Picking the Wrong Target

Mr. Misogyny himself graced our presence with his response to my post about his attack on women who are able to consider weighty subjects beyond whether our shoes match our handbags. His explanation is the classic “you’re just too stupid to get ME” defense.

You folks obviously aren’t adept at recognizing satire, but I do thank you sincerely for reading. Peace out, people.

Except that doesn’t work. As I said in the comments, satire is to mock. Who does his column mock? It’s not NRA or gun owners. It mocks women who express an opinion or interest outside of superficial topics. The problem isn’t that we don’t recognize satire, it’s that we recognized his real target and find it appalling. Another comment worth noting was the response from Phelps:

Right. Satire would have been, “these are the reasons the NRA has failed to attract women,” not, “these are the reasons women are too vacuous to use guns.”

The fact is that Eric Heyl has shown contempt for anyone who disagrees with his column. There is no room to say, “you know, you just went too far.” I think it speaks very poorly for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that they published this in the first place, but also continue to condone his responses to their readers. It’s unprofessional, disrespectful, and generally not the kind of thing you want to put on display for your customers. I know times are tight for most media businesses, but I’m not sure the “you’re all ignorant jerks” business model is generally the one that works.

8 Responses to “Picking the Wrong Target”

  1. Thirdpower says:

    I was thinking it was to extreme to be real. If it was ‘satire’, he failed miserably. What is more likely is his contempt just bled through.

  2. MzVRWC says:

    So, let me get this straight, Mr. Heyl. Not only am I vapid and shallow, but I’m also stupid?

    Most people would have the sense to stop digging at this point, but you have made it quite clear that you aren’t adept at recognizing intelligence.

  3. Dylan says:

    Writer for The Onion, he is not. If it was indeed an attempt at satire (which it was not, just trying to clean up the mess he left), it was one of the poorest I have ever seen.

  4. Spade says:

    I don’t think a journalism major should be calling anybody stupid.
    In other news, is a reporter acting like a complete douchebag a shock to anybody? I always figured that there are two SOPs for reporters, once of which describes how to be a complete douchebag and the other one describes how to not have any ethics at all.

  5. Spade says:

    This guy should also be thanking the pro-gun blogosphere for all the attention. He went to school in Pittsburgh, according to his profile he’s always worked in Pittsburgh. Not a whole lot of career movement there. This is probably the most attention he’s ever had outside of the third most important city in PA.

    There’s people talking about you who don’t have the same area code you do! That’s almost kinda sorta like being able to distantly see the big time there.

  6. Joe Huffman says:

    The test I suggest he use is to substitute some other organization and/or demographic with a similar relationship and see if it would pass muster.

    What if it were the men and the League of Women voters?
    What if it were whites and the NAACP?
    What if it were gays and Republican Party?
    What if it were non-practicing Jews and the Catholic church?

    I’m pretty sure the answer comes up the same. At best that was a very tasteless thing to say.

  7. Matthew Carberry says:

    I did send an email to both the Editors. Haven’t heard back from them yet.

    Maybe they went to J-school the same place he did?

  8. DirtCrashr says:

    He’s a lying sack of satire.