Wingnuts

During last week's panel on blogging, Henry and Dan and Toni and myself gave very pro-blogging papers. The Dan/Henry paper was on the influence of blogging on the media, while Toni and myself talked about blogging as a new means of participation. Ana Marie Cox of Wonkette countered the blog parade by pointing out that a good number of blog commenters are wingnuts. I later added that I thought the wingnuts were in the minority.

Today, one of the wingnuts sent me an e-mail. He was a child-hating, libertarian, but that doesn' t make him a wingnut. He went out of his way to read through my archives, fixated on letter from a reader, and sent me a detailed e-mail of hate that ended with the sarcastic "get a real url" -- that is what makes him a wingnut.

He mistakenly thinks that I believe everyone should have kids. Au contraire. I think this fellow is a very good example of the many people whose genetic code ought never be replicated.

I read some blogs that have a different ideological perspective than I do, but I steer clear of those that enrage me. And I certainly don't read through the offensive archives and construct a reply. Only wingnuts do that. Some words of advice, Mr. Wingnut. You need a girlfriend or a hobby or something. Step away from the computer and get a life, please.

And, bud, this picture is for you.

Comments

[Keven Lofty]

Do you kind of wonder how Libertarians can complain about anything anyone else does? Surely it has nothing to do with them.

[Reginleif]

Thank you for the designation of "wingnut."

I *must*, of course, be male, because (1) I "hate children." Because it's binary: you either adore them and think they're absolutely faultless, or you want to feed them feet-first into a woodchipper. And all us wimminfolk just loooooooooove the stinky little crumbgrinders. It's in our naaaayyyy-chure. [spit]

And (2) because I'm a libertarian. Because *everyone* knows the desire to be "secure" at the expense of others is coded into the X chromosome, and it takes a Y chromosome to balance it out. The average net.misogynist couldn't have implied it better. Thanks for making it even harder for those of us with common sense to be taken seriously.

Oh, and as far as "hate" goes....d'ya think, maybe, that some of the "hate" might actually be justified anger because of all the bennies that the chylded have been cadging from the gubmint and their employers for years, at the expense of us childfree?

Since you're not only still using AOL, but you can't even figure out how to permit HTML in your comments section, *even so that a commenter can include a damned URL* (this is the frickin' 21st century, already), hie thee to Amazon.com and check out _The Baby Boon: How "Family-Friendly" America Cheats the Childless_, by Elinor Burkitt.

Lots of reasons for justified anger in that book. But I especially like Burkitt's observation that pahruntz have narrowed the definition of "family" to "them that has bred." By these lights, I don't *really* have a family.

And I note that you don't actually bother to address any of the points I brought up in my email. Most importantly, that YES, you *should* train your kids at least as well as most people train their puppies. The little shrieklings I see running around in public places these days wouldn't pass muster at the most lenient canine obedience school. Too bad the other shoppers can't whack 'em with a rolled-up newspaper.

Typical breeder. The Office of the Holy Womb has made you the font of all wisdom and the rightful recipient of handouts left and right, and anyone who disagrees with you is "a wingnut." Or, my favorite cliché, "bitter and barren."

And yes, anyone who's still on AOL -- *and* who can't figure out how to enable their blog to permit HTML --is not only a tech-tard, but most likely a Mooooomie who freaks at the thought of her widdle pweshus encountering just one pair of bare titties online. Oh, if only they knew....

[Reginleif]

Oh, and the triple post was caused solely by that feature you enabled to block "malicious scripts." Each time I tried to post, I got a message saying that I needed to wait a short while and try again. Not my doing.

[flaime]

He does make one good point: people who don't have children shouldn't be forced to pay for the societal costs of those who do.

[Laura]

Actually, flaime, I have argued for more social support of parents, but I'm a bit burnt out on the topic. I'll put up some links later.

Check out this webiste that the wingnut linked to: http://www.fred.net/turtle/kids/bratfaq.html. It's a board for people who hate kids. (hey, i know, kids aren't for everyone.) I thought it was interesting/puzzling that they are reacting against intensive parenting techniques of others.

[Timothy Burke]

Unless you live in a cave and eat bugs that you catch yourself, you're going to benefit all your life from good parenting and suffer all your life from bad parenting--even if you don't have any children yourself. Anyone who employs people, teaches people, works with other people, etc., pays an indirect "social cost" that is tied up in the parenting of others; I think it makes good sense to do that directly as well.

It's a pretty basic point. It could be gone into in considerably more detail. I doubt there's any point in doing that with Reginleif, who certainly seems to have suffered from a manners deficit in his own upbringing.

[Chris Lawrence]

On the other hand, I'm a libertarian and I adore kids, even ones unrelated to me, although I think one (a fellow faculty member's kid who I shared my popcorn with at a football game) gave me a cold this week, so maybe I should reconsider that viewpoint.

I'm not entirely sold on the idea that those who choose to have kids are entitled to "free stuff" from others, though, but as you say--that's a debate for another day.