November 21, 2002

Glenn backpedals and backpedals, remains clueless

Judging by this:

TAPPED still has its panties in a wad over the Martha Burk fertility-control "satire" issue, which McElroy also mentions. But I repeat: a non-lefty white male wouldn't be allowed to claim "satire" as a defense for writing something similar about fertility control in women -- any more than he would be allowed to claim "Halloween" as a defense for appearing in blackface.

Still no evidence for the assertion that "non-lefty" white males cannot write satire, though Glenn seems to think refering to the blackface case helps prove something. What is unclear though, as satire is not the same as pulling a stupid fratboy stunt. Glenn still doesn't understand satire either. A "non-lefty white male" writing "something similar about fertility control in women" is not satire --indeed, fertility control in women is what Burk was satireizing! (Note btw that it's a "lefty non-male" who's being scolded for writing a satire...)

In a broader context, if somebody is offended by your writing, claiming it was humour or satire is no defense, just as "it's for Halloween" is indeed no defense for doing something as stupid as dressing up in blackface. But Glenn wasn't offended by Burk's spoofed, he was fooled by it. He took it serious. Which says something about his reading comprehension. Even out of its original context, this is clearly recognisable as satire. The phrase "a modest proposal" is a dead giveaway. ("I'll take Swift's satire on the Irish Question for $500, Alex.")

Further down in the same article:

UPDATE: TAPPED has another post on this, and -- even after a long and cordial series of emails with Armed Liberal, who shares TAPPED's view -- all I can say is "you guys just don't get it." It's not about Martha Burk. It never was about Martha Burk. (Though if you think that calling Burk's piece "satire" changes the face of feminism you're showing your ignorance. There are other writings by academic feminists calling for the elimination of men and similar absurdities in dead earnest, though at nearly midnight I'm not going to run them down. But as a guy who once edited Catharine MacKinnon, I know a bit about this stuff). It's all about a double standard. Your "admit you were wrong about the satire" point is (1) utterly inconsistent with my original post; and (2) a conscious or unconscious effort to dodge the real issue, a double standard about speech that everyone knows exists, but that the left dare not admit -- because its whole existence depends on both the double standard, and not admitting it.

If we go back to the first post Glenn made on this subject, it becames clear that the above is one big fat lie:

MARGARET ATWOOD UPDATE: Porphyrogenitus has found that Martha Burk, currently busy trying to achieve gender integration at Augusta National, has made some fertility-control proposals of her own. Call it A Handmaid's Tale in reverse.

To recap: it was from the start about Martha Burk, Glenn was wrong about her piece and the criticism he got was not inconsistent with his original post; his point about satire being disallowed for conservative white males was a side issue only in the updates to this entry.

November 20, 2002


Can you believe this?

But, as I thought was abundantly clear, my point was that if, say, Hootie Johnson wrote a piece calling for all women to be equipped with Norplant, to be removed only with the consent of their "designated partners" nobody would be bending over backwards to cut him slack because it was a spoof. How hard is this point to understand?

What most annoys me about Instapundit, more then his lying and slandering is this whining, these delusions of victimhood. This constant whine of "me so opressed", when he wouldn't know real oppression if it bulldozed his house. "Conservatives aren't allowed to write satire" my ass. Who's stopping them? Not the "liberal" media...

Course, with socalled conservatives like Ann "invade their countries and convert them to Christianity" Coulter around, any spoof or satire will have to be *very* broad to not be mistaken for a serious piece.