Wait, what? What on earth does someone's reaction to a unicyclist have to do with being funny? And why are aggressive, mocking comments being equated with humor? That logic makes men who harass female bypassers absolutely hilarious. *headdesk*

"..male comedians outnumber female ones"

I wonder why. Hint: it's not cause women aren't funny.

ps. Wanda ROCKS.

I was laughing through the whole article but this paragraph really capped it for me:

"He suggested men might respond aggressively because they see the other unicycling man as a threat, attracting female attention away from themselves."

Right. Unicycle riders are attractive to women. Uh-huh. I know I can barely contain myself around clowns since just the suggestion that a unicycle might make an appearance is enough to get me going.

What a bizarre study. So aggressive, mocking, insulting comments are "funny"? Not all humor comes from making others the butt of jokes. Also...how does an observational study like this prove anything related to testosterone? It just showed that men, in an uncontrolled, unrepresentative situation, were more likely to be rude, not funny. Also, I gotta agree with SamBarge - who thinks unicycling is attractive?

I detest flippant nonsense-science masquerading as fact especially when it's controversial conclusion is not at all evident from the data obtained. You'd think as someone who generally does actual research (from what I can tell), he would not publish a popular science article so devoid so complete divorced from the scientific method. From what I can tell all that he proved is that men verbally assault male unicycle riders. What a thrilling find.

wow. that is really bad science. Did he think that through AT ALL? I also love that all male behavior is attributed to testosterone. People never do things because they are socially expected.

my favorite part was when he classified "Lost a wheel?" as a "subtle and sophisticated joke."

I liked that part too, harlem. It's HILARIOUS.

I heart Wanda. Anybody who thinks men are funnier than women clearly have not seen any of her shows. I don't understand the value of studies like this. What do they accomplish, other than to divide people and stir up shit? Men are funnier. Men are better at math. Women like to shop because their cavewoman ancestors were the gatherers. Please. I'm funny. I'm good at math. And I hate to shop. Bite me, unicycle boy.

this is not a "study" (even in the loosest of interpretations), this is an opinion. More, it is a joke in itself.

This part had me laughing out loud: "'The idea that unicycling is intrinsically funny does not explain the findings,' said Professor Shuster."

Explain what findings? That men are more likely to heckle another man riding a unicycle? I'm honestly clueless as to what was proven.

So this professor just proved to the world that he's an idiot.

But why does she leave it in a shoe box? Don't women keep dummy heads on the dresser for their wigs? ;-)

What a clown.

Haha, get it? It's totally because I'm a guy and naturally blessed with "the funny".

Sigh......

I think j.helene that it proves within statistical limits that Professor Sam Shuster has significantly too much time on his hands.

I think j.helene that it proves within statistical limits that Professor Sam Shuster has significantly too much time on his hands.

Or that the research expectation of his tenure is much much too low (well assuming he's tenure tract)...

Maybe the whole 'study' is just an elaborate joke...

Hey, everyone, calm down. This article was a joke. I just skimmed through the journal it came from, and it looks like doctors are having a little year-end fun. In fact, if you read the article, you'll see that the author has retired and is just playing around with his free time.

Actually, many academic journals publish a few joke articles towards the end of the year, because academics tend to be geeks like that. (Trust me, I'm halfway through grad school, and I never thought I'd find stats jokes funny until I got here. Now I do, dammit!)

Really, I was disappointed in the BBC for reporting this as if it were an actual study, when 6 seconds of googling disproved that for me. Sure, it's a provocative headline, but it's only contributing to the confusion over real quality science and, well, crap science.

Yeah, doctors having a joke in the BMJ, and even professors with weird ideas, are one thing. The real annoyance here is BBC News's uncritical science reporting. I love the BBC dearly, but their news editors seem to believe anything claiming to be a scientific paper, even when it's only a thinly-disguised press release.

"Hey, everyone, calm down. This article was a joke."

Hey, I knew that! Or I would have if I'd read it. Anyway, any excuse for that terrific clip of Wanda! :-)

Wow, I can't believe the BBC reported on it...

Does anyone have a link showing the piece is a joke? Cause when I googled it, it's coming up EVERYWHERE as a real story...sad.

I just Googled it and everything I saw treated it like a serious study, with no indication that it was at all meant to be a joke, or tongue-in-cheek.

Next stop: GALLAGHER CONCERT, you shrill, humorless harpies!

Yeah, read similar nonsense before.

Christopher Hitchens had an article in Vanity Fair in Jan 2007 spewing essentially the same thing.

Vanity Fair article here

And it's funny how they'll try to link this to some "research" from some big name school (in this case, Stanford) to lend the point of view some credence.

If I saw him, I would jeer "What business does a dermatology professor have doing research into comedy and gender?"

Read the bio at the bottom of this page.">http://spiked-online.net/Articles/0000000CACD1.htm>page. It's quite a coincidence if Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital employees two Sam Shusters. In any case, google tells me that there are no particularly notable Sam Shusters.

I want a detachable pussy....

@norbizness:

...followed by a "Three Stooges" marathon!

Actually taking a second look, eclectica33 appears to be correct. If you go straight to the horse's mouth. The article appears to be light, jokish, and sarcastic.

I think the only news here is just how bad mainstream reporting of science news really is.

A science editor who fails to distinguish between actual science and a silly gag piece should be sacked.

hee hee hee hee hee. That's hilarious.

This is my favorite joke publication from the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Feminists AND scientists have a sense of humor :-). There is actually a whole series of them now.

Psychopharmacology of Lycanthropy

Davis WM, Wellwuff HG, Garew L, Kydd OU.
Orphan Drug Research Institute, Jefferson, Miss.

OBJECTIVE: To develop pharmacotherapies for the orphan disease lycanthropy through the pursuit of the etiologic hypothesis of a genetically determined hypersecretion of endogenous lycanthropogens. DESIGN: Quadruple-blind, Rubik's Cube matrix analysis. SETTING: Community practice and malpractice. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects selected from inbred Ruficolla populations in Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina and Minnesota. All who entered the study finished it. INTERVENTIONS: Chemical screening of blood samples over a hypothesized secretory cycle of lycanthropogen peaking on the day of maximum lunar illumination. Administration of synthetic lycanthropogens for behavioural testing. Experimental lycosomatization through the illumination method of Kirschbaum. OUTCOME MEASURES: None were post hoc, but some are still in hock. MAIN RESULTS: Two putative lycanthropogens were isolated from the blood samples. Structural elucidation and synthesis permitted animal and clinical trials; in each of these, behavioural dysfunction was observed. Antilycanthropogen strategies included application of the principle of caged compounds and generation of a therapeutic immunoglobulin. The effects of a newly developed antihirsutic agent seemed promising. An interaction of the lycanthropogen-secretion system and ethanol was noted, which may explain behavioural aspects of alcoholism. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of lycomania in North America is underestimated. Soon-to-be-available pharmacotherapies should promote its early detection and treatment. Full control may depend upon advances in gene therapy.

*Lycanthropy means turning into a werewolf.

Thought I'd come out from my lurking days to affirm the comments here that say the article is a joke. In fact, the entire issue is a joke. A quick look at the current issue vs. the archived issues indicates such. (As a university science student who has had to read MANY peer-reviewed journal articles, the subtle and not-so-subtle jokes in this holiday issue are actually quite entertaining!)

This piece is published alongside "Excuse Me! The Etiquette of Sneezing in Surgical Masks," which states that "Although standard teaching dictates surgeons MUST FACE THE WOUND when sneezing, tests by the authors found no significant numbers of droplets passing behind the head of the subject." Clearly a joke.

There's also a literature review about the heritability of magical powers as indicated in the Harry Potter novels. Also, clearly a joke. The Sam Shuster piece falls in line with these. The whole premise and methods published in his article indicate to anyone knowledgeable about science that it is intentionally "bad" science.

So really, any jabs at Sam Shuster are unfair. It's mainstream media reporting on science that is the problem, which is why the public needs good science education!

Okay, the fact that he thinks a unicycle will tell him anything about someone's sense of humor -- THAT is pretty damn funny.

Do I count as good-humored if I'm laughing AT him?

You're laughing WITH him, Law Fairy...

Seriously, I think an addendum should be added to this post to make it clear who is really at fault for this debacle.

Vervain: That reminds me of one of my favorite gags from the old Dr. Katz show, by Andy Kindler, a non-woman:

"Doctor, I think I finally figured out why women don't enjoy the Three Stooges."

"Why is that, Andy..."

"(interrupting) THEY'RE NOT FUNNY!"

Can the folks reporting this is a joke leave a link? I have good google skills, but somehow the "this is a joke" articles are not popping up.

I swear bad science reporting is one of the greatest enemies feminism has... Meh. We need MORE kickass female or female-friendly science editors out there to demand higher standards.

So in reality the guy is making fun of junky, sexist evo psych "studies?" Cool. Too bad the public will eat it up and repeat it as "truth."

You can't exactly google the article to see that it's a joke, Amanda, because apparently there are many terrible science reporters out there.

What you have to do is go directly to the BMJ website and look at the articles from the current issue. They're all jokes. If you're not familiar with peer-reviewed journal articles or any of the topics discussed in the articles, you might not get the joke.

But come on, Harry Potter and the heritability of magical powers? Even if people don't get the humor in the rest of the articles, that article is a clear example of the level of seriousness in the issue.

Website here: http://www.bmj.com/

And for those who simply don't want to read through any of the articles, here's a statement (from the website) about this particular issue of the British Medical Journal:

"As 2007 draws to a close, the Christmas double issue of the BMJ enters into the seasonal party spirit - all the usual favourite topics are covered, as well as quite a few unexpected ones..."

SARAHMC: """So in reality the guy is making fun of junky, sexist evo psych "studies?" Cool. Too bad the public will eat it up and repeat it as "truth."""

Now that you say that, I'm wondering if it is an in-group or outgroup joke. Originally I assumed it was written by an ev psychy-person. Most of the articles seem like in group jokes (applying common approaches in the field in an obviously ridiculous way).

The funny thing is, as an evolutionary psychologist, it was pretty obvious that it was a parody. The fact that so many people thought it was real suggests that people really need to have a better understanding of the ev psych approach!

In any case, our ev psych lab is getting a kick out of it.

"""Okay, the fact that he thinks a unicycle will tell him anything about someone's sense of humor -- THAT is pretty damn funny.""

But seriously, how cool would it be to do a study that involved unicycles? That would be awesome.

Please. I'm funny. I'm good at math. And I hate to shop. Bite me, unicycle boy."

word.

Love Wanda Sykes, "Sick and Tired!!!!"

Its always been my experience that women are funnier than men. I love Ellen DeGeneres, Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French, Wanda Sykes, ect ect. The men always have a less engaging (actions, verbal) routine.

I deduce that men make crap scientists after applying the same methods this dolt used in this study.

Love Wanda Sykes, "Sick and Tired!!!!"

Its always been my experience that women are funnier than men. I love Ellen DeGeneres, Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French, Wanda Sykes, Sarah Silverman, Amy Sedaris, Julia Davis (Night-Night) ect ect. The men always have a less engaging (actions, verbal) routine.

I deduce that men make crap scientists after applying the same methods this dolt used in this study.

(I hope this doesnt post twice, I experienced the "Error' page)

Gee, if I were the editor of the BBC science page (or any of the other multiple publications which published this obvious JOKE as fact) I sure would be embarrassed!

I really had no idea you could get a job writing science articles with absolutely no knowledge of the scientific method or, you know, common sense.

As a British comedienne and feminist I have been on the radio most of the day being interviewed about this one. My views, for those who are interested, are here.

Call me a humourless man all you like, but I have found hardly anything funny since I graduated from high school in 2002.

Sure, stereotype worship is idiotic. But there's no reason at all to get all your knickers in a twist just because men are labelled "more aggressive".

Its not hard to believe it wasnt a joke. Evolutionary science usually supports elusive and sexist theories, particularly as its interpreted through the media. I thougth this was just another one.

I saw this story reported earlier (wish I could remember where) and nowhere in the article was it reported that it was a joke.

I'm a science writer myself, and I work really hard to both make sure I understand the methodology used by the study, agree with the logic used to reach the conclusions, and report it in a way that is clear, concise, and accurate. When a writer does such a poor job that this slips through as a real story it embarrasses me.

I have only one question: didn't Jessica essentially do the same thing as the BBC by citing this study as real and not a joke? Clearly she did what many science writers and editors do. She relied on and recycled secondhand information about studies and findings without bothering to track down the source (although that may not be what the BBC writer did, which is far more embarrassing).

To be sure, it's not the wort of crimes. Everyone does it, and this is a blog, not the Beeb. But it seems a little disingenuous to call the BCC "sad" when Jessica essentially did the same the thing, without retraction or apology ("Sorry, everyone, I was suckered...").

Will an update be added to this post, indicating that the original article was a spoof? Or could feministing at least add a link to the BMJ, so readers could decide for themselves whether the study is "real." Maybe the journal's accompanying article on the "Origins of magic: [a] review of genetic and epigenetic effects" is bona fide science too.

HAHAHA!!! That woman is SO FUNNY! I LOLED SO MUCH! Who is she?

Oh, please, Peter. This is a feminist volunteer blog. It's understandable that Jessica would rely on secondhand reporting, since she was relying on the BBC, a source that PAYS PEOPLE TO BE EXPERTS IN SCIENCE REPORTING and as such should be expected to be trustworthy. It's not just "sad", it's blatantly not even getting up to the standard of minimal job requirements. The reporter and editor ought to be suspended and/or fired for incompetence.

I don't get why anyone thinks that the jokey origins of this story make it okay. The BBC, and the MSM generally, reported it as fact. As MizDarwin pointed out, if the BMJ had decided to kid around by publishing a study 'proving' that racial minorities are stupid or larcenous, you think targets would be told to lighten up and laugh it off? Shuster could have written his joke with a fake study 'proving' that men are weak or inferior, har har. I bet even the average science journalist would have raised an eyebrow before mindlessly passing that one along.

"Can the folks reporting this is a joke leave a link? I have good google skills, but somehow the "this is a joke" articles are not popping up." - Amanda Marcotte

I hope Amanda's post is a joke, but I can't find any articles to tell me if it is.

My last post was meant to be a joke, but I realize after a second reading that it actually came out a bit mean. Sorry.

Unree, you make a good point. I think there are two separate issues going on that upset me here.

One is that science writers at well-respected news sources passed off a jokey study (which are pretty common around the holidays and April 1st) as real. Bad science reporting really, really upsets me. I think laypeople should understand science because it has a huge influence on their lives these days. Bad science reporting miseducates people when it should do the opposite.

The other issue is perpetuating the sexist stereotype that women don't have a sense of humor. Whether they were actually trying to prove it or that everyone just agreed that the stereotype was funny enough to publish as a joke--it's sexist.

Also, I don't think Jessica should be held accountable int the same way as BBC science writers. This is a blog, not a news source, and she's not a science writer who has it drilled into her brain to go to the original source.

I dont really understand why people are complaining so much about these type of things. Obviously this professor was ignorant. Why does one professors opinion get so much attention from a site like this. I realize it could lead to preventing a good female comedians humor for speaking for itself but i dont see how complaining about this professor. In my perspective you let the humor speak for itself, then if their are people who would rather discriminate, do the best you can reguardless if a certain group or people no matter how powerful because once all different womens efforts to be the best they can comes together in peoples eyes it will push past the gender one day. I think it is better to promote that then to complain on the internet.

Several comments:

1. Is the article funny? A sample of readers of both sexes were asked the question, and reactions are summarized in a spreadsheet...

2. Was the article making gender generalizations? Yes, and to my knowledge, correct ones. Basically, small children of both sexes were curious, and curiosity at that age was encouraged by parents. Later, the responses bifurcated into aggressive -- boys, and polite -- girls. Etc. In late teens most of aggressive behavior ceased, yielding to jokes.

3. Why I say that the generalizations were correct?

"Young men in old cars were very aggressive, acting as if to frighten me off the road—they lowered their windows and shouted abusively, waved their arms, and hooted. I did not see this with women drivers and older men in more expensive cars."

Similar observations were collected by yours truly while commuting on bicycle on a shoulder of our local highway. While it is hard to determine sex of the drivers who merely honk and pass you doing 20 miles per hour more than you do, the voices of hecklers always sound male.

4. How different is this article from a "true science article". There are 3 citations, one to Darwin, which is totally at variance with "serious papers" in medicine and biology (20-50 being the usual number, plus all cites were cheerfully irrelevant) Other differences are more subtle perhaps but consistent with what passes for "sense of humor" in some insular nations.

The original BMJ article is definitely intended to be a joke. The BBC coverage (and most subsequent news/blog coverage) took it seriously. On a side note, the BBC science section is notoriously poor.

However, it is worth noting that my father-in-law is an avid unicyclist, and everybody else in the family laughs at him for it. (He also solicited me [a mech. eng.] to design a mounting frame for his extra-tall unicycle. That's probably his funniest escapade to date.)

Yes, Carlie, I know this is a blog, and I said as much. The BBC error was stupid and sloppy. Perhaps it should cost someone his or her job, since that job is to pursue, verify, and report the facts.

Still, most bloggers -- volunteer or not -- take a bit more responsibility than you propose. And they rarely bow down to the "expertise" and authority of the MSM as completely as you seem to be ("Oh, we're just amateurs here! How could the pros have mislead us! What's a blog to do!").

Jessica's post was not a dig at the BBC, although with a bit of research it could have been. Instead it was a dig at this so-called scientific paper. That is, it reported the paper as fact, just like the BBC.

With only the smallest amount of work, Jessica could have looked at the original article -- and its pictures alone would have shown the joke. It would have taken about as much time as it took to find and embed the YouTube video.

And as far as the rules of blogging go, I still wonder if someone will volunteer the time to post a correction or an update. Everybody makes mistakes; bloggers have the luxury of immediately owning up and helping to get the truth out there, in spite of MSM incompetence.

The thing about the gender balence in comedy is that, inevitably, near to every professional comedian is a straight man or a gay woman. To me, it seems that it's not women who are underrepresented, it's straight women and gay men.

The explanation must have something to do with how women and men behave in relationships and what their respective reactions to their mate's ambitions are. The other half is the basic sexism of the audience, and how women aren't allowed to talk about sexuality in the way men are. Gay men aren't allowed to deal with sexuality with a straight audience's homophobia, and lesbians are considered, to an extent part of the "old boy's club" so they're allowed to slide.

Question about detachable pussies (there's a sentence I never thought I'd say): if you detach it when you have your period, what happens? Do you have to leave it in a box of kleenex or something?

I heart Wanda Sykes.

there are a lot more funny guys i know than funny girls.

but,

the funny girls i know are a lot funnier than the guys.

this study doesnt prove anything except that some younger guys are assholes who are more likely to shout at people than a woman is.

leave it as it is ladies.

bullshit. :)

The professor link is a little misleading. I wonder if the poster read the article. Regardless of the lack of legitimacy of his methods, at no point (according the the BBC article) does he claim that men are funnier than women. He says that they make more jokes and are generally more aggressive (and hurtful) in their joking but no where does he equate that with the jokes, or the men making them, with being funny, let alone funnier than the jokes women make.