[Overpaid Slacker]

wludavid -

You may be right; however it's not my theory that I pulled out of thin air. These folks (men and women) put together some kind of agreed-upon matrix for humor and tested scores of subjects. So the "difference" of female sense of humor was controlled for, as much as was possible.

However, acknowledging the danger of an infinite regression -- if women WERE funnier, wouldn't they find it less difficult to get bookings? Women are 1/2 the population (give or take), and in markets that pander to and/or would KILL for 5-6% of the population's interest (such as entertainment), "funny" women, even if only "funny" to women (and gays?) would still have a huge built-in audience.

Especially in markets, such as humor or entertainment, that celebrate fads, and "next great things" and indulging differences. If there were even a handful of "funny" women (meaning funny to more than a small % of other women) I'd think they'd be given more than a "fair" chance b/c they'd be different, the exception, the novelty, etc...

It's not like we're not subject to a parade of awful entertainers b/c such entertainers happen to be black, or asian, or some idiosyncratic twist on the white male norm.

If "funny" women get less exposure, it still doesn't address why there are fewer of them to get exposure. That's what this study attempted to evaluate. Naturally, nobody likes being told they're not funny ... and when the result confirms the empirical evidence and "harms" a protected class, it's not front page news.

JP