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.

4 thoughts on “Martin Kennedy, I Cannot Believe I Have to Explain this to You

  1. But B, it’s not bad for girls to be “girly.” It’s only bad when men violate their essential man-ness — violating the natural man-law of manly maleness by acting like that Other Thing They Are Not. It’s a failure of masculine performance…you know, a lack of those goodly man qualities that make one “girly”… Oh. Um. Yeah. Never mind.

    I think “girly” is the cleaned-up adjective men reach for when they’re sophisticated enough to know that they shouldn’t use “pussy” as a term of abuse.

  2. would “wimpy” be a good gender-neutral replacement, or might it be better to go for “spineless”? “dickless” is still right out, of course.

    (i’m not sure where my tongue’s off to, exactly, but it isn’t in the center of my mouth as i go for the “submit” button. it’s not all the way in my cheek either, though.)

  3. 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.

  4. Pingback: God, That Michelle Malkin is Such a Lee « Tiny Cat Pants

Comments are closed.