November 09, 2003

Manly men re-redux

Could someone tell me where the apparent 100% slavering admiration for Kim Du Toit's man-rant is in Glenn Reynold's post on it? This blogger* and this blogger and this blogger** all claim to see this. I, on the other hand, see Mr. Reynolds poking subtle fun at Du Toit's credo. I mean, come on, the riff on the cookware-as-tools thing is so a satire on the trad-male role. I think that while Mr. Reynolds may think that some of the issues Kim raised are valid (such as the over-reliance of the advertizing agencies and media on cheap misandry to sell product) he seems to find Mr. Du Toit's approach to be rather silly. Perhaps Mr. Reynolds is too subtle for this Great Global Communicator Interwebbe thingie.

*Scroll down to "Are we not -- er, men?" -- this blog has no permalinks. Yes he does.

**Scroll down to "the human race" -- Blogspot's permalinks are incredibly screwed up, as usual.

Posted by Andrea Harris at November 9, 2003 01:19 AM

Look at it this way, Andrea. I don't believe in "affirmative action". I'm also aware that, on college campuses particularly, you can find a lot of idiotic, derogatory attitudes toward whites, and European civilization in general, being taught. In fact, some of it is indisputably viciously racist. Let's say this really pisses me off and I post a nice little rant where I do bring up these valid points regarding affirmative action and anti-white racism. However, I also throw in a lot of raving racist crap against blacks and Hispanics in general, some of which, aside from being raving racist crap, doesn't even make any logical sense in the context of raving racist crap. (And let's say I've also handled these issues in a more measured way previously on my blog.)

Now, what kind of response would I get from intelligent people who shared my views on the valid points? Would everybody say, "haw haw haw, good old Mo! OK, she's a bit over the top here, but ya know, she really raises some good points!" or "well, I just took it as a rant and appreciated it in that sense" or "this is an important issue and I don't know why all you thin-skinned liberals focus on the offensive stuff and miss or ignore her valid points"?

No, of course not. They'd, rightly, call me an asshole. If Reynolds linked to it at all, it would be in the context of deploring my idiotic racist blather. Nobody would "subtly mock" its excesses while focussing on approving its valid points.

So yeah, I can see why the people you linked are pissed.

Posted by: Moira Breen at November 9, 2003 at 09:08 AM

Actually, I am sure plenty of people would subtly mock its excesses while approving its "valid points." For instance, I would. Because, see, I would be familiar with your other work, and figure that you were intelligent enough to deserve the subtle mockery type of admonition for your slip, instead of needing a verbal blunt object smashed across your virtual head. There is, of course, the possibility that I am wrong, and that a verbal blunt object is the best response by which to confront "idiotic (anything) blather." But my point is these people weren't noting the sarcasm in Reynold's post at all -- they were acting as if he was 100% approval of everything Du Toit said. Since when did linking to someone's web site, and using the contents thereof to spark a discussion, mean total approval? Do I now have to list the large number of things I think are wrong with Du Toit's premises in the Approved Shrieking Frenzy™ style that everyone else seems to have used or be kicked off Blog Island?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 9, 2003 at 10:07 AM

As the Great Man Himself would say:


Posted by: CGHill at November 9, 2003 at 11:54 AM

Hi Andrea,

Haven't been to your site in a while. New layout looks great! (and in case that's too subtle for you, I'm not being sarcastic).

I don't think I'm a good example of what you're going on about because I don't like Reynolds to start with. However, my take on it is this: Reynolds wasn't being subtle, he was sitting on the fence, hedging his bets and being a bit of a coward. He agrees with some of what du Toit wrote but didn't want to seem too in favour of it for fear of pissing off his women readers. So he was intentionally fuzzy. He played it safe.

Nothing really wrong with that, except that when other people do it, he slams 'em ... so why should he get away with it?

Posted by: blamb at November 9, 2003 at 04:55 PM

btw, I have permalinks. Just click on 'link' at the bottom of the posts.

Posted by: blamb at November 9, 2003 at 04:58 PM

I have noticed that Reynold's sense of humor is extremely dry; all I will say is that sort of thing is not for everyone.

PS: I have fixed the permalink link. For some reason on my browser the "link" link runs into the "comment" link and it looks like that's only a link to the comments.

PPS: glad you like the site look; hold it in your memory, because soon it will change! (Cue ominous music.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 9, 2003 at 05:11 PM

Without trying to ignite another flame war it just occurs to me that it is very female to change your format (which I like also), Whereas a guy will find something that suits him and won't look to change it a woman will tire of it or just want to try something else in an attempt to make it better.
It is similar to a woman changing her hair style.
A guy(I am guilty of this) might notice it right away but will notice that something has changed.
Or when asked if he likes the new look might say he liked to the one or(if he is smart) will say he liked the old oen but this one is nice too. If he is less smart he might say that this one is fine. Not what the woman wants to hear.
I think I am starting to get the Sunday night rabbles.
I am sure your new look, when you settle on it, will be just wonderful, until you decide it needs to be changed again.

Posted by: Starhawk at November 9, 2003 at 08:29 PM

I don't agree. I just think some people, women or men, like to tinker with their design. My site has been changed dozens of times.

Posted by: blamb at November 9, 2003 at 10:02 PM

I like Andrea's tinkering. Never know what it's gonna look like when I get here. It also has practical value, for those of us who have come whining to her with MT problems.

Andrea - I say baloney. (Baloney I say!). If I popped off with some rant stinking with incoherent racist blather nobody would be cutting me any slack, whether it was a one off or not.

I don't think the "subtle sarcasm" in an Instantman post is flying over too many people's heads. The complaints in the posts you link to don't hinge on the writers' assuming that Reynolds must be 100% in agreement with the posts he links. Whatever "subtle sarcasm" there is in Instantman's post, it's not in the least directed toward the things that are, for example, pissing off Gotham, and that's the point. People who give at least limited approval to certain things, or who give no sign of being offended by them, or who are oblivious to their offensiveness, are gonna piss off people who find those same things deeply offensive. (We all fall into that latter category on some issue or other. We get the joke; we just don't think it's funny.)

Off the point - have to scratch my head at your description of Reynolds's humor as "dry". Maybe I come from parts where the humor climate is unusually arid, but his brand of humor always struck me as pretty high humidity. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Posted by: Moira Breen at November 10, 2003 at 10:05 AM

I find the ever evolving TMTD a pleasure to visit. Its interesting to see what works and what doesn't. As far as Reynold's humour, I think it is dry(ish) but is not of the Northern New England variety (ie parched). It has been interesting to see the fall-out for Kim's post and the different takes on it. Comments have ranged from the interesting, insightful to alas, the pathetic.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at November 10, 2003 at 10:37 AM

Must. hold. back. comment.

Must. hold. back. comment.

Oh, goddammit.


(You have to go here to get the reference.)

Sorry, Andrea, I just can't stop myself today.

Posted by: Meryl Yourish at November 10, 2003 at 03:57 PM

Meryl: eet mor chikin. (Hint: fastfood, billboard.)

Moira et al: see this post. I am officially over the Kim du Toit thing, and won't be commenting on it anymore. Also: I refuse to get into an argument over what constitutes "humor." There just isn't enough time in the world. Now if you will all excuse me, my pasta is boiling over.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 10, 2003 at 07:55 PM

Taint arguing about humor; just pointing out that people have different standards of "dry".

I did see your "playa hata" post. Neither here nor there. I think you're being obtuse about the nature of the complaints.

Posted by: Moira Breen at November 11, 2003 at 08:53 AM

Obtuse, huh? Because I won't coo over people's imaginary wounds? Screw that. You know, I understand exactly where they are coming from. I just don't give a shit.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 11, 2003 at 07:09 PM