Whether or not or not you found the satire funny or, as in the case of a depressingly large number, didn't get the whole concept of humour, the wacko insecure invectives of folks so threatened by someone sending up motherhood, a very difficult job and not suited equally to all women, is rather astonishing. These are the people you can't share a coffee with and half-jokingly say that hormones and cuteness are about the only thing ensuring a baby/toddler's survival as they'd call the cops on you because they thought you meant you were going to kill your kid.

-- John Anderson "They are like rapists or hired killers who would murder you for $750 and a bag of crack."

That much? I should start asking for more money!

Amity :) Thanks for the giggles.

@Beeyl65

Just to say i'm finished with our little conversation. Because I can't take as much as i can dish out? No. Because your analysis of my grammar was too cutting? No. It's because what was a fun distraction has grown tedious. So you get the last word. Pick me apart. Torch me!

Shame on you, Heather, for stereotyping all childless people for the selfish lump you were, pre-child.

This is really, really pathetic cliche. You come across as the most self-absorbed person in the world, post-child. And to denigrate people who don't ahve children for whatever reason -- you should really be ashamed of yourself.

Childless people do not sit around doing margarita shots -- don't stereotype people who did not/could not have children for a huge range of reasons to the person you once were.

When is Salon going to show a bit of the other side?

@Beeyl65 @

I meant you wheel out ONE latin term and several technical terms. i.e. the proper names for the those pesky fallacies. I'm pretty sure that meaning was conveyed in my last post, but i guess you're more comfortable picking apart small points of grammar than dealing with arguments.

Likewise, "educated-sounding." Obviously I meant that using these term(s) is part of a need you have to IMPOSE your own inflated ego upon your readers. I might add that its interesting how you've been looking for a fight among those who mock the people who did not get the satire. You're not content to say "i don't like this piece because of X reason." No, you have to say "this piece is rubbish and anybody who enjoyed--even moderated--probably enjoys fart jokes as well."

And i still think you've missed the point.

You said I was "imposing" (which means what, exactly, compared to just "using"?) certain educated-sounding Latin terms. "Terms." Plural. Which terms would those be, exactly?

The one Latin term I recall using - in an effort to rebut NeilaRose, who called those of us critical of HH "satire impaired" and who, in my opinion, was trying to show off linguistically by listing a few collective nouns for animals - was degustibus non disputandem, which roughly speaking means "to each his own taste." [I'm sure you knew this, CV. The translation is just for the stupid anti-intellectuals out there.]

My writing, using, or imposing that term didn't have anything to do with my criticism of HH or this article - it was just a rebuttal of some blowhard who was calling all us critics impaired.

So, notwithstanding that I used only one Latin phrase to rebut someone who was not HH, your entire criticism of me has comprised saying that I missed the point of the article, and that I'm trying to disguise my confusion about the article with the veneer of "educated sounding Latin terms."

Overreact much?

Finally, just so you know: a term, Latin or otherwise, can neither be nor sound like it's been educated.

Dear HH,

You are a smart, hilarious, immensely enjoyable writer to read. Please don't let the humorless dimwits get you down.

Mothering Heights was, hands-down, one of the funniest articles I've read in recent weeks. Certainly it was refreshing to read the writing of a mom who knows how to poke some wicked fun at motherhood (and for those of you too dense to get it -- she was actually sending up motherhood, not singlehood/childless-ness. How you could not see that is beyond me).

Clearly, the world (and some of the Salon readership) could stand to lighten up ... a lot. Thank you Heather, for giving many of us a real good laugh ... both at your superb article and at the uptight ninnies who came squealing out of the woodwork. Tee hee!

Now, pardon me, I have to get back to bathing my child in the white, glowing warmth of my infinite love.

@Beeyl65

The reason you wheeled out the technical terms for the logical blunders you felt HH committed was to make your argument sound more intelligent than it was. The truth is that in your effort to apply these, yes, educated-sounding terms you missed the point of the piece. You missed the forest for the trees as my populist brothers and sisters might say. I stand by the label "educated-sounding" because you know as well as I, or in fact anybody reading this exchange, that they were unnecessary and only served to dazzle the plebs as it were. I wonder if this strategy actually works for you in "real life."

I still don't see why a satire of this type should be attacked with such vehemence because the author did not make "any distinction between satirizing ridiculous and reasonable pro-motherhood arguments." It's not what the article is about. Now, i'm not going to argue with your right to say "I personally did not enjoy this article because of X reason." Fine. Go nuts. As for myself, I enjoyed it. Got a few chuckles, thought a few lines were pretty good and a few of the observations pretty apt. But this doesn't seem to be enough for you does it?

Use as many syllables in your answer as you wish. I'm sure it will make you feel better to provide a response replete with polysyllabic prose.