Subject: Why are you not...
... writing your own column for PJ Media? You could run rings around this guy:
To: Omnibus Driver:
I never come up with ideas such as the basic conceit behind the article. They just don't occur to me. But I agree that the guy could use better reasons than the implied: Because that's what men do. Real – adult – men have articulable reasons. "I like it" might be reason enough, but "It's ICKY!" probably isn't, unless the icky thing is DWTS or a movie in which men, in tight pants, tapdance. He who does not, at least occasionally, change his own oil is almost certainly useless.
Pardon me while I sign up for a welding class.
It takes a real man to
do succeed at DWTS,
actually. That is one hell of a physically demanding slog, and it takes
nads of titanium to put on those costumes and compete in front of a live
audience. Honestly, from a woman's point of view there's nothing hotter
than a guy who likes to dance, knows what he's doing, and can confidently make
any girl instantly feel like a princess on a dance floor.
("Splash," on the other hand, raises the "ICK" factor
to new heights. Or "Skating With The Stars." Or any
"Real Housewives Of" franchise. Or "The Bachelor,"
fer cripes sake.)
Not every real man has to be mechanically inclined, but should have at least one manly talent at which he excels. (BTW -- it takes a real man to know when to ask for directions or where to find and when to call in an expert, as far as I'm concerned.)
In any case, I don't understand the ridiculous and obvious examples Hawkins used. Surely there's a much murkier area where a guy certainly isn't in the extreme but also might have trouble completing his "man card" application? That's the group that my girlfriends and I wish would get a clue...
To: Omnibus Driver
According to biographer James Parton (no relation to Dolly, so far as I know), Thomas Jefferson was "a gentleman of thirty-two who could calculate an eclipse, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the violin." Too bad he couldn't also balance an account. (The minuet bit is a bit French for my taste, but it was the refined dance of the day and the outfits were merely formal, à la mode, so I won't protest too loudly.)
Men may dance in casual clothes or tuxedos, with or without the rose (watch the prick!), and the ability to twirl-and-dip convincingly is not to be disparaged. But the tight and frilly Euro-weenie outfits are best left to Euro-weenies, who shall be scorned and reminded of the number of wars we had to fight for them in the twentieth century, and I don't think it was coincidence. The tight Castilian dancing outfit is permissible only on Castilian persons, gored bulls optional but guitars and castanets required.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Women frequently do but should not confuse Prince Charming with a knight in shining armor. Knights in shining armor tend to watch football on their off-hours, drink beer, belch, growl at the dog, and throw their underwear on the floor, but charming princes tend to prefer the company of other charming princes, if you understand.
I'm in full agreement... with the caveat that maturity in females (emotional, not age chronological, that is) tends cause the tint in the rose-colored glasses to fade. Thank Jeebus. And for those of us former princesses who've decided to be queens of our own destinies/finances/happiness -- who says WE don't occasionally watch football in our off-hours, drink beer, belch, growl at the cat and throw our underwear on the floor? (At least when we're home alone and not expecting company.)