A study of hyper-moronicity.  It seems that “researchers” have discovered that sexists (men, of course) who are exposed to humor that disparages women are less likely thereupon to donate money to women’s causes.  So this is evidence that sexist humor (against women, of course) tends to unrepress prejudicial behavior among sexists (men, of course).
Why the study didn’t bother to consider the effects of humor disparaging to men on women is not indicated in the article, but then again, men are seldom depicted as less intelligent or sympathetic than women in popular culture (marginal programs like The Simpsons notwithstanding), so there’s probably nothing there.
Just check out these caricacious weenie boys.
Oh, and fuck them if they can’t take a joke.
That’s good news, Dan. Taken together, these studies demonstrate that male hormones are at the root of sexism. We can break that cycle before it starts now that we know precisely where to sever it.
“the huge number of stereotypical and predictable responses he received must be indicative of an underlying biological phenomenon.”
From a study in Newcastle he is able to extrapolate across the globe. Bravo, Professor-I-Already-Have-My-Answer-Let-Me-Formulate-The-Question. Bravo.
The unicycle thing… obviously nothing can be determined about any response without doing the experiment again with a female riding the unicycle and seeing how the responses differ.
“It seems that “researchers†have discovered that sexists (men, of course) who are exposed to humor that disparages women are less likely thereupon to donate money to women’s causes.”
You mean like dinner, cab fare and condoms? I’ll agree. You have to pretend not to laugh at the funny jokes in order to get the snotty ones to go down on you.
Me, I blame it on breasts.
Facts explain nothing. Everything is explained by interpretations and theories. It is a fact that the subjects gave less to women’s causes after a round of disparaging humor. But the “researcher’s” explanation is peculiar.
They’re equivocating over the meaning of ‘discrimination.’ There’s a legal sense: unjust sex discrimination. But here the men are discriminating over donations. Perhaps, the disparaging humor allowed the men to more easily see the unjust distribution of funds which heavily favors women’s causes. Perhaps the humor allowed the subjects to overcome the irrational prejudice in favor of women’s causes.
I expect “researchers” to overlook that kind of interpretation of the facts.
Damn it, Kirk. I’m giving her all she can take. If I giver her any more she’ll blow.
It’s the vagina, Kirk. The vagina. Vagina. Va. Gina.
So, you’re a feminist, eh? Isn’t that cute.
I wonder if any of these organizations would be considered “women’s groups” by these savants.
nuanced.
I’m saving my money to help endow a chair in the Mens Studies Department at my alma mater if they ever have the courage to form one.
No, not hormones. It’s that stupid Y chromosome. If we can just eliminate that, humanity will be perfect. And it will fart less, or at least be less amused by it.
Male authors of the studies. Those perfessers must have been trying to get laid.
Have you checked out the women in academia lately? It’s no wonder the men are desperate.
Humor is genocide by other means.
I have a theory that if the exponents of PC were ultimately to gain control they would have to outlaw all humor because there is no humor that is not offensive to someone. These articles are further evidence in support of said theory.