You Are Dumb - Gender Issues

In Russia, Butt Spanks You!

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:03:29 -0500

Gender Issues, 12 August 2008

Memo to the Russian judicial system: YOU ARE DUMB.

It seems strangely appropriate. Right now, the news is full of images from Georgia, as Russia attempts to take by force that which it cannot obtain through peaceful and mutual negotiation. But instead, I'll be talking about the fascinating ruling from the end of July on a sexual harassment case in St. Petersburg.

I say it's strangely appropriate because the woman lost, joining the ranks of all but two women, ever, who've tried to sue their bosses in Russia. The case was fairly cut and dry. A 22 year old woman was locked out of her office for attempting to control the means of (re)production.

More specifically, she was what you might call a refusenik in the delicate matter of her 47-year old boss wanting to play ""hide the KGB mole" with her. I know what you must be thinking. What's more sexually irresistible than a 47-year-old Russian executive? But resist she did, and it cost her her job, and the judge was fine with it. Why was he fine with it? You'll love this.

"If we had no sexual harassment we would have no children."

Ah, the ugly, vodka-bloated face of biological determinism rises once again. Apparently, the birth rate in Russia has gotten so low that their only hope lies in middle-aged assholes gleefully impregnating young women against their will. To hell with demographic winter. If that's what it takes to propagate your people, maybe you should step aside and let someone else have your nice buildings.

It's precisely that kind of thinking that makes me glad I live in America, where biological determinism would never be used in a ham-handed attempt to rationalize boorish behavior and deny women basic reasonable freedoms. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to read the Daily Gut, where author Greg Gutfeld provides me with the blatantly telegraphed double-take moment I need. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"I mean, as a dude, I am hardwired to stare at breasts. Sorry - it's a biological fact, backed up by reams of data proving mammaries are magnets for the male eye. Apparently, breasts are designed mostly to attract men to the front of a woman, so, they will engage in sex that leads to reproduction, and species survival. It's nature's neon sign that says, 'Hey, stupid - not the butt - over here.'"

Now, this is clearly fucking ridiculous. But it's so ridiculous I knew there was no way he could have come up with it on his own. He must have wildly misinterpreted some actual science somewhere, and after a bit of research, I figured out what it probably was. The theory he mangles is that bipedal hominids spend a lot more time face to face than face to ass. So the ass became less prominent as a sexual attractor, allowing breasts to, shall we say, grow into that role. It is not, as King Shit Doofus thinks, that titties make it more likely for men to hit the right hole.

So why would anyone write a paragraph like that in the first place? To take a stand against public breast feeding, of course. What else could it be? Public breast feeding means public breasts, and public breasts mean public ogling, and there's nothing he can do about it because if he didn't stare at your La Leche display with La Lechery, he'd poke you in the pooterhole with his tiny penis and never propagate his genes. Or, in an even less flattering way of putting it, here's Gutfeld's own words:

"In a sense, my eyes are like two little infants, who also need sustenence. You can understand that, right?" - And in a sense, the eyes are the window to the soul, and therefore, in a sense, you have the soul of an infant, desperately in need of sustenance. And also desperately in need of the ability to spell "sustenance". And also desperately in need of either throwing yourself down a deep rocky hole, or moving to Russia where this kind of thinking qualifies you for judge's robes.

Bitchin'

Thu, 22 May 2008 12:32:16 -0500

Election 2008, 22 May 2008

Memo to Alex Castellanos, Maureen Dowd, and Penn Jillette: YOU ARE DUMB.

Bear with me here. We're going to have to dive deep, deep, deep into the rabbit hole on this one. And why is that? Because motherfuckers refuse to understand context. Which means I'm going to have to provide context. And there's a lot of context. Context that explains how Alex Castellanos can be a sexist douchebag for saying something that, stripped of context, is actually correct. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"And some women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate." - The "that" he's referring to is "bitch". Or possibly "white bitch". You see what I mean about context? You see, CNN was discussing whether Hillary Clinton has faced sexism during her run for president. Which is just fucking stupid. Of course she has. She's a woman. Naomi Wolf could write an entire book about what Clinton's faced from Chris Matthews alone. You can argue the relative importance of the sexism, but debating its existence is the kind of oversimplified bullshit cable news exists to peddle.

Where Castellanos is technically correct is that calling a woman a bitch is not automatically, by definition, sexist. I know, because coincidentally, I did it yesterday. Sexism is when you treat a woman worse* than you would treat a man in the same situation. I call stupid women nasty names, I call stupid men nasty names, and I do it because they're stupid. Whereas Castellano lost the moral high ground, because he went on cable news and defended calling women bitches on the grounds that, hey, some women are just bitches.

That defense has never, ever been proffered for a man. It never happens. I watch as little cable news as I can get away with, but believe me, if it had happened, I'd have heard about it. Ergo, it's sexist. I mean, it's not surprising that one of John McCain's advisers would take the opportunity to reinforce the Hillary-bitch connection, but it's still sexist assholery.

On top of that, they were discussing the "white bitch" comment because Maureen Dowd, of all people, referenced it back in February in a column that managed the impressive feat of passive-aggressively attacking Clinton by defending her first. By mentioning this column, CNN instantly violated two cardinal rules of journalism. First, never talk about anything Maureen Dowd says, because she's stupid and tries to pretend she's clever. And second, never talk about a three-month-old Maureen Dowd column, because those things have a shelf-life shorter than the time it takes to read one.

So how do we get from Maureen Dowd to "white bitch" in a way that avoids the obvious joke? Well, as her main piece of evidence that yes, indeed, Hillary Clinton endured sexism, she provided... a Penn Jillette joke. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says it’s not fair, because they’re being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, there’s no White Bitch Month."

Now, I hate to pick on Penn Jillette. Despite his crazy libertarianism, he's a force for good when it comes to debunking mysticism and championing reason. But this is an awful, awful joke, mainly because there -is- a Women's History Month. In March. Which is right after February. So there's no reason for the joke's strawclinton to have said that. The joke's premise is fatally flawed.

But on the big list of problems Hillary's had with sexism, a shitty sexist joke from a fucking Ron Paul supporter, from Vegas, in a state she won, is not the shining example that makes your case iron-clad. So, working back up the chain, we've got Penn Jillette, wrong for making a shitty, sexist joke. Maureen Dowd, wrong for putting Penn Jillette's awful joke on display, and Alex Castellanos, for defending Penn's joke like it was a serious piece of accurate political analysis. There. Now everyone, crawl back in your fucking holes and try not to make me talk about shit like this again.

*For semantic purposes, "worse" encompasses almost the full range of "different".

Pardon Your Manhood

Wed, 14 May 2008 22:36:12 -0500

Gender Issues, 15 May 2008

Memo to Esquire Magazine: YOU ARE DUMB.

On the grand tedium scale, few things rank, and rankle, as highly as men's manly pontificating on their male manliness. From the Dangerous Book for Boys to the legions obsessing over social "feminization", men trying to free their inner Iron John piss off my inner Oscar Wilde to no end.

Case in point, Esquire, which as far as I can tell is the ideal magazine for men who want to read Maxim, but don't want anyone walking by to know they're reading Maxim. Esquire recently published Tom Chiarella's list of the 75 skills every man should master, which is exactly what you'd predict from the title: a mix of gender-neutral competencies, selections from the Neanderthal skill set, and pseudo-psychological stupid shit. For example:

#4. Score a baseball game.

By which he means mastering the arcane shorthand of scribbles that allows someone sitting in the stands to compile a record of everything that happened, and who did it, over the course of the game. Information that you could then do nothing with for the rest of human existence, because absolutely nobody gives a fuck. Ever. Not even fifty-year-old baseball nerds clutching at their Stratomatic boxes like a life preserver in the sea of the modern world.

#15. Calculate square footage.

No, seriously. And he doesn't mean do the math in your head, he means realize that you multiply the width and length. I know this because he felt the need to explain to Esquire's readership how it's done, because apparently they're third-grade dropouts. Apparently men only deal with rectangles.

#19. Approach a woman out of your league.

The best part? Chiarella avoids any discussion of this topic, which is, essentially, irritating women with unwanted attention by telling men to act like, I shit you not, a confident shoe-shiner. I'm sure his follow-up article will examine pickup lines via the example of the whimsical chimney-sweep. Or perhaps first-date strategies from a charming and insightful street musician.

#29. Understand quantum physics well enough that he accepts that a quarter might, at some point, pass straight through the table when dropped.

He'd have saved us both a lot of typing if #29 had been "Don't Understand Quantum Physics."

#45. Tell a woman's dress size.

Or, you know, recognize that women's clothes sizing is inconsistent and capricious, and even if you ask her for it before you buy her a dress, keep the fucking receipt. This one's so disconnected from reality I can't even tell what kind of fantasy lifestyle he's trying to sell his audience on. Impressing a woman at a bar by nipping out to Macy's and returning with a red sleeveless number that fits her perfectly? She'll just think you've broken into her house and checked the tags in her closet, you stalky perv freak.

#53. Sometimes, kick some ass.

Oh, fuck off already, will you?

#60. Be brand loyal to at least one product.

Where to begin? First, not a skill, fuckface. Second, brand loyalty is never actually helpful, asswad. Thirdly, what you actually describe - liking Hellman's mayonnaise and Genessee beer, isn't brand loyalty, it's nostalgia-tinged, and slightly disgusting, personal taste. Brand loyalty would be buying a Hellman's car because you liked their mayo so much. Which would, like you, be profoundly stupid.

Men, listen up. The sooner you stop reading Esquire, stop obsessing over how best to live up to the imagined expectations of your genitalia, and start living your own individual life free of chromosomal stereotyping, the sooner you can trade in your fake, pleather happiness for the real thing. And more importantly, you'll stop pissing me off.

Profiles In Douchebaggery

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:27:59 -0600

Gender Issues, 31 December 2007

Memo to Ron Blachut: YOU ARE DUMB.

I don't do end-of-year awards. For one thing, I do about two hundred and fifty of these things every year, and I can barely remember what I wrote about on, say, December 4. Much less what I wrote about back in January. Sure, I could read all the stuff I wrote, but that's your job, and I'm a big one for division of labor.

But giving out end-of-year awards isn't the same as giving out an award at the end of the year. And thus, I would like to bestow upon Ron Blachut, of Queensbury NY, the first ever You Are Dumb Dot Net Honorary Award For Plenipotentiary Douchebaggery Above And Beyond The Call Of Duty. There's no medal involved, but let it be known far and wide that if you think you're a douchebag, measure yourself against Ron Blachut, and rest assured, you will be found wanting.

What triggered Blachut's foray into the field? What event caused him to single-handedly explore and expand the fullest potential of his chosen art form? While we cannot know what childhood traumas and toxin exposures gave him his great talent, what caused him to express it, in a letter to the editor to the Glens Falls Post Star: a pregnant congresswoman.

Yes, Kirsten Gillibrand announced at the beginning of the month that she'd gotten knocked up, and, you know. Congratulations or whatever. I'm sure she's very happy. Nothing wrong with it. Yay reproduction! But for Ron Blachut, taxpaying American, that congressional fetus wasn't just a parasite on Gillibrand's uterus, it was a parasite on the American public. ACTUAL, I SHIT YOU NOT, AWARD-WINNING DOUCHEBAGGERY QUOTE TIME!

"First of all, I must admit that I am a male chauvinist and that there are, thankfully, differences between men and women."

OK, wait. We have to stop right fucking there. "Male chauvinist"? You know, even in 1978, when that term was in vogue, proudly declaring yourself to be one was an asshole indicator. These days, saying that doesn't make you an asshole. It makes you an asshole who's also way behind the times. So what does the last male chauvinist on earth have to say?

"There are many occupations suitable for women and their physical attributes. Carrying a weapon while serving in the Armed Forces and firefighting are not suitable lines of work for women to prove that they are physically equal to men. How many male police officers feel comfortable with a 100 pound female backup? And now, I have to add serving in the U.S. House and Senate as an occupation that may not be suitable for women."

See how he was careful to establish his premise with three professions, only two of which women have been serving admirably in for decades. Well, in the United States. Elsewhere, it's all three. But they are the classic examples rampant sexists love to bring up because they provoke the right reaction in mild sexists. Given that he's set up as his examples jobs that require violence, heavy lifting, and bravery, what are the odds his fourth job will follow those guidelines? We all know that answer.

"Ms. Gillibrand's current pregnancy makes a strong case for my opinion. Ms. Gillibrand was elected to serve her constituency, and while she is away from her elected office she cannot perform those duties. The taxpayers who were duped into voting for her will have to pay for her medical benefits. Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, Ms. Gillibrand receives excellent health benefits, courtesy of her constituents. We will be without representation in Congress for a time leading up to and following the child's birth. There will be times when she and the new baby will visit doctors. You can add those days to the total that she will not be serving her constituents."

Jesus, what a douchebag. It takes a special kind of willful ignorance to think that every second of a congressoid's time is spent actually serving their constituents. It takes a special kind of willful naivete to think that ANY seconds of their time are spent serving their constituents. For fuck's sake, a whole bunch of 'em got pissy when they were expected to work five-day weeks this year. And the health benefits thing is so stupid it actually demeans me a little to poke holes in it, that's how glaring and obvious those holes are.

But I will say this. If you think tax dollars didn't likely pay for Bob Dole's Viagra, you're a damn fool. But even a damn fool can top themselves.

"The current base salary (2006) for members of the House and Senate is $165,200 per year. I wonder if Ms. Gillibrand will do the right thing and reimburse the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $452.60, her daily salary, for each day that she is unable to perform her elected duties. For some reason, I doubt it.

I just checked this fucker's math, and as I suspected, he divided by 365. Which means he counted weekends. He counted holidays. He counted the many long vacations and breaks the Congress takes and isn't in session. Yet strangely, he's not asking the congresspenises to reimburse the American people for the days THEY take off for whatever reason. The worst part is, if Blachut had taken the time to find out how many days a year his representatives actually work, he'd have come up with a much higher number for his completely delusional version of how "salary" works. But then, if he'd known how many days a year his representatives worked, even he might have seen his attempt at wombslander for what it was: douchebaggery deserving of special honors.

Jolly Old Dumbasses

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:27:32 -0500

The News, 16 July 2007

Memo to the BBC Magazine: FECK OFF, ARSEHOLES.

Of all the comedy in the world, no comedy is more irritating than your basic, standard-issue gender stereotype comedy. The instant the phrase "What are you thinking, honey" leaves a comedian's lips, you know you are in the presence of Hackery Supreme, and should remove yourself from the premises posthaste. And it's your own goddamned fault for tuning in to the Bill Engvall Show in the first place.

Which was why it was so goddamned maddening to see all the news stories that seized on some stupid study that analyzed how much women and men talked. Turns out they talk about the same amount, which came as a surprise to anyone who's never watched Bill O'Reilly. But that didn't stop the BBC from taking the 546-word difference per day and, using that dry British wit of theirs, suggest what some of those 500 words were that birds used while blokes eschewed. It's an awful premise, made ineffably worse by the execution, which featured such entries as:

"Accessorise: If men were ever to use this word it would only be in the context of cars." Here's an important comedy tip. I cannot stress this enough. I don't care which side of the Atlantic you're on, if your comedy premise is a list of words women use and men don't, it's a BAD IDEA to start your list with a word that you have to make an exception for.

Burlesque. Well, first of all, NOBODY uses "burlesque" anymore outside of its specific cultural context. But back when burlesque was a going concern, you know, in olden days when you had to leave your house to see nipples, it was a form of entertainment aimed squarely at men. So I'm not even sure why it's in this list at all, unless it has something to do with that goddamned "Moulin Rouge" movie.

Pomegranate. What the fuck? The BBC uses the excuse that real men can't grasp the concept of "superfoods", which is just sad. I mean, assuming you made the awful choice to go with "pomegranate" to begin with, for fuck's sake, it's a reddish-pink sack full of seeds that exists solely to be PULPED AND JUICED. If you can't find a way to make a male insecurity joke out of that, you have no business trying to be funny in print.

Conventionally attractive HA HA AVERAGE WOMEN ARE JEALOUS OF AND THEREFORE HATE PRETTY WOMEN HA HA.

What are you thinking? I mention this not to knock down the pin I set up in the second paragraph. No, I mention this because, well, this is four words. And thanks to the magic of counting, I have determined that the author of the piece does in fact count this as four of the 46 words women use that men don't. Which is another epic failure of premise. I can suspend my disbelief long enough to see how men might use neither "conventionally" or "attractive", for example, as separate words OR as a phrase. Applying that same logic to the words "what", "are", and "you"? Not so much. And certainly not for a joke that's as saggy and worn out as the Queen's panties.

"Afghanistan: A place where the debate is rather starker". Um, I hate to use up my "what the fuck" quota this early in the week, but what the fuck? This doesn't parse as comedy, so all I can figure is it's a horribly injected bit of social commentary. A sort of "hey, we're all having a bit of a laugh about gender differences, but let's all take a moment to remember that things are really bad for women in some parts of the world, and that's why women mention those parts of the world and men never do. All right. HEY, MEN HATE BABIES! HA HA HA!"

Ms. and feminism. Because, you know. It may not be 1972 right now, but it's 1972 somewhere, right?

I was THIS close to giving the BBC credit for avoiding one of the most trite, bullshit tropes of gender stereotype comedy. I even did a search to make sure the word didn't appear ANYWHERE in the article. But then, in mid-kudo, I noticed the illustration that accompanied the piece. If a picture is worth a thousand words, all 1,000 of those words were "shoes". Congratulations, BBC-Magazine-writers-too-ashamed-to-attach- your-names-to-this-piece. You left no lame, sad-ass, moronic stone unturned.

Extra Largo

Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:22:06 -0500

Florida, 27 March 2007

Memo to Largo and associated newspersons: YOU ARE DUMB.

I think it's understood by everyone here that I cannot do my job unless people in the journalism community do theirs. I don't need them to do it well. But I do need them to do it either reasonably well or very badly. If they do it reasonably well, then I have all kinds of great quotes and facts to deal with. And if they do it very badly, then I've got the subject for the next column.

What makes my avocation really difficult, however, is half-assing it. Doing the bare minimum job of covering an otherwise interesting story, so that I'm left nothing but dull-as-fuck quotes. Which brings us to Largo, Florida, where they fired their city HR director for wanting to be a woman.

I should clarify that the guy in question, one Steve Stanton, is in fact a guy. And a transsexual. Or at least a nascent transsexual. It was just at the end of February that he told everyone he planned to become a woman, "Susan". Less than a week later, he was put on paid administrative leave. He appealed, and over the weekend, he lost his appeal and was fired.

You would think, what with it being Florida and transgender issues, that the stupidity would be flying fast and furious. But all we have in the recent coverage is some fairly tame stuff. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"Largo City Commissioner Gay Gentry said City Manager Steve Stanton was a 'hard-nosed, my-way-or-the-highway' boss who expected more understanding of his personal situation than he showed to some of his roughly 1,200 employees in 14 years as the city's top official. 'Suddenly the rules were changing and he was asking to be dealt with in a different way than he was dealing with people', Gentry said."

That's the sum total of the city's position, as declared by the local paper, the New York Times, and the Associated Press (from which that last quote comes) combined. If I were Stanton, I would have demanded that the commissioner recuse herself. Obviously, a life spent growing up as Gay Gentry predisposed her to respond negatively to actual members of the gay gentry.

Apparently, the entire Largo personnel policy is based around the principle that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, especially if the gander wants to be a goose. Digging back in the story does reveal a few choice bits and letters to the editor from locals that prove Gentry's telling the truth that "You have to believe us, you have to trust us, it is not about transgenderism." We -have- to believe and trust them because if you look at what they've said or done, you'd come to a very different conclusion.

The best that they can manage is that it's not about Stanton's decision to become a woman, it's who he told about the decision, how he told them, and apparently in what order. Because, you know. After a lifetime of feeling he was trapped in the wrong-gendered body, what Stanton should be most concerned about is whether his neighbor, commissioner Gigi Arntzen, would be upset that he told the mayor, but didn't tell her. And it's his fault one of his friends leaked it to the press before he could tell his son. Yep. That sneaky bastard.

And what the fuck? Gigi Arntzen? Gay Gentry? Two of the other commissioners are named, I shit you not, Rodney Woods and Andy Guyette. If I didn't know better, I'd swear they were all gay porn stars or drag queens.

The most common theme in the letters to the editor I saw was Stanton's "selfishness". He's so selfish, making all those nice Florida people uncomfortable by changing his gender. Mari Schala: "A person of sound judgment and caring would have waited five years until his son was of age and he was in a better position to resign from public office."

Sound judgment and caring is asking someone to put their life on hold for five fucking years because you don't like the idea of sex changes? That's just fucking lovely. And this, from, and again, what the FUCK is with the names in this town, Christel Hunsicker:

"We all feel compassion for Susan Stanton’s son and wife, but we do not wish to bear the multimillion-dollar therapy bill for his son, and for the 1,000 employees’ orientation.

Never mind the assumption that the kid will require millions of dollars of therapy at taxpayer expense, which is just psychotic. How much "orientation" do the city employees need? He was Steve, a man. Now he's Susan, a woman. Pay a buck-fifty for a plastic nametag Stanton can wear around until they get her name right, and even in multiple dosages, Shut The Fuck Up is free. PROBLEM SOLVED.

Girls Need Balls

Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:51:41 -0600

Main Column, 3 January 2007

Memo to the Howard Center: STILL THE DUMB.

Ah, nemeses. The Black Bart to my Sheriff Goodly. The Sinestro to my Green Lantern. The Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society to my You Are Dumb Dot Net. Wait, that's not an analogy. But it's true.

Ever since they started promoting the highly unnatural Natural Family Manifesto, I've decided that the Howard Center (whose name I truncate because, well, I'm not fond of religion, I'm not fond of society, and I'm certainly not fond of the word "family" when it appears in an organization's name) is my official nemesis, whether they know it or not.

This is because, just as I am single-mindedly devoted to the pursuit and elimination of all things stupid, the Howard Center is single-mindedly devoted to the pursuit and CREATION of all things stupid. Specifically in the areas of deviancy from one man married to one woman who produce as many children as possible so that those children can marry other children, again in strictly one-to-one, plumbing-based pairings. Anything other than that is bad. Anything that might interfere with that is bad. Anything that achieves a goal they otherwise find admirable while possibly being interpreted as potentially interfering with that is, you guessed it, bad.

Which, in a whiplash-inducing segue, brings us to women's high school and collegiate sports.

Believe me, I know. The only thing keeping me from being as surprised as you are is that I'm writing this. And I've already read the latest e-mail the Howards have unwittingly sent me bemoaning the evils of young women playing with balls.

The underlying, never-mentioned bugaboo is, of course, Title IX, which right-wingers tend to hate because it conflates two of their most hated concepts - equality and government regulation. By requiring universities to offer women opportunities to play sports, a lot more women play sports now. Thus the women encroach on man-territory, thus making men nervous, thus making them freak out and start peeing all over the medicine balls in the hopes of marking them as theirs. And speaking of spraying, ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"In a hyper-sexualized culture, parents of daughters quite understandably pay attention when advocates of women's sports promise that participation will translate into a lessened risk of sexual activity and pregnancy. And solid data do back up that promise. Nonetheless, when sociologists at the State University of New York investigated the reasons that participation in sports reduces sexual activity, they reached conclusions that might give parents second thoughts. For what the researchers discovered was that participation in high-school sports significantly decreases sexual activity among young women precisely because it weakens their attachment to traditional gender roles." - The Howard Center, quoting Bryce Christensen, in his oh-so-evenhandedly titled "Making Women Warriors: The Anti-family Agenda at Work in Women's Athletics"

So, thanks to women's athletics, your daughter might not have premarital sex. But AT WHAT COST? At the cost of not turning eighteen, getting married, and lying back and taking it between babies, that's what cost.

Only pro-family nuts like the Howards and Christensen could find the downside to a drop in teen extramarital pregnancy. Fucking geniuses. It's almost as if all these straight white males were less interested in public policy that fostered the health of our young women, and more interested in public policy that fosters their fucking dinner being on the table and warm once they got home from a long, hard day of writing papers to ensure that their fucking dinner is on the table and warm once they get home.

And in case you were wondering if these mental Lilliputians could go two paragraphs without a completely misguided stab at the nature of sexual orientation, have no fear. They can't.

" "'Sport resources...,' explain the researchers, 'allow girls to discard aspects of the traditional gender script that prioritize heterosexual appeal.' They further remark that the "exposure to a nontraditional, androgynous gender script" that sports give female athletes 'might lead one to predict same-sex sexual activity among female athletes.'" "

Those quotes are so nested you'd think they'd been indoctrinated since inception to pair up and hide away together. I'm reproducing the single and double quotes exactly as presented to me, ao I have absolutely no fucking clue who's saying what. All I have to go on is what the Howard Family wants me to think Bryce Christensen wants me to think some researchers may or may not have concluded. Which is that SPORTS TURNS PRETTY GIRLS INTO DYKES.

And while we're at it, "Women Warriors"? Who the fuck is so hidebound and retrograde that they still cling like lichen to the idea of sports as peace-time pig-lagoons for pent-up male aggression? Oh, right. MY NEMESIS.

Strange Kinship

Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:34:51 -0500

Religion, 23 August 2006

Memo to Timothy LaBouf: STOP PICKING ON LAMBERTS.

Actually, apart from the surname, I have almost nothing in common with Mary Lambert. She's over twice my age, not my gender, lives in Watertown, New York, and taught Sunday school. They don't let me teach Sunday school, for obvious reasons. But I feel sorry for Mary Lambert, because she got fucked over by stupidity.

Of course, I don't feel VERY sorry for her. Her entire long life has placed her in a Crazy Stupid Nexus - the intersection of small-town crazy, church crazy, and Baptist crazy. You'd think those last two would be the same, but I'm learning they're almost two different species.

Mary Lambert came to public notice when she was fired from her job as a Sunday school teacher for adults after over fifty years of loyal service to the First Baptist Church of Watertown.

The reason she was given for her firing was a Bible verse, 1 Timothy 2:12. OK, first of all, there's a book of Timothy? Is there a book of Lassie, too? How many holy tracts do you people need? Second of all, this means we've got a Lambert writing about a Timothy who used the writings of Timothy to fire a Lambert. I may need a Dramamine if I'm going to finish this column without hurling.

Anyway, Timothy (biblical) was a dickweed, and put in 2:12 that since Adam was created before Eve, women are forever subservient to men. Specifically, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." Mary Lambert was a woman, Mary Lambert was teaching men, Timothy (both) didn't like that, so Timothy (present) said Lambert had to go.

And on the face of it, it's a textbook instance of religious dickery. Faced on the one hand with half a century of presumably adequate service, and on the other hand a sexist quote from a two-thousand-year-old asshole who may or may not have existed, LeBouf sided, as any crazy person would, WITH THE QUOTE.

But here's where I channel Paul Harvey and give you the rest of the story. It turns out LeBouf didn't fire her because she's a woman. He just SAID that's why he fired her because the real reason was legally awkward. It seems the First Baptist Church of Watertown is a seething kettle of Baptist intrigue and backstabbery. New pastor! Changes! Growth! Pissed-off old people! Complaints to the press! Public embarassment!

Rev. LeBouf wants everyone to know he isn't a crazy misogynist dullard. He just pretended to be a crazy misogynist dullard to a woman with a proven history of going public with her grievances. So that he could fire her for going public with her grievances. I can only assume that once you get past the "women are subservient to men" bullshit, Timothy did not then go on to fill his chapter of the Bible with useful tips on spotting blatantly obvious public relations blunders BEFORE you make them. ACTUAL APOLOGY TIME!

"For those of you who have had doubts I certainly understand and I sincerely hope that this correspondence has clarified things for you and if further clarification is needed please don't hesitate to contact me and I would be happy to give further explanation." - From the book of Timothy I:Fucked::Up.

Given the track record of Timmy's last two explanations, I can only imagine how much further ones would help. Wisdom would dictate that Rev. LaBouf keep his Yaptist shut until the furor over his comments dies off. Or the Sunday school teacher does. Whichever comes first.

Penii Ascendant

Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:33:18 -0500

Gender Issues, 14 August 2006

Memo to Johnny Diaz: YOU ARE DUMB.

I don't hate bored reporters per se. I can empathize with them. Being a low-rung print journalist means spending the vast majority of your time writing about shit you don't care about. But there's apathetic, there's sloppy, and there's Johnny Diaz.

Mr. Diaz came to my attention when his two-month old Boston Globe article on gender relations finally got used as filler in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Like any well-researched bit of trend-spotting, it was shoved into Friday's lifestyles section somewhat haphazardly, only appearing briefly on the website's front page where it met my disapproving eyes.

The article's title had been changed from the original, ambiguous "Tough Love" to the more informative and irritating "Culture now celebrates the guy's guy". Great.

In the grand scheme of comedy, the three funniest things in the world are, in order: jokes about dicks, jokes about poop, and once-dominant groups desperately and pathetically trying to reclaim their eroded status after a cultural shift. Whether it's Justice Sunday, flying the Confederate flag, or putting creationism stickers on biology textbooks, all it means is that the world has moved on and left you behind, and now you're panting and red-faced and sweating as you try to catch up.

And thus, the "guy's guy". Traditional masculine role! Power tools! Flannel! Scrotum-scratching! Not listening to women! It's back, and in a big way, according to Johnny Diaz. And here are the stellar examples he provides:

He starts off with Jack Bauer, the lead character of "24", the Geneva-flouting, President-torturing Kiefer Sutherland, a man who is not only completely fictional, but bears little actual resemblance to the schlubs who think the show's a documentary. I mean, I like "24" too, but Bauer is clearly not the role model character. Chloe is. But this was just all prelude for the MOST CLUELESS PARAGRAPH IN NEWSPAPER HISTORY:

"This nod to manhood can be found at the movies -- from the latest installments of 'Mission: Impossible' and 'Superman' and the introduction of 'Nacho Libre,' the courageous chef who transforms into a cape-crusading wrestler to rescue a Mexican orphanage -- as well as on such TV series as 'Prison Break' and 'House.'"

M:I:III? If a summer action movie means the resurgence of men, then they've been resurging for 30 years straight. Superman? Everyone was saying the new Superman was gay! House? An aging, video-game-playing grump who only gets away with insulting everyone around him because he's so damn smart? If that makes you a "guy's guy", then I guess I have to stop shaving my pubes and buy a cordless drill instead.

And NACHO MOTHERFUCKING LIBRE? It's a good thing I was wrong. I figured the first time anyone actually attempted to apply cultural relevance to Nacho Libre, the universe would self-destruct as a mercy-killing.

So what else has Diaz got to prove that hairy-chested belchers are gaining the upper hand over the largely-nonexistent metrosexual movement? Let's see. A book by Jim Belushi, Ryan Seacrest looking a bit scruffy on the last American Idol, a gay mobster on The Sopranos, and that Harvard nutjob with the inadequacy issues who wrote that "Manliness" book. Oh, and the "Man Law" beer ads.

Now, the "Man Law" ads are angling for their own spot in this space any day now, so I won't devote TOO much time to them, but for now, I'll just point out that these ads use irony the way a desperate criminal uses a hostage - knowing they're fucked, but holding it in front of them to prolong the inevitable. Irony should be suing Miller for defamation of character.

Johnny, and guys everywhere, please. Calm down. You're not an endangered species just because women occasionally like to see a shirt tucked in and there are half a dozen places in the country where two boys can kiss in public without getting beaten up. And if that day ever comes, I'm sure we can establish a refuge where you can breed in captivity. I hear Dallas is lovely in the spring.

He-Man Woman Haters Club

Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:21:35 -0500

Gender Issues, 10 July 2006

Memo to Denise Noe: YOU ARE DUMB, I PRESUME.

I have to presume. See, one of the problems of living in what may be, in retrospect, the bugfuckingest era in American history is that it becomes increasingly difficult to determine, empirically, when people mean what they say.

The American lust for celebrity status combined with the Ann Coulter school of saying crazy shit to get noticed has led to a series of, if you'll pardon the expression, increasingly immodest proposals.

I find myself longing for the days when you could be pretty sure that the guy who just suggested we eat all the babies was kidding. Now, he could be completely serious, about one step removed from Bill Bennett and angling for a regular spot on "Fox And Friends" complete with recipes.

Which brings us to Denise Noe, who does not suggest eating babies. It's the furthest thing from her embryo-fetishizing mind. And when she suggests that similarly fetophilic guys take one for the team and offer to marry young pregnant women to keep them from having abortions, I have to presume she meant it.

And not because it's precisely the kind of reactionary, 1950's, ridiculously retarded idea that would appeal to pro-life nutjobs. And not because Noe presents, as a perfectly reasonable rationale supporting her idea, that... ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"The motif of a man proposing marriage to a woman pregnant with another man’s child is a common one on soap operas that are a fairly good gauge of female fantasy.

No, I assume Noe meant her ridiculous idea because her target audience turned on her like a pack of rabid hyenas, demonstrating that they, in turn, are even more bugfuck than SHE is. You see, Denise Noe wrote her article, "Grooms For Life", for one of the ugliest blogs on the planet, Mens News Daily.

As far as I can tell, Mens News Daily caters almost exclusively to one particular niche audience - divorced white guys who burst blood vessels in their eyes every time they sign a child-support check.

In many ways, these are the scariest of all the crazy right-wingers. Because they don't do it for power. Or to uphold their twisted view of religious dogma. Or to get on the teevee. They're right-wingers entirely because of spite. They act like that monthly check that feeds and clothes the results of their inappropriate ejaculate is the heel of liberal feminism crushing their hopes, their dreams, and their testicles in one smooth motion.

So, unsurprisingly to everyone on the planet except Denise Noe, they responded somewhat harshly to the idea that a man should voluntarily give up the next 20 years of his life to support a child he didn't even father. Not for reasons of practicality, not for reasons of societal reality, just out of pure, economically-driven misogyny. Some samples from the feedback thread:

"How about if slutty women just pick whoever they want to name as the “father”, then he must give half of his income to her for 18 years or go to prison as a deadbeat... And no, this wouldn’t encourage women to be nasty hoes nor would it be unfair to men, as women can only be victims."

"Uh… no. I’m not going to obligate myself to raise some other schmuck’s kid, with a flaky woman whose only accomplishment in life is to get knocked up."

"Here’s a double standard: women can get pregnant by anybody and then helped to find a “SugarDaddy” to help her throught? Once again, women would be living in the 21st century while mens are still stuck in the 1900. Why do men should take the burden of raising a children that’s not theirs anyway? Do we force childless women to adopt?"

Can't you just feel the petulance? Close your eyes and you can see the red rage creeping up their puffy faces toward their receding hairlines. They are the worst of the worst, Denise, and thinking they'd do anything more strenuous than slapping on a bumper sticker or tuning in to Scarborough Country for your admittedly idiotic cause isn't just naive, it's dumb.

Another Public Service

Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:19:12 -0600

Main Column, 9 November 2005

As members of a society built on virtually unrestrained capitalism, it's important for all of us to be aware of the tools we have at our disposal, ad individuals and collectively, to exert influence on that system.

No, not voting. That was yesterday, and we all know that doesn't mean shit. I'm talking about the BOYCOTT.

With the boycott, people who disagree with a corporation's policies refuse to buy that company's goods and services. If enough people join in, the company's profits and livelihood are threatened, and the company changes its policies. In theory.

In practice, fo course, nobody gives a shit, and all that happens is a bit of bad and/or hilarious publicity. Still, to make sure you have the latest in boycott news, it's time to unveil the Retarded Boycott Roundup!

BOYCOTT: ARUBA

Yes, the whole island. You see, the governor of Alabama would like you all to avoid spending your tourist dollars in the island paradice of Aruba. Why? Remember that teenager that went missing and got non-stop coverage for three months on all the news channels until actual horrifying tragedies bumped it? Natalie Holloway. Anyway, in the mind of Governor Bob Riley, the fine detectives of the island haven't done enough to find the missing Alabama teen. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"There are no other alternatives to get Aruban authorities to take this as seriously as they should." - And in Riley's defense, after Holloway went missing, all other crime on Aruba stopped to honor the memory of the pretty white American, so it's not like the police have had anything else to do since June.

While I empathise with the family to the admittedly small extent I can manage after being deadened inside by endless media coverage, shit happens. If Bob Riley thinks it's so easy to find Holloway, then he should grab his deerstalker... wait. Alabama. His John Deere hat, his corncob pipe, and his faithful cousin Bobby Joe Watson, and crack the case himself. Alabama is perfectly capable of running itself into the ground without him at the helm pretending to aim.

BOYCOTT: ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH

Yes, again. Yes, over t-shirts, again. Yes, over offensive t-shirts, again. This time they've set their sights a bit higher, from Asians to an entire gender. Specifically, shirts that say "Who Needs Brains When You Have These" and "All Men Like Tig Old Bitties".

I don't have a problem with the first one. The first one serves a useful identification purpose. Any woman wearing that shirt either makes it true, or has shitty taste in irony. Any man wearing that shirt should be allowed to look at the cold-cast busts in the dealer's room while the rest of us keep a minimum 20 foot safe distance.

The second shirt, however, is unacceptable. You can't just switch letters around and pretend it's a spoonerism. The results have to FUCKING WELL BE WORDS. I'll even be gracious on "bitties", which I can do because "tig" is so incredibly not a fucking word. I don't know if the designer was just lazy, or thought "tig" was a verb meaning "the up and down oscillating motion of Felis tigris, but either way, the son of a bitch is dead wrong.

Oh, and they're also offensive to women, so some people complained, threatened the embarrasingly-retitled "girlcott", and got the retailer to pull the two shirts. However, the also-not-a-spoonerism "Muck Fe" remains on store shelves. Apparently wordplay pedants do not buy cargo pants in sufficient quantities.

BOYCOTT: KSTP CHANNEL FIVE, MINNEAPOLIS

This one's my favorite. The Minnesota Vikings are proposing a boycott of Minneapolis network affiliate KSTP.

The "why" is funny. See, after the glorious Sex Boat incident, a KSTP "investigation" went through eight bags of trash dumped by two players. Now, this is fairly low class, even for local TV news, but the Vikings, who, as you may recall, threw a drunken public orgy on a pair of lake cruise boats, felt this was an invasion of their privacy.

But what makes this boycott really great is that it was posted in the Vikings locker room.

Yes, that's right. The Vikings are encouraging the entire roster of the Vikings, all several dozen of them, to boycott a local television station. Now, unless KSTP has become the state's leading wholesaler of K-Y Jelly since the last time I checked, the only way 50 football players could hurt a TV station is if all fifty of them were... 20 to 30 Nielsen families. And I'm pretty sure Nielsen likes to spread things out more than that.

So remember, folks, if you want to contribute to retarded causes, don't go to Aruba, don't buy shitty T-shirts from a shitty store, and don't become a professional football player, get a position with the Vikings, and watch "According To Jim" unless it's down in Atlanta with a hooker.

Postcards From The Theocracy

Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:03:20 -0500

Gender Issues, 20 October 2005

Every once in a while, I think it's important to check in with the theocracy. Not that I necessarily think we'll end up as one - that's a bit paranoid lefty for my tastes - but to remind folks of the kind of world the rabid right would have us live in.

For example, museums. Previously in this space, we've covered the American Taliban's anti-science efforts to build their own museums that patiently explain how the Grand Canyon was created by the flood, how the dinosaurs were friends with Jesus, and how hundreds of years of rational thought don't add up to jack shit compared to their one book.

But museums are expensive! you have to build them, and make up all the fake science stuff from scratch to fill them with, and hire crazy people to work there, and have a snack bar. Why go to all that trouble when there are hundreds of museums already standing and full of stuff? That's where "Biblically Correct Tours" comes in.

Think of BCTours as a "skin" for a piece of software, like Winamp. The programmers of Winamp spend years developing, programming, and building an MP3 player and music library manager. And then some dork with a pirated copy of Photoshop comes along and covers all the menus with naked pictures of Sailor Moon.

Similarly, the Biblically Correct Tours people go to existing, established museums, but with their own tour groups and guides, pointing at the dinosaurs and telling children they're five thousand years old.

Their crimes are the common crimes of creationists - their home page currently trumpets a fossil find as "The world of evolutionists was once again turned right-side up..."

It seems to me that you wouldn't want to be learning science from someone who thinks "right side up" is a bad thing, but then, I'm not a complete fucking idiot who thinks penguins are just birds who adapted (but didn't evolve) to colder weather after they stepped off the Ark.

To be fair, you'll only get to learn these things in Theocracy if you're a man. Women will not learn these things, because they aren't relevant to homemaking, subservience, and spraying out children in a Duggaresque frenzy.

At least, that's the case if you believe Jennie Chancy, author of a web page even more spartan than my own, Letters from Jennie.

In her letters, Jennie explains how, after four years of college and a career in media relations, she realized she was "breaking Covenant" with God, quit her job, got married, and has never been happier. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"God made woman for man. As much as the feminists hate the idea, it is true. Conversely, man was made to protect, cherish and nourish the woman. Men who are not doing that and are not loving their wives as Christ loved the church are covenant-breakers. Women who refuse to stay home and obey their fathers or husbands are also covenant-breakers. They are inverting God’s created order, which is God-Man-Woman-Animals. Today we have Animals-Woman-Man-God. Just take a look at what our society holds dear and who gets the most press time! Christians must strive to return to God’s created order."

I cannot figure out where Jennie is getting her news. I mean, you would suspect Fox, but even Fox doesn't cover animals more than it does women, or women more than it does men. God doesn't get a lot of -overt- coverage, true, but Jesus keeps making the cover of Time.

I admit I do not understand most of the Letters From Jennie. They contain convoluted contradictions - one paragraph tells us that "[Her father] is to guard her from all the “Mr. Wrongs” in the world while she waits for Mr. Right.", then four paragraphs later, "The single girl is not to sit around waiting for Mr. Right."

Jennie swears up and down that she isn't opposed to women seeking an education, as long as it's a womanly, in-the-home kind of thing like midwifery, or apparently, running a home-based sewing business. But she shoots down those who might seek career-based education. "What would you plan to do with a degree in nursing or business, given that it is unbiblical for a woman to work outside of her home and out from under her father’s or husband’s authority? This is antithetical to Scriptural principles and God’s commands for a woman."

Jennie, by the way, has three kids in three and a half years. Now, it's her choice to do so, just like it's her choice to espouse the values of masculine dominance and biblical chauvinism. But remember, every time some motherfucker tries to tell you this country was founded on "Christian values", that this is the kind of thing they'd like to roll us back to. Penguins off the Ark, and women in the kitchen.

Ryu. Sagat. M Bison. Skipper.

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:37:37 -0500

Republicans, 27 September 2005

Memo to Allan "The Skipper": YOU ARE DUMB.

I don't normally do this. See, I have a sort of set of artificially-imposed rules about who gets to even be considered for this space. And two of the big general exceptions are people arguing on message boards and right-wing blogs.

Both are, traditionally, ephemeral wind-piss, barely moistening the cheeks of the grander stupidity we are faced with on a day to day basis. Yet they are also bottomless wells of easy targetry. Dumb like fruit flies - they go through so many life-cycles so fast that their idiocy is honed and ritualized until it's like a Japanese tea ceremony, only with poop in all the cups.

But some things are always funny, and Allan "The Skipper" of Barking Moonbat Early Warning System*, has hit on a doozy. Skipper is a Threatened Insecure Male, and he posted about it on his blog.

You see this a lot among conservatives. Especially middle-aged conservatives. Especially middle-aged, divorced conservatives. Especially middle-aged, divorced conservatives who look like John Goodman and Stephen Root had an ugly love child.

In the eyes of the Threatened Male, the capital-M Man is under attack from feminizing influences, and is unable to maintain his 1953-approved gender role and Al Bundy hygeine in the face of modern society. Oh, and this is a bad thing. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

We’ve got homosexuals in the military thanks to the liberals and if the ACLU had anything to do with it we’d have them in the Boy Scouts. The American male is being driven undercover, made to look foolish in nearly every advertisement you see and if that don’t beat all, we have recently been given a new word to add to our vocabulary, thanks again to the liberal Left. That word is 'metrosexual'."

Just so you know, I checked. I double-checked. I triple-checked. This blog entry was in fact dated Monday, September 26, 2005. I even scanned for irregular tachyon emissions, to no avail. Which means, as difficult as it is to believe, that YESTERDAY, Skipper referred to "metrosexual" as a new word we've been recently given. I can only imagine the uproar once he discovers the existence of pink iPods, that Queer Eye show, and Coldplay.

Threatened Males are always threatened by two forces. Women, and gay men. If you'll indulge me in a bit of pop psychoanalysis, I like to think that these general threats are in fact abstractions of their corresponding specific life counterparts: The Ex-Wife, and The Guy She Left Him For.

Skipper is apparently disturbed by a New York Times story about men getting manicures before their wedding. Never mind that he's already had his wedding, sometime during the Ford administration, if my math holds up. These metrosexuals are threatening his masculinity by spiffing up for their wedding. Well, he's having none of it. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME AGAIN!

"I believe every man has to make up his mind what he will make of himself, in the context of being a man, not of being part man and part woman or any combination thereof. I know who I am and what I am and that’s all I need to know about myself. I take comfort in the fact that John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart would probably agree with me."

The pathos. The desperation. The reliance on dead actors (or more accurately, their most famous on-screen roles) to justify his insecurities. John Wayne may not have had a "feminine side", but I bet Marion Morrison did. And I bet Skipper has one too. He just represses it, because he can't find a way to beat it when he doesn't have dinner on his own table by six.

Skipper closes with one last parting shot at the tanning, waxing, manicuring "metrosexuals" he's just found out about: "I wouldn’t give a plugged nickel for any one of them in a street fight though ...."

I need to check on something. Just how important is it, really, to be ready for a street fight these days? I know I'm woefully unprepared for one, and it has nothing to do with whether I wax my pubes. But it doesn't bother me. I just take my chances that I won't be out and about the next time the Jets and the Sharks have a rumble.

If it IS that important, does Skipper really look like a man who could make his way across the gang-infested streets of New York with the rest of the Warriors? Skipper! Come out and play-yay!

I rest my case.

*"Moonbat", by the way, is the right hemiblogosphere's preferred epithet for those of us on the left. I presume it's supposed to capture our flighty insanity, although that'd make "barking" redundant as a modifier.

The Sweet Stench Of Stupidity

Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:08:43 -0500

Gender Issues, 8 September 2005

Memo to Mitchum Men: YOU ARE DUMB.

I am not a Mitchum man. I do not experience the Axe effect. I have never been mauled by a hot mother in an entryway due to my Tag. And thank fuck for that.

On the one hand, I think it's marvy that men are getting their egos manhandled by advertisers the same way womens' have. Dennis Miller is selling moisturizer, there are body sprays and skin care, all carefully made extra-manly so that you don't feel like a little girl using them, you insecure fuck.

Axe and Tag go for the "if you spray this stuff on you, you'll get laid" approach, which is classic Advertising 101, but they take it to extremes, portraying their repackaged Brut 44 as some kind of nymphomania-inducing neurotoxin that penetrates steel and lasts for months. You know. Like the world's greatest penis.

And it's true, there is a substance that, when sprayed all over your body, makes you more desirable to women. It's called WATER. Gallons of it are piped into your house for cheap. If you want to smell better, start using it.

Mitchum, on the other hand, is just deodorant. Now, men have been buying and using deodorant for centuries. Those of you just back from Dragon*Con will have to take my word for it. You don't need to man-up deodorant. You certainly don't need to man it up to the degree Mitchum wants to. Manned up so much it surgically replaces the X chromosome with half a dozen Y's.

These ads don't just think with their dick, they think with their dick so badly it's actually insulting to the intelligence of the average disembodied penis.

And they do this by creating the concept of the "Mitchum Man", which they define through a series of Cro-Magnon homilies. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"If menage a trois is the only French term you know..." "If your only fear is commitment..." "If you've ever eaten tortilla crumbs off your shirt..." "If they look real enough to you..."

The cleanliness of Ed Bundy, the diplomacy of Dubya, the groin-fed delusions of oversexed no-strings bliss... all to convince you that your pits shouldn't stink. Fucking appalling, and if you fall for it, you're fucking appalling too.

On their website, Mitchum has the "Man-A-Log", which is a catalog of man-goods with a name that sounds like the worst gay bar in town. In the man-a-log you can find all the essentials to be a true Mitchum Man: Meat, more meat, something to smoke the meat in, hardware, tube socks, a fake book, a big remote control, and a bucket. At this point, the bucket is the only thing I have in common with a Mitchum man, and we're not using it for the same thing.

There isn't enough irony on the planet to redeem this. Not enough tongue to fit in not enough cheek. Anyway, ironic advertising only works because they want you to believe the ridiculously overt message while plausibly denying that's what they're pushing. Fuck them with a used roll-on.

Buerk Is Ready To Get It On

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:57:28 -0500

The News, 22 August 2005

Memo to Michael Buerk: YOU ARE DUMB.

You know, on first glance, it often seems that England has it better than we do. Their right-wing leader-fuck isn't as dumb as our right-wing leader-fuck. Their version of The Office is better than our version. They don't have a Tennessee.

And while they do occasionally gun down an innocent Brazilian on the subway who, contrary to initial reports, wasn't actually wearing a bulky jacket, didn't actually jump the turnstile, and, er, didn't actually run from police, but rather bought a ticket, grabbed a newspaper, and took his seat, it could be worse. After all, none of their prominent news anchors got caught with a vibrator in one hand and a cell-phone in the other.

They do, however, have Michael Buerk, And while I'm sure Buerk would never use a cell-phone to force phone-sex on a woman, he might be able to match Bill O'Reilly in the crazy-ranty department.

Buerk seems to be feeling a bit threatened by women, you see. I'm not sure when it started. Maybe it was when that Icelandic elf stole his name. But apparently, both personally and professionally, Buerk has decided that those pesky women have too much power. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"Life is lived in accordance with women's rules... The result is men are becoming more like women." - Buerk, who admittedly, has a point. It's only womens' insistence on being paid less and kept down in the workplace that makes the whole situation tolerable at all, really.

Buerk is appearing on a show called "Don't Get Me Started", which apparently is a bit like this column, only with a classier accent. Prominent Brits come on and vent their spleens, and Buerk decided to vent his spleen about the current "femocracy" in which the role of man is to be a sperm donor.

As evidence for his claim, he cited metrosexuals, thereby not only proving himself an asshole, but a hopelessly out of date asshole. Metrosexuals, men using moisturizer, David Beckham... all examples of how the rise of women has taken the "man" out of... um, "man".

But wait! Not all of his proof is rooted in sweaty soccer players who fuck Posh Spice. "Almost all the big jobs in broadcasting were held by women - the controllers of BBC One television and Radio 4 for example. These are the people who decide what we see and hear." - He says "were", because both of those women have since been replaced. By men. No word yet on whether either of the men use moisturizer.

One good thing about this is that it proves our two countries aren't as different as we think. Get caught in print saying something stupid, and the defense is the same. I didn't say that, and when I -did- say it, I didn't mean it in a BAD way. ACTUAL STIFF UPPER LIP TIME!

"In my experience, women are more efficient and caring in the workplace. It is absurd to generalise." - Um, OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

"I am trying to convey that masculinity is becoming unfashionable and that traditional male values, such as courage, risk-taking and single-mindedness can be seen as dysfunctional... This isn't necessarily a bad thing but some of the more masculine traits have led to some of the world's greatest achievements and the trend in society currently is to move away from those traits."

See? All this femming-up is fine, just fine. It's not a bad thing, it just leads to cowardice and dithering, and if it hadn't been for all the manly men now being "ruined" by women, we wouldn't be where we are today.

I'd love to discuss the incredible dominance of women some more, but I have to go. Gonna stop by Hooters, pick up some Tag body spray, then swing by Borders and grab that Ed Klein book where he proves Hillary is a lesbo.