About Humor: Boring People Vs. Sluts

I have noticed that a lot of women fall neatly into two convenient categories when it comes to taste in humor.

If a guy says a joke that is cheesy and corny, possibly with a lot of puns, the female will sniff in conceited disapproval (and in silly stuck-up-ness) and will say contemptuously, "Ohmigosh you're like so immature, why are men always so immature, Ohmigosh why can't men ever be serious for once?"  In other words, the female has no sense of humor.

But on the other hand, if a guy tells a joke that is rather offensive and disgusting towards women, a lot of women then chortle gaily.  I have seen too many women that laugh and titter and act like they are tooooootalllly cool with humor that is vulgar and demeaning towards women.

So why do females fall into these two categories?  They either have no sense of humor at all, or they have a disgusting sense of humor?  Rarely have I met a woman outside my own family who genuinely has a sense of humor for stuff that is actually funny.

I see a lot of the female "comedians" on cable channels and I gotta tell you, they are not particularly funny.  They are gross and vulgar and disgusting.

--
They are okay with demeaning women -- all in the name of entertainment.

Here's another thing I don't get.  Why is so much of entertainment like this?  Or more to the point, why do so many people defend entertainment using this exact argument?  That because it is borderline amusing or vaguely clever or it is entertaining, therefore it is perfectly okay?
What they are saying is that they think entertainment value is more important than politeness and taste.  A joke or an entire TV show or movie is disgusting and ___vile and vulgar___??  -- Oh who cares?  It is still entertaining, so we accomplished our goal.

I have seen so many editorials that defend movies that have no purpose other than to gross people out.  Why is mere entertainment such a big huge major important end goal?  Why does the suggestion of entertainment trump any and all other arguments?

They are opposing diametric sides of the argument.   Why does entertainment value carry bigger weight than the fact that this movie or whatever mode of conveyance is pretty nasty?

College Professors Are Silly And Unrealistic In Many Ways

Now that I have been graduated for a while, I see how college is even less relevant to real life that lies exterior to the inside of college's cushioning, buffering barrier.

Remember how I stated that many college professors are not very good at professing.  They might be noteworthy researchers and experts in their chosen fields/professions.  But this does not automatically mean they are good teachers.

My Madre and Padre and I were talking, and we figured out why.  Both of them are community college professors, each with prior work experience out in the field, who also have graduate degrees from traditional four-year universities. 

It is because the professors at traditional universities, many of which are research-based universities, are more concerned with impressing their fellow academics in their own intellectual peer group of researchers, etc. -- then they are concerned with whether their students learn the material.  Research is their primary objective, and teaching is only a vague wave-of-the-hand mention, a distant secondary objective.

There are some really negative outcomes that happen at traditional universities because of this.

1) This means -- that professors are probably preoccupied during class lectures.  They are distracted and do not care if students comprehended the material presented in class that day.  The professors do not explain concepts well.  They are not really concerned with wither students absorb the class course material.  Their research is the professors' very first priority, and students are merely a second priority.

This is in stark contrast to the professors at a community college.  The number one priority of a community college and of a vocational/technical college is the success of its students.

These colleges do not even have research divisions, which is a good thing -- because this means all professors can focus their energies, their resources, and their materials on the students' comprehension of the course subject.

Now, some professors might be privately working on their higher degrees while they retain their full-time job of professorship.  But the teaching and educating of students is still their first job.

2)  Here is a second really negative outcome of research-based univ that I am not sure a lot of people are aware of.  This one is bad because it is possibly the worst outcome.

Some professors are doing research in the topic of student comprehension.  Which sounds good in general theory -- until you realize that students are subjected to all manner of newfangled crap-assed educational hypotheses.  Many professors_-

This means that students are the experimental objects; students are the guinea pigs.  This is a horrible idea, and I'll tell you why.  If you don't know how graduate school research works, a person working on for PhDs and Master's must think of a novel, original, new topic to research.  So a person that is researching "student comprehension and education" has to think of an original new approach_

This is a terrible idea if the PhD researcher's approach to teaching is really crappy._____  This means that all those students of that particular professor suffered in their education.  The students suffered because they did not learn the current course's concept well, and they are set up to suffer in the future because they will not have the foundation and background needed to do well in future courses that build from this one.

Here is why this #2 is possibly the worst outcome.  Remember that I stated that college life is incredibly unrealistic and irrelevant to life outside the ivy-covered dorm rooms.

From what I hear, this is especially endemic in the liberal arts sectors.  There, students are hammered into and plastered with a mode of thinking that only political correctness is the correct way to approach life.  Students are lured into thinking that PC opinions are the most correct approach to life.
[[tricks and lures students into a false sense of security...,,, [in that students are churned out with the impression that this is how people think out in the real world.  Students are deceived into thinking that therefore, this is how things work in the real world.  Job searching, earning money, leasing an apartment.]]
Here is how it relates to that.

3)  Which leads back to the very first point I made.  This is a weird chance occurrence that happens to be true for a disturbingly large number of traditional college professors.  A person might be an excellent professional in their chosen field -- well-versed, knowledgeable, expert.

But this does not automatically mean they are magically good at teaching.  It does not mean they are necessarily good at imparting that knowledge to another person who is a beginner in the subject, i.e., to a student.  Many people that are probably great researchers and great at communicating with fellow academic researchers -- are actually terrible teachers.  I think a lot of people might have already guessed this one.

Shaking Myself Awake From The Haze That Is Liberalism

*all those long, winding, endless languid musings on general dissatisfaction and disagreement with liberal platitudes in general.  such as, reward everyone equally even if they don't do equal amounts of work.

Look.  Women and racial minorities, yes, I absolutely agree, deserve and demand equal rights and fair treatment.  I'm in both camps, of course I think women and racial minorities should be treated equally and respectfully, parallel to treatment of whites and men.

However, that is where my political correctness ends.  Everyone else is fair game.  Everyone.

Okay, white women, or black men, or black women.  but what if someone from some trailer park is born and afflicted with some mental disease that does not allow them to work at the same pace and produce the results at the same rate as Asian women?  what if someone is a member of a very strict religious sect that disallows them from using protractors-- but this person is an engineer?  what if someone is afflicted with some heart condition that causes them to wheeze and spew and lose their breath if they think too hard?  what if some die-hard environmentalist is hell-bent on the belief that working hard destroys the environment?  well, fat cookies.

People of different race and/or either sex, yes absolutely should be allowed.  excluding people of different race or sex is discrimination.  it is racism, plain and simple.

But then the excuses started.  the so-called disabilities started springing up like superweeds everywhere, personally tailored to whatever convenience was fitting at the moment.  to addressing-slash-inventing whatever neurosis would smooth a situation over for a person.  (would do a little favor )

•I have attention deficit disorder.
•My peanut allergy prevents me from working too hard.  or else my skin implodes.  my skin overheats and melts.
•I have dyslexia.
•I have a medical condition that states that I am unable to concentrate too hard, and also I have a very short attention span.  therefore you, my educators, employers, and supervisors MUST not hold me to the same standards as everyone else.  you know, because it is a medical issue, it's not my fault.
mommy and daddy didn't pay enough attention to me.
•These drugs magically flew into my bedroom while I was sleeping at night and surreptitiously nested themselves into my circulatory system while I was scrupulously diligently studying for my political science exams.
•I grew up in the ghetto and therefore I do not know a lot of these vocabulary words.  the SATs discriminate against me.
•I have a medical condition that causes me to fall asleep any time I am bored.
•I have a right to express myself and I have the freedom and the choice to not work hard and/or to try to reach the same goals to which shallow people aspire who want to be validated by superficial thinks like college degrees and work [[quarterly goals]]] and if you deny my that right then you are denying my right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech and you are preventing me from being a strong capable person in charge of my own life.
•My allergies cause me a lot of stress and therefore I am unable to work as hard as other people.
•I am fat and therefore have slow metabolism, therefore it's hard for me to keep up the pace and quality of work that everyone else can handle.  it's not my fault.

Look at this parody news story from Bogus News Network, "Not a Single 'F' Student Has Ever Been Accepted at Harvard University."  A lot of people will probably read this and say, "ohmigosh that is like so totally untrue."

Please do not play dumb and pretend you have no idea what I'm talking about simply because you have not heard the exact quotes I supplied above.  just because you have not seen these exact same examples that I used, does not mean you are clueless to what I'm talking about.

College Is Silly And Unrealistic In Many Ways

I have heard casual, tossed about complaints from time to time that that college does not have a whole lot to do with real life.

"College" is accused of being a specially constructed little enclave that shields middle-class white kids from having to deal with the real world; it is essentially allowing teenagers to have an extended adolescent experience of pampering and sheltering; it is just allowing them to live in an enmeshed cocoon that mimics the *privileges* of living in Mom and Dad's house, food, room, and board included -- with none of the responsibilities, such as cleaning and chores.  This lasts until age 22, or maybe 23 or 24 or 25 if the kid is really lazy.

I know there are tons of other bad and unrealistic influences in a kid's life, such as hollywood/media.  But I would like to focus on the universities.

These nonchalant mentions are mostly by the grace of rednecks who could not afford to go to four-year college, come from a long line of not-college-attendees, and went to vocational school to learn a useful employable trade instead.  But this observation is nonetheless very intriguing.  Academia is mostly irrelevant to real life, and as such it does very little to prepare kids for the real world.

The colleges themselves are never heard to make these declarations for obvious reasons.  Weirdly enough, a lot of political talking heads also constantly thump the notion that college is absolutely essential to anyone who wants to grow up.

Now that I have graduated and finished with college and I have been working, I realize how even more irrelevant a lot of college is to real life.

I already knew this truth held forth for any given liberal arts major.  Any of the social studies, the visual and performing arts, the humanities, etc. are essentially crap.

It is very odd that four-year colleges and universities do not have job placement services.  What do the universities think the kids are supposed to do with those degrees once the mortarboard is on their heads and the sheep vellum is in their hands?

That higher academia seems to be of the mindset of, "It's not our problem if the kid can't get employed.  We did our job by teaching the kid whatever the hell crap major he/she picked.  We just want the kids' parents' money.  We don't care if the kid gets any realistic benefit for finishing the degree."

Well, now, I still think what I thunk before.  That is mostly the kid's own fault for choosing a crap major that will not net him/her a job.  Seriously, what did these kids think they were going to college for, if not for a job?

---
The college thinks it is soo very smart making students dig and delve for deeper meaning in poetry, hike the mountains of philosophy, and go spelunking into the caves of modern art.

-But colleges do not teach students what to do if someone is having a heart attack.
Call 911?
It would take an ambulance at least two minutes to get to a heart attack patient.  And in a life or death situation such as this, absolutely no time can be spared.  Milliseconds count.

-Colleges do not have a required course on managing personal finances.  Retirement account?  How is an IRA or a 401k calculated, accumulated, assessed, etc.?  Colleges should include a course on practical personal finances, and should require this as part of the first two years of general education.

I learned all of this from my parents and some on my own by reading a lot.  But most college kids do not have the wherewithal to do their own research.

Actually, full confession.  I feel it is a better idea if high schools include in their curriculum a course on personal finances.  Forget waiting until college to arm kids with this knowledge.  Kids need to know this info *before* graduating from high school.  I already had this opinion way back when I was in high school myself.

If kids are going to be of legal voting age, and most are going to be thusly upon entering college, then they need to already be armed with this vital knowledge.

-Mortgages, credit card
-How is your credit score calculated by each of the three major credit reporting bureaus?
-Continuing on the personal finances, colleges do not teach kids exactly how utility bills are calculated.  How is electricity usage calculated?  How is water usage calculated?  WHOO exactly provides these amenities?  The only answer we hear all the time is that the "city" provides these utilities.

(Crickets chirping.)  The city is not a physical entity.  Try again.

Um, the electric cooperative?  The city water tank?  Okay, that's a start.

How exactly are your taxes spent?  We know vaguely that money is allocated to public schools in the city districts.  We know the police station___ public library.

Now, the obvious objection to all of this will pop up -- namely, that none of this is the college's job.  It is all the responsibility of the kid who is of college age to find out how to manage their own life, including their own personal finances.

Hmm.  Isn't that interesting?  This simply rounds about to my very original query.  If "college" does not provide any of this practical, useful information for real life, then let me repeat.  What is the point of kids being obligated to attend college?
---
I just realized that colleges have a very good reason for not teaching their students about how loans and credit history work.  Colleges pointedly, purposely have a specific agenda not to teach kids about personal finances, financial responsibility, and frugality.  First of all, if you don't know me by now, you should know that I am somewhat pessimistic and I am always suspicious.  I always scrunch my nose and my eyes and I start sniffing around for an ulterior motive.

The truth is that if colleges really did teach students about personal financial responsibility including loans and credit history, it would most likely result in something against the colleges.  The first thing students of this discipline would do is shake themselves awake from the hypnotic haze and think, "Wait a minute.  Why am I borrowing all these tens of thousands of dollars, screwing my credit history down the sewer, especially for a crap liberal arts degree that will not translate into any useful skills in real life?"

[[it is a horrible tactic]]]

I know I'm pinpointing colleges/universities, and there is a good reason for this.  I am purposely holding the universities to a higher standard than that of pop culture garbage.  Pop culture, entertainment, holywood is simply that-- garbage.  I do not expect anything to emerge from there that is remotely useful or relevant to the human experience.  Those are socially reprehensible and morally bereft of any usefulness.

Universities, on quite the other hand, were established for the express purpose to be a pillar of civilization.  They are meant to be one of the few supportive structures upon which humanity rests.

They have been established for the ultimate purpose of upholding standards of decorum and of cognitive fortitude, stretching and expanding the horizons, all that good stuff.  They are supposed to be bastions of education, fount of knowledge.  They are supposed to be the guardians of wisdom, morality, of truth.