The Weekly Standard: The Dread Pony, by Matt Labash (Warning: Rage Bait)

[ponyvangelist 732]

WARNING: If you are a brony and you tend to take things personally, this article will probably piss you off. A lot. If that sounds like you, I recommend either not reading the article, or first reading about who Matt Labash is and sampling some of his other stories (such as his last essay, Going Dental) before reading this one to get a feel for his style, which tends to be acerbic, cynical, and acerbically cynical. Some context may help. Or it may piss you off even more. You have been warned.

 

 

The August 26, 2013 issue of The Weekly Standard features an article about bronies by senior writer Matt Labash. When the subject is bronies, most commercial media journalists are all over the map, typically unsure of who or what they're covering, or why, but with an overall bias that's at least mildy negative. There's usually a baseline level of gratuitous smirking and eye-rolling, slight head shakes, subconscious dismissal and the well-worn reporter tropes we know so well.

 

That's not the case here. Matt Labash didn't just broach the subject of bronies for a quick human interest chuckle at the end of the evening news. He did background research at BronyCon 2013 in Baltimore, Maryland earlier this month, spending three days amongst the Herd, studying the assembled bronies in a manner not unlike a patrician British anthropologist amongst "primitives and savages", or perhaps a field biologist studying herd behavior in bipedal equinoids. His findings are, to understate things tremendously, somewhat controversial...

 

 

The Weekly Standard: The Dread Pony

by Matt Labash (click to read the article)

 

Characterizing the story as "unsympathetic" would also understate things tremendously. It's downright hostile and calibrated for maximum negative effect. It's crystal clear that Mr. Labash is not a fan of bronies and sees the fandom as pathological, a subject worthy of utmost derision and ruthless deconstruction.

 

So why am I bringing this up here, in these forums, and before this community?

 

Because I think it is good for Pony fans to know how people like Mr. Labash see them. Because underlying every insult is an insight, a kernel of truth, and it is only that which gives it the power to cause pain. Because The Weekly Standard is a well-known magazine that influences popular opinion -- even the opinions of those who don't read or agree with its editorial positions -- and that means this story will get around, and it will get attention. Because in seeing how others see us, maybe we can better understand why they see us this way.

 

And most of all, because if we understand why they see us this way, then we can use that knowledge to make things better, and making things better is at the heart of what this community is all about.

 

Again, I don't recommend that anyone who is emotionally sensitive or prone to rage read this article. It's okay to ignore it, move on and let it go. But for those of us willing to face it and consider what it has to say, I think this article and others like it can teach us many important lessons about ourselves and others, and with that knowledge will come the power to promote positive changes, not just for us, but for everyone around us.

 

Or so I hope.

[Scootalove 10,689]

I don't really see this article effecting me at all since, I think we have seen all of this articles point towards bronies but I wouldn't take it too seriously.

[--Thunder Bolt-- 534]

I'll give him partial credit for not immediately leaping to "Ermagherd! Pedophiles!" or "Magic, therefore--SATANNNN!" On the whole though, I'm not impressed. I don't find the article "insightful" as a critique. He basically takes up three pages to communicate one sentence: "Bronies are infantilized man-children who can't get chicks." That's it. He doesn't even go so far as to make a single argument for why bronies should be doing something more sensible and manly for entertainment, like trying to hit a little white ball into a hole with a stick. Aside: typical "golf clothes" aren't much less ridiculous than a Twilight Sparkle costume; they're just associated with wealth and status, and therefore OK.

Since he doesn't even state his own position on what men are "supposed" to be like, much less make a case for it, there's not a whole lot to discuss. He's a conservative, writing for a conservative publication with the attitude that his views are "just soooo true" that they literally go without saying. We could guess that he thinks that a real man is someone who gets a Good Job^tm, dresses like Clark Kent every day, and has a Little Woman^tm at home making sure dinner's ready when he gets there after work. The whole "Leave It To Beaver" world seems to be what most modern conservatives look to with fond longing, despising the modern world when it doesn't match up. About the same way some bronies do, except that they look to Equestria as the ideal. Both are idealized fictional universes from children's shows.

I bet that the average Viking warrior would think Ward Cleaver is an infantilized man-child. Never do we see him in battle. A real man would be ashamed to leave the house without a sword. Conservatives are supposed to be the ones who revere the enduring traditions passed down from the ancestors, yet they seem completely blind to just how different the ancestors were from us. Just look at the most-hallowed Founding Fathers.¹  Look at them. All those ruffles, the tight pants, powdered wigs with spin-curls and ribbons. But laugh at one of them for not being "manly" and he'd expect to settle the issue with pistols at dawn. Rameses II went around in a pleated skirt, jeweled necklaces and eye make-up. He also had 50 sons and over a hundred daughters, and ruled the world's mightiest empire. Which, in those days meant, "You get into a chariot and ride out with your army to conquer it yourself."

The point is, social and cultural norms change. The 1950's Organization Man Mr. Labash (probably) looks to as a model was an "infantilized man-child" to the men of his father's and grandfather's generation because he got to spend his days working in a nice office with pretty secretaries instead of toiling in the fields or pounding metal with a hammer like a "real man." And "civilization’s wheels finally, irretrievably came off" in their time (to listen to their elders tell it) because of the corrupting influence of Swing, or Ragtime, respectively.

The whole "You kids today! Ya gone soft! Civilization is doomed! In my day...!" thing has been going on since people made swords out of bronze; maybe since some crotchety Cro-Magnon grumbled at the kids with their newfangled Clovis points. You can read ancient Roman writers (Cicero, IIRC) making the same complaints. The Athenians made Socrates drink hemlock for corrupting the youth with his crazy counterculture ideas.

 

Now that the Internet has fragmented the culture into a million pieces, helping every maladjusted shut-in to realize his natural level of eccentricity, the only way for a self-respecting hipster or a Zuckerbergian alpha-nerd (the tribe that now runs the world) to distinguish himself is to enthuse over his enthusiasms without detachment or apology.

You know, as a status, wealth, and power-worshiping conservative, maybe you ought to give "the tribe that now runs the world" a little more respect?

Prediction: 30 to 50 years from now, this guy's successor will complain that the world is going to Hell in a handbasket because dudes don't collect pony plushies like Real Men^tm should.

Edit: One more thought: Ward Cleaver might never have been a brony, but it would not be surprising if he was a member of a fraternal lodge, like the Masons, Shriners, Moose, or Odd Fellows. In which case, he might be seen wearing a fez and driving a tiny car in a parade, or a hat with moose antlers, or performing silly "sacred" rituals with his bros. People like to be silly, and to partake in silliness. To go to BronyCon and be upset that it doesn't look like a stockholders' meeting is just plain stupid.

NOTE:

1. Since The Weekly Standard is an American publication, I'm answering it in an American political context.

 

------

 

Coming Soon to a theater near you: My Little Pony: The Movie

 

LOG.v18-47.Aug26.Labash.TyKonzak.jpg
 

 

Starring Martin Short as Shining Armor

 

(No offense intended to the brony pictured here; he just reminds me of Martin Short. )

Edited August 17, 2013 by Roko's Basilisk

[Anneal 2,197]

I just like to think that all the anti-bronies are just jealous of because we have a freaking big fandom and they sadly don't.

 

Here's one of my quotes: "Why is the media so targeted over seemingly controversial topics?

 

Because they're feeding them their so called entertainment. The victims are giving them their ideas. The people may not think I'm taking this seriously, but I am. They only do this because they're in desperate measures. It's the wonted way of things. It pays to be the victim, because they're the ones that are actually winning."

Edited August 17, 2013 by Cartophile

[The Prime Reaper 180]

I will agree and hate My Little Pony through this article if they are able to make kids under 17 years old stop playing stupid Call of Duty.

At that point, i will be eternally grateful.

 

If they can't even stop kids playing violent games not for the appropriate ages, so stop criticizing us.

[Jamesblorg39welsh 125]

Well it was the standard ERMAGHERD PONYPHILE but at least it didn't mention clop or ERMAGHERD MERGIC IS SAAAATAAAN but as said before it was standard they can't pick up chicks and they are fat virgins