…and this is a 
Strong female role models do little girls no favor
Category: Kooks
Posted on: November 12, 2007 11:05 AM, by PZ Myers
Hey, you — you look really stupid with your jaw gaping open like that.
That was a little preemptive scorn to get you to prep yourself for this link: it's a fellow complaining about women working as astronauts (and even commanders of the space shuttle!) inspiring little girls to emulate them and ending up throwing pampers and pepper (?) at each other. This part is really disturbing:
Whatever happened to young men looking for a good Christian wife and finding a young woman still clinging to her doll?
It's about finding masculinity in infantilizing women. It's the flip side of the posturing macho faux-masculinity of Kim du Toit (warning: that link will make real men, those who don't think a strut and a gun defines male identity, gag).
The comments on the article are interesting, too. There are a lot of smart women chewing him to bits, but then…well, read it for yourself.
Its ok. Christ did command us to subjigate our will, and that is what is so hard for people to do in this day and age. It's all about "ME" in this day and age. Christ taught us humility and charity. As Christians, we are not our own, we are bought with a price. Christ paid it. If God tells me to submit my will to my husband, who is also in Christ, who am I to defy God's will?
(via John Lynch)
Comments
"There was even a time when a President of the United States threatened to punch a man in the face and kick him in the balls, because the man had the temerity to say bad things about the President's daughter's singing.
We're not like that anymore."
For shame!
Posted by: Olaf | November 12, 2007 11:14 AM
Funny. One would almost think that organized religion was created as a means of justifying hierarchies in society and maintaining control over oppressed groups.
Posted by: j | November 12, 2007 11:16 AM
Doesn't know his Kipling, does he?
fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: fusilier | November 12, 2007 11:24 AM
Why did I have to read it? Why!?
Funny. One would almost think that organized religion was created as a means of justifying hierarchies in society and maintaining control over oppressed groups.
Now that's just crazy talk!
Posted by: coathangrrr | November 12, 2007 11:26 AM
Blogging against the pussification of America = irony.
Posted by: notthedroids | November 12, 2007 11:26 AM
Now I'm depressed and it's your fault.
Posted by: Dan | November 12, 2007 11:26 AM
The comic sans font is a nice touch. Really emphasizes out the playground thinking that underlies the comments.
Posted by: ryan | November 12, 2007 11:26 AM
He should have stuck to something more relevant, like who gets to decide how the toilet seat must be aligned after each use. Or how clean is clean enough.
Posted by: daenku32 | November 12, 2007 11:34 AM
Gah! that whole "As Christians, we are not our own" crap is just deeply disturbing. as far as i can tell the only relation with christ christians have is that of slave and master.
Seriously, what the heck is wrong with those people?
Posted by: Cat of many faces | November 12, 2007 11:40 AM
Old news. Besides, there are plenty of girls who cling to dolls out there. I was never one of them, so these arguments don't mean anything to me. I was always the Dad when we kids played "house," and nothing is going to change me.
Interestingly, I've always had male conservative friends. Despite their hankering for "a traditional woman," and despite an apparently happy marriage, conservative men (at least the intellectuals, not the bo-dorks) seem hungry for a good, roll-up-your-sleeves debate with an outspoken liberal female, for some reason.
P.S. The biggest emasculation of men is, in my opinion, this sissified Christianity being forced down our throats - creationism, tee-totaling, crying in church, slaving at some meaningless job, the sedentary life (office/SUV/home/church) which resembles not at all the stance of Theodore Roosevelt, say. Frankly, it sickens me, too.
Posted by: Kristine | November 12, 2007 11:46 AM
Ugh! Thanks, PZ, for having the good sense to see that those arguments which demean women must also demean men in the process. If we are infantilized or objectified, you are infantilized or animalized. Recognizing this is the only and perhaps only path to true gender equality.
Posted by: Melinda Barton | November 12, 2007 11:46 AM
I think I just threw up a little.
Posted by: josh | November 12, 2007 11:47 AM
Sheesh, Kim du Toit made a few good points. I like it. And women shouldn't be subjugated, like that sad christian dope.
It's just a matter of finding the right balance, that's all. And it sure as hell ain't in the bible.
Posted by: Richard Harris | November 12, 2007 11:47 AM
You know, most people are a little more careful about not letting their hang-ups hang out. Anyway, I'll answer that: those men, unlike the author of that article, grew up. They stopped being sexually naive and inadequate, and so haven't any reason to look for women who won't notice that they're naive and inadequate. Now they're out having sex with the grown-ups.
It could also be that I'm reading too much into things here. It may just be that Wayne Johns has a small penis.
Posted by: Dustin | November 12, 2007 11:59 AM
It's just a matter of finding the right balance, that's all.
Balance of what, exactly?
Posted by: Carlie | November 12, 2007 12:00 PM
I used to have an equally skewed view of masculinity...in high school. It's a shame people like Kim du Toit confuse being a boy with being a man. Read his essay and tally the number of times he equates manliness with intellectual pursuits (Hint: it's zero).
Posted by: H. Humbert | November 12, 2007 12:00 PM
Carlie @ # 15, "Balance of what, exactly?"
Doing manly things, but not going overboard about it. For instance, I've recently taken up cycle racing - despite being over sixty. Now admittedly, I just compete at the lowest level - short distance time trials. But it's fairly manly - there's about ten guys to every gal.
I used to get crticized by my wife for wanting to watch boxing on TV, to the point that I gave up trying. Now I've got my own room & TV so I can watch it, & enjoy it without being made to feel guilty.
But I'd draw the line at dog fights or cock fights. Or excessive tidiness - but I do try to keep the peace with the toilet seat thing.
I hope that answers your question.
Posted by: Richard Harris | November 12, 2007 12:16 PM
Homework: Compare the subject and tone of Kim du Troit's screed to the points outlined in this article by Umberto Eco.
Also, this quote:
captures the entire American right-wing mentality in a nice little package. They put forward an image of phallic entitlement and back it up with a culture of war as a phallic surrogate and rape as the real thing while, at the same time, painting a picture of the male's place as the benign head of an inoffensive and wholesome family unit. They engage in hero worship and death worship, and violently advocate both sexual puritanism and promiscuity at the same time. Kim du Troit, like most neoconservative fascists, is a deranged psychopath.
Posted by: Dustin | November 12, 2007 12:31 PM
Let's hope this clown never becomes a youth pastor.
Posted by: Warren | November 12, 2007 12:40 PM
Those hypothetical two little girl never would have started fighting over an other issue.
Perhaps this fight would be acceptable if they were fighting for the affections of a fine christian boy.
As for Wayne Johns; "WAA! WAA! Women just don't know their place! They should worship my manliness! WAA!
Posted by: Janine | November 12, 2007 12:40 PM
I really like this comment:
"Its ok. Christ did command us to subjigate our will, and that is what is so hard for people to do in this day and age. It's all about "ME" in this day and age. Christ taught us humility and charity."
So here's how it works out:
A female who goes with "It's all about ME": not following Christ's commandments, lacking humility and charity
A male who goes with "It's all about ME": obeying God's commandments, humble, and charitable
Wow, isn't that convenient. Men are allowed - nay, COMMANDED - to be "all about me," and that is considered virtuous. As a guy, that sounds handy-dandy.
And I say, special props to the guy who was able to convince women that this was a good thing!
It reminds me of the episode of Friends where Phoebe is trying to get her boyfriend to have sex. Joey says, "Let me get this straight - you are begging him to have sex, with no strings attached and no committment, he doesn't have to call you afterward, and he has you thinking this is a GOOD thing? The man is my hero!"
At least on the show, when it was pointed out she realized she had been manipulated. Do you think these religious women will ever catch to the game?
Posted by: Pablo | November 12, 2007 12:46 PM
Posted by: H. Humbert | November 12, 2007 12:48 PM
Wow, triviality, sexism, and victim blame. Pablo just hit the asshole trifecta.
Posted by: Dustin | November 12, 2007 12:51 PM
Pablo, it is right in the bible. It is built into the religion. There is a quote that states the the man is the head of the marriage just as christ is the head of the church. (And no, I did not feel like digging out the quote.) There are those, like The Promise Keepers that try to explain this off by saying that means that the husband must keep the wife's need in mind at all time. But I always took it to mean that a woman's voice can and should be silenced at any time.
Posted by: Janine | November 12, 2007 12:53 PM
You may go to hell, I will go to Texas.
As a Texan, I could be tortured with mesquite thorns and fire ants for saying this, but Davy Crockett was a thug.
Guess what that "traditional masculine behavior" got for him at the Alamo.
*rolls eyes*
Posted by: Barn Owl | November 12, 2007 12:54 PM
Calling Susan Faludi!
When he says "Christ did command us, etc.," this is what I hear:
"I'm an ass. I want to dominate women. But hey, no worries, I can use the Bible to prop up and justify my misogyny. People won't think I'm such an ass!"
The Bible is popular because it schools assholes in how to feel good about their nastiness.
What a fooktard.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 1:06 PM
The beauty of the Internet is that even people like Wayne Johns (aka Johns, Wayne) have a world-wide forum in which to express their view(s). I have to wonder, though - what's the average daily hit-count on this Victoria Advocate site? A few dozen, maybe?
I liked the comment about inclusiveness, from the guy whose icon was anti-Political-Correctness. As if disagreeing with someone's regressive viewpoint is hypocritically "exclusive" or "PC". These people make my brain hurt.
File under: Unworthy of Notice.
Wow. That's George W. Bush, in a nutshell.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 12, 2007 1:19 PM
Psst! Dustin and Janine! I think you may've misread Pablo up there. Pretty sure that's irony...
Posted by: chuko | November 12, 2007 1:19 PM
To the quoted commenter:
If your husband is "also in Christ," then at least wear a condom. I mean, there are a lot of people who are "in Christ." The dude gets around. Who knows what you might catch?
Also, it's "subjUgate."
Posted by: markbt73 | November 12, 2007 1:32 PM
"Wow, triviality, sexism, and victim blame. Pablo just hit the asshole trifecta."
Um, you realize it was all tongue-in-cheek, don't you? Look at the last sentance: "At least on the show, she realized she was being manipulated."
The point of my post was that these "religious" policies that require women to subject themselves are just men's way of controlling them. Notice how I consider the fact that "Men who are all about ME" are virtuous to be "convenient."
I didn't think I needed to point out the blatent obviousness of the fact that it was men who wrote those biblical rules that Janine indicated.
In the end, my comment religious don't seem to have caught on to the game was a lament more than anything else.
Ultimately, I guess I should have been more blunt like CalGeorge:
"When he says "Christ did command us, etc.," this is what I hear:
"I'm an ass. I want to dominate women. But hey, no worries, I can use the Bible to prop up and justify my misogyny. People won't think I'm such an ass!"
The Bible is popular because it schools assholes in how to feel good about their nastiness."
The only thing I would add is that, if I hear a WOMAN say "I want to be dominated by men. It's ok because the Bible says to," I still hear the men saying "...and the best part about it all is that we have them convinced that us being assess is a GOOD thing!"
Posted by: Pablo | November 12, 2007 1:34 PM
I was so annoyed by the link to Kim du Toit's site that I wrote this:
http://jeffthefish.com/2007/11/12/a-real-man-poon/
Posted by: Jason | November 12, 2007 1:43 PM
Psst! Chuko! Did I at any point call Pablo a name or criticize him? All I did was amplify one of his points. There was no disagreement. Pay attention. But, hey, Pablo understands.
Posted by: Janine | November 12, 2007 2:19 PM
Who probably suffers from having a sexually ambiguous first name.
(Why doesn't he hide it and call himself "K." the way other Americans with short-sighted parents do? O. C. Marsh? E. D. Cope? L. Ron Hubbard?)
If it were just for him, he'd only deserved a Darwin Award. But no. The whole enterprise was completely useless for anything except creating a myth. It was entirely pointless. It was about dying a heroic death for the fun of it. It was the pinnacle of stupidity.
Lenin, too. Remember? First seize power, then start thinking what to do with it. That was his explicit advice when the October Revolution got started.
To be fair, that could have been a typo (look at your keyboard).
Posted by: David Marjanović | November 12, 2007 2:20 PM
Kim du Toit : "microcephaly and micropenis"
Posted by: T_U_T | November 12, 2007 2:20 PM
Now what would Kim du Toit think about the headline "Behe gets reamed again"?
also- did anybody else read Climate Audit's smugness about the tie w/ BA for best blog?
second also- you should be able to pass a test about basic science knowledge before being able to write a science blog, let alone vote for BEST science blog
Posted by: BMatthews | November 12, 2007 2:25 PM
kim du toit child photo
Posted by: T_U_T | November 12, 2007 2:26 PM
Like a fool, I followed the link to du Toit's post.
YYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Right now, that is out of my system.
Kim does not seem to understand how his political heroes work.
Rummy was not direct in communicating what he was doing. He used words to obscure what he was up to. Oh so Manly.
Ashcroft, as destructive as he was, was not able to cross the line to allow dubya to wiretap as he pleases. Ultimately, he did not fit into the He-Man Manly Men's Club.
And Condi is much more easy to use as an administration mouthpiece then Powell. Powell could no longer take the constant lying for dubya. And Powell is one of the main persons behind trying to cover up the My Lei Massacre.
And then there is this little gem.
It's a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a purpose.
It is those damned feminists fault that rape happens. If women were nice and submissive; rape would not be rape, it would be sex.
And damn, people never engaged in heavy drinking before Betty Friedan came around.
Is it alright if I call Kim du Toit both a pussy and a dick?
Posted by: Janine | November 12, 2007 3:01 PM
I just don't know what to think of this. Of course, that guy must think that's because I have tits and because I have tits I just don't know how to use a brain, but that's not what I meant. Please forgive my organs.
A good christian wife still clinging to her doll... Sorta creepy right there but I know he doesn't mean like back in the days where a 30 years old man could marry a 12 years old girl... Or does he? I think the thought of an adult woman still clinging to dolls is nauseating if you ask me. Wanting to keep your future wives ignorant is just... wrong. Wanting to get married is wrong too but that could be just me.
I mean, COME ON, picture the bed time. That won't be interesting because in all her ignorance she won't know what you're trying to do. Please um, tell me why the idea of having a doofus that follows your every orders as a baby manufacturer is so arrousing? Don't you want to marry someone educated? Someone that you can talk with about politics? About economics? Current news? About your neighbor's hot as- wait maybe not that, she might kill you. It's a bit risky right there.
By his idea a christian wife is a woman that has no interest or knowledge in politics, in economics, in science, heck, in ANYTHING but popping babies out of her vagina. THAT sounds to me like a pretty boring relationship.
Posted by: Michelle Rochon | November 12, 2007 3:01 PM
Still getting over the doll thing. If he moves into my area, I'd like to be informed.
Posted by: Don | November 12, 2007 3:15 PM
Of course it'd be boring, Michelle. I think it's why a lot of Good Christian Marriages end up in Bad Christian Divorces!
Posted by: Greg | November 12, 2007 3:26 PM
Full down. It's gender neutral. No matter who you are, you'll have to lift to use the pot. Plus I can't stand to see inside the toilet unless I'm going to the bathroom. Cleaning the toilet is man's work because, frankly, sometimes there's a miss... Plus, I'm also, frankly, cleaner and neater than the women/girls in my house.
I also do the cooking because my wife couldn't cook her way out of a paper-bag. And, I've also been a better cook than every woman I've lived with in my entire life: Mother, two grandmothers, wife, daughters, girlfriends...
Posted by: Moses | November 12, 2007 3:32 PM
Michelle Rochon: Perhaps he has simply confused the vagina with a clown car?
Posted by: Hank | November 12, 2007 3:38 PM
I'm thinking he's best compared to an infected prostate -- the kind that's so badly diseased that the digital exam causes it to rupture.
Posted by: Dustin | November 12, 2007 3:41 PM
Well, at least these people have stopped demanding they have marry virgins, rather they just want women who have seen a small enough number of penises as to be unable to spot a statistical outlier when they see one.
Posted by: Tatarize | November 12, 2007 3:45 PM
Re: #37
Sure. It's another way of suggesting that he can go fuck himself.
-- CV
Posted by: CortxVortx | November 12, 2007 4:01 PM
WTF? Why even dredge up shit like this and post a link to it?! Oh well. Thanks Dutstin, for the Umberto Eco link; it provided some critical balance.
Posted by: j.t.delaney | November 12, 2007 4:05 PM
Gee, I must be one of those 10% who wouldn't touch Rumsfield with a 10 foot pole if he was the last man on earth. Better the species die out than perpetuate that infantile ego.
Posted by: SJN | November 12, 2007 4:11 PM
I find it sad that so many think the two are mutually exclusive.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | November 12, 2007 4:13 PM
Kim du Troit's man-crush on Rumsfeld and his unique way of expressing it are forever burned into my brain. Anyway, I don't understand the star-eyed worship-from-afar. Rumsfeld is a Republican, after all. If du Troit wants to hit that, he just needs to catch Rumsfeld in an airport bathroom and dance!
Posted by: Dustin | November 12, 2007 4:15 PM
But stick to the domestic terminals: Poor Rummy will have increasingly little use for international travel as war crimes arrest warrants proliferate.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | November 12, 2007 4:28 PM
Kim du Toit made a few good points.
Sorry to hear you think so.
I used to get crticized by my wife for wanting to watch boxing on TV, to the point that I gave up trying. Now I've got my own room & TV so I can watch it, & enjoy it without being made to feel guilty.
This is what you call "manly"?
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 4:44 PM
How can we have a talk about manly men without pulling out the Martin Mull song. With pleasure, I present 'Men'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-xZ4gz4MM
And an other thing, du Toit pulls out his list of manly men actors, one being Robert Mitchum. Funny. He starred in one of mine all time favorite movies,'The Night Of The Hunter'. One of the things that struck me about the movie was how Charles Laughton lit Mitchum not just to show off his dimples but also to show just how pretty Mitchum was.
I don't need no make up
I got real scars
I've got hair on my chest
I look good with my shirt on
Posted by: Janine | November 12, 2007 4:45 PM
Kim du Troit's man-crush on Rumsfeld and his unique way of expressing it are forever burned into my brain.
Even worse is Mrs. du Toit's idiotic defense:
Uh, so the Europeans fear us because Rumsfeld wants respect and love from his wife? And what was that bit about, if we don't become Rumsfeld, men will become a footnote in history? How does that work, exactly?
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 4:50 PM
Okay, P.Z. Thanks for starting out my day by squeezing two foul, reeking conservaturds into my lap all at once. My blood pressure is fine, really.
The first one is almost ignorable, even if disgusting- an insecure sexless loser, probably impotent with real women, looking for a mentally and socially retarded female to rule over and defile-that's just standard christian porn, don'tcha know?
The second link is just as sick, but dangerous to everyone, not just young naive females. I always love it when I see a blog or magazine that has the words "conservative" and "intellectual" in the same sentence. It is a universal disclaimer that involves making lame excuses for horrible behavior, while still managing to be hypocritical enough to complain about other people's NON-horrible behavior. Kim's essay is no surprise there, as it basically boils down to "Kim du Toit's penis is so limp and tiny he has to hold a gun and fantasize about murdering people to get off. And if you don't do the same, you're not a REAL MAN!"
Wow, Kim. I am so amazingly underwhelmed by your manly manliness!
I like to keep an optimistic attitude about things. I can see that the world is in many ways slowly getting to be a friendlier place in which to live. Technology makes lives easier, and the need for struggle goes down. Communication grows, and we can see ourselves in others just a little more than before.
And then some immature, hateful, ignorant, dickless douchebag like Kim du Toit comes along and spews his his empty, envious hatred on pretty much everyone who has actually tried to make life better WITHOUT murdering people to do it. It sobers my mind to think about how many do still approve of his sentiments. Many americans still love their ignorance and violence more than anything else, and shit like Kim's gets sucked up and spewed out daily by people who want more out of life, but are too scared, stupid, or lazy to go for it. They must recieve their thrills vicariously, and what better way than soldier-worship? I see it almost every time our little exercise in empire building is brought up in conversation-the main defenders are almost without exception small-minded people who have accomplished little in life, whose knowledge of the world barely reaches out to the ends of their lawns. And somehow, the fact that their country's soldiers are in a foreign land where they have no business being, killing people who are no threat to us, actually makes them feel BETTER about their own shitty lives. The hero-worship kicks in, and people think we are somehow morally superior heroes for being better murderers.
Pah. Kim du Toit, you will not rain on my parade. Feel free to take your dickless, cowardly, shit-for-brains (oh, sorry-conservative!) philosophy, load it into one of your penis replacements (oh, I mean guns) and fire it straight up your worthless ass. I know it hurts you to realize how irrelevant your kind is becoming, but don't worry. You still have options. You could decide to grow the fuck up and join the human race! Or if as I suspect you are simply not mentally or morally capable of changing your shitty self, you can do what the rest of you soldier-worshipping, violence loving, fearful little limp-dicks do best-die soon and be forgotten!
Posted by: Neil | November 12, 2007 4:51 PM
#33-
The whole enterprise was completely useless for anything except creating a myth. It was entirely pointless. It was about dying a heroic death for the fun of it. It was the pinnacle of stupidity.
Well, yes, of course. But it was Crockett's line that Kim du Twit quoted, in PZ's link.
Some of the Alamo defenders (e.g. Crockett and Bonham) were not Texians or Tejanos by birth, marriage, residence, land ownership, or even preference for Dr. Pepper, and seemed rather to have wandered to Texas spoiling for a fight.
Thugs, in a word.
Posted by: Barn Owl | November 12, 2007 4:57 PM
He didn't specify which doll...
Posted by: Nice Young Woman | November 12, 2007 5:00 PM
truth machine, & the rest of you.
After the character assassination of James Watson here, I'm not surprised by the responses to this post - it looks like the lot of you are pussy whipped.
Every thing in du Toit's post seems to get taken to extremes or out of context - no - more that you folks have added context to support your own agendas.
And I know I'm gonna get flak for this, so I'd better get this in now. I don't believe that all races are equal. But I don't believe that my race is necessarily the best. I don't believe that the sexes are equal either. And I don't believe that my sex is necessarily the best. I never have, and never would, knowingly treat another person of different race or sex in a manner that would disadvantage them. So don't call me racist or sexist.
Posted by: Richard Harris | November 12, 2007 5:06 PM
cycle racing ... it's fairly manly - there's about ten guys to every gal.
Most chess players are men too -- does that make it "fairly manly"?
I wonder if Kim du Toit would be concerned about being defended by some logic-challenged pussywhip who has to hide in his room to watch what he wants on TV.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:10 PM
Uh... how is that pronounced, exactly?
Posted by: Kseniya | November 12, 2007 5:10 PM
I don't believe that all races are equal.
Oh my, Richard Harris is pussywhipped and racist -- what a surprise.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:12 PM
Here's your typical manly bicycle racer:
Oh, but Richard probably means road racing -- you know, the sport that requires a minimum of upper body weight to excel.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:23 PM
Yes of course you're not racist or sexist. Women can cook whatever they want for dinner every night and I'll watch black people playing football any day. If that's not empowerment, I don't know what is. Anyone who disagrees with me is pussy whipped/a fag blah, blah, [insert absurdly gay sounding phallic imagery here] Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush.
Posted by: stnemmoc | November 12, 2007 5:23 PM
P.S.
Reduce the number of your testicles and you can reach the highest of heights.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:24 PM
Disgusting. I want a partner, not a doormat.
Posted by: Josh | November 12, 2007 5:43 PM
I was going to ask.
I was maybe going to ask.
Something tells me he didsn't want to marry someone more intelligent than he is, and that he thought (and maybe still thinks) thinks the risk of that happening was very large.
(Still wondering about a man called Kim. For crying out loud, Kim Basinger!
Hm. America.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 12, 2007 5:47 PM
"Disgusting. I want a partner, not a doormat."
"I don't want to be your better half
I believe that one and one makes TWO" - Alanis Morrisette
Posted by: Pablo | November 12, 2007 5:47 PM
Richard Harris, please explain how they are not equal. Then we will be able to judge whether you are a racist sexist pig.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 5:51 PM
Toit ? À la française, quoi.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 12, 2007 5:51 PM
Kim du Troit states that "Now, every time I see that TV ad, I have to be restrained from shooting the TV with a .45 Colt." Obviously he's never owned, shot, or studied firearms in his life. We call them a "Colt 45". Just like we say a "three fifty seven" instead of a "three hundred and fifty seven". Just sayin.
I went to sniper school and taught on the rifle range in the Marines. The WORST people I had to deal with were the macho "good old boys" like kim seems to be, that came through. Couldn't hit anything further away than 100 yards (all Marines train at up to 500 yds with steel sight), and were often so sure of themselves and what they were doing that they couldn't be taught. To stupid to figure out how to focus on the front sight tip and pay attention to breathing and heart beat to learn how to shoot.
Probalby best in the casee of Kim. He won't be as big a problem when he completely looses it.
Posted by: Dahan | November 12, 2007 5:52 PM
"dew twa"
du Toit is a French (sometimes Swiss) name. If I were to guess, I'd say he's probably descended of Huguenots (French Calvinists) who fled to the United States, among other places, while fleeing religious persecution. The name Kim could have been inspired by Kipling's novel titled "Kim." It is a name like Ashliegh - unisex, primarily female - but it's also found on some males.
I wonder what kind of life Kim had growing up to get all this hate. I know when I was young, the French and Italian boys were routinely despised/bullies by most of the white, European descended males of my HS (primarily German, English, Scottish and Irish descent). Plus with a name like Kim, he just HAD to be teased. Unmercifully.
Another strike would be being raised in a (assumed) Calvinist/fundamentalist home. Those harsh doctrines of predestination and humans being utterly corrupt and worthless... The hang-ups of sex... The over-powering religiosity... Blech...
Lastly, in his blog you can get the idea his dad was a closed, taciturn book. And, whether he really admits it or not, there are some serious daddy issues going on there.
Honestly, I feel sorry for him. He's so over-compensating it's not even funny. Okay. It is funny. But only in a caricature of 'what it means to be a man funny.' Not funny to be in his head, funny.
Posted by: Moses | November 12, 2007 5:52 PM
I wonder what kind of life Kim had growing up to get all this hate.
Perhaps he was nagged at about watching boxing on TV, like poor henpecked Richard Harris.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:57 PM
P.S. Anyone remember Bobby Riggs? Tennis -- now there's a manly sport.
Some bicycle racers who can kick Richard Harris's ass: http://www.pbase.com/sdukes/image/16860239
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 6:01 PM
Richard Harris: You seem to have confused the words "same" and "equal".
Meanwhile, to strike a low blow, if we add an "e" to Toit, then how will it sound?
Posted by: Matthew | November 12, 2007 6:08 PM
Richard Harris, better be careful or I will pull MacArthur Park on you again.
As for pulling things out of context, if one thinks that I or anyone else have done so, it is easy enough to go back to what du Toit wrote. If you thing anyone has been unfair, point out where.
Posted by: Janine | November 12, 2007 6:10 PM
Bobby Riggs? The one who got his ass kicked by Billy Jean King.
I remember that.
Posted by: spurge | November 12, 2007 6:11 PM
Toit ? À la française, quoi.
Might it not rhyme with squat? À l'américaine?
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 6:13 PM
You seem to have confused the words "same" and "equal".
Actually, he seems to have confused a sociological category with a biological one.
I'm still trying to figure out how someone who cowers in his room to avoid his wife's withering criticisms manages to call the rest of us "pussy whipped".
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 6:14 PM
Sorry, but that was a lol moment...
Honestly, I have no idea why people thing watching boxing, or football, is manly. To me it's no more manly than doing any other coach-potato activity, like watching the Cooking Network.
I figure if you're going to brag 'manly activity,' you should talk about how you do manly things... Like pay your child support. Listen to your wife. Swallow your pride and ask for directions. Or take your kids to the mall or cook them dinner because your wife is busy with collecting data for a big science conference. Other manly things include helping your kids with homework, getting them to ramp-down the drama (really, your hamster dying is not the end of the world...) and making sure they get both positive and negative feedback for the things they do in life. I consider those manly.
And they're much harder than, let's say, when I was young and single and used to fight kumite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0LeALHpjsQ Or motocross racing. Or fly fishing. Or deer and duck hunting. Or black-powder shooting. Or any of the other 'manly' things I used to do for "boy camouflage."
Posted by: Moses | November 12, 2007 6:17 PM
Kim du Toit.
Doesn't that anglicize into Kim of Twat?
What kind of a name is that?
This is all a joke, right?
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 6:20 PM
Bobby Riggs? The one who got his ass kicked by Billy Jean King.
But first he demolished Margaret Court, 30 years old and the top woman tennis player in the world and him a 55 year old has-been. Riggs was a great tennis player and perhaps an even greater hustler. But the most "manly" thing about him is the prostate cancer that killed him.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 6:20 PM
Doesn't that anglicize into Kim of Twat?
Kim of the Twat.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 6:22 PM
BTW, I was never as good as the guy in the video. I fought in some larger Northern California tournaments, but that level of tournament is bush-league to the tournaments he fights in. Compared to that guy, we were all green-belts. Good, but not absolutely stone-incredible like him. We'd have all been playing the role of "spear carrier to be killed by hero" in any competition we had with him.
Posted by: Moses | November 12, 2007 6:27 PM
Riggs was most definitely a hustler.
I was amazed to find out that he was such a great player. I only remember him from the battle of the sexes stunt.
I guess it worked.
Posted by: spurge | November 12, 2007 6:29 PM
I paraphrase Ghandi: I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians.
Posted by: Dior | November 12, 2007 6:29 PM
Please don't go "right winger" on us. :) And it's "dew twa" as the final 't' is silent. And the name, basically, means "roof," though you can get airy fairy and say "from a high place" or some such crap if you want to put on airs.
Posted by: Moses | November 12, 2007 6:30 PM
Gandhi. And that's a quote, not a paraphrase.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 6:32 PM