I've been railing on about how ridiculous I think the whole controversy surrounding the cartoons in a Danish newspaper that allegedly depicted the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and got people up in arms in protest of supposed sacrilege. One of the reasons I am particularly incensed at the whole controversy is the character assassination of a country I've been in love with since 1995.
Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said his country is being unfairly portrayed as being an "intolerant, closed society" and he's dead on. The Danes are about as open and accepting a people as any in the world. They certainly are aces better than many in the United States on certain issues. This is a country in which Rebilt National Park holds the world's only Independence Day celebrations not on U.S. territory. That's the American Independence Day. You read it right. If you're visiting Denmark and you're worried you'll miss the Fourth of July, don't.
He also condemned Sunday's vandalizing of Muslim graves, saying "the Danish government condemns any expression or any action which offends people's religious feelings." The truth of the matter is this: Danes have a sense of humor. They're a friendly lot. If the Danes who published the cartoons were guilty of anything, their worst offence was poor judgment.
The other thing that gets me is the propensity of many in the Muslim world to condemn the United States for what a Danish newspaper did. Of course, the people doing so would condemn the United States for coughing, but there's only so far that they can go before all Hell breaks loose.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Taking things a little too far
In a recent trek to the World Wide Web to do some web surfing, I suffered a momentary lapse of boredom-laced inspiration and began to Google the term "man date." Among the first results was this little beauty of an article in the New York Times. I'll admit I've heard of the term before and actually used the term. But the term only registered as a bemusing moniker until I read that article.
The New York Times piece cast the term in a much thornier light in my mind from the lede graf (journalist slang in case you didn't know). "The delicate posturing began with the phone call." Delicate posturing. Three words in and already I'm thinking about something much less pleasant about a term I thought was going to be the 2006 version of "metrosexual."
Maybe I'm getting old faster than I thought I was. Perhaps I'm just hypersensitive. It's possible that I'm stuck in the wrong era. But I was under the impression that you spent time with someone or "hung out" with someone to use slightly less moldy language, because you liked him. The way the article described food-based outings that weren't wings and beer or sports bars betrayed a form of closeted homophobia on the part of the men who took part in these "man dates."
Going to a museum and taking great lengths to almost avoid each other because you're afraid someone's going to put two and two together and come to a conclusion that isn't true? Sounds like someone has a few issues they need to work on. No, I'm not saying Matthew Speiser or John Putman are homophobic. I'm not even suggesting they have anything in particular against homosexuality. But going to such great lengths to avoid even the suggestion that they're gay just takes things about 10 steps too far.
There's plenty more within the article itself. Take the "rules" against home-cooked meals that weren't grilled steaks or deep-fried foods and paying a bill in any way other than Dutch treat. There's also the strategic empty seat between two men at a movie, which can't be a romantic comedy.
I haven't even touched the subject of "man crushes." It's more than just another invented word that further separates and stigmatizes homosexuals. It comes with its own family tree of definitions, rating anywhere from a depiction of the Ben Affleck-Matt Damon friendship to the positive feelings Texas Longhorn fans have for Vince Young. Admiration for power, idolizing a friend, there's plenty of depictions of what a "man crush" is.
Once upon a time, guys hung out with another male friend without describing it as a "man date" or genuinely liked another man without using a ridiculous term like "man crush." People spent time with each other because they genuinely enjoyed each other's company. Men were able to open up with other men about topics that had nothing to do with box scores or cup sizes. We weren't so emotionally bankrupt that any emotion other than pure rage was stuffed worse than Clinton Portis against the Seahawks.
That's what we need to get back to.
The New York Times piece cast the term in a much thornier light in my mind from the lede graf (journalist slang in case you didn't know). "The delicate posturing began with the phone call." Delicate posturing. Three words in and already I'm thinking about something much less pleasant about a term I thought was going to be the 2006 version of "metrosexual."
Maybe I'm getting old faster than I thought I was. Perhaps I'm just hypersensitive. It's possible that I'm stuck in the wrong era. But I was under the impression that you spent time with someone or "hung out" with someone to use slightly less moldy language, because you liked him. The way the article described food-based outings that weren't wings and beer or sports bars betrayed a form of closeted homophobia on the part of the men who took part in these "man dates."
Going to a museum and taking great lengths to almost avoid each other because you're afraid someone's going to put two and two together and come to a conclusion that isn't true? Sounds like someone has a few issues they need to work on. No, I'm not saying Matthew Speiser or John Putman are homophobic. I'm not even suggesting they have anything in particular against homosexuality. But going to such great lengths to avoid even the suggestion that they're gay just takes things about 10 steps too far.
There's plenty more within the article itself. Take the "rules" against home-cooked meals that weren't grilled steaks or deep-fried foods and paying a bill in any way other than Dutch treat. There's also the strategic empty seat between two men at a movie, which can't be a romantic comedy.
I haven't even touched the subject of "man crushes." It's more than just another invented word that further separates and stigmatizes homosexuals. It comes with its own family tree of definitions, rating anywhere from a depiction of the Ben Affleck-Matt Damon friendship to the positive feelings Texas Longhorn fans have for Vince Young. Admiration for power, idolizing a friend, there's plenty of depictions of what a "man crush" is.
Once upon a time, guys hung out with another male friend without describing it as a "man date" or genuinely liked another man without using a ridiculous term like "man crush." People spent time with each other because they genuinely enjoyed each other's company. Men were able to open up with other men about topics that had nothing to do with box scores or cup sizes. We weren't so emotionally bankrupt that any emotion other than pure rage was stuffed worse than Clinton Portis against the Seahawks.
That's what we need to get back to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)