A Small Victory

kudos to you, michele.

reading all the comments last night, i had to wonder what chuck palahniuk would have to say about all this?

I think that Kim needs to learn the difference between being a man and being a redneck, personally.

Wow. My husband, decorated Gulf War vet and the best man I have ever known, will be interested to learn that his complete lack of interest in yapping about guns, self-defense, politics, beautiful women, sports, warfare, hunting, and power tools makes him somehow less of a man. Gods forbid it should get out that he's pretty damned good in the kitchen and does the dishes/cooking religiously every Sunday morning so I can sleep in a bit.

Has trolling now hit the mainstream? What a load of attention-craving horseshit.

nice post. all for it.

and my boy, pussified is fine by me too.

From what I've read, both the essay and comments, I conclude that Kim is a dolt, unrepresentative of 'men' as a group, and only slightly representative of men of his class and social status. One need only take note, for instance, of the foul language and defensivness of his wife's comments. Why does she find it necessary, or appropriate to clarify, defend his polemic? And, her style of calling people who disagree with the screed 'fucking' this and fucking that is an indication of the sophistication of the people were dealing with here.
Plus, she's just plain wrong on her facts. "50% of rapes are commited in fraternity houses" is just an example.
These are marginal people with gnomic ideas. Life is short, let's move on.

Trying to pidgeon-hole men to be one particular thing is ludicrous. Not all men are alike just as not all trees are alike.

I can appreciate Kim's views, because he is just being Kim, but that doesn't mean that all men NEED to be "manly men".

Well, I don't think I have any hang ups or qualms about working "beneath" women or anything, but really when a man looks at a girl's boobs, it just means their eyes are open.

Michele, from reading the full article at Kim's site, I have quite the opposite reaction from you about which husband is manly. Proper respect is manly.

Not this man. I don't look at boobs. I don't even like boobs. I like broad shoulders and nice pecs instead. I suppose that makes me less of a man? Oh, well... I guess I'll just be happy being me instead.

Of course, I didn't mean to imply that enjoying boobs is necessarily bad... just not my cup of tea.

Personally, I've mastered the art of keeping my right eye looking at a women's eyes, while my left eye ogles the breasts. As a result, I suffer from vertigo quite a little bit, but I think it's worth it.

Just wait, in another two years he'll be ranting about how the Female Void consumes all Male Light, just like Dave Sim.

There's really nothing very original in du Toit's rant that you couldn't hear in a "manly" bar at about 1am. It's just that the speaker would be a drunk venting his frustrations at a life half-lived.

As for the Mrs. du Toit, I have never understood a woman who needs to be identified by her husband's name. Perhaps it's that "reflected glory" thing. But in Mrs. du Toit's case she needs to relize that there is little reflected glory coming from such a dim bulb.

The rest of what makes him what he is, is all about personality which, contrary to the belief of some, was not shaped by his penis.

That was more or less my argument in a nutshell, but unsurprisingly, you've said it better.

Now, I just want to amuse myself thinking up T-shirt slogans:

Are You Experienced Pussified?

Pussify This!

Are You Stoned or Just Pussified?

You Bring the Beer. I'll Bring the Pussy.

Pussification Happens

Resistance is Futile. You Will Be Pussified.

I mean, I'm sorry, but I can't take an essay entitled "The Pussification of the Western Male" (because those Eastern ones still retain the art of oppressing women, or what?) all that seriously, you know?

Flame Flame go away

I like to cook. I am not afraid to clean a bathroom. I know how to knit. I enjoy the theater and love cats. I try to work out my problems by talking. I'm a sci-fi geek.

I also played football in high school, have never backed down from a fight, enjoy watching animal house, watched massive quantities of porn, fired a rifle on several occasions, work out several times a week and have mastered the subtle art of the boob ogle.

Anyone who says I'm pussified can kiss my ass.

Gah, last comment was mine.

What makes my husband a man even though he doesn't like sports or own a gun or go hunting? Simple. He has a dick. The rest of what makes him what he is, is all about personality which, contrary to the belief of some, was not shaped by his penis.

Actually, it's probably a little bit more complicated than that. He's shaped by testosterone moreso than the presence of his appendage. There are portions of the male brain that function differently than the female brain.

I don't say that I agree with du Toit, either. I hate hunting, and I'm looking forward to a January seat at a touring production of Les Mis.

I respect Michele's request that people not get all up in each other's virtual faces in her comment sections, so I'll just gently and politely invite the anonymous "Blah" to e-mail me with his or her explanation of how my last comment was in any way a "flame."

Email count (as of 12:00pm CT today): 287.

Positive: 276
Negative: 6
Undecided: 5 ("I sort of agree/disagree, but you got a couple of things right/wrong")

Most people, it seemed, got the point. Michele, your ex is what I call a "cartoon male" -- the construction worker who whistles at women, etc.

There is an appropriate Latin quote for all this, but I wouldn't want to upset the redneck stereotype.

I think the point Mr. DuToit is trying to make is that there is more to being a man than a physical appendage. Manhood is a culture. It is not always good, it is not always bad. But it is different from being a woman. Having a dick is not enough to make you a man.

I think when a boy grows up with the name "Kim Du Toit," he has to overcompensate... ;)

The du Toits lack both intelligence and class. It's obvious when Mr. finds it satisfactory to reply to critics of the tag team lunacy with positive and negative stats. Hitler had positive approbation, as did Stalin, Pot Pol, and Jim Jones. It means only that like-minded idiots have modems along with rage. As the Mrs. would say,

GET A FUCKING CLUE!

Spectator, STOP. I gave my opinions yesterday and perhaps I will give more later, but one thing I do know for a FACT:

The du Toits lack neither intelligence, nor class. You suggesting so based on this essay and their response to comments about it would tend to make me question if that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I have always wondered about men with small dogs. I don't know if I can express it but it just seems wierd. I would never get a little yap yap. There is something special in the relationship between a man and his dog. It says a lot about the owner.
On one hand I am not much in to hunting and while I like sports I don't follow them very closely except for the Yankees and my college football team. I don't drink much, anymore. I do however have a fairly large dog that you would not want to mess with.

"Having a dick is not enough to make you a man." What are you, then, a 'woman-with-penis'? It's possible to be a man without being an asshole or a boor. Unfortunately the Sims, du Toits, and den Bestes of the world have never realized that.

interesting that Mr. du Toit loves guns and big dogs, and such. one could argue that a "real" man wouldn't need to have a big dog to protect him. one could argue that a "real" man wouldn't need to carry a gun, because he'd be able to defend himself, both physically and verbally. any pussy can pull a trigger, right?

i'm sorry, but his whole argument about pussification and being a real man sounds like he's just rationalizing his being a slob, and liking the things he does. ho-hum. heard it all before. sorry, but a real man doesn't give a fuck what society thinks of him, because he's secure enough to know what he is.

Sorry about the copy paste Michele, such a rush today...

Man! Has everyone got this issue confused, or what? I just have to throw my two cents worth into this.

Firstly, Mr. Du Toit is not completely off his rocker. He is definately going off half-cocked.

Rape is not a reaction to emasculation. It is an extension of machismo, a behavior that existed long before the current trend of emasculation started.

The male machismo behavior, and the many victims that it left behind, probably is the cause for the current trend of emasculation, not visa-versa.

However, emasculation is as wrong as the machismo behavior that caused it. This cure is, in some ways, worse than the disease.

That being said, machismo is also wrong.

Men have a feminine side. Women are made up of XX, and men are made up of XY.

Women do not have a masculine side. When was the last time a woman was told that she had to get in touch with the man inside of her. She does not possess a Y chomosone (thank you God).

Men have an X chromosone. We need one. It is what helps us nurture and love our spouse and children. We have a Y chromosone. It is what causes us to defend and protect our spouse and children.

That Y chromosone also can cause us trouble. How many times has a woman asked a man:

Why do you act like that? (Y)

Why do you like violence? (Y)

Why do you get so angry? (Y)

Men are composed of X and Y. They are the origin of man's love of sex(X) and violence(Y). Women, typically, love just sex(X) and sex(X) (and MORE SEX!) (Thank you God)

Men may love lots of sex, but it is that Y in them that makes into a conquest and more than mere sex.

Women can ask, but they may never understand the true depths that Y can drive us to (Again, thank you God). That Y was meant to help us protect, not to devestate. Unfortunately, that Y is expressed incorrectly in so many forms.

It comes down to this; Masculinity is what a man does to show a woman that he is a man. Machismo is what a man does to show other men (including himself) that he is a man.

I am a man. I have no need to prove to other men that I am a man. There is one woman in my life, that I need to be sure, understands that I am a man.

Date rape, lecherous conquest of secretaries, college drinking parties, ect... ad nauseum, are all rites of passage designed by men to prove their machismo to other men (even if it's only to themselves).

Being a strong leader and protector of a family, opening a door for a lady; these things are the rites of passage that proves a man's masculinity to a woman.

Machismo is not a reaction to emasculation. Emasculation is a reaction to machismo. He has it exactly backwards.

Masculinity may have become an innocent, wounded grievously in this conflict. But only on TV commercials, not in my household.

282 responses on a blog to someone who is not remotely interested in dissenting opinions is not "most people" by any stretch of the imagination. It is 282 responses out of the thousands who clicked on your site, out of the hundreds of millions who didn't read it at all. That's a pretty small world, and a pretty narrow view of "most people".

"Amongst other things, I talk about guns, self-defense, politics, beautiful women, sports, warfare, hunting, and power tools -- all the things that being a man entails."

Hmmm. Except for hunting (and I think I mentioned that once) and power tools (which I use but don't talk about) I talk about all of the things Kim talks about. Admittedly I only post links to pictures of beautiful women if they happen to be holding guns or flying bombers...

I used to ride motocross as a kid, I've been in fistfights, I haven't shot any criminals but that's because I've never had to (yet). I've even smoked the occasional stogie. I guess that makes me a 'manly man'.

Too bad I'm a woman, eh?

I agreed with Mr. du Toit's comments about boys being suspended from school and boys taking Ritalin. I've ranted about Ritalin and ADD on my blog before. So why blame everything he thinks is "wrong" with the world on the "pussification" of men? What a derogatory term! Garbage bolstered by a couple of valid points is still garbage.

That said, I think his view is a bit limited. Why only two possibilities for dealing with a thief or someone who threatens you on the street -- "give him what he wants" or blast his ass? There are all kinds of ways to deal with those situations. I figure the best way is the way that keeps you safe and doesn't result in you getting killed. "Manliness" has nothing to do with it.

BTW, Bush went AWOL while he was in the National Guard, so his transparent posturing in a flight suit didn't get past people who were already onto his photo-op moment.

Another thing -- I've heard the ranting about "feminized" male characters on television before. Mr. du Toit should be made aware that most television shows were created, produced, cast, and written by men. That agency that approved that commercial he ranted about is probably headed by men. Don't blame women for that.

I second what Jane Finch said about e-mail from the peanut gallery. I wonder how many men found what he wrote insulting? I'm sure there are plenty of guys who aren't sports fans who have no problems with their masculinity. I'm sure there are plenty of decent men who don't agree with his assessment about violence and cannot stomach "The Man Show."

I could probably say more but what's the point?

Well, regardless of all the emnity directed toward Kim, I still think most missed his point.

Oh, I don't hunt, love the theatre, have a pet cat and sing showtunes in the shower. I am about as straight as you can get.

Since you would prefer we avoid profanity and genital level remarks in our comments and I literally can't think of how to respond without them I've posted my response here.

Sometimes "gadzooks" just isn't strong enough.

And I genuinely commend everyone for their attempts at restraint.

Damn, I think Kim must have hit a nerve. I had actually read his blog before I stumbled into this mess. I read his and the Mrs. Blogs most days. While I do not always agree with him, I think that it should be considered that he is putting forth his views. Remember he does have a right to them. I would imagine that most of the negative comments here are from those who do not regularly read his site, and therefore do not know the man. He does have an ability to cut to the quick on a subject. No “Pussyfooting Around” if you will forgive the pun. At least you know exactly what he thinks and where he stands on an issue. I would be glad to count him among my friends if I had that opportunity. He would be someone you could count on. Too many people never actually say what they think because if you do someone will think badly of you. I have friends that I do not agree with, yet they know why they believe the way they do. There arguments make sense, even if I do not agree with them. I would rather have a friend that can speak his mind openly and clearly, than to have one that can only recite what he or she believes to be acceptable. Yes I am a man. I am sitting here with me lovable beagle at my feet, smoking my pipe, there is a 9mm semi auto on the desk, I drive a pickup truck, and I am going deer hunting on vacation next week. Today I am single, and I do not see anyone special. Women are easy to find, but every one of them has tried to make me into something I am not. That tells me that I am not completely accepted for who I am. Sorry, but if you do not like who I am, that is your problem. Good Bye. There is one lady that I have known for almost half of my life that has accepted me for me even when I could not. Today we are still friends, and will remain so for life. I have the highest respect for her of all humans that I know. Kim is lucky to have found someone that sees in him someone she can accept completely. I think that she has taken this harder than Kim has. They are good people, even if you do not agree with them. I would ask that you know them better before you call them names and belittle them behind there backs. How many of you have posted your comments on there sites? I would imagine that not too many of you have the balls. Pussies.

Women are easy to find, but every one of them has tried to make me into something I am not. That tells me that I am not completely accepted for who I am.

QED.

As to staring at boobs: get used to it. Yes, we look at your boobs first; it's how we confirm gender identity. Ever since the advent of unisexual dress codes and long hair in men, there's been a little crew at the helm of every man's brain, watching the monitors, ready to sound the alert: "Warning, warning, potential female at 8 o'clock!" "Shall we attempt verbal confirmation?" "Negative, we'll look like an ass! Commence visual scanning for cleavage It is a woman!" "Acknowledged, prepare the conversation tapes and upload the cheap one-liners!"
Of course with the advent of sex changes, cross dressing, and drag queens, those little crewman's job is all shot to hell...
"Captain, we're on the dance floor, and gender is still not confirmed !"
"Go to secondary scans, dammit, check the hair length, knuckle size, anything!"
"Indeterminate, sir!"
"Scan the crotch, for God's sake!"
"No good, it's a loose wrap skirt and anyway, he, she or it may be 'tucking'! Shall we attempt a 'Crocodile Dundee?' "
"NO, DO NOT ATTEMPT THE 'CROCODILE DUNDEE Perhaps the bartender will have further intelligence... Jehosaphat, five years till my pension...."

Now as to the rest.

Men marry women, hoping they never change. Women marry men, hoping that they will. Same old story, old as time.
But, as Mr. Du Toit pointed out quite succinctly--- women today want their man to turn into a woman with a dick.
Would you deny it? It is reflected in our pop culture, clear as day for anyone who isn't in denial. How is the typical male figure portrayed? As stupid, boorish, incompetent with his spouse, incompetent with his children, browbeaten, impotent..... and in eternal need of "fixing" by his wife or girlfriend. He is portrayed as impotent in the traditionally "feminine" roles, and the traditionally "masculine" attributes--- ruggedness, stoicism, reliability, honor, duty, being a builder, provider, breadwinner, and pioneer--- are only trotted out so that some lisping, pantywaisted hollywood scriptwriter can parody them for cheap laughs. If he's a hunter, he's an evil brute. If he's a pioneer, he's an evil Western Imperialist. If he's a breadwinner or a businessman, he's a Capitalist Tool. If he's a builder, he's Tim the Toolman Taylor. If he's active, ambitious or aggressive as a child he needs to get put on Ritalin; if he's the same way as an adolescent he needs counseling to "cure" him...

The man only shows up for comedy relief--and that's assuming he's even there at all.

That's one other portrayal aired out a lot: ABSENT. Remember the "who needs a man" crowd? Wasn't that a gas? We spent a decade or three telling young men that women don't need you. We spent a few more rigging up a divorce court where the wife could cheat on her husband, then sue for divorce-- and take her husband for everything he'd spent the last 10 to 20 years building for them both. Small wonder men aren't willing to "commit" anymore...As one man put it, to hell with marriage-- he might as well go out every 5 years, find a woman he couldn't stand and buy her a house!

And Mr. Du Toit is right on another point, though you may not like how he put it... all this pussification-- this criminalization of the masculine-- has caused a backlash. If you whipped on a dog the way women whip on men you'd end up with one of two things-- a whipped, cringing cur, useless for anything, or a vicious animal that'll bite your face off without a second thought.
For every man that you manage to pussify, there'll be another who resents it, and goes to the extreme in retaliation. "Men are all scum? Fine, then we'll all ACT like scum. Screw you, bitch, nothin' we do pleases you anyways." And off they go, to be "thugs" and "playahs" and "smak ma bitch up" goons... because that's the only 'masculine' roles left in room for in our town square today.

And for you women who have posted on this list saying how happy your sons are pussified-- I doubt you still feel that way when he folds like wet toast the first time adversity comes along. Or when he's in his thirties and still running to "mommy" to fix everything. Or when his wife--- who married him because he was so "sensitive"--- leaves him because he's a wimp.

When he grows up, in other words, to be a woman with a dick.

In regards to DuTwat's comment, I tried to e-mail but it didn't work. I notice comments are back up for that particular article, but I am tired of the issue as well.

I actually consider him more of a "cartoon male" than your ex. My feeling is that he is afraid of women, especially strong ones. Oh well, there are plenty of men like that, but I wouldn't particularly call them men. I'd say a Pussy is a man in Denial, afraid of emotions, feelings, and girlies.

I generally like Kim's stuff, but this particular rant was just a tad pathetic. To say his view of what it takes to be a "man" is simplistic is an understatement.

Of course, the thing that always struck me as amusing is that in the US many people I met assumed I was gay, while here in the UK only the most socially gormless did.

I have weighed into what is "a man" debate on Dodgeblogium.

DZD, the unfortunate part is that people like you can't understand that acting like a man is not the same thing as acting like a boor. Oh, and DZD, REAL men stand behind their statements.

[Edited for idiocy]

Tristram is full of what makes the grass grow green.

And BSTI- Isn't it convenient how if a guy talks about acting masculine, it automatically means he's not, and not only that, he's "afraid of women?" Works out pretty well, don't it? It's like that nifty 'homophobe' word: "You say you don't like them homos? Must mean you are one! Haha!"

Swell.

Way too many people taking potshots at Kim and the Mrs without ever answering or debating his point. And way too many people--a lot of whom have established themselves as quite intelligent--who are more than happy to leap onto the PC train in this instance.

Kim said something very important--and very true--and everyone's getting lost in the crass verbiage.

Real men--not cartoon gang bangers or redneck idiots. Real men, the kind that ARE responsible, the kind that know when you HAVE to fight--and when to say 'you go on, I'll take care of it'. Real men--a concept that's so simple and so complex at the same time that it's infernally hard to describe--are in danger. (and Michele, your husband, from what little I know of him from reading this blog, is a Real Man)

So many of the things a man needs to learn to become a man are held in disdain now. Competition. Stoicism. There was a time when getting a touchdown in football did not immediately incur a little 'gloating' dance. Why? Because winning was done with as much honor as was demanded from a 'good' loser. So many things. Self-reliance. Responsibility. In schools there used to be excersiseswherein the 'captaincy' of teams was passed around to give people a taste of being in a leadership role (girls as well aas boys) this put responsibility on ones shoulders

So many things.

Kim was very crude, and some of his points are tainted by the very thing he decries, but these serve to highlight the problem more than to dismiss it.

Isn't it convenient how if a guy talks about acting masculine, it automatically means he's not, and not only that, he's "afraid of women?"

No, it's confusing masculinity with acting like an asshole that shows he's afraid of women.

Oh.

I guess I must've read the edited version or something, 'cause I didn't notice the part where he said that masculinity is dependent on assholery.

Fuck all this "afraid of" crap. It's nothing but a reflex-- Person A doesn't like what Person B says, so Person A states that Person B must be "afraid of" whatever Person B is talking about. This does two devilishly clever things simultaneously:

1) Puts Person A in a position above and superior to that of Person B, without Person A actually doing anything but pointing out the supposed shortcomings of Person B, and

2) Puts Person B in the position of having to prove that they are not afraid of what they're talking about, and that they simply don't like it-- it (whatever it is that B's talking about) is just not compatible with his/her value system.

When I say I can't stand shitty prog rock, nobody suspects me of secretly being afraid of prog rock, nor do they assume I must secretly like shitty prog rock.

This has been a PSA from Amateur SocioPsychological Studies, brought to you by Me.

I am wondering, is there any relation that can be drawn to things like the muslim gang rapes in some ghetto's in France? I wouldn't think these people's masculinity is suppressed.

Just to ad an ad hominem attack...

Kim? Wait, isn't that a girl's name?

Hearing that all your life may explain his posting...

I think 2 things are going on:

1) Kim was using hyperbole' to make a point

2) you seem to have missed it entirely.

Given 1 I think 2 is perfectly reasonable.

I got that one really wrong. Sorry, let me rephrase:

I am wondering, is there any relation that can be drawn to things like the muslim gang rapes in some ghetto's in France? I wouldn't think these people's masculinity is coming out because it is suppressed by society.

I have a roundup of responses to that essay at this link.

E-mail me if you have more comments or know where more are.

[edited for idiocy]

Jadegold:

Trenchant. Absolutely brilliant. Perhaps his mother wore Army boots, as well. If you don't have anything substantive to add to the discussion, it might be better to shut up and let the grownups talk.

[edited for idiocy]

ed note: Jade, your IP has just been banned.

That's odd. I thought the difficult part about being a man (or woman) in modern society is the schism that comes from attempting to fit into one or the other impossible category of "Macho" or "Sensitive/PC."

In reality, all people possess a spectrum of qualities and characteristics, and attempting to say one set of attributes is what makes us "real" only increases the schism and makes things worse for those who don't fit into whatever popular notion one is trying to espouse.

In reality, "real" men possess "feminine" AND "masculine" qualities.

And, in reality, I especially take issue with Mr. Du Toit's heterosexism. Homosexual men are real men, too.

I'm right there with you on this one, Michele. I have lots to say about this bullshit about "women only go for the jerks" thing, too. The whole "I'm a nice guy and I never get any dates" argument is usually presented by some asshole who is not, in actuality, a nice guy at all, but a guy with a deep resentment towards women who just don't like him very much because he's an idiot or a jackass...or both.

The Genitalization Of The Western Amoeba

A. Meeba
Nov 10, 2003
We have become a nation of sexually reproducing organisms.

It wasn’t always this way, of course. There was a time when amoebae blindly put their cilia to a stimulus, knowing full well that this single act would result in their absorption if captured, and in the forfeiture of their protein to the Competition. Their clones would be turned out by the soldiers, and their dwelling molecules and cytoplasm most probably given to someone who didn’t encounter the stimulus.

There was a time when amoebae went to their certain death, with expressions like “You all can go to hell. I’m going to the Microscope Slide.” (Gravy Rockshit, to the Petri Dish of Representatives, before going to the Microscope Slide.)

There was a time when amoebae went to phagocytosis, sometimes against their own clones, so that other amoebae could be free. And there was a time when amoebae went to phagocytosis because we recognized protein when we saw it, and knew that it had to be engulfed.
There was even a time when a President of the United Pond threatened to punch an amoeba in the membrane and kick him in the chromatin, because the amoeba had the temerity to say bad things about the President’s first-generation clone’s flagella retraction.

We’re not like that anymore.

Now, little clones in grade school are suspended for playing protozoa and Blue-green algae, paramecia and plankton, and all the other familiar variations of “good guy vs. bad guy” that helped them learn, at an early cellular age, what it was like to have decent amoebae hunt you down, because you were an edible organism.
Now, amoebae are taught that violence is bad – that when a parasite breaks into your membrane, or threatens you in the local water drop, that the proper way to deal with this is to “give it what it wants”, instead of taking a hunt-and-seek protein to the rascal or absorbing it dead where it swims.

Now, amoebae fashion includes not an amoeba dressed in passing flotsam, but a coating of alleles worn by an amoeba with genitals.
Now, warning labels are indelibly etched into chromatins, as though amoebae have somehow forgotten that mitosis is a dangerous thing.
Now, amoebae are given Ribmeristem as little clones, so that their natural aggressiveness, curiosity and restlessness can be controlled, instead of nurtured and directed.

And finally, our President, who happens to have been a qualified single-celled organism, lands on a current wearing a flagella suit, and is immediately dismissed with words like “swaggering”, “macho” and the favorite epithet of Eukoryte girly-amoebae, “cloneboy”. Of course it was bound to get that reaction – and most especially from the Press in Eukorytia, because the process of amoebic genitalization Over There is almost complete.
How did we get to this?

In the first instance, what we have to understand is that the Pond is first and foremost, a culture dominated by one reproduction method: Meiosis. It wasn’t always so: there was a time when it was Mitosis which ruled the life cycle, worked at its job, and thrived.

But in the twentieth epoch, sexual reproduction became more and more involved in the Pond, and in the genus, and in the evolutionary selection – and mostly, this has not been a good thing. When sexually reproducing organisms got naturally selected, it was inevitable that Competition was going to become more powerful, more intrusive, and more “protective” (ie. more coddling), because sexually reproducing organisms are hard-wired to treasure sex more than engulfing protein and splitting into two. It was therefore inevitable that their sexual influence on politics was going to emphasize (lowercase “s”) sexual security.

I am aware of the fury that this statement is going to arouse, and I don’t care a microtubule.

You have to love du Toit's "the lurkers are supporting me in email" gambit. Haven't heard that angle since USENET.