An Oldie but a Goodie
In November 2003, my local No Kidding! chapter was profiled in the area’s main newspaper. The article was scheduled to go on the front of the section that normally covers things like movie reviews and advice columns, but it must have been a slow news day, because it ended up on the front page.
It is not surprising, then, that we got hate mail. Or, rather, I got it. I was listed in the article as the chapter’s coordinator, and I was also quoted in the article. Thus, I was the recipient of any and all fallout. I have occasionally forwarded this piece to people for a laugh, and, after getting it out recently, decided it was too good not to write about at least once. So, here it is, with my comments added.
Our Hate Mail from Hank B.
- You selfish self-absorbed witch. You do not deserve any media coverage and certainly not the front page.
Note, first off, that I am a “witch” when you know he really wanted to type bitch. I have noticed on many sites that those with the most hate to spew are the ones too shy to type nasty words. They have no problem with “God will strike you down,” or “I hope someone shoots you.” But spell out blue language? Heaven forbid!
Also, I see that only those who, in Hank’s estimation, “deserve” attention get quoted in the newspaper. Or, in Hank’s perfect world, that’s the way it would be.
- Enjoy your later golden years with just you and your husband and all the loneliness it brings around the holidays.
That’s funny. I haven’t noticed any loneliness around the holidays. Huh. If I were feeling snarky, I could have replied, “Enjoy your later golden years and all the loneliness it brings around the holidays when your kids are too busy to stop by or even call.” But only if I were feeling snarky.
- You make me sick and ought to keep your opinions to yourself.
A standard tack to take in hate mail — you are different from me, therefore no one wants to hear your opinion.
- P.S. – Enjoy the attchment that I sent to the Post.
Oops! Can’t spell “attachment.” But hey, we’ll let that slide. Except I didn’t, heh.
- Dear Editor, First of all, I am not much of a fan of the Post, with the exception of the Sports Section. However, I was shown an article today on the front page that disgusts me. Eun-Kyung Kim needs to be given some better assignments to cover.
Wow, where to start? Of course he doesn’t like the paper (except for sports) — they quote people he doesn’t agree with! And gee, he didn’t see this himself, it “was shown” to him — probably by someone who wanted to see the resulting head explosion up close and personal.
At least he doesn’t blame the reporter; he just thinks the editor needs to assign “better” topics (i.e. ones he agrees with, or maybe just more sports).
- The article I am referring to is “Childless adults here find fun by association.” The article itself is not even newsworthy, let alone, front page news. Your choice to run the article at all further enhances the weak minded liberal views of you and your staff.
I might agree with Hank that a profile of our No Kidding! chapter was not front page news, but then, this is the same paper that put an article about a guy catching a 20-pound catfish on A1 above the fold. So you could say the editorial staff sometimes makes odd decisions on what belongs where. I mean, if I wanted to be petty, I could be insulted that the catfish story got placed above the fold, and the No Kidding! story did not.
However, that this necessarily displays a “weak minded liberal” bias is a bit of a stretch, especially since the paper’s op-ed page is populated by conservative pundits like Z. Dwight Billingsley, Charles Krauthammer, and Jonah Goldberg. But maybe they’re too weak-minded and liberal for Hank.
- With all the problems in the in the world today; terrorism, our children fighting and dying in Iraq, the homeless, drug addiction, sexual exploitation in the media, etc… trying to instill strong family values is getting increasingly tougher. Couple that with the fact that Halloween was a few days ago and Thanksgiving and Christmas are right around the corner – you have the nerve to run an article that starts with “ Martha Kneib never liked kids.” Who gives a damn about Martha Kneib and her opinions anyway.
Honestly, I doubt anyone’s really interested in my opinion except me. And Hank clearly got caught by the reporter’s hook, since two sentences later, she said that my husband “doesn’t want kids, either.” However, she didn’t say I didn’t want them, she said I didn’t like them. To make the parallel work, she should have written that my husband “doesn’t like kids, either,” but she didn’t. But I’m sure Hank didn’t notice the sloppy writing.
I’m unclear on the exact nature of the threat my childlessness poses to Hank instilling “strong family values” in his offspring. He only read about me in a newspaper article, which apparently, he wouldn’t even have seen if it hadn’t been shown to him. It’s not like I’m picketing his “family values” in the street in front of his house.
And let’s not forget the paper shouldn’t publish such awful stuff around Halloween, and Thanksgiving, and Christmas! I mean, if you’re going to publish an article on the childfree, how about sticking it on the back page of the weather section right around Martin Luther King Day? That ought to be OK.
- She should be ashamed of herself. She is obviously selfish and self-absorbed. Children are a privilege. They are not a burden or a chore. They absolutely bring joy to so many people’s lives. My life would not have been complete without my children. To see my children growing up, to have that responsibility of raising my own children, to be their role model and to have a real purpose in life — that is awesome.
Obviously, anyone who doesn’t agree with Hank is no role model and has no “real purpose” in life. In fact, I should be “ashamed” that my life is different from Hank’s. And since his life has been made complete by children, by extension, everyone else’s lives would be made similarly complete. The rest of us are “selfish and self-absorbed,” which, of course, could not possibly describe Hank. At all. Nope!
I’d be more convinced that Hank’s children are not a chore or burden if I knew for a fact that he was their primary caregiver, but without proof, I’m going to assume his wife shoulders 98% of the work, while Hank gets to strut about shouting how kids are “a privilege” and “not a burden.”
- It also states in the article that “child free individuals cite other ways they feel discrimination.” Tax credits for parents and the way they pick up the slack for co-workers slipping out of work early because of kids. That is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard, and again, cannot believe it is in print. Discrimination – just what we need – another group that feels persecuted and believes they deserve some benefits. This politically correct B.S. has got to stop. The only thing the members of this “club” need is a reality check.
Yes, what we all really need is to shut up while angry white men like Hank show us the one true and right American way to live. And we should not complain when the government hands Hank money every year just because he reproduced.
- If I am not mistaken, without their parents, they would not be here today to “fight the good fight.”
This old canard gets trotted out a lot, including several months ago on Unscripted when a parent posting under the name Sandra commented, “Do you CL/CF people ever ponder the fact that if your parents had decided to remain childless, you wouldn’t have been born?”
Let’s see . . . my mother wanted children very much. She chose to have them. I do not want them. Therefore, I do not have them. And if I weren’t here, I wouldn’t be able to worry about it in any case. So what is the supposed “gotcha” nature of this argument? That I should make my life miserable and have children even in the absence of desire for them just to prove to people like Sandra and Hank that I’m glad my parents had me? What?
- Children are our future, and people like Ms. Kneib ought to keep her opinions to herself. Having her statement on the front page not only will makes her look like an evil old woman, but it reflects poorly on your paper as well.
Children are our future lawyers and doctors and politicians, true. They are also our future arsonists, serial killers, and crackheads. The “children are our future” argument is only slightly less stupid than “but your parents had you.” Is there some kind of guarantee that Hank’s kids will become self-supporting productive adults? If they don’t, can we ask for all those tax credits and deductions back? You know, so we can afford to keep them in prison? We can’t? Damn.
Plus, he reiterates I should keep my opinion to myself — but clearly he can trumpet his opinion all he likes because it’s the right one to have. No navel-gazing there! That’s just for us selfish and self-absorbed folk.
But wait, look-ee here! I have graduated from a selfish and self-absorbed witch to an evil old woman. Huh. And quoting someone so evil and old makes the paper look bad. Which shouldn’t bother Hank in the slightest, since he only likes the sports section, and the rest of the paper consists of weak-minded liberalism that he doesn’t read anyway unless it’s shown to him.
I swear, if Hank typed even one sentence that made sense, the world might just stop revolving around the sun.
- By the way, tell Martha Kneib that my son can kick her son’s a$%&! Oops, I forgot, she will never know.
I guess this is supposed to be clever. Because I’m childless he’ll send his kid over to beat up my kid, except, gee, I don’t have one. But if I did have one, then I’d be living a life Hank approves of, so he wouldn’t send his kid over to beat up mine. So, what does this mean again?
And, see? Hank can wish ill on me, and even threaten to have his kid beat up my non-existent one – but he can’t bear to spell out the word ass.
Teh stupid. It hurtz.
But it can also be very funny.
Copyright Martha Kneib. Published 1 June 2009 in Editorials.
Reader comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Thank for the humor. This can go next to the Ann Landers article“Musings of a good father on a bad day”.
permalink — 16 June 2009, 15:51
That’s an awfully long letter. And sent to you personally. I’m sure your home address wasn’t published, so that means he’d have had to look it up to send it to you.
You’d think a man with such a fulfilling life would have no time for (let alone better things to do than) sending hate mail. Like raising his children.
permalink — 18 June 2009, 02:21
He sent it to the chapter’s contact email addy, so, no, I didn’t get this at home. And the original is actually longer. I edited out the repetitive parts for this article.
permalink — 20 June 2009, 16:26