are intellectual, emotional, social, and cultural differences between men and women. The exigence of his article was to highlight that humor is more idealistic in men because of women’s values.
Hitchens effectively used a combination of logos, ethos, and pathos to support his claim that humor is not as socioculturally important to women as it is to men. He first appeals to logic and underlines his credibility by highlighting a Stanford University School of Medicine study that revealed that a woman’s brain is more stimulated by humor than a man’s. Secondly, Hitchens suggests that because humor is a sign of intelligence and aggressiveness, the delicate female race are arguably frowned upon for using it. Overall I believe Hitchens was trying to stress that, although equality is often the goal between sexes, it is a cold, hard fact that men and women have different socioculutral expectations. It is their roles as members of society of those expectations are acceptable or not.

Grant-Davie: Discussion and Journaling Questions

2. Other writers (Bitzer, Vatz, Cosigny) have tried to explain the concept of the rhetorical situation before. Why does Grant-Davie think more work is needed?
Although both teachers and scholars of rhetoric consistently refer to the term rhetorical situation, the concept has proven to be underexamined since 1968 when Lloyd Bitzer defined it and the 1970s when Richard Vatz and Scott Cosigny responded to Bitzer’s claims. Due to Bitzer’s, Vatz’s, and Cosigny’s varying opinions behind the true meaning of rhetorical situation, English professor Keith Grant-Davie believes that the original definitions of the term and its constituents need to be analyzed in order to develop a more in-depth scheme for analyzing rhetorical situations. Grant-Davie truly believes that the true meaning behind rhetorical situation is a mixture of the theories all put forth by his scholarly predecessors and wishes to provide a compounded definition to a new, ever-changing age.

3. How would you define exigence? Why does exigence matter in rhetorical situations? (What difference does it make?)
Personally, I would define exigence as a problematic case or situation that is expected to be solved in an urgent and orderly manner. In rhetorical situations, exigence is extremely significant because it provides purpose and motivation to the discourse. Undoubtedly, individuals listen to discourse in order to benefit information or viewpoints from its contents. Without an exigence within the discourse, the discourse would lack a topic, purpose, or goal. Consequently, the discourse would have no significance because it has no problem to address or resolve.

How does your second, more-informed reading of Haas and Flower compare to your first reading?

Without an unquestionable doubt, my second, more-informed reading of Haas and Flower was extremely beneficial to my understanding of the text. Ironically, as Haas and Flower highlighted in their study, I began reading their analysis with the intent of extracting pure, unsaturated knowledge and facts so that I could contribute to an in-class discussion of the material. Using the reading strategies I’ve been taught throughout my schooling, I searched for the main points of the study so that I could paraphrase and summarize its content. Unfortunately, traditional schooling usually centers around the importance of factual information and not making parallels and understanding intent.
However, while discussing Haas and Flower during class, an imaginary light bulb arose above my head when I realized that I was selling myself short by conforming to traditional reading skills and not using the critical reading skills that I am surely capable of. Although I did not realize it during my initial reading, I was fulfilling Haas and Flower’s stereotype as an “average good reader.” Through this realization, however, I quickly transformed into the critical reader that they continually push young adults to be. Rather than scavenging for facts, I related the reading to my own academic abilities and realized that the implementation of critical reading skills is truly useful in understanding the author’s purpose and recognizing the issue at hand. Recognizing the author’s purpose allows a reader to better follow their message as their eyes soak in the text. Haas and Flower were correct—critical reading skills put texts into a different, more mature perspective. Although the text was not intended for a young audience, I was still able to recognize the issue and try to apply the solution to my life. I am hoping that by the end of this course, my rhetorical strategies will prove dominant over the black-and-white methods that have previously been instilled in me. Toto, we’re not in high school anymore.

After my initial reading of Haas and Flower, I have some questions.

1. Throughout their experiment, did Haas and Flower take into account that their interpretations of their subjects’ interpretations may have an effect on their results?
2. Have Haas and Flower considered that the geographical location of a student may have a lot to do with their study? For example, a student from Maine is likely to have a different interpretation of a text than a student from California would because their worldviews, opinions, beliefs, and prior knowledge are most definitely products of their separate environments. Isn’t it also likely that schooling plays a vital role in this study because schools in different geographic locations are likely to hold different standards of reading comprehension?
3. Do “early transactions” occur when readers analyze all forms of text—i.e. fictional novels, magazines, etc.—or merely with multi-dimensional writings?
4. When do “rhetorical reading skills” seem to develop in a “typical” student? Do motivation and a thirst for knowledge often serve as the unofficial prerequisite of rhetorical reading?