Second verse, same as the first: Brave man speaks truth to power about all y'all bitches and How Hateful You Are:
In our enlightenment, let us from here on deny our mealymouthed fellow men the comfortable, safe haven of avoidance. This is the new, confrontational era of The Airing of Grievances. Therefore let us all now stand up, like men (all right, summon the inner Bruce Willis you fantasize having) and say, proudly, "I gotta lotta problems with you people!"After years of stifling a genre-wide desire to scream that "Women's issues" really means "Women have issues", some men are leaving the closet (not that closet).
Via a wicked-delicious email from Beth (feel better, Beth! [Beth has pneumonia, see. Go toast her health or something.]). And no, fellas, I don't know what all that business about an inner Bruce Willis that you're supposed to fantasize about having is, either. Draw your own conclusions there, I guess.
I'd get all wound up about this, I really would, except I've heard this particular nag so many times it slides right past the ol' eyeballs without touching base in the brain anymore. That's Problem 1.
Problem 2: Can anyone give me one rational reason why I should care that bitter, pissed-off men of a certain age remain unmarried? Aren't we all supposed to be just a tiny bit pleased about that? Doesn't it mean social Darwinism is, well, working? Of course men like this have trouble finding partners. News flash: Dating is supposed to be difficult for assholes. It's nature's way of saying she's heard just about enough from you, Mr. Crankypants.
No, I just can't see getting upset about that. I think I'm supposed to be upset because these perpetually indignant men are removing--removing!--themselves from the dating game, Do You Hear That, Ladies? But I can't imagine the universe in which this results in anything more than amused giggles from single women. Something about not letting a door hit your posterior on the way out comes to mind here.
I'm really starting to think that the whole stereotype of Miss Lonelyhearts sitting around in her sweatpants, munching chocolate and burning through tissues while watching Lifetime movies (did you see that one? With Meredith Baxter-Birney? It was so sad!) and drunk-dialing her girlfriends to ask Why? Why is she still not married? Is there something wrong with her? Is she that terrible? Virginia just got married, and Virginia is 160 pounds if she's an ounce, so how is that fair?--Anyway, that whole modern old maid creature, I think she's a myth. I always have thought so, but just lately I'm thinking she's a myth born out of a little phenomenon called P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N. You just substitute grilled meats for the chocolates and football for the Lifetime movies and beer for the tissues, et voila.
My point, which I guess I lost several paragraphs ago, if ever I did have it firmly in hand in the first place, is that I don't spend a lot of time on the Mr. Snitches of the world anymore, because seriously, who bloody cares. I'm more interested in the tacit "You go, guy!" moves exhibited by a certain Instapundit. Memo to Totally, Completely, 100% Happily Married Libertarian Men: When you prattle on about how happily espoused you are, but then link all these loser goofballs who aren't, a cynical bitch like myself is apt to remember her mother's admonition: Don't Listen to What People Say--Watch What They Do. And then a cynical bitch like myself tends to conclude that someone is possibly full of shit and oh, how happy she is, I might add, when she learns via more private avenues of communication like IM or email that indeed, some libertarian men who are not Glenn Reynolds, but who also bear their marital bliss before them as a shield against accusations of misogyny, are, in fact, stuffed to the parietal with doo-doo about the happiness content of that marriage. I am not naming names here, but of course you may feel free to speculate who it is. I have a feeling you won't find that difficult to do at all.
Enough of these numbskulls; let nature take its course. Oh, hey, it already is! Neat!
Posted by Ilyka at January 19, 2006 03:22 PM in hell is other peopleI don't have an inner Bruce Willis. I've got an inner Dana Carvey*. Do I still hate women?
Damn, these things get so confusing.
* I'm actually moving up in the world. I used to have an inner Martin Short.
Posted by: Jim at January 19, 2006 04:11 PMI used to have an inner Martin Short.
Oh dude, that can't be good. I hope you had it biopsied.
Posted by: ilyka at January 19, 2006 04:39 PMI think that the internet is sort of naturally a skewed sampling of humanity; the angry/bitter are overrepresented (yes, I know I'm on that internet thing now--I didn't say I'm talking about everybody).
After years of stifling a genre-wide desire to scream that "Women's issues" really means "Women have issues", some men are leaving the closet (not that closet).
Am I the only person who feels that this supposedly overwhelming, long-smothered sentiment is virtually nonexistent in the real world? I mean, I think the people I've hung out with over the years are pretty normal, and even in their most candid moments, they don't express anything like this. The men date women, some get married, some get divorced, etc., but as a matter of course it doesn't result in this "women are X" proposition. If they have a sour experience, they chalk it up to it being an issue between them and an individual, not a problem with a group.
It's weird watching the Right become the new haven of some of the most vigorous self-rationalizing armchair sociologists. Personally, I blame David Brooks.
Posted by: Hubris at January 19, 2006 06:10 PMAfter years of stifling a genre-wide desire to scream that "Women's issues" really means "Women have issues", some men are leaving the closet (not that closet).
Thank God you clarified that, Mr Snitch. The gay community might have gone into a frenzy if all of the sudden you changed sides. But since you have decided to continue your monogomous relationship with your hand, millions of both sexes will just have to wait until you choose which way you come out of the closet.
Just some advice: if you need a woman who is subservient, you can certainly find one. Otherwise, try to find someone who is open minded and can discuss things rationally with you. Those aren't too hard to find, and you might learn a few things in the process.
Posted by: Mark at January 19, 2006 06:30 PMJust noticed this comment at Mr Snitch!:
Ned, I remember years ago reading an Esquire article (full of purely anecdotal evidence, of course) about how much happier American men were when they married non-American women...because of the dramatically more self-centered, demanding nature of American women. Now, this was shortly after World War II, and I wouldn't presume to say that it's held up, plus my own American wife is somebody I wouldn't trade in for anything...
Now, I don't doubt that some effete pussywhipped eggheads will claim that feminism hadn't really blossomed in America by 1948, but I think this fella has a point. Even then, there was the seed of the idea that women were full human beings in their own right, who shouldn't just be grateful for food money and protection from random raping/pillaging. It was all about them from that time on.
And I think we've all seen where that has led. To Maureen Dowd.
Posted by: Hubris at January 19, 2006 09:53 PMI am seriously disappointed in the modern American antifeminist/misogynist. Where's the originality? When are they gonna take it to the next level?
No, it's ALWAYS with the "Asian women are better" and "feminists have no sense of humor" and even "dumb emotional wimmen get all hysterical" (Russell Wardlow, Brickhead Extraordinaire, remarking on "I Get Emails," the most monotonous, COMA-INDUCING post I think I have ever written, and that's saying a lot).
Different day, same shit. I'm not seeing a whole lot of thinking outside the box here. You could do better, guys. Oh, but that would require effort, now wouldn't it?
Not really related but I think it's funny anyway: Apparently one pundit I once referred to as "Meathead," whose name rhymes with "Blue Blewit," recently began an email to a list containing not one, not two, not three, but FOUR WOMEN, one of them even kind of famous? Her name rhymes with "Rachelle Ralkin?" With the opener, "Gents: " I mean, can I call him a meathead NOW? Honestly.
Posted by: ilyka at January 19, 2006 11:15 PMYa know, if it were Ms. Snitch complaining about all the guys out there who were assholes, most of this side of the blogosphere would be calling her a "feminazi bitch."
I'm just sayin'.
Posted by: Mery Yourish at January 20, 2006 09:05 AMHubris,
Am I the only person who feels that this supposedly overwhelming, long-smothered sentiment is virtually nonexistent in the real world?
I was thinking exactly that as I read the post. I can tell you that Mr. Snitch is all about the hit counter, and that he gets awfully huffy awfully easy. Shy of quoting from a private email between him and me, I can't go into details.
So I'm torn between wondering if a woman pissed him off, or if he's just trolling for hits. I'm leaning towards the latter.
Posted by: Meryl Yourish at January 20, 2006 09:14 AM``Ya know, if it were Ms. Snitch complaining about all the guys out there who were assholes...''
Maureen Dowd. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Annalucia at January 20, 2006 12:16 PMI'm leaning towards the latter.
Sure, me too, but what does it say that a call to arms for men to summon their inner Bruce Willis gets hits?
I mean . . . ?
Posted by: ilyka at January 20, 2006 01:56 PMYou know, I don't really get that. I think of Bruce Willis as a sometime action hero, sometime romantic lead. I don't have a problem with the guy or the characters he played. Not even from Moonlighting.
Summoning your inner Arnold, now that's a totally different story. Serial groper, and all that.
Posted by: Meryl Yourish at January 20, 2006 05:12 PM"Asian women are better"
If by "better" these dorkwads mean "subservient", they need to marry one. Cure them of that real quick, it will.
Posted by: John at January 24, 2006 09:55 AM