Austin Improv

kbadr wrote:In fact, I would argue that men have historically relied on their power and wealth to attract a female, and their looks weren't valued nearly as much.

I'm of the opinion that Power and Wealth are just deranged cousins of Pretty-ness.

All the fluff, all the feathers, all the fancy struts of the male animal are to prove to the female that they are the BEST, that their seed is strong, that the children will be strong

But considering that in the wild many animalmoms have to go it alone after conception, you'd think that males flaunting wealth and power (as opposed to strong genes) don't hold the same appeal... but then again, human beings can think abstractly-human females can recognize patterns and think long-term future, they want not only pretty fancy genes but also promise of post-birth stability.

thus is the human male's "pretty" factor often overlooked in favor of power and wealth.... but they aren't the same. superCEO man's wife still cheats with the ethnic pool boy, or at least she does in soap operas. superCEO man thought that just by being the provider he no longer had to think about anything else, he no longer had to be nurturing or sensitive or funny, etc etc

blah blah
eat
sleep
fuck
bite each other

There have been many studies showing that female primates (chimps for example) align and offer themselves to the CEO chimp but often "cheat" with younger more physically "attractive" pool-boy chimps as well. My guess is that both sexes are attracted to physical attributes such as hip to waist (women) and waist to shoulder (male), strong chins, full breasts, facial symmetry, but that the higher primates seem capable of planning and plotting a little to make sure their young a) get conceived and b) survive.

If you ask me the bonobos got it mostly right. I don't know how funny they are though.

kbadr wrote: I'd like to make some statement regarding women being 'nicer' and more compassionate, but then I remembered that girls are pure evil to each other in middle school and high school. Maybe they move beyond humor and onto the juicy shit that can do actual serious psychological damage.

It gets back to that appropriateness thing. Men tend (and this is a generalization) to duke it out and get over it. Perhaps comedy and zing! humor is a type of fighting/besting such as yo mama jokes or whatever, women learn this weird and difficult communication style which can be complicated and mean and we form ridiculous alliances (in high school for example) and don't duke out differences. It isn't socially appropriate for middle school girls to engage in a fist fight or a standup-fight, but it is appropriate to write up a slam book and gossip. At least it wasn't in the 80's.
I don't know. My boys are 6 and 3 and they duke it out and are best friends and tell fart jokes seconds later. I remember far more angst with girl cousins and friends.

arthursimone wrote:I'm of the opinion that Power and Wealth are just deranged cousins of Pretty-ness.

All the fluff, all the feathers, all the fancy struts of the male animal are to prove to the female that they are the BEST, that their seed is strong, that the children will be strong

you should be a biologist. you're quoting classic sexual selection arguments right and left.
sometimes animalmoms that go it alone after conception mate with pretty men just so their sons will be pretty and fool women into mating with them, etc. they like pretty because it's fashionable. it's called the sexy sons hypothesis. sometimes the pretty males are pretty to prove they have good genes that their offspring will get. they like pretty because it means better babies. this is the good genes hypothesis.

i think the question we have to agree on first is: what is the purpose of humor? what is the end for which humor is the means?

i believe it goes back to power at the end of it. an easier way for a woman to be powerful is to use her body. an easier way for a man to be powerful is to use his brain (smart, funny). if you think humor is about something different, you may disagree with my hypotheses. let's keep our levels of analysis straight.

deroosisonfire wrote: i think the question we have to agree on first is: what is the purpose of humor? what is the end for which humor is the means?

Some food for thought.....starting with why and how we laugh. Bonding, trust and power all come into play according to these articles.

http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... id=4246393
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077386/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/laughter.htm

Women aren't funny because Del Close said so and Keith Johnstone agreed.

Nuff said.

York99 wrote:Women aren't funny because Del Close said so and Keith Johnstone agreed.

Nuff said.

Then why is it that Charna Halpern is still allowed to write books about how to be funny? (and name drop)

EskimoSpy wrote:Then why is it that Charna Halpern is still allowed to write books about how to be funny? (and name drop)

Because she speaks the word of Del. Who was a man. See, a dead man is still funnier than a living woman.

EskimoSpy wrote:Then why is it that Charna Halpern is still allowed to write books about how to be funny? (and name drop)

Fucking Christ. Is there some Austin Improv Law that says everytime we allude to "Truth in Comedy" we have to accuse Charna of name dropping? Can't we just shut up about this already?

are you trying to tell me that Vanity Fair isn't a credible source for social analysis??



oww, my world.

Jastroch wrote:Is there some Austin Improv Law that says everytime we allude to "Truth in Comedy" we have to accuse Charna of name dropping? Can't we just shut up about this already?

Yeah, okay.

Jastroch wrote:

EskimoSpy wrote:Then why is it that Charna Halpern is still allowed to write books about how to be funny? (and name drop)

Fucking Christ. Is there some Austin Improv Law that says everytime we allude to "Truth in Comedy" we have to accuse Charna of name dropping? Can't we just shut up about this already?

Ummm. I think that's the first time EskimoSpy ever posted anything about Charna Halpern (who name drops a lot).

I think humor is something men discovered as a way to avoid talking about things they feel uncomfortable with.

"Honey, where do you think our relationship is going?"
Insert joke here

"Honey, shouldn't you exercise more and eat less?"
Insert joke here.

"Austin community, let's talk about gender and improv"
Insert sexist joke here.

Sincerely,
humorless woman.

nadine wrote:I think humor is something men discovered as a way to avoid talking about things they feel uncomfortable with.

When precisely did man discover humor?

more importantly, what was the first joke?

Jastroch wrote:

EskimoSpy wrote:Then why is it that Charna Halpern is still allowed to write books about how to be funny? (and name drop)

Fucking Christ. Is there some Austin Improv Law that says everytime we allude to "Truth in Comedy" we have to accuse Charna of name dropping? Can't we just shut up about this already?

Charna and Jastroch sitting in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G...