God, That Michelle Malkin is Such a Lee

Lee says:

Calling a man ‘girly’ isn’t insulting to women, no more than calling a woman ‘manly’ is insulting to men.

It’s insulting towards the person who is being called the term, and really isn’t that nice. But it is not the disparagement of an entire gender to do so.

I have but one question for my charming conservative reader, if I started using “Lee” as a disparaging term to mean “a girl who acts like a cute, but bullheaded Republican man,” would you for a second buy this nonsense that it wasn’t a disparagement of you?

Listen, I’m not going to wait around to bust balls every time a man calls other men ‘girly,” but when men write posts about how men should be respectful of women and then turn around and use “girly” as an insult towards men who are disrespectful of women…in the very same post…

God damn, how can I pass up the opportunity?

Lee, imagine an analogous situation.  Say that you walked out on your front lawn tomorrow and found Ted Kennedy passed out drunk, maybe even with a picture of Marilyn Monroe in one hand and a Bill that would stiffen the penalties for killing someone while driving drunk.  Could you not write about that?

See?

Sometimes you see an easy shot, you’ve got to take it.

Sean Braisted, If I Had Not Just Gotten Out of One Sham Marriage, I Would Totally Sham Marry You

Sean Braisted  says:

Dave, while good at dispensing advice such as “eat rice and beans” and “don’t buy stuff you don’t need”, isn’t exactly a public policy expert. Ramsey is the quintessential wealthy Williamson County Republican who thinks Social Security, et al, are just socialist schemes which take away from the duties of the Church.

Those sentences made me laugh so hard I had to run over here and tell y’all about them, especially the “socialist schemes which take away from the duties of the Church.”  Brilliant.

My Magical Cooter

The longer I read conservative bloggers, the more convinced I become in their belief that my cooter has magical properties.

I could, for example, not want to have a baby, but, if only the State could coerce me into passing a baby through my cooter, it would transform me into good mother who would be grateful to have a child and who would never neglect or mistreat it.

And a male, if forced by the State to profess loyalty to my cooter, might transform from a boy into a man (see the post Carter links to).

I can’t help but wonder what other things might be made better or more wholesome by a State-sanctioned trip through my cooter.  Might my hands now have healing properties I’ve not discovered?  I’ve just been throwing my tampons out.  What if they have the ability to cure cancer? If the State legislated that I stick pencils and pens for school children up there, would we do better on standardized tests?

A girl wonders.

Martin Kennedy, I Cannot Believe I Have to Explain this to You

There may come a time when you have to kill a dog.  Here are a list of acceptable ways to do so:

1.  Take it to the vet and have it put down.

2.  Shoot it, preferably in the back of the head.

Here are just a few unacceptable ways of killing dogs, as taken from Michael Vick’s indictment:

1.  Drowning

2.  Hanging

3.  Slamming to the ground

Perhaps you disagree.  You say, “Dogs were killed, though I don’t think there was any outright torture in the sense that humans engaged directly in inflicting pain for pleasure.  Rather, they killed dogs to put them out of their misery or because the dog was no longer performing well.”  And yet, when I read the indictment, it says, “In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in ‘testing’ sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog’s body to the ground.”

What kind of dogs need “testing”?  Not dogs that are “no longer performing well.”  No, dogs that haven’t been fought.  What kinds of dogs would a dog breeder have on hand that haven’t been fought?

Young dogs.

Dogs small enough that you can still kill one by slamming it to the ground.

There is no excuse for drowning, hanging, or slamming any young dog to the ground in order to kill it.  You do that because it amuses you to have power over something helpless.  If you were attempting to end its life in a humane manner, if you couldn’t take it to the vet, you could shoot it.

Acting as if this is no big deal, or as if people can’t be outraged both by dog fighting and by cruelty towards women is just ludicrous.  Also, please note, if you want to pretend like you care about women, please do not, in that very post, use the term “girly” as an insult towards men.  Your female readers will notice and suspect you’re not being honest with us or yourself.  You cannot love women and think that being like one is an insult.

It’s just not possible.

If you don’t really think that being like a woman is an insult, break yourself of the habit of using “girly” as one.

Sincerely,

The Girly Aunt B.

Satanic Panics

Okay, Bridgett, I have totally failed to come up with relevant questions about witchcraft, but here’s what’s been nagging me.  In the book I’m reading, it’s kind of clear that the definition of “witch” can be as loose as “someone who’s in league with the devil,” whether or not they practice magic.

And it’s clear that we’ve had a few good Satanic panics in our time–from the “satanists run my nursery school” to “satanists play all the music my kids like.”

I wonder if we can look at the kinds of anxieties reflected in the satanic panics of the witchcraft scares and if we see similar anxieties in our own times?  I think we do.

If we see heavy metal as appealing primarily to young poor white boys, we see that same anxiety about poor people, the same anxiety about proper male-to-male inheritance (how can you leave what you have to a satanist, after all, and still preserve God’s order?).  And with the day cares, again, it seems like you might read that as “See what happens, moms, when you work outside the home?  Satanists molest your babies.”

What do you think?