Canadian Rick McGinnis shows that sometimes the foreign perspective, no matter how near the foreigner is to this country of mine, is still the wrong perspective. He says that women should not vote in the presidential election as “payback” to the way we supposedly have been treated by this campaign — you know, all the attacks on Sarah Palin, the pushing of economic theories that will damage our economy and therefore the less-secure economic status of women, even the way Hillary Clinton was treated (I for one did not care for the whole “pants suit” gibes that both sides of the political spectrum engaged in — there’s nothing wrong with pants suits, you misogynist, real-women-only-wear-dresses-and-pantyhose jerks). But Mr. McGinnis is wrong. Here’s why:
— It would have no effect on the hordes of swooning fangirls who cream in their thongs at the very sight of Barack Obama, and who squeal and faint at his speeches.
— It would have no effect on the Sarah Palin haters, many, if not most of whom are women. Has Rick McGinnis never heard of jealousy and envy? When it comes to hatin’ our fellow female, men have nothing on us.
— It would have no effect on the men voting for Obama. True, if some miracle happened and all women stayed home, then McCain would probably win by a larger margin, but telling McCain’s female supporters to stay home only takes votes away from McCain, and as I’ve already said Obama has plenty of fangirls. Whether there are enough of them to make a difference in the election process remains to be seen, but telling women who would otherwise vote for the McCain/Palin ticket to not vote seems to me to be beyond stupid.
— It would rightly be seen as an instance, not of principled political stance, but of pique. “He talked mean about a girl!” In this day and age more than ever the last thing we need are women making decisions based on emotion, and that’s what they would be doing if they let the sight of some stringy-armed coffee-cave denizen wearing a “Sarah Palin is a cunt” t-shirt stay make them stay home and sulk.
— It would not do any of this: “wreak havoc with pollsters and campaign operatives at the very least, and delegitimize a dispiriting and tainted election at best.” He rightly calls is a “slap” in the next sentence — and slapping is what hysterical females do to their boyfriends for forgetting their birthday or something trivial like that. See my point above.
— It would punish McCain for no good reason that I can see, even though he’s run one of the politest, cleanest campaigns I’ve witnessed in a long time.
I don’t even know why this was written. It won’t happen — women don’t think as a bloc, really we don’t, and those few women who might be influenced for this sort of thinking will disappear into the general mass of people who didn’t vote for whatever reason, so I guess he made his word count quota for the week. A better article that he could have come up with: “I am urging all non-American citizens to shut up about the US presidential election.”
(Via Kathy Shaidle.)
Update: Kathy thinks I missed a satire. (See comments.) That’s as may be — I usually catch these things, but it just didn’t read that way to me. I’m putting this here, though, just to let people know there is a possibility that Rick was being tongue-in-cheek. Canadian humor is famously muted; I guess that’s an effect of living in a country where free speech is seen as a vulgar “American” value and the government has Niceness Enforcement Squads to make sure no one hurts anyone else’s feelings. If they catch you I think they wrap you in tons of pink batting (Canada’s version of red tape — it’s much warmer) and leave you on an ice floe. (If you don’t believe me, read Kathy’s blog. Okay, maybe the ice floe bit is a little exaggerated.)
14 Responses to “Foreign writer suggests nose removal as face-saving solution”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:28 am
I think it was written in hopes of this:
That column was a lame attempt at pulling a moby on the PUMA types.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:54 am
Well, I was under the impression that Rick McGinnis wasn’t one of the moby leftwing types.
November 1st, 2008 at 1:58 am
I don’t know one way or the other — but if you eliminate the moby explanation, every other possible explanation I can think of, actually makes negative sense.
Except I suppose for absolute stupidity. As in, having an IQ of zero, with no rounding error.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:01 am
Andrea, you’re taking this way too seriously.
You’ve just spent more time fisking a guy who is on our side than you have with just about anything else lately π
Think Lysistrata. Think Swift. Lighten up a little, guys.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:31 am
I read through the whole thing and didn’t get a sarcasm vibe from it. I did consider the fact that he might be joking, but it just didn’t read that way; his tone was off. If he was, I am relieved, because the whole idea had me scratching my head, going “Hunh?”
Anyway, there are better reasons why women shouldn’t vote. Here are some: the aforementioned tendency for gals to go fangirly and swoony at the sight of a handsome guy, the fact that so many women seem to see things through a haze of Bactine and bandaids and thus their preoccupation with universal health care, their dislike of loud noises (except screaming babies, which somehow don’t register) that leads to their dislike of traditional male preoccupations like the military and sports, and so on.
Anyway, my blog, my decision on what to write about.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:58 am
Finally broke down and clicked the link to go read the McG. piece–which I pretty much don’t do any more, until after Tuesday (not just here, I mean; everywhere)–A. and Ffof disagreeing? what’s up? Only to discover that the filter here at this public computer blocks access, citing the keyword SEX. That’s got to be a comment on all of it, somehow.
November 1st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
The fact that I’m even moved to do this probably means that something got lost in translation over the 49th parallel, but here goes – yeah, I was being sarcastic, but only kind of, going by the maxim that nobody is ever completely joking, even if they say they are.
Of course there’s no likelihood that American women would stay home on Tuesday en masse, but imagining they would – and that’s the whole point of this piece, which was, after all, published for a Canadian newspaper in six cities up here – I just wanted to speculate how that would go over, in some parallel universe where such a thing were even possible – or desirable.
It would have quite an effect, no doubt, and draw attention to the bitchy rhetoric – male and female – that’s dominated the campaign, and away from the canard of race, which is what we keep being told to pay attention to when pondering the “first post-racial candidate.” Which is pretty ironic overall, if you think about it.
Maybe this is the campaign where irony has finally become obsolete, much the way people keep saying that satire has disappeared in a world where public pathologies have outstipped it entirely. In any case, I was trying – subtly – to point out that the people who’ve excelled at the “eww – a girl” rhetoric are the same people who consider themselves angels of progressive thought.
Or maybe, yes, I was just being too Canadian, and covered my sarcasm in too much maple syrup.
In any case, just what the hell is “pulling a moby on the PUMA types” supposed to mean, anyway?
November 1st, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I actually think it would be great if somehow all American women votes got magically lost, since I sadly think that most of my sex (if it’s only just a 51% majority) will vote for that cute, compassionate, makes-us-feel-warm-and-nummy Obama. But it will have to be done to us, because as I’ve pointed out women don’t vote as a bloc, and (again, as I’ve already pointed out), lots of women are a-okay with the “criticism” of Sarah Palin and the race-baiting nonsense as well. Thanks to our lousy public education system and crappy pop culture, way too many Americans are truly incurious (not as the “liberals” say we are either — but too accepting of whatever they are told is “important” and “true”) and have learned that only white male oppression of women and other races is bad.
As for the moby on the PUMA thing: a “moby” comes from something the pop musician Moby came up with a few years ago and told his fans — to go onto right wing websites pretending to be a right winger, and say something so inflammatory as to by association tar all the other right wingers who comment on that site and therefore the whole right wing movement. The PUMAs are the women who were backing Hillary who are voting against Obama because of the contemptuous way they see he has treated Hillary, and by association them and all other women. You’re being accused of pretending to be on the side of the PUMAs (and women) but really trying to make them look bad.
Chalk it up if you like to American inability to get nuances and subtleties, but I think you revealed something with “nobody is ever completely joking, even if they say they are.” We already know — and have been pointing out until we’re blue (or rather red) in the face — that the “people whoβve excelled at the ‘eww – a girl’ rhetoric are the same people who consider themselves angels of progressive thought.” But it’s a dumb reason to not vote — to treat your article as if it were written seriously, do you think that the first women to vote, facing massive opposition from men who thought they were too stupid or emotional or whatever to be allowed to vote, should have stayed home because of this attitude? That would have simply confirmed what those men at the time thought. Complaining that the political process is, waaaaahhhh, not nice, I’m going to stamp my feet and stay home that’ll show you meanies, won’t be seen as a principled stand or ironic commentary on anything.
November 1st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Given that Rick didn’t understand the moby and PUMA references, I’m now prepared to give him a bit of a break and accept the “being too Canadian” excuse. In this day and age it’s simply not possible to speak humorously about American election campaigns without having a fluent grasp of all the inherent (unintentional) humor the subject already contains.
I could write a column snarking about Canada’s next election for prime minister and do no better.
November 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Of course, I could also suggest that you guys have all been driven nuts by this insane year of campaign histrionics, and have lost perspective on what’s happening in your own country, or at least the ability to talk about it with ironic distance.
And yes, I kinda feel sorry for you when I think about it that way.
And McGehee, you COULD write a column snarking about our next election (you’ll have to wait awhile, since we just had one) but I doubt that you’d be able to fill a VW bug with enough Americans who either got the jokes, or even cared.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
“It’s okay, you’re just crazy. I can tell because I don’t know you. I pity you simple-minded Americans!”
Yep, being patronized always makes me feel better. Thanks!
(edited)
November 1st, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Well, that’s not what I was saying, but thanks for overreacting, Andrea. Frankly, after a year-long campaign ordeal like you guys have been through, Canadians would probably be tearing each other’s limbs off and beating the beavers and caribou to death with them, then marching through the tundra singing Rush songs till they dropped from blood loss. You guys are handling it much better than we would; you should be up here during one of Quebec’s “give us more money or we’ll leave” referendums.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
“Well, thatβs not what I was saying… overreacting…”
You need to stop swallowing, you’ll have to hop all the way home.
As for ordeal, what ordeal? I’m not one of the people getting themselves tied up in imaginary knots over an election that happens every four years. I’m sitting here in the comfort of my own apartment, with a cup of tea, and the only “ordeal” I’ve had to go through recently is cleaning up my cat’s upchuck from the rug — and I don’t think she follows politics.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but if you ask me anyone who gets themselves in actual physical distress over what is simply normal election-time shenanigans is a fool, or someone who should be under psychiatric care. You know, like this person. I suppose people from all over the political spectrum can fall prey to this age’s version of neurasthenia, but that can easily be cured by watching a funny movie or going out for a bit of fresh air.
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Did Rick miss the irony of the last sentence in my last comment?