Let’s all get pussified!
| November 12th, 2003So Kim du Toit wrote a much-linked essay decrying “The Pussification of the Western Male”. I haven’t responded to it, because it seems pointless. The du Toits of the world have always been with us; before my parents were born, people like du Toit were panicking over the exact same thing. (That’s why the Boy Scouts were originally created, to counteract the alleged feminization of the Western male all those decades ago).
For me, arguing about if “pussification” of the Western male is taking place would be like arguing about if Jesus Christ was lord. It might be entertaining, but there’s absolutely zero chance of changing any minds. Du Toit is coming from a position of faith, not a position of evidence.
Frankly, I hope that du Toit’s right, and that the West is being hopelessly pussified.
Pretty much every evil thing in this world can be laid at the feet of non-pussified men; the sooner every last male is pussified, the better, as far as I’m concerned. (Yes, I’m aware that many non-pussified men have done a lot of good by joining the army and protecting the pussified men and the women from the invasions and deprivations of other non-pussified men. But that’s a dubious argument in favor of non-pussified men; if there were no non-pussified men at all, then the protection of non-pussified men would never have been necessary.)
Let me tell you, the Nazi party was anti-pussy. The kids who beat me up in the schoolyard were anti-pussy. The guys who killed Matthew Shepherd were anti-pussy. The KKK was anti-pussy - by bravely getting together in mobs and killing individual black people, they proved what men they were. The crusaders were not pussies, and neither were the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Jack the Ripper was no pussy. Truman was no pussy, and if you don’t believe it just visit Hiroshima. Andrew Jackson wasn’t a pussy, either.
Hitler: not a pussy.
Stalin: not a pussy.
Charles Manson: not a pussy.
Wouldn’t it have been great if all these guys had been through pussification, though? Wouldn’t history have been immeasurably improved if they were “objectively pro-pussy”?
The man who beats his wife is anti-pussy. The man who teaches his son to fear being seen as a pussy, is anti-pussy. The frat house guy who participates in a rape because he just has to score, because otherwise he’s a pussy - is anti-pussy.
Saddam was all about not being seen as a pussy, which is why he so resisted backing down even when that would have been the most rational course of action. George W. Bush is all about not being seen as a pussy, which is why he was so determined to invade Iraq in the first place. (Whenever someone says that we must stand tough in foreign policy to “maintain credibility,” that’s a code-word for “we don’t want to be pussies”).
Frankly, when every man in this world is too much of a pussy to hit his wife, to bash another gay, to value macho posturing above peacemaking, and to pass on to his son a fear of being seen as a pussy - well, then, this world will be much, much closer to paradise.
I read some Christian blog (sorry, lost the link) which was complaining about all those pussified imagines of Jesus Christ - you know, the ones with long hair and doe eyes, maybe smiling gently on some children at play or some other pussy bullshit like that.
In response, let me say:
Hey, God, you pussy!
Pussify us, please God!
Please, bless us with pussification! As much pussification as possible, as soon as possiible! Blessed be thy hallowed pussification!
Pussify us, O Lord, so that thy pussified Kingdom may come!
Amen.
* * *
That said, several people have been less dismissive than me, and have written good and interesting rebuttals to du Toit.
The funniest I’ve read is Philosoraptor’s “The duToitification of the Western Conservative.”
Feministe provides a very well-thought feminist rebuttal.
And so does Avedon Carol, in her essay “The Wimpification of Conservatives.”
Sara at Diotima also has an interesting reply, although I don’t agree with everything she writes. For example:
Okay, I agree that basing manliness on hunting and fistfights is dumb, but what about bravery and integrity are particularly masculine virtues? Surely these are equally desirable traits no matter what a person’s sex is, so why connect them to masculinity at all?
November 12th, 2003 at 2:17 pm
I like pussy.
And puppies, too.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2003 at 3:43 pm
I think we need to form a penile colony for all the non-pussified men.
That many reps of the word pussy is a bit jarring to me (call me old fashioned), but terrific post, Ampersand. MG
This comment was written by Mary Garden.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2003 at 3:51 pm
I heartily agree. Non-pussified men are the ones I fear most.
Signed,
A secure, het, masculine, yet hopefully totally pussified male.
This comment was written by Sean K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2003 at 4:58 pm
We didn’t give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
This comment was written by Jake.heh, priceless.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2003 at 5:13 pm
He’s a fat slob, he’s got a girlie name, he wears a dumbass hat, and he has some sort of strange fantasies about GW in a flight suit–I don’t think I’ll let this dork define my genre. If I’m “pussified” then what do you call a turd like du Toit who probably can’t touch his toes? I can’t even believe how many people have linked to that stupid essay when they should be reading quality stuff like my page.
This comment was written by leftbanker.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2003 at 5:22 pm
Frenchie hat, Frenchie last name, girl’s first name….hmmm….I think he’s overcompensating for something.
Probably drives a Hummer too.
Are you sure this isn’t an Onion column like Jim Anchower, Smoove B, or Jean Teasdale?
This comment was written by Aaron.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2003 at 5:27 pm
I should have guessed what I was getting into when I saw the gigantic bullets, gun pics, and the American flag gif. Anyone with a waving American flag on their page (present company excluded) is probably not going to be my ideological brethren.
This comment was written by Ms Lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2003 at 7:27 pm
“we like simple, we are simple, we are men”.
Says it all. *8)
This comment was written by David M. Chess.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2003 at 7:34 pm
Leftbanker wrote: He’s a fat slob… If I’m “pussified” then what do you call a turd like du Toit who probably can’t touch his toes?
Well, I’d call du Toit a stupid asshole.
I was tempted to call you the same thing, but that’s probably unfair.
Let me try to explain this politely: I realize that the rest of the world is a place where fat jokes are acceptable. I realize that you probably didn’t realize that I’m if anything fatter than KdP. I realize you probably meant no harm.
Nonetheless, jokes which imply that someone is contemptable because they are fat are NOT acceptable here on my blog. If you’re gonna post here, please refrain from posting such anti-fat comments, or else I’ll ban you.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2003 at 8:52 pm
I never cease to be amazed by the liberals who get off on insulting Limbaugh regarding his weight (years after he lost most of it even). Weight has nothing to do with the reason Limbaugh is offensive. Michael Moore only has his weight in common with Limbaugh (at least Limbaugh Classic). Yet, I guess according to leftbanker, they are the same, and equally contemptable.
This comment was written by Fat Dude.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2003 at 9:25 pm
It is a lapse of ignorance on leftbanker’s part. But as a matter of practically, if you want to shamelessly plug your blog on someone else’s comments page, try spending enough time on the blog so that you don’t offend everyone in the room as you do. Not a good MO.
As for du Poit’s article, I especially like where he says that Rumsfeld could have pretty much any woman on earth that he wants. Because all those intellectual wimmin types just want a good manly man to put them in their place. If that were the case, ie if half the population of earth were that soulless and shallow, I would plunge myself down a bottomless pit right now.
The horror. The horror.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 12:08 am
I think the post about Jesus being a pussy is here:
http://www.donaldsensing.com/2003_11_01_archive.html#106807370502407723
With a great response from Allen Brill here:
http://www.therightchristians.org/archives/000265.html
I’m surprised and disturbed by the glee so many people responding to du Toit’s article (in general throughout the blogosphere, not specifically here in this thread) took in accusing him of being unmanly (he’s fat, he has a stupid hat, he has a girl’s name, etc.). There was particular excitement about pointing out that because he’s homophobic, he must be gay. I can’t put my finger on precisely what makes the “homophobes must be gay” line bother me so much, but it does.
This comment was written by Stentor.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 1:58 am
Cheers, mate! Good one.
Although, I have to take issue with your assumption that pussified men can’t defend themselves. I consider myself at least mostly pussified (still rough around the edges as you may have noticed — trying to shake off 20 years of corruption,) but I think I can still kick some ass if need be.
Of course, maybe that’s because I wasn’t born and raised a pussy. And maybe it’s because I have a lot of non-pussy friends who may still rub off on me quite a bit (somehow, it’s still fun to beat the shit out of each other when we get drunk. Some kind of bonding experience I think.)
I don’t know. Maybe I’m still just a dumb hick inside.
This comment was written by madprophet.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 3:00 am
Stentor: Philosoraptor so eviscerated the du Toit’s article in the link that I hardly know what else to mention.
The cheap shots I took were the only ones I *could* take without repeating Philosoraptor….
This comment was written by Aaron.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 6:01 am
“There was particular excitement about pointing out that because he’s homophobic, he must be gay. I can’t put my finger on precisely what makes the ‘homophobes must be gay’ line bother me so much, but it does.”
This had rubbed me the wrong way, as well. Thanks for pointing it out, as I hadn’t quite put my finger on it until you mentioned it. I think the reason why it bothers us is because this line of insult is itself based on the idea that effeminacy/homosexuality is a pejorative. It revels in the same sexism and homophobia as du Toit himself.
This comment was written by Fat Dude.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 7:00 am
Based on my reading of The Rules and The Surrendered Wife, I would say that bravery and integrity are not “traditional” feminine virtues.
(Of course, “traditional” really means “according to a nostalgic view of 1950s white middle-class America.”)
Why should a “traditional woman” be brave? Better to let a “traditional man” rescue her from her travails. Why should a “traditional woman” have integrity? Better not to make any honest statement that might scare away that “traditional man”.
(The Surrendered Wife actually says that a woman should never ever complain to your husband about what he does, but it’s OK for her to bitch about him behind his back to her girlfriends. I wonder if the author’s husband has actually read her book.)
This comment was written by Seth Gordon.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 7:05 am
Whenever men use the word “pussy” as an insult around me, I ask them why “pussy” is an insult until they want some. I try to be good-natured about it, and, unless they’re complete idiots, they get the point.
Second, as I said to Philosoraptor, the qualities mentioned are ones that men AND women should possess–we should all be brave, and compassionate, and so on–and that there isn’t anything I’d want to teach a daughter but not a son, and vice versa.
Third, a major issue is personal responsibility. I’m getting tired of people from all parts of the political spectrum trying to find a way to say, “It’s not my fault!” As we’re trying to teach my six-year-old stepson, we all make mistakes, and, when we do make a mistake, we must own up to it honestly, apologize for it sincerely, fix it if we can, and learn from the mistake so as not to make the same one again. There are many adults who could learn from that.
Finally, the homophobic/gay thing may come from research I’ve seen referred to that showed that homophobic straight men apparently become more aroused by gay porn than do non-homophobic straight men. If this is true, then it’s truly ironic, and it may be the irony that’s amusing (and depressing, given the frequency with which it leads to self- and other-loathing, as well as to violence). I don’t think effeminacy/homosexuality is pejorative, but homophobes do–and it may be that they are closer to being the thing they despise (but that we do not despise) than they/we realize.
This comment was written by carla.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 7:08 am
One of the best blog posts I have ever read. Thank you. The set of links gets bitty, but is generous of you.
This comment was written by John Isbell.“Frankly, I hope that du Toit’s right, and that the West is being hopelessly pussified.”
Amen.
MG, I see your point, but generally the p word doesn’t evoke anatomy to me at least when I hear it in this sense, and it didn’t in Amp’s post. It sounds like “wimp.”
I am very glad that I am a girly-man.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 7:08 am
Actually, I think it’s an insult to gay men to call Du Toit gay. If he came out of the closet tomorrow, I’m willing to bet a lot of gays would push him back in and padlock the door.
This comment was written by neko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 7:12 am
Amp,
Thanks for taking Leftbank to task. One of the reasons I love reading this blog is the general quality of the comments. Generally people who post here avoid unthinking slams and offer thoughtful commentary.
I don’t read Atrios very often for the same reason. The hateful, thoughtless comments made there are distasteful to me even if they are made by people with whose politics I might agree. I don’t think that having the “correct” political view gives you the right to be insulting all over the place.
:-)
This comment was written by Sam.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 7:29 am
On Neanderthal philosophy
This comment was written by Prometheus 6.I was more than willing to let Kim DuToit’s absurdity (you know which one I’m talking about) pass into obscurity, but Ampersand at Alas, A Blog has perhaps the second best response to it I’ve seen. …The du Toits of…
Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 8:09 am
I think it’s an insult to gay men to call Du Toit gay. If he came out of the closet tomorrow, I’m willing to bet a lot of gays would push him back in and padlock the door.
Neko, I needed that laugh.
This comment was written by Ms Lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 9:10 am
In praise of the pussified male
This comment was written by Sappho's Breathing.Sigh. I’m just waiting for Amp to ride his white horse into town and rescue me from…. Oh wait. Maybe I should get my own damn horse to Portland. Saddam was all about not being seen as a pussy, which…
Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 9:20 am
Great post! I also hope and pray for the “pussification” of the world. For one thing, maybe then we’ll have less airplanes slamming into office buildings and other assorted side effects that come with allegiance to a God viewed as a Big Macho Guy.
This comment was written by The Heretic.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 10:38 am
Personally, I like the word pansy.
This comment was written by Bill.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 10:53 am
“Pretty much every evil thing in this world can be laid at the feet of non-pussified men”
Sic transit gloria Victoria and Thatcher.
You really gotta watch that sexism, y’know.
This comment was written by John Hackworth.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 10:59 am
I blame my mommy.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 11:05 am
MG, I just noticed your penile colony joke. Nice!
This comment was written by John Isbell.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 11:20 am
I’ve always kind of wondered how “pussy” came to be such a pejorative. (Yes, I know, guilt by association and all that…)
But here’s a little mental exercise for you: how many male body parts could have a baby shoved through them and be good for anything afterwards?
Pussies are lots of things, but wimpy isn’t one of them.
This comment was written by alex.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 11:21 am
Weight has nothing to do with the reason Limbaugh is offensive.
Agreed, and I wonder if anyone’s taken Al Franken to task for calling his book “Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot” instead of the simpler and more relevant “Rush Limbaugh is an Idiot”.
I couldn’t find anything on Google, though I’d be happy to ask at a book signing.
This comment was written by Joe Grossberg.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 11:31 am
Thanks John! : )
By the way, I wasn’t thinking anatomy either when I was saying the word pussy tends to jar me. It hits me in the gut the same way “bitch” or “nigger” do, even if it’s being used to attack someone who uses the word to keep women and pansy-men (thanks Bill) down. In this case, it made sense to hurl the word right back at ol’ Kimbo, but still…
I guess I meant it more as an observation than a criticism. The word makes me feel slimed, whether it ought to or not.
MG
This comment was written by Mary Garden.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 11:31 am
The point of Franken’s title is a response to right wing bluster. It’s satire. Calling Rush a Big, Fat Idiot is in response to calling Clinton a murderer, equating feminists with nazis and calling 13-yr. old Chelsea Clinton a dog. I love Al Franken.
This response is referring to the hard cover version of Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot, and Other Observations
This comment was written by Bill.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 11:48 am
Wow. This completely made my day. Best post I’ve ever read on a blog anywhere. All that was missing was “objectively pro-pussy.”
This comment was written by PinkDreamPoppies.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 11:53 am
Bill is correct about “RLiaBFI&OO” (I don’t want to type the title over & over);)
It is a satire on ad hominem attacks used by Rush and others. Franken spends pages & pages on Rush’s weight. Yeah, it’s belaboring the point and all - but even with that people don’t seem to get it.
Also, it makes a better title than “… is a poorly adjusted human being who has problems relating to others and has failed in marriage.” Which he also spends pages and pages discussing. Mix that in with documenting RL’s lies and I think that the book has quite a lot to say.
Granted, he does use anti-fat sentiment. But that’s because that is currently (far) more acceptable than insulting based on religion or race, etc. Remember, one of the big points of the title was to sell books. And, yes, the laboring over fat made me uncomfortable. But maybe that was also the point.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 12:19 pm
Yeah, it was a deliberate attempt to use Rush’s tactics against him. . .like titling a book making fun of David Duke “David Duke is one white-ass casper-looking honky whitebread motherfucker.” Racial slurs aren’t cool, but using them in an ironic way against someone who delights in their use against others is. . .hrm. . .more acceptable, in my book anyway.
Still, as a fat guy, it sure would be nice if fat jokes were less acceptable, overall.
—JRC
This comment was written by JRC.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 2:01 pm
How about “Rush Limbaugh is a whinging toad”?
It’s accurate.
This comment was written by neko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 2:06 pm
I understand that the point of “Rush L. is a big fat idiot…”’s title was to make fun of conservatives who dress up as intellectuals and then make obvious and stupid points. Still, I’m not entertained by most fat humor, and I didn’t buy the book.
PDP, I think I’m going to edit the post to add that phrase somewhere. It’s too good to skip. :-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 2:42 pm
Amp,
I think that perhaps you missed the point of the book. I know that you didn’t buy the book, but have you read it?
If what you wrote there is really what you mean; that the purpose of the books was
“to make fun of conservatives who dress up as intellectuals and then make obvious and stupid points”
then I think that you are mistaken. That is certainly NOT what the book is about. It is about how these high profile conservatives lie, distort facts, don’t bother to do any research to support their positions and resort to ad hominem attacks, obfuscations & changing the subject to defend themselves. And, as such, it was quite successful.
I understand the uncomfortability w/ the profusion of fat jokes (really, they were more insult than joke). I had no idea that the fat insult content would be so high when I picked it up. But, also, a large portion of the fat insults are directly linked to RL calling Chelsea Clinton (at age 13) the “White House Dog”. If RL read the book (ha!), maybe he was able to understand why that was hurtful.
I was made uncomfortable by Franken’s copious use of the fat insult, but I think that there was some degree of merit in the purpose of the book.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 6:00 pm
I won’t defend the copious amounts of fat insults other than to say that Franken is still human, if a very smart and funny one, but the humor in the title sort of requires the use of the word “fat”.
Any other title people mused on doesn’t quite bring what saying someone is a “big, fat idiot” does, in that it is an entirely juvenile, playground insult to say. That, added with And Other Observations puts the juvenile insult on par as an empirical statement, as such the irony, which doesn’t quite become as effective sans the word “fat”.
I understand being offended, but I don’t know of any obvious playground insult to throw at Limbaugh other than “big, fat idiot.” The point remains the same, but this then becomes a matter of, for lack of a better word, aesthetics.
Fortunately in his new book, Franken doesn’t have to say anything in the title more offensive than “lying liars”. Yay.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 7:42 pm
I don’t really think it was ironic. Franken has said publicly that he named the book that because he thought it was so obvious that Rush was fat and he thought that people were being too polite in ignoring it and that he could get yuks by pointing it out in such a rude manner.
I realize there are differences of degree, but if after Jesse Jackson called New York “hymietown,” a Jewish person had responded satirically by releasing a book called “Jesse Jackson is a Dumb N_____,” I don’t think people would have excused it just because Jackson himself had used a racial epithet. Similarly, just because Limbaugh made tasteless and reprehensible comments about Chelsea Clinton, that doesn’t make me laugh along hysterically with Franken’s fat-based ha-has. It made me regard him as an asshole.
Here’s the deal: most people don’t like being fat, bald, acne-ridden, short, wrinkled, ugly, have “saggy” breasts, or saddled with various other physical conditions that fill people with shame due to their deviations from the ideals of physical perfection as envisioned in our society. These physical conditions don’t have anything to do with the character of a person (beyond perhaps causing people to try to work hard to overcome them in order to attain respect). Nabokov and Ari Fleisher are both bald. I’m not going to release a book called “Nabokov is a Bald Genius” or “Ari Fleisher is a Bald Idiot.” Both would be pointless. One is a genius, the other is an idiot. Lack of hair has nothing to do with either condition.
This comment was written by Fat Dude.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 7:49 pm
Point taken Fat Dude. I guess then what I wrote above isn’t what Franken was trying to accomplish, but how I interpreted it, and why my interpretation caused me to laugh. Which then raises the eternal critical question: Which is more relevant, the author’s impression or the audience’s interpretation? Boy, do I not want to start that lengthy involved debate that has nothing to do with the original post being discussed here. So let’s just concede that Franken was being a jerk there, but that doesn’t change my opinion that he is a brilliant and funny man overall.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 7:50 pm
“the author’s impression” should have been “the author’s intention”. But I guess impression works to an extent.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2003 at 10:20 pm
Jeez guys, After reading how many times pussy was used in the post and in all the replies, I have to say that the word doesn’t seem really so offensive any more, and that’s sad. I mean, a week ago, if I called someone a pussy I’d at least get an argument, and maybe a fight. Now if I use the word all’s I get is a limp wristed conservative wimp? That Tu Doit guy really let the pussy out of the bag with this one.
As a general rule, I tend not to use anatomical slang to insult other humans (Dubya being the exception that proves the rule), but now I’m wondering whether a liberal bigot should write something about The Penification of American women. I mean to be perfectly fair and balanced, if new age men are to be pussified why can’t new age American women be penified? It probably fits too (in a manner of speaking) seeing that women yearning for freedom have moved out of the drudgery of the home and into the drudgery of the corporation, a little change in nomenclature may help them get a head (really sorry about that). Actually, a better word might be cockified since the slang word cock is also a word for a bird, while a pussy is normally known as a cat.
So there are many expressions waiting to be added to the new lexicography. Maybe we should compile them here, unless of course the cat’s got your tongue.
This comment was written by James Emerson.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2003 at 12:48 am
Johnsonized
This comment was written by FatDude.willified
phallusized
dickinated
weenified
bepeckered
Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2003 at 7:45 am
As a matter of fact, James, that’s happened repeatedly in American culture. Starting at the turn of the century, and accelerating dramatically between the world wars (NOT after WW2, as is often supposed), there was tremendous concern that women were becoming too masculine; the American Freudians, after WW2, were aghast at how women apparently wanted to be men, and how evil and ill this was. The fact that they wanted to wear pants was prime evidence of this.
This comment was written by carla.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2003 at 1:32 am
Faster, Pussycat
This comment was written by Pacific Views.By now, everyone’s had a chance to laugh hysterically at the Kim duToit essay (Didn’t his parents listen to Johnny Cash like normal people? They must have missed the masterpiece psycho-social commentary that is ‘A Boy Named Sue.’), the pussification of…
Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2003 at 7:20 pm
Meow, said the aardvark.
This comment was written by arbitrary aardvark.Raz: lessee, asshat, bootheeler, bovine, bully…
I like him, myself, in small doses. His grandad Rush was well thought of. I’m not a huge fan of his judge uncles cousins etc.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2003 at 1:04 am
aa, I’m still not sure if any of those really has the simplicity of the word “fat”. I think really for the sake of aesthetics, I’m looking for a monosyllabic word here.
Maybe “Rush Limbaugh is a bovine lummox” but that’s waxing a bit too Victorian for my taste.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2003 at 4:37 am
excellent response to a much too hyped about essay.
This comment was written by sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
November 27th, 2003 at 12:41 am
“and calling 13-yr. old Chelsea Clinton a dog”
“Similarly, just because Limbaugh made tasteless and reprehensible comments about Chelsea Clinton”
Nonsense.
Transcript from lexis nexis (Rush was doing a segment on In/Out lists that were coming out by the dozens at the time, and how they were biased):
SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)
November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM
LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show’s era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them–one of them in particular is.
David Hinckley of–of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has–he’s got–it’s very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.’ Could–could we see the cute kid? Let’s take a look at- -see who is the cute kid in the White House.
(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That’s not the kid.
(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That’s–that’s the kid. We’re trying to…
_________________________
Yes, it was a mistake, and yes, he profusely apologized (and the guy responsible was fired).
_________________________
LIMBAUGH: My friends, I apologize again. I–that’s the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton…I’m–I hope you’ll forgive me. …
LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, I’m sorry. Let me tell you very quickly what happened last Friday night. There was a new in list and new out list that was published in the newspaper. The writer said in, cute kid in the White House; out, cute dog in the White House. Could we show the cute dog in the White House who’s out, and they put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton back in the crew. And many of you people think that we did it on purpose to make a cheap comment on her appearance. And I’m terribly sorry…
LIMBAUGH: We’re sorry. We didn’t intend to hurt her feelings…
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
November 27th, 2003 at 4:42 am
The fear of ‘pussification’ of men seems to be a repeating cycle in history. Think of the ‘muscular Christianity’ movement of the early 20th century; a time when women were gaining the vote. Then came Philip Wylie and his “The Generation of Vipers”, which set the blame for effeminate men squarely on the monster mom’s shoulders. Today we have the Promise Keepers and people like the writer of the essay discussed here.
They appear to define ‘man’ by excluding anything that they determine to belong to ‘woman’. This false duality deprives people of their full humanity. It also ties the self-esteem of men who believe in it to the actual status of women in the society in a perverse way: The better off women become, the crummier these men feel.
What’s with du Toit’s website? All those guns…
Makes me wonder if he’s Freudian?
Echidne of the snakes
This comment was written by Echidne of the snakes.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2003 at 7:44 pm
your comments are quite amusing and they crack me up pitty i got detension for looking at the site. penification = pussification + oh my god
This comment was written by big_t.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2003 at 9:04 pm
The explorers who discovered this country. The patriots who freed it from the british, and the pioneers who blazed a trail out west all fit under the non-pussified category. Granted they were not perfect,(and your example of Hitler and Truman being non-pussys was correct, though I’d argue agains the kkk). Sometimes these overachievers have very bad ideas. But when you weigh the good ones vs. the bad I’d say we come out far better off with the non pussys then without them.
This comment was written by cj.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2003 at 9:08 pm
The explorers who discovered this country.
Well, there’s precious little evidence as to whether they were pussies or not. I mean, they crossed the land-bridge for pure survival, not out of some desire to go adventur. . .
Oh, wait. You probably meant Columbus, right?
Yeah, the guy who initiated over 500 years of genocidal oppression of indigenous peoples wasn’t a pussy, I’ll grant you that.
—JRC
This comment was written by JRC.Report this comment to the moderators
December 10th, 2003 at 8:05 am
“The explorers who discovered this country.”
This country had been “discovered” thousands of years ago by migrating people, not by dumb-ass Europeans who thought they were in India at first, and then proceeded to kill off the people here.
“The patriots who freed it from the british [sic],”
British rule wasn’t that oppressive to white, male British subjects here. And it’s not like they gave the land back to the *original* inhabitants.
“and the pioneers who blazed a trail out west”
Courtesy of heavy government funding/subsidies, and on the backs of the native people out there. Oh, and lest you forget, women “blazed a trail” out west, and women were part of the native peoples who were originally here and helped those macho explorers/colonists survive because they had no idea what they were doing.
“all fit under the non-pussified category.”
Not quite. Women were colonizers and they moved out west. They weren’t exactly shrinking violets.
“Granted they were not perfect,(and your example of Hitler and Truman being non-pussys was correct, though I’d argue agains [sic] the kkk). Sometimes these overachievers have very bad ideas. But when you weigh the good ones vs. the bad I’d say we come out far better off with the non pussys then without them.”
Yeah, like people who invade Iraq for no good reason because we’re the macho world leaders. Slavery. Jim Crow. The disenfranchisement of women. Genocide. War.
Thanks, but I’ll pass.
This comment was written by neko.Report this comment to the moderators