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.