Exchange between James Taranto of the WSJ and Greg Hampikian, author of the anti-male NYT article "Men, Who Needs Them?"

The following excerpt from James Taranto's The Best of the Web Today blog.

The block quote below is the response of the author of the anti-male article "Men, Who Needs Them?", Greg Hampikian. Hampikian demonstrates his male feminist credentials in a spew of gender complaints to defend the core feminist belief that "women have it worse" - none of which has anything to do with Taranto's objections.

Taranto's pointed response: "His purpose in exaggerating female-supremacist ideas was not to ridicule them but to endorse some indeterminately more moderate form of them."

Text excerpt from the blog follows:

While we were at the party, we checked our BlackBerry to find that Greg Hampikian, the pride of Boise State, had responded to our Monday column:

My piece in the New York Times, "Men Who Needs Them?" has provoked a great deal of discussion. I was shocked, however, to see America's second most influential paper [sic] compare my essay to the attempted extermination of the Jews.

Such a response would diminish the reputation of any legitimate journalist, and may even have an impact in the present case. My own people, the Armenians, also suffered at the hands of genocidal mania, and so the reference to genocide has a particular repugnance to me.

That being said, James Taranto's failed attempt at satire is perhaps understandable in light of his complete ignorance of the form. That he took my essay as a prescription for mass murder, demonstrates the literal-minded simplicity that Plato, Jesus and Einstein (among other fine men) fought against. While I understand the legitimate concerns of men's rights groups in America, let's consider the world-wide facts and be gentlemen. I have prepared the following quiz to assess whether males of our species have an urgent need for protection against satire.

Which gender has never been elected president or vice president of the United States?

Which gender was not even considered worthy of the vote by the Founding Fathers?

Which gender has 7 of top 185 positions at the U.N.?

Which gender is subject to more than 2 million genital mutilations each year, severely damaging sexual function?

Which gender, on the basis of their gender, can fear having acid thrown at them for attending school?

Which term is correct: "Bride Burning" or "Husband Burning"?

Which gender is raped and impregnated as an act of war?

Which gender commits less than 1% of those rapes?

Which gender can die during child birth?

So, take offense at my essay if you must. But the men I admire are tougher than that, they watch out for the weak, they are willing to stand up for their beliefs; and they relish good satire.

That grimly serious "quiz" demonstrates the problem: Hampikian's Times piece although it was facetious (as we acknowledged), was not satirical. His purpose in exaggerating female-supremacist ideas was not to ridicule them but to endorse some indeterminately more moderate form of them. We stand behind our surmise that an article treating any other minority in the same way would not be seriously considered for publication at the Times or another major newspaper.