November 11, 2003

Kim strikes back!

And his rebuttal is better written than the original essay. (Do I have to say that that is my opinion only? I guess that I do.)

So I guess I wasn't entirely done. Anyway, this post meets with 75% Spleenville Approval™. (Points off for quoting an over-quoted Seventies movie. I am cruel only to be kind.)

Posted by Andrea Harris at November 11, 2003 12:23 AM

Well, I don't think that's much of a rebuttal. He unloads a hysterical wad and then complains when he gets people responding at that level? I'm sorry, but that's hypocritical.

As for the term 'metrosexual', which you posted about earlier; it was coined in the mid-90s as a marketing concept intended to goad men into buying more stuff. It's advanced capitalism at work, so I don't see why everyone is complaining about it.

And it's a heck of a lot healthier than 'lad culture'.

Posted by: blamb at November 11, 2003 at 01:01 AM

I'm sorry. Perhaps I wasn't very clear. I was referring to the writing itself, which was more tightly focused. The essay itself was a mess, being all over the place in terms of its subject matter and references.

As for "metrosexual," I will take your word for it that it appeared in the mid-90's but I never heard it. Then again, I don't follow the sort of circles where they practice "advanced capitalism," whatever that is. I think people are complaining about it because it sounds sort of silly, not because they aren't good "advanced capitalists."

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 11, 2003 at 06:26 AM

My problem with it is here:

"This essay was aimed at men who are sick of their masculinity being denigrated or changed into something else, and at women who think likewise."

Why not just say it like it is, fool--"that essay was aimed at people who agree with me already" . . . ? I'm sorry, but you don't get much more pussy than that. I can't stand people who dish it out but won't take it.

Posted by: ilyka at November 11, 2003 at 06:46 AM

Yeah he really does not get that it is possibly to be manly and not like sports and oggling at women (you can't have). He really has a hard time with men who like to take care of themselves, don't like sports, guns, fast cars, strippers etc.

I agree it was not a rebutal but a overall re-tort to all his many critics and a thank you to those who supported his childish rant.

I don't thing he truly realises what a prat he made of himself. Oh well, at least it got him lots of hits.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at November 11, 2003 at 07:54 AM

It got everybody lots of hits. Let's toast!

Posted by: blamb at November 11, 2003 at 09:40 AM

I don't get all the hoopla. I largely agree with Kim, except for how seriously he seems to take the issue of manliness. And I don't expect him to give a flying fuck about what I think. I don't think boys (or girls, for that matter) should be punished for protecting themselves, but neither do I think men are (even ideally) incapable of absurdity that goes along with being male.

I'm sure even Kim's exemplars of manliness were dicks from time to time. That's just part of being human. If you can't laugh at stuff like that, you have a giant stick up your ass. Not saying Kim's one of those; just saying...sorry, boys and girls are different. Why not accept that, and have fun with it?

Posted by: David Perron at November 11, 2003 at 10:14 AM


I'm sorry to disagree with you, mate, but I really think that you're arguing a point that Kim didn't actually (or reading more than is actually there into it).

His essay did contain some objectionable language when referring to gay people, but it made some very valid points about the distinctly...uhhh, metrosexual (and I definitely dislike that word) view of manhood that is being forced upon us by Madison Av., the media, government, and the other usual suspects.

I can't speak for Kim (and I'm sure that he could do better than me in that department anyway), but (as far as the issues that you have brought up are concerned) I think that his beef lies in the fact that men are slightly vilified for their love of sports, looking at women without that immediately equating to sexual harassment, etc.

I don't think that he has a problem with men that take care of themselves either. He may state that it's normal for men to be slobs (and, let's face it, when we're alone, we all have moments of "slobbery"), but he also bemoans the fact that men's fashion has gone from the three piece suit to a man with breasts wearing a tight sweater.

Kim may like some of the things that you mention, but I don't think that he's stating that you're any less of a man if you don't share his hobbies (as I stated in my own post on this subject, I personally prefer to spend the day reading rather than out in the bushes with a shotgun waiting to blast something out of the sky, but, then again, I also prefer to do my shooting in a mosquito-free environment).

The post might have been a tad over the top (but I think that he was trying to get a rise out of people), but, when you boil it all down to its basic points, quite a few of them are rather valid, as far as I'm concerned.

(I'd also like to state for the record that I don't equate manliness with behaving like some sort of caveman. I like to think of myself as a gentleman - granted, I have my days too.)

Posted by: Paul Jané at November 11, 2003 at 07:40 PM

Nothing is being forced on anyone Paul, that is the point. Kim whinges about a bloody advert mate. Kim is whingeing about the fact that the male definition is not the one he believes in. His screed against what he considers non-manly men is pathetic and wrong. Its his method of thinking that my arse kicked when I was young.

Its guys who thought they were the definition of manliness who are the main source of bullying, abuse and ultimately suicide in high school. Its his type of thinking that causes events like in a High School near Michele.

It his type of attitude that caused Columbine, not Metrosexuality (dumb term granted)/fopishness or Madison Avenue.

As you well know I see nothing wrong with fast cars and guns. That is not the point.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at November 11, 2003 at 07:54 PM

You know what? You didn't read the essay. Kim Du Toit did not say one thing in favor of bullies beating up kids in high school, or for any other such activity being the "true" definition of manliness. And no, I don't care what you "thought" he meant, or what you think he was "implying," or any of that bullshit.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 11, 2003 at 08:08 PM

There is a lost art to being a man and it is nothing to do with 'things'.

It's an attitude, some kind of mixture of moral strength with humility, an outward generosity with an inner discipline, a pleasant disposition that is gracious to all, yet quick to recognise and deal correctly with bad behaviour or a threat.

And not too much chat.

Posted by: pooh at November 11, 2003 at 09:41 PM

Whoops, sorry, I forgot to add "make" just before opening the parenthesis in my first sentence above.

Posted by: Paul Jané at November 11, 2003 at 10:08 PM

If people interpret "Real Man" to mean something akin to bully, then it merely proves Kim's point. Which was, BTW, that MAN has become some sort of dirty word, to which men are supposed to be ashamed of being.

But that wasn't even the major focus. It was about the intrusiveness of the government (with the media and television references mentioned only as a reflection of society). All of that was mentioned. All of the proper caveats were in place.

But it doesn't matter. If people truly believe that being a man, a real man, is something sinister and evil, then they're too far gone to reclaim. It wasn't written for folks who can't get it, it was written to acknowledge the 5000+ emails he's received from men who want to do something about it, and get the Nanny-state out of our lives.

Posted by: Mrs. du Toit at November 12, 2003 at 12:05 AM

That's interesting. Now go get me a beer.

Just kidding!

Posted by: JFT at November 12, 2003 at 12:46 AM

What is wrong with you people?

The dad's always an idiot.
The abuser's always the husband (and when it's not the guy's a pussy--like everyone had fun calling that raving drunk Liza's ex last week)
Men should aspire to behave like women.

All these things are said so often that they're routine. So often that someone who raises his head above the pink slime and tries to say waitaminute is ripped apart as if he's started advocating burqas and female circumcision.

Look at what's happening to little boys in this country and tell me that that's right.

Posted by: jack at November 12, 2003 at 01:20 PM

Hey, nobody in here has called me a girly-man for not having a live Comments section on my website.

How did anyone miss that?

Also, if ever there was an interesting exercise, it was counting how many of the "Perpetually Sensitive" called me a closet homosexual, a wimp, a whiner, a coward, a Neanderthal -- all without leaving me THEIR email address, of course.

Ad hominem attacks as a debating tactic used to work SO well on the playground...

What civilized metrosexuals like Dodge seem not to know is how deep is the resentment to all the pussification forced on men.

Let me tell you, if I posted the contents of some of the emails of support I got, you'd shit in your silk Versace undies at the sentiments.

And then I'd post the emails of support I got from MEN.

I appear to have touched a nerve among Wussies, Inc.

But I heard a deafening roar of support from Real Men (and Women).

Attacking me is pointless. I'm just a fat old guy with a blog. The real backlash is only just beginning, and you may not like the way it ends.

You heard it here first.

Posted by: Kim du Toit at November 12, 2003 at 03:53 PM