>>753214>Because it's shit. repeating an assertion does not make it true, nor does this substitute for a reasoned argument.
>Women do love dark humor but they're beaten into being eternal immaculate princesses by their male elders constantly.this is true, but for over a hundred years now, rebellion against this norm (which is progressive, and i agree women should do) has been endorsed by practically every other group of the wider society, among women themselves, and in popular culture; the same elders who try to enforce this princess caricature on women really can't do anything about it. the process is dialectical, the more that patriarchal elders (and right wing radicalized young men) try to force women to fit a mold, the more they will rebel. you may have had a point in the 19th century where women had no rights, but this is an antiquated argument in the 21st.
>Also, women are not really valued for their fertility as much as their beauty.first i must ask, valued by whom? by men? or by society at large? if you're talking about men, this is not entirely so, unless you're talking about pure sexual desire. many men value women for their minds even primarily. i dont see every woman i interact with as a sexual object, so why would i care about how she looks? why is it still assumed that i even care about her "worth"? i value what she has to say. even if i am interested in a woman romantically, again, i place less value on her physical body than i do on her mind because im not interested it spending time with someone i dont want to talk to. now, what about society at large? here you may have more of a point because women themselves uphold beauty standards as competitive strategies. not all of them of course, but most women agree that they put effort into presentation for their own sense of self worth, this worth of course being in relation partly to how she wishes to present, but also to how men and women see her. beauty standards are of course complex, but only in part of how a person views a woman, or women as a whole.
>If we only had hairy blobby she-ogres for cis women that were fertile vs nymp-like beauties whom are sterile, men would choose the latternot necessarily. many men prefer a sturdier woman to an etherial one. however, whatever men prefer has almost nothing to do with hitchens' point. his point is that western humor has a biological basis, in the sense that men are disposable and that women are not. women are the rightful judges of what is funny and what isn't, because some things just aren't funny, like a very small coffin. people as a whole are not as willing to make jokes about the female organs because of our inherent respect for the reproductive system, one where sperm is plentiful but wombs are not. same as we all feel an inherent necessity to protect babies and children, we feel a need to protect the structure that gives life to them, and to clothe it, so to say, in respect. with this in mind, women who want to break this taboo face an uphill battle, even among other women. not to say im against that, but i understand why it's difficult.
this leads once again to the original point, that the sublation of this cultural experience has led to younger people now having an increased respect for the sanctity of the sexual act, not out of religious dogman, but through a rediscovery of the dangers of the sexual act. the creation of life, and the environment necessary for the healthy upbringing of that new fragile life is inherently risky for all parties involved. we thought that the proliferation of contraceptives and abortion would make this a non-issue, but that turned out to be wrong.