The End of the Dude-Bro November 14, 2012 Jill I’m hoping for it over at the Guardian. And yeah I make fun of Guy Fieri and Nickelback and khaki shorts.
I am very disappointed that dudebros are ruining “bro” as a casual greeting and as a term of endearment. When and where I grew up, “bro” was the same as “man”, and now it’s all tainted with the misogynist reek of these fucken dudebro douchebagges.
I’m from an older generation, but when I was young we called each other by first name or nickname. In the case of not knowing another guy’s name, we used the term “Hoss”. I know nothing about Nickelback. I still like the Stones.
Whoa, whoa?! You mean your not obsessing over the Bieb’s weak, monotone voice? I just don’t understand how that could be humanly possible!
I’m pretty sure that the combination of Nickelback and Justin Beiber is a sin that just cannot be overcome, not even by giving us Nathan Fillion. Sorry, Canada, we’re gonna have to bring you some democracy…
I detest Rush and Neil Young as well. Rush probably because they get overplayed (which is why I also can’t stand The Who and fucking Led Zeppelin) but Neil Young’s voice actually makes me angry.
Sorry, I refuse to apologize for Nickelback. There have been myriad other talented bands the U.S. could have given their attention to over the last 15 years (man I’m OLD) who were repeatedly ignored but noooo… Then Nickelback comes out and it’s all “ohh Canadian music sucks, all they have is nickelback and Justin beiber!” They may hail from here, but you folks embraced them. So no, apologies here. /rant
This is true! And, to be fair, their music (while not particularly innovative or technically complicated) is mostly inoffensive from what I recall? I try not to hate on people’s musical tastes because it’s all so subjective. If we’re going to call them out because their lead singer is (or other band members are) a douche, however… Then Nickelback is only one of many, many, many offenders. I tend to offer up examples like K’Naan as evidence that Canada exports some great musicians in defense anyway.
K’naan, Hawksley Workman, The New Pornographers, Sloan, the tragically hip, Metric, The Headstones, Odds, Shadowy Men on a Shadowy Planet, Dan Mangan, Matthew Good, K-Os, Diamond Rings, Blue Rodeo.I could go on and on…
I actually like the song Leader of Men. It’s the only Nickelback song I like, but I damn near got the CD for that one song.
Ah ha ha, this was just my passive-aggressive Canadian way of inspiring a lot of Canuck-love in retaliation. š
I admit, I only recognize a handful of those artists. I’ll have to go look them up! I don’t think we do too bad on our famous exports… We’ve also got Neil Young, Leonard Cohen, and Paul Anka if you want older musicians whose work stands up well, years later.
….am I the only person in the world who thinks Nickelback isn’t that noteworthily bad a band? I mean, they basically have like three songs, and I’ve only ever liked one song by them… but a lot of people are horrifically repetitive who don’t seem to get held up as the Worst Evar Omg or anything.
True Story: I saw them live in concert (free tickets) and I fell asleep. All of their songs sound so much alike that I literally could not tell them apart. They got pissed at the crowd for not, “being pumped” and as they left the stage they got the most un-enthused, polite clap I have ever heard.
You think they have three songs… they have many, just they are barely distinguishable from each other.
I don’t think it’s that they’re particularly bad…I think it’s that they’re so resolutely mediocre and uninteresting. Like…they’re actually offensively tedious.
I think it’s partly a regional thing too – hating on Alberta is the only thing as fun as hating on Toronto. Maybe even more now, since the swing in economic fortunes.
C’mon, Toronto isn’t that bad! I mean… Shucks, I can’t think of a good defense right now but I will! … Maybe.
Nothing is more fun than hating on Vancouver. It is a Proven Fact(TM).* And Toronto is pretty great. Granted, Olivia Chow is my MP, so I have few complaints. (We like to pretend that Rob Ford doesn’t really exist–he’s a parody of an incompetent windbag mayor.) *I totally just made that up. But deny that it isn’t so!
Sorry, but it is Official Feministe Policy that no one is allowed to hate on Vancouver. It is one of my favorite cities in the entire world, so BACK OFF. (I do also quite like Toronto, and Montreal is on my North American travel shortlist). There are many things I hate, but Canada is not one of them.
But…but…hating on Vancouver is a vaunted national pastime, even more than beer-drinking, hockey, and ingesting massive quantities of maple syrup. (Full disclosure: I really like Vancouver too. I fear that admitting this means I will be ridden out of Toronto on a rail, however.) Montreal is fantastic–I was lucky enough to live there for a couple of years. Highly recommended (but, um, maybe wait until May because the winters there are rather cold and snowy and one of the joys of Montreal is the walkable scale and gorgeous architecture. Plus spring and summer there=the best patio dining and drinking this side of Amsterdam.)
People hate on Vancouver? I don’t know a single person in Toronto that doesn’t like Vancouver. Most people seem to love the west coast… Hating Alberta, however, is a national past time. I think, and I hate to admit this because our (Leafs and Canadiens) hockey teams hate each other, but Montreal might be one of the best metropolitan cities in the country.
Everyone I know here in Toronto hates on Vancouver, even the people from there, but that may be because they all secretly wish that they lived there. Nobody ever bad-mouths Victoria, however. It is just not done. To end the derail, maybe all the Alberta hate has to do with all the dude-bros there. Nickelback did not form in a vacuum, alas. Yeah, Montreal is wonderful ( I can say that even having lived there right after the referendum when the Quebec economy tanked) and if the opportunity arose to move back without having to get an LL.L to practise there I’d be zooming east on the 401 ASAP.
I spend about half my time right now in Toronto and the other half in rural northern Alberta, and sometimes it gives me whiplash trying to remember who I’m supposed to make fun of where XD
Now that Montreal’s been brought up, is it fair to call The Arcade Fire a Canadian export even though Regine is Haitian and the Butlers are from Texas?
Honestly, I think Nickelback is like a teenage garage band that made a deal with the devil. They become famous and better polished, but their lyrics are so cheesily EARNEST and shallow and their songs all sound the same. Plus, you gave us Avril Lavigne, who was the product of a radioactive explosion in a Canadian “Claire’s”. Now those two are going to reproduce and the world will never forgive you.
Never Again? The anthem for veterans of dysfunctional households and domestic abuse? Have the Weakerthans disbanded? Sent from the natural habitat of the damned dudebro.
Isn’t it ironic? Don’t forget the torture that Alanis Morisette unleashed upon the world. Although frankly, I think it’s completely hypocritical to blame Canadians for stuff we marketed. There are probably all kinds of genius Canadian musicians that we never hear because the American music is so crap-aphiliac.
Samantha b – I started listening to CBC Radio 3 online (although now I think it’s just CBC music) and I have never looked back.
ā¦.am I the only person in the world who thinks Nickelback isnāt that noteworthily bad a band Na, Stephen Harper’s a fan š
Can someone tell me why Guy Fieri sucks? I mean, I don’t love him but I like Diners, Drive Ins, and Dives well enough…
Well, I personally just find him irritating as hell, but there have also been allegations that he’s homophobic, misogynist and anti-Semitic.
Totally fair! I was wondering if there was a story I was missing. If there was, it’s not a huge loss to me – I’d probably cry if allegations of misogyny, racism and homophobia arose about Ryan Gosling, for instance.
The article mentions that the allegations aren’t substantiated but it’s not a hardship for me to actively avoid supporting Guy Fieri. It still sort of amazes me how famous (and quasi-famous) people are so often openly awful, though.
Did you see the review of Guy Fieri’s new restaurant in the NYT the other day? Delicious, delicious haterade: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/dining/reviews/restaurant-review-guys-american-kitchen-bar-in-times-square.html
Haha. I just read that; it’s the funniest review I’ve read in years. I’m so sorry for you, Mr. Dude Bro.
For the same reason I buy BBQ rub called Special Shit? It makes me lol Wait a second, there’s no actual feces in that? I feel ripped off.
Holy crow! These are still allegations as opposed to facts but I’m not a particular fan of Guy Fieri any more. Thanks for the link.
I got midway through that before I had to stop. Fieri is a douche, but this Page guy’s treatment of his employees reminds me so much of my last pair of bosses that it was traumatizing.
Did you see the review of Fieri’s NY restaurant in the NYT today, Jill? It was the most amazing review I’ve ever seen. I don’t think any writer has ever loathed an experience more than this reviewer loathed this restaurant. I don’t like the gratuitous dig at Calvin Trillin, who is all things wonderful, but aside from that, it was great fun to read!
Meh. I legitimately enjoy playing/watching sports, and the guys I live with are and will always be my bros- because they’re legitimately as close as my family to me. I’m not sure you’re doing anyone any favors by tying certain neutral interests (sports, khaki shorts, calling people ‘bro’) to reprehensible behavior like rape and homophobia. I certainly haven’t observed nearly as strong a correlation as you suggest.
Meh. I legitimately enjoy playing/watching sports, and the guys I live with are and will always be my bros- because theyāre legitimately as close as my family to me. Iām not sure youāre doing anyone any favors by tying certain neutral interests (sports, khaki shorts, calling people ābroā) to reprehensible behavior like rape and homophobia. I certainly havenāt observed nearly as strong a correlation as you suggest. This was a light-hearted piece, not a serious meta-analysis. I must admit, I felt a bit ignorant while reading it as I am totally unfamiliar with Guy Fieri’s work, nor have I ever knowingly listened to a Nickelback song or watched a Judd Apatow film. I do have male and female friends with whom I almost exclusively discuss sports, but I have season tickets to a football team and I only see these people in that context. I also do frequently talk about the ‘woman I’ve been banging,’ but I’ve been married to her for nearly 20 years, and am quite proud of her achievements.
Being trans, I smirked at the khaki shorts thing, which was what I was disguised as a guy in, during my awkward in-between transition stage this summer. Happy to report not being a Bro. š Didn’t get the Nickelback thing either but then I do not want to research him thank-you-very-much!
I like the sobbing in the comments about how you’re being “loud” “smug” or “annoying” because using cue words to demean something a woman says is the best way to prove you don’t hate women and you’re not a fucking asshole, amirite?
“Dress, talk and socialize however you want, but recognize that there are myriad ways to be a man, and what kind of pants (or skirt or make-up) you wear has exactly zero to do with maleness or strength or character.” A wonderful sentiment. Too bad the rest of your article totally undermines it.
Um, no. Wait to misread. There a myriad ways to be a man, and the article is all about denouncing the specific category of them that *hurts other people*. This isn’t about dudebros dressing in a specific way – that bit was more about trying to help the audience visualise the group, anyway – this is about them being misogynist and homophobic douches. Other people’s feelings and freedom has ALWAYS been the limit on one’s self-expression, nothing new here.
“This isnāt about dudebros dressing in a specific way ā that bit was more about trying to help the audience visualise the group, anyway ā this is about them being misogynist and homophobic douches.” The implication of the article, intentional or not, was that there is a correlation between dressing in a certain way and being a misogynist and homophobic “douche.”
The implication of the article, intentional or not, was that there is a correlation between dressing in a certain way and being a misogynist and homophobic ādouche.ā Um, none of the ten “identifiers” Jill listed even mention clothes, and only one sentence in the entire article identifies a Dude-Bro by dress. What Jill does discuss is Dude-Bro toxic behavior and attitude. Dude, can you even read? Or, what I suspect, you’re just deliberately obtuse so you can brag to your bros about those “fat, man-hating dyke bitches.”
The article mentions clothes several times. Regarding your last paragraph, your suspicions of me are incorrect. I find such name-calling repellent.
Oh yeah, this kind of comment ALWAYS goes over well on a feminist site. It reminds me of the guys who make kitchen jokes, which are old, tired, and offensive, then use the lack of laughter as proof that ladies have no sense of humor. Not only have you not been yelled at, but if your best argument is basically “but not every guy who wears baseball caps is a douche!” then I think you may have missed the most important parts of the article.
Yes, that comment was ill-advised. I meant it more self-deprecatingly than anything. This is a site where if you say something foolish, you frequently get yelled at–and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, far from it–and I was afraid I had said something foolish. I am chagrined that this puts me in the same category as men who make offensive jokes, but I should have thought it through better. I am sorry. As for missing the important part of the article…I think the important part was, “Hey, guys, quit being jerks. Here’s how!” I’m 100% behind that part. The less-important part was, Jill doesn’t care for guys who wear baseball caps. She is welcome to her preferences. The connection between the two, however, is spurious.
I think a lot of the negative comments on CIF are valid. I mean, some of my best friends are women, but don’t you just hate those cows who…? To a reader in England, where the Guardian is published, it comes across as look-at-me-I’m so-wonderful and patronising, without even having to be aware of who these people are. You do realise that other people – men – are looking right back at some of you and not necessarily liking what they see? Possibly it’s an Americas cultural thing, if so it doesn’t travel well, a bit like your Hershey bars.
You do realise that other people ā men ā are looking right back at some of you and not necessarily liking what they see? You do realize that our actions don’t always have to meet the approval of men?
You do realise that other people ā men ā are looking right back at some of you and not necessarily liking what they see? Wow, you don’t say? Women are objects the male gaze, and men judge us? Amazing. No, none of us here have ever realized that. Turnabout is fair play.
Right? Mind. Blown. My dainty lady-brain never ever realized that women are constantly judged and found lacking due to institutionalized misogyny. I do wonder why John keeps coming back here since everything about Feministe seems to give him a sad.
Nice try, mate, but cries of “stereotyping” really don’t convince here. Jill was using examples to illustrate a greater point, and invoke recognition in people. The heart of the matter lies here: -they always adapt to the local culture, creating insular groups of men who use cultural cues like clothing and speech patterns to display their dude-bro-ness, and who militantly share the same tastes and preferences (some variation on the theme of mediocre bands, mediocre restaurants and sorority girls). All sorts of social groups use cultural cues like clothing and speech to recognise one another. This article is just about a particularly unhealthy and insidious example of that.
“All sorts of social groups use cultural cues like clothing and speech to recognise one another.” Yes, and I would resist painting the members of a social group with too broad a brush.
Honestly, this is the same argument Christians use to say that we can’t point out their bad behavior. “Well, some Christians aren’t homophobic, so you should stop focusing on the groups that are. Many Christians are just nice, regular people.” Yeah. Nice, regular people who conform to a religion that actively advocates and uses language to suppress my rights. A religion that holds real power in my country to do good or evil and most often chooses the latter. I’m sure there are dude-bros out there that aren’t misogynistic, homophobic (often racist) assholes, but we’re not going to stop talking about the majority of dude-bros, the ones that buy into and perpetuate harmful patriarchal behaviors just because we might hurt the feelings of a few, special individuals. Stop trying to derail an actual discussion with sympathy for the oppressors. They already get enough “understanding” from society.
Unlike the Christian-defender in your analogy, I am not saying you shouldn’t point out the bad behavior. Please continue to point out the bad behavior. What I take issue with is connecting the bad behavior to irrelevant matters of personal taste.
I feel like, based on your other responses, you’re being willfully obtuse. But, ok, here’s simplifying it. If I see you in a “Romans 4:13” t-shirt (I’m making shit up here because I forgot the actual verse everyone uses) or wearing a cross necklace or listening to a pop rendition of “On Eagle’s Wings,” I am going to assume you are Christian. And I’m going to assume, until you can prove otherwise, that you’ve got some terrible beliefs about TLGB and women. This, of course, is all based on context (as Jill pointed out in the original article). Yes, you can wear baseball caps and khakis and not be considered a dude-bro in the right settings. Similarly, when I see a teenager in Japan wearing a crucifix, I’m going to assume they’re into some interesting fashion rather than any type of religious.
(true story: I was a Christian virginity pledger, purity ring and all) OT, but I totally need to her more about this.
I left Alabama to get away from one kind of dude-bro, the good ole boy variety. An athlete in high school, I encountered the sort of demeanor and behavior described above on a regular basis. Such things never sat well with me then and don’t sit well with me now. It’s sometimes impossible to know the real numbers/proportions of dude-bros. They’re the most vocal, so their voices usually drown out the less demonstrative and/or obnoxious. I try to live my life as an example, since I believe we closely model our behavior from those with whom we keep frequent company.
The only thing about which I’d dissent is that it seems optimistic to declare that most dudes aren’t dudebros. But serious thanks for linking misogyny and homophobia without making the latter out to be a subset of the former. That’s unfortunately rare.
Jill, 10). Am I a fat, ugly, man-hating dyke bitch for writing this article? well, I agree with most of your points in the article, and I think you’re a rather open minded feminist (certainly compared to parts of your website’s commentariat) who happens to be an attractive woman, but in that, admittedly funny, article, you’re still doing some gender policing of some aspects of masculinity, that I believe you’d find at least troubling when it would be done to women/femininity, by men, or even by radical feminists. It’s mostly that double standard that I find a bit odd. It appears to employ a hegemonic discourse that has already answered most of the questions it is pretending to ask. I don’t know. Whenever I read articles like this, Jill, I can’t help but wonder about the likely audience mismatch. Is this an article supposed to make progressives and feminists feel superior? Is it’s primary focus in-group cohesion? It certainly achieves that, I’d say. I’m less convinced about the article’s potential to reach across the aisle, and actually talk to the dudebros or confused semi-dudebros it supposedly addresses. It’s far too condescending for that. While I think it’s alright to call out people for problematic behaviour, even make fun of them for it, I believe something that is missing in the article is an understanding that the *fear* driving this behaviour is real – unjustified, in most cases, but still *real*. This is not about cuddling or shielding people from necessary change, it’s about understanding inner motivations. I can’t say that I have figured out where that fear comes from exactly. But I can see it’s there, and I can feel it’s real. Rational arguments certainly wouldn’t have got the Republicans so many votes. I believe that it’s necessary to understand the fears of the people one is to when attempting to get past their amygdala and actually induce ideas that *may* change their behaviour. And for most of the guys you mention, it seems to me, when it comes to it, they’re deeply afraid they can’t compete (also, in particular, for women) without Patriarchy as affirmative action. You think telling them they’re dinosaurs will help? I’m not so sure about that. Which, then, brings me back to the question about the intended audience and the possible audience mismatch.
who happens to be an attractive woman Hey Jill, I bet your day just got 100% awesomer because a MAN says he likes the way you look.
Yeah, validation from men is surely Jill’s reason for contributing to the feminist discourse…pfft, I couldn’t even type that and keep a straight face. Bonus points* for the armchair psychology and terribly faulty neuroscience. *negative points
10). Am I a fat, ugly, man-hating dyke bitch for writing this article? No, that’s what they call you when you don’t sleep with them.
How old does this schpiel get, that it’s a feminist’s responsibility to make an asshole not an asshole? I have no idea how to “convince” anyone to not be an asshole, and I don’t think that’s a personal defect of mine.
Iām less convinced about the articleās potential to reach across the aisle, and actually talk to the dudebros or confused semi-dudebros it supposedly addresses. You think that’s the intent?
Zuzu, well, I don’t know. It appears like Jill’s saying: “guys don’t do that, and here’s why”, but it’s written in a way that seems to be about making those feel good about themselves who are confident in saying “she’s not talking about me”, while, at the same time, causing those who do feel that she’s talking about them, say, those who did vote for Romney, to become instantly defensive given the funny, yet condescending writing. Hence my wondering about audience mismatch. Sometimes things are written for rallying purposes, sometimes things are written to reach out. This one appeared to reach out in content, yet seemed written like a rallying piece.
There’s a significant difference between saying “Hey, this isn’t a necessary part of masculinity, and moreover, it just makes you an asshole” and saying “Real men don’t wear pink!”
For some reason I keep wanting to sing the title of this article to the tune of Boys II Men’s ‘End of the Road’. Admit it, now you’re doing it too.
I hate dude-bros. Really, everyone who’s not a dude-bro hates dude-bros. There’s really only two reasons to write a whole article about how shitty dude bros are: 1) To try and convince dude-bros to stop being dude-bros. 2) To have a self-congratulating, smug circle-jerk about how much better we all are than dude-bros. Pop feminism is no more valid feminism than pop psychology is valid psychology. This article doesn’t advance a feminist dialogue in any meaningful way – it’s simply a whinging diatribe about a vaguely-defined, stereotyped cultural subset of men. It’s setting up a straw man as an excuse for the writer to pontificate to men about how to be men. So, let’s look at the few valid points in here: 1) There are too many men who use coercive methods or predatory actions to get sex. This is a universal, pervasive fact. It must be ended. 2) Homophobia and the use of the word ‘fag’ as an insult are not harmless practices, and the use of homophobia to enforce heteronormativity is unacceptable. Nothing groundbreaking, but still valid points. Aside from that though, most of the article consists of trying to link men who don’t meet the (female) author’s ideals of how men should dress or behave (khaki shorts – rapey! baseball hats – sexist! drunk at 3 a.m. – homophobic!) as indicative of sexism and homophobia. You can shout patriarchy all you want, but stereotyping of men is still stereotyping. This article could have been a paragraph long, reading: “Sexism to reinforce the patriarchy is a major issue our society faces, especially when it manifests in extreme ways such as sexual assault. Likewise, homophobia to reinforce male heteronormativity is pervasive in American culture – something that we must address. Also, I’m not a fan of khaki short, baseball hats or Nickelback, but I do like condescending, passive-aggressive lists.”
Thereās really only two reasons to write a whole article about how shitty dude bros are: 1) To try and convince dude-bros to stop being dude-bros. 2) To have a self-congratulating, smug circle-jerk about how much better we all are than dude-bros. 3) Your editor says, “Hey, I keep seeing this term “dude-bros” tossed around, what does it mean? Want to write a piece explaining what a dude-bro is and what they mean for gender equality?” 4) You are fucking tired of writing about reproductive rights and rape and serious issues all the time, and every once in a while you want to write something slightly lighter and funnier, and so you do. 5) You sincerely enjoy pissing off killjoys and tight-assed WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?!?! whiners, especially those who get SO.ANGRY. whenever you say anything at all about fratboy douchebags, and then inevitably demand that you APOLOGIZE you mouthy bitch, and then get predictably racist by demanding that you write the same piece about blacks and Jews (see, e.g., like half of my twitter replies today). 6) Sometimes when you’re tired and frustrated and you just feel like having a good laugh, a smug circle-jerk is just the ticket. And all of the “OMG HOW COULD YOU?!?!?!” comments, including this one, are validating my smugness. So thank you.
Ad hominem. Predictable. Responding to someone critiquing your poor writing and lack of substantive discussion by accusing them of being sensitive. Jill, have you been taking pointers from ‘masculinists’?
No, I’m critiquing your poor reasoning and lack of substantive discussion. This website, and my Guardian columns, are FULL of substantive discussion. Yet this is the only one you’ve ever commented on. Hmmm. Speaking of taking pointers from masculinists, do you only comment on feminist blogs when it’s to criticize a writer who isn’t appropriately dancing for you?
To Zuzu: I find that in order to decide a piece is of no value, you must read it first. To Jill: I think writing something “lighter and funnier” is perfectly valid – writing something light and funny about how men who dress a certain way and like certain things are sexist and homophobic isn’t really either. It’s like me writing an article about how women who wear yoga pants everywhere and like Nicki Minaj are usually not very smart and rely on others to do things for them. Gross generalization? Absolutely. Offensive? I think so, yes. Would I expect people to maybe tell me what I wrote was sophomoric and that they didn’t like it after I published it in one of Britain’s most reputable sources for news and commentary? I’d bank on it. It’s not that I give a shit about you “appropriately dancing”. I don’t know you and I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. I simply registered two things: 1) There’s something kinda prejudiced in labelling a broad group of men rapey, sexist and homophobic based on irrelevant criteria. I know I’m a WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?! whiner for daring to tell you this, but it doesn’t make it any less true. 2) There wasn’t really much substance to the piece. Perhaps I should’ve phrased this as something I felt like voicing because it was published in the Guardian. I think the Guardian normally has high journalistic standards and I thought your piece was unusually poor by your standards. I don’t always agree with what you say, but it’s usually thought provoking and advances a credible argument (see “the ethics of outing your rapist”). I was disappointed with your piece. That’s all. I guess I could also add that writing something “lighter and funnier” would entail actual humour – not lazy “how ’bout them fratboys?” jokes. But I’m an authority on nothing, so we’ll leave that at that. Look, I’m not trying to get into a flame war with you. I don’t know anything about you except that you write for the Guardian, are done with law school (how I envy you in that regard) and normally have thought-provoking ideas to share. You know even less about me, other than that I DON’T write for the Guardian and that if my comment bothers you, you have the power to not post my comment and move on. … and on that note, I’m out. Cheers!
Addendum: I think writing something ālighter and funnierā is perfectly valid ā writing something light and funny about how men who dress a certain way and like certain things are sexist and homophobic isnāt really either. … unless those “certain things” are actually sexist or homophobic. Or they wear a shirt they got off the the God Hates Fags website – that would be a homophobic choice of clothing.
Well, OMGBasedGod, I’m sure you have a vast and perfectly-reasoned body of work to show us poor benighted ladies how it’s done, right? …Oh, you don’t? So you flounced instead? That certainly makes you look awesomely credible and eminently rational*! *in case it isn’t crystal-clear, that was sarcasm–I figured I should spell it out since you have so obviously demonstrated that you need all the help you can get with it.
Christ, he didn’t even have the guts to just leave. He had to say his final piece and plug up his ears to make sure no wayward logic managed to wiggle into his brain.
1) Thereās something kinda prejudiced in labelling a broad group of men rapey, sexist and homophobic based on irrelevant criteria. I know Iām a WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?! whiner for daring to tell you this, but it doesnāt make it any less true. I know! You dare tell women things on the internet. At great risk to yourself. YOU ARE A MARTYR, MARTYR I TELL YOU. You know even less about me, other than that I DONāT write for the Guardian Your TL;DR comments and flounce in response to getting back what you dish out demonstrate why that is.
To Zuzu: I find that in order to decide a piece is of no value, you must read it first. If you find it of no value, what possible value is there in whining to the writer that she didn’t write it the way you wanted it written?
Jill, nice list, but I think now we should move on to discuss Fedora-wearing Nice Guys who permeate the geek scene.
To think this is the same news journal that have fantastic reporters like Julian Borger and Jason Burke. What the hell is this nonsense?
Ok, I looked at his filmography and apparently he did some things besides 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. I can see the Dudebro appeal now.