Note: This isn't a diatribe against female comedians
There are some types of pervasive comedy that baffle me as much as internet memes do to the Silent Generation. Lousy Sunday morning cartoons along with their sibling; boomer political cartoons. Modern talk show hosts too, with what Ben Shapiro called 'Clauphter', which is comedians making statements to be agreed with rather than jokes .
A related form of subjective humor I haven't seen get much scrutiny is where the punchline is swapped with an emotional outburst, common with ordinary women. Example #1 (contrast with a similar Seinfeld scene) Example #2 . The comic would be fine if the emotive first-person narration was replaced with some gonzo journalism. There doesn't have to be some wordy technical breakdown[1]; those are just the two examples that came to the top of my head.
This could be stretched to include the demeanor of low IQ, neurotypical hoodrats (Ex: Onlyusemeblade occasionally did this shit way before he pimped out his alcholism); contrast with 50 Cent's Icebucket challenge). All style and social posturing/groveling, no meat and potatoes. Weirdos who compulsively monologue other peoples' and animals' actions fall into this category, think the "Honey-Badger don't give a fuck" video but without that dude's flair. Basic-bitch subjectivity and everyday social maneuvering is a zero-sum game, while objectivity is baking another pie.
-
Edit 1: Is anyone aware of a person or publication that critiques this 'quirky adult humor' of modern entertainment, as seen in my first example clip? The third answer on this arbritrary search result at least notices the general phenomenon of narcissistic "humour".
-
\1. Wordiness, however, is notoriously common with lefty memes
Women are inferior to men at every objectively measureable task and most subjectively judged tssks, including being funny.
My hypothesis is that their innate solipsism means they don't have the capability to fully focus on anything that isn't themselves.
Men can (sometimes) get laid by being funny.
Women can reproduce without effort.
Women are average, men are exceptional. Its how our genes work. They cluster around the average center, while men fan out to the extremes that average back to that center.
So any measure will have men on it, whether its legendary success or failure. Women won't even be worth noting because of their extraordinary averageness.
You don't need to hypothesize about them. The information is all available to anyone, you just need to unlearn the conclusions you were taught about that data from people trying to manipulate you.
Weak hypothesis. Humans would have bred that out of them if it were a hindering measure.
Women have eclectic desires, and eclectic defenses (unfortunately for a lot of history, that mattered in breeding humans), therefore, men who were varied bred more than men who weren't, since it allowed maximum bypassing of desires and defenses. As the gatekeepers, women did not need to diversify, since failing to meet the challenge of defense meant succeeding in the biological imperative of breeding, so the ones least likely to be extremes were more likely to breed, and to breed more, and to rear their young. Thus humans selectively bred themselves so that the females of the species were more or less static, while the males of the species needed to change themselves drastically for both intra and inter-gender competition.