Don:
I'm not defending either Will or a more personal, punchy style of posting. But my own perspective on Will has recently been widened, and I wanted to pass that along. Things that come from Will that may have previously looked to me like mean-spirited attacks now look to me like he's writing in a spirit of humor. Whether it's always good humor or in good taste is another question.
What I like to think is that I’m usually trying to say something serious
between the lines of what are often exercises in ironic humor.
For example, beastlie has repeatedly revealed that she lives “in sin” (as it were
) with her “soul mate” rather than within the bonds of formal marriage. I can thus, with accuracy (speaking purely in terms of the accepted English definitions of words) tease dear beastlie about being a wanton fornicator, and then hint that she must certainly manifest the wages of sin in her countenance and in her life.
Am I privately grinning from ear to ear as I write such a thing? You betcha. I couldn’t care less, when it comes right down to it, if beastlie and her companion believe it is unnecessary to have society “sanction” their union via civil marriage. I do not think any less of her or her companion (whom I sincerely believe to be her bona fide “soul mate”) for having chosen the path they have. Absent the way I view the covenant of eternal companionship I have with my “soul mate” in the course of my religious life, I might very well believe precisely as do beastlie and her man. My bond and devotion to my beloved companion are not predicated upon nor do they derive strength or legitimacy from our “civil” marriage. Furthermore, I am the offspring of such a so-called “common law” marriage. My grandfather and grandmother, for complex reasons, were never married. They came together late in life—he at age 60 and she at age 40—and subsequently produced a single offspring—my mother. I don’t think any less of my grandparents or my mother or her offspring on account of the atypical conjugal relationship of our parents.
However, in the context of Dr. Shades’ original query concerning my definition of the word “misogyny,” I made the statement to the effect that modern feminism has now produced at least three generations of women who,
in my judgment, have forsaken the best of their femininity and, in the process, come to a general state of malaise consisting of widespread self-loathing, etc.
I took Gloria Steinem as my icon of modern feminism, and showed two photos of her—one as a young playboy bunny, and the other a recent photo. I used her to illustrate what I believe to have been a seriously flawed path of life and philosophy pursued by her and those who have followed her pattern.
You can agree with my viewpoint on the matter or not. It doesn’t matter to me. My viewpoint is nonetheless expressed in the fashion I deem appropriate in the context of the discussions that occur on this message board.
Am I attempting to employ humor? Most certainly. Is my tongue often pressed against my cheek as I write what I write?
Very often, indeed. That said, there is almost always something more serious underlying my attempts (however effective) to convey my meaning via expressions of what I view as ironic humor.
Therefore, Don is largely correct in his observations. But I do want it understood that it is not all some clumsy (or adroit, depending on your point of view) attempt at humor. In other words, I do
mean what I say, but seldom is what I say nearly as
mean as some here are inclined to consider it.
Nevertheless, I am largely impervious to their criticisms. It’s not my fault that their irony sensor has malfunctioned to such an extraordinary degree. And it’s not my fault if they either choose to or else can’t help but misunderstand what I write.
Don also commented:
I've often, for instance, found it difficult to understand why Louis Midgley would defend a book that says not to contend at all inthe most contentious and acrimonious spirit I've ever seen in supposedly scholarly discourse.
I have become, over the course of the past three years or so, fairly well acquainted with Brother Lou. He and I have exchanged many e-mails on topics of common interest. I wouldn’t say we’re best friends or anything of the sort, but I think I have come to understand Lou quite well. And, consequently, I must say that, were you to ever have occasion to converse,
in person, with Brother Lou, you would come away from the encounter with an altered view of him similar to the way you have begun to see me in a different light on account of our private exchanges. I love Lou. I think we are quite alike in many, many ways. I am, perhaps, more subtle than he in terms of my employment of the mother tongue to make my points. But, if you had a full-featured and multi-dimensional view of Lou, you would find him to not be at all the fundamentalistic, dogmatic character that appears to be your current perspective. He is anything but.
I have come to appreciate, especially as a result of my message board interactions, that written exchanges, by their very nature, are inferior in their capacity to convey meaning as compared with exchanges that also include, as part of the “meaning conveyance,” the incalculably valuble modifiers of facial expression, inflection, emphasis, etc., that are only to be found in verbal/visual communication.
Some people are better than others at “reading between the lines” of written communication in order to discern the multi-dimensional meaning hidden there. Others, I believe, intentionally ignore the cues and signals present in order to more easily “make a man an offender for a word.” I see that happen regularly on this message board. A prime example would be my now infamous description of what generally occurs in the threads initiated by the evil Scrotch: a circle jerk. Of course, anyone with any experience in the modern corporate world knows exactly what that term implies in the context of that world. In fact, the very definition of the term has formally acquired that evolved meaning. But, of course, my uttering the phrase was (mostly intentionally, I believe) twisted into something entirely different.
And so it goes here.
Therefore, I will not apologize (nor do I even feel contrite in the least) for the things I say here. I am actually quite careful with what I say. I have seldom, if ever, clicked the “Submit” button without having carefully re-read (and often carefully refined) the things I am about to publicize via this revolutionary medium of the online message board.
So, with that lengthy explanation made, I shall now return to saying what I say without further elaboration or apology. I fully expect to go on being misunderstood, misrepresented, and the frequent target of substantial misanthropy on the part of my more vocal and spirited detractors.
It’s a rough world out there guys. And few places can be as rough as mormondiscussions.com.
So deal with it.
I do.
That's a comfort.