Humor Writers Dave Barry and Suzanne Britt,

¶ … humor writers Dave Barry and Suzanne Britt, being sloppy is not simply a product of bad habits, discipline, or time management. According to Britt, "Neat people are lazier and meaner than sloppy people," (223). Therefore, for Britt, neatness and laziness are ethical behaviors. Fellow humorist Dave Barry takes a different stance. According to Barry, neatness is a biological, gender-based trait. "The primary difference between men and women is that women can see extremely small quantities of dirt," (229).

With sarcasm and satire, Suzanne Britt and Dave Barry both divest neatness and sloppiness from their practical implications, instead describing them in terms of psychology, gender, biology, and morality. While both humor writers explore the underlying causes of neatness or sloppiness, Barry explains the trait in terms of biology and gender, while Britt focuses on ethics and morality. For Barry, neatness is a female biological trait, based on a "hormonal secretion," (229). In fact, this hormonal secretion has had historical import.

In his article "Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out," Barry notes that men in ancient Italy were responsible for performing all the household chores until Mount Vesuvius erupted. Because of their extremely high tolerance for dirt, the men of Pompeii never noticed the ash from the volcano "until it had for the most part covered the children," (229). Moreover, Barry concludes, "This is one major historical reason why, to this very day, men tend to do extremely little in the way of useful housework," (229).

For Britt, on the other hand, neatness is unrelated to gender but rather is a symptom of being a generally callous and wasteful person. With "cavalier attitudes," neat people throw everything away and possess no amount of sentimentality or sensitivity (224). On the other hand, sloppy people display "extreme moral rectitude" because of their willingness to tolerate a bit of clutter in order to preserve memories and honor history.

Therefore, it seems that Britt sets out to prove that sloppiness is actually preferable to neatness, whereas Barry takes the opposite stance: neatness is a positive trait, but one which men do not possess. However, a closer examination of the readings shows that both Barry and Britt agree that sloppiness can be preferable to neatness. Britt asserts that saving everything regardless of having no room for it indicates "loving attention to every detail," (224).

Barry portrays sloppiness as the reason why men would neglect to evacuate a town following the eruption of a volcano. Sloppiness can lead to disastrous consequences, according to Barry and therefore can be a negative, rather than positive characteristic. However, Barry later implies that women's neatness is compulsive, a symptom of their being uptight. For instance, when his wife asks him to clean their son's bathroom, he emphasizes that the room "always looks perfectly fine," (230).

Being a "sensitive and caring kind of guy," Barry relents to clean what he feels is an already decent enough personal space. The two writers therefore both characterize sloppiness as a function of emotional sensitivity. Barry describes himself as a male he who is sloppy but sensitive enough to care for the concerns of his biologically-driven neat wife. Similarly, Britt states that neat people can be "so insensitive," (225). Britt relates neatness and sloppiness to clutter, whereas Barry focuses more on filth and dirt.

Thus, the two authors differ in their perception of what sloppiness and neatness connote. For Britt, sloppiness entails papers piling up on desks and clothing piling up on closet floors. Neatness means the absence of extraneous objects, not the absence of germs or bacteria. For Barry, neatness is more akin to cleanliness, and being neat and cluttered can go hand-in-hand.

For instance, when Barry describes his son's bathroom, he notices that his kid has "six hundred action figures each sold separately that God forbid Robert should ever take a bath without," (230). When his wife requests that he clean the bathroom, she does not mean clearing away the clutter from the toys, nor does she ask him to toss them into the wastebasket. Rather, his wife wants Barry to scrub the floors, the counter, the tiles, the sink, and the toilet. Britt's concept of neatness and sloppiness is practically the opposite.

In her article, Britt doesn't touch upon grime or dirt but concentrates on clutter. To Britt, Robert's six hundred action figures constitute sloppiness regardless of how pristine the tiles are in the bathtub. A neat person would cold-heartedly do away with the toys before they tackled the tub, because neat people "throw away toys every time they walk through the den," (224).

The only exception to Britt's focusing almost exclusively on clutter is when she mentions the moldy dish drainer: neat people would gladly throw out the moldy dish drainer, whereas the sloppy person would wash it. Even here, the two authors differ in their conception of neatness. For Barry, a neat person would demand that the dish drainer be cleaned; for Britt, a sloppy person would do the same. Sloppiness has much less to do with mold and bacteria than it does with the accumulation of goods.

Britt's neat people are more inclined to throw away dirty items than they are to clean them. Consequently, Britt concludes that neat people are "incredibly wasteful," (224). Barry does not delve into the ethics of neatness vs. sloppiness in this respect. For Barry, however, neatness can be an ethical issue when it relates to interpersonal relationships. In his article, Barry implies that neatness can be a negative social trait. According to the author, "the opposite side of the dirt coin, of course, is sports," (230).

Women, whose biological nature requires them to focus on dirt at "the level of molecules," also unwittingly commit a "social gaffe" by neglecting to understand the importance of professional sports (229). Barry's article becomes gender-biased and if it were not.