Book Review: "Arguably" by Christopher Hitchens (Pt. 3)

This section opens with the essay Why Women Aren't Funny and is not about what you think it's about. Rather than stating that women aren't funny (an approach taken by many a misogynist, but not by actual men who are fans of women like Lucille Ball and Lauren Bacall), Hitchens states that men are simply more childish about humour. He references tests done and results achieved to show that women use more of their brains when examining humour whilst men would rather simply fill the silence when laughing at a joke regardless of whether it is actually funny.

Men are also more grotesque in their humour, more likely therefore to laugh at things at a woman's expense such as childbirth and rape. These things, as they are done to women and usually cause great pain and burden, are not funny. I have to agree with Hitchens here because more than often I find myself not finding the average male comedian funny. I say average rather than all because there are men who can be witty, rather than the Jimmy Carr style of funny which turns out to be rather gross, annoying and gets old very quickly. But I think I would still need to deep-dive into this to fully understand the realm of humour. I'm not the laughing type, as you probably know.

In another essay I enjoyed entitled The Ten Commandments, Hitchens covers why the 10 Commandments of the Bible are a wholly bad way to live your life if you actually want to commit to thinking for yourself. He also explores the irony of faith as depicted by each in detail - mainly that one must be incited with reward, or scared with punishments in order to commit to them. Honestly, I often find this quite funny about the commandments as well - they are set up to follow as genuine rules for morality and then, because some of them are so outlandish they must explain themselves.

The question about motive as well is clear, Hitchens makes sure that the reader understands that in some cases, it seems as though God himself doesn't even understand the commandments he gives to the people and so, this makes it all the more confusing. Asking us 'not to swallow our morality in tablet form', Hitchens ends with the point that not only are women treated like part of the property, but objective morality when it's basis is religion tends to be like when we off-load learning to a chatbot. It is a dumb idea for everyone involved.

For those of us who remember when he was alive, Hitchens always took a hard line against the concealment of Muslim women's faces in public spaces. This was not because he was anti-Muslim, but because he believed that it should be a woman's right to show her face and to wear what she pleases regardless of whether it fits a man's perspective. He outlines that women are often subjugated by religion to do as men say even if the book on which that religion is based says nothing of a sort and such rules have been made up by fake-authority figures along the way.

He references the French who banned the female face-covering clothing in public spaces, but also refers to government buildings all over the world before this where we would know, face and head coverings are usually met with disdain. He makes the statement that even in religious autocracies like Iran, women are only legally subjected to wearing a head covering, it is the western world in which women walk with the face covering most often. I find that interesting and yet, also quite disturbing for the women involved.

Do I agree with Hitchens here? It's odd. I would say if you were going to write it into law, it would have to worded in a way which would not attack a singular group of people so it would have to be careful. If you were going to ban one, you'd have to ban them all. Atop of this, I don't think I like the prospect of men talking about this amongst themselves.

On the whole, Hitchens may add to the conversation, but he doesn't help it. He is still a privileged man talking about what a woman should and should not be wearing. I would do it this way: let the women have the public vote on whether to ban it and do the vote entirely anonymously. Then you will have a real result without the input of men.

But Hitchens also makes the argument that these face coverings are not, as many pseudo-intellectual netizens have reported, used to conceal criminals, but rather are used to conceal domestic abuse scarrings or bruisings committed on a woman's person. I would have to say from my knowledge, he is correct and I don't want to look like I'm policing anyone's words - but we still have to be careful about what they are. Cover all bases, but also make sure women of all religions and ethnicities are included and protected at all costs.

As we move on to the next section entitled Offshore Accounts, I would like to say how much I'm actually enjoying this book. If you know me you will also know how much I love reading Christopher Hitchens and watching his lectures. If you haven't heard him speak already, I suggest you go and check out his stuff on YouTube.