Reminds me of the paper I did at uni on media audiences.

The lecturers were generally fairly sane, but some of the work we read and the tutors were just over the top, over-analysing things and coming up with their gloriously complex and detailed faberge philosophies that don't tell us anything practical and go nowhere.

Some of the stuff they covered was really good, and there was a reasonable section on violence/sex in the media which I really appreciated, but there was stuff that was just hard-core academic for the sake of being academic, but I guess its how those people make their money.

Funny thing is, I got an A on that paper, which after my first two essays (C-, B) and my journal (6/10) means I got at least 95% in the exam, which I am absolutely sure I didn't - I think a whole lot of people failed that class abysmally and I got scaled up. Pity I didn't get an A+ because then I would mathematically have to have gotten more than 100% in the exam.

 

Darling, if you weren't able to tell, Twisty's referencing the French Revolution in her essay was meant as a joke!

You're actually commenting on the beauty of bloggdom: We can fuss and rant for as long as we want about the minor things that tick us off about stupid beer commercials, saving academia the trouble of reading it.

For myself, my essay was not meant to become a feminist treatiste to be read by (literally) thousands of man-law advocates. Rather, the commercial served as a "trigger" for me that illuminated the unfortunate poke-and-own circumstances in my own life . . . and that of millions of other women in this world. So I wrote aobut it.

fun fun fun!

 

first of all, the least you could do is try to explain why the commercial is clever/humorous in any way shape or form. was it satirical? novel? outrageous? or funny along homer simpson lines, "it's funny cuz it's true"? At least the critics stated why they found the commercial to be so annoying. you on the other hand just felt obliged merely to proclaim.

second...
while it may take you "much intellectual effort" to critique commercials and such, it's rather presumptious to think the same is true for others. for most of us thinking folks, social/cultural critique actually comes quite easily, part and parcel with the self-defense mechanisms required to live in a racist, homophobic and patriarchal society.

and finally...
let me get this straight... people who critique commercials on blogs have such an impact that they are deemed partially to blame for the likes of rush limbaugh coining one of the most disgusting terms in the American lexicon...(one you seemingly see fit to help perpetuate - a vile move on the part of someone who claims to be "sympathetic to the cause") but commercials that are seen by millions, night after night after night, reinforcing base and insipid views about gender are minor and trifling (yet require a passioned defense from blogging knights in armor like yourself)?

Maybe you're spot on. Maybe the country is indeed awash in an overabundance of critical thinking and just needs to kick back and enjoy its slow motion catastrophe...then again, maybe you've only helped to reinforce the critics' core arguments - that we live in a world where men are allowed to amuse themselves anyway they see fit and that anyone who dares disagree with it is attacked.

Isn't the whole "chill out, it's just a joke" argument just another way of telling people to "shut the fuck up"?

How about a truly righteous "man law" - If you defend beer commercials, you are a pathetic tool.

ha ha ha ... now that's clever and amusing.

 

But humor can't be explained, or rationalized. What some people find funny others will not, and vice versa. As HPS said, the last line in the "poke it own it" historical section is sarcastic, with the "clearly paying homage to one of the great authoritarian conservatives of the French Revolution." but the fact a blogger brought it up and explained it in conjunction with this issue, and that it was approvingly quoted in a post full of grad student-style sociological speak (who says "heteronormative" in real life?) gives the impression that it's a real issue.

(The anonymous commenter certainly seems to take it very seriously.)

I might add more but I'll do so in the original post, or make another one, so as not to put 5000 words in comments. Besides, Malaya's telling me not to get into any blog arguments, since we've got my novel and other things to contentrate on. And she's probably right.

Especially since I'd be arguing with people (women) who I basically agree with philosophically -- I just think you're way overreacting in this particular instance, and showing exactly the sort of overintellectualized shrill humorlessness your detractors so often criticize you for.

 

Beginning of author's comment:
But humor can't be explained, or rationalized. What some people find funny others will not, and vice versa.

End of author's same comment:
-- I just think you're way overreacting in this particular instance, and showing exactly the sort of overintellectualized shrill humorlessness your detractors so often criticize you for.

I spit beer in your eye of the beholder.

 

The mind boggles at your failure to grasp that Twisty's exposition of the "historical roots" of "you poke it you own it" was a JOKE. I mean, come on. Think about it:

Miller Lite in an effort to strike a chord with its super-intellectual audience of civic-minded philosophy buffs . . .

But you're right. It's the feminists who have no sense of humor.

 

I guess the author of this blog is unaware of the concept of satire. Sad really, especially for someone who uses the epithet "humorless" to describe other people.

 

Flux, I'm going to have to echo the sentiments of the posters above. How dare you state that you are sympathetic to a cause without agreeing with 100% of the opinions of 100% of the cause's adherents?!!!

Go castrate yourself, man-thing. (And have M supervise so you make sure you do it right!)

 

Flux, you are missing some big points, my friend.

Twisty Faster is not shrill. She is mean as hell, but the only reason you characterized her as shrill is that you knew, aforehand, that she is a woman who made sport of your sport.

Analyze and get back.

Now, let us turn the tables. It is impossible to do a pure sex reversal on the commercial in question because of the simple inequality of our positions in society due to sex. So let's get personal.

Miller fucking Bud Nastural has a new campaign to sell beer. This time it involves you, BlackChampagne. Two drunkasses engaging in a dialog about how if they poke the beer, they own the beer, just as if they poked you, Flux, they would own you.

That is the humorous subtext of the thing, right?

So, do you have any objection to people selling beer by way of reference to any of your orifices?

Of course not. You would doubtlessly not object if every fucking brewer on the planet ceased to make slanted reference to women's pussies and mouths and assholes and instead made sport of every penetrable hole you were born with. "Poke Flux once, you own him!" They don't say that, of course, it is assumed. Then they sell beer out your holes.

Twisty doesn't give a texas fuck whether or not you care if Milwaukee is selling beer on the merits of your asshole. She does care if women are being trivialized. She writes for an audience of women, makes fun of men at every opportunity, and is a noble warrior, possessed of skill neither of us will ever heft.

What amazes me is your willingness to defend one lampoon, the beer commercial, against the Twampoon. Go back and read her and then watch the commercial again. Yeah, it's funny. Twisty is funnier.

 

This is actually a very good response to accusation of feminist "pettiness"

http://limedforthetruth.com/?p=53

And moonfunk: I'm hearing you. However, it's a mistake to presume we're NOT attending to more serious matters, just because we chose to vent in our PERSONAL DIARIES after watching a misogynist beer commercial(in addition to other things, I'm a certified sexual violence counselor).