Home > Uncategorized > In which Godfrey Tudor-Matthews finds himself in a bit of a sticky wicket

In which Godfrey Tudor-Matthews finds himself in a bit of a sticky wicket

Perhaps we should thank our patriarchal stars that the word “arsehole” can be properly applied to persons of any gender. Otherwise Eureka’s self-appointed English language police might get his knickers in a bunch when trying to appease Teh Feminists who’ve all but ruined the mother tongue.

Oh, how our English ancestors would bemoan this wretched place! Where gentleman newspaper editors play yes men to the weaker sex who’ve gone mad and traded their petticoats for a position on the board, disrupting long-standing usage of the term “chairman” in favor of the all-encompassing “chairperson.” Poor Godfrey feels “neutered” now that the ladies have shunned the corset and fainting couch.

The wenches will never be satisfied, Godfrey weeps, until scarcely a titillating bosom can be detected from beneath a politically correct unisex garment.

But joshing aside, any bloke who fancies a word like “gynepologist” is waving more than just a wooden stick. That man is clearly a wanker.

We would chide him for being wordy, but are hesitant to embarrass the little dickens.

UPDATE: The Carson Park Ranger reflects on Godfrey’s “man” issues.

  1. Anonymous
    July 6, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    Oh, my! That IS clever! “…the little [D]ickens.” Wordy? I should say so! Delightfully wordy!

    Very nice post, sir!

    Let me add a comment. Godfrey writes that:

    If the word “man” is such an anathema to those of us who are not of that gender, should we, therefore, speak of “personkind” rather than mankind? Or what about the word “woman” itself and its plural counterpart “women”? If we are to be consistent, should we not henceforth refer to the individual of that particular sex as a “woperson” with her plural counterparts as “wopersons”?

    Sadly, Godfrey does not go far enough.

    If we are to be consistent, we cannot refer to women as “wopersons,” for “sons” refers only to male progeny.

    To be consistent, the word “woman” must not be “wopersons,” but, rather, “wopeople.”

    Some reformers may be tempted to turn the word “woman” not into “woperson” but into “woperdaughter,” but, to quote the King of obfuscatory prose, Richard Milhous Nixon, “that would be wrong.”

  2. July 6, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    I thought Godfrey’s letter was the funniest thing I was going to read today – then I read your post about it and laughed even harder.

  3. July 6, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    Thanks, Kristabel. Godfrey is waving the wooden leg, indeed.

  4. Ekovox
    July 6, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    No comment on the man with the hypenation,
    but Heraldo, the usage of your high school photograph found over at the Carson Park residence is quite funny. I approve.

  5. July 6, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    Danka.

  6. Herr Aldo
    July 6, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    That’s “danke”.

    And on a really cool note, check THIS out:

    http://www.alternet.org/story/55830

  7. Anonymous
    July 6, 2007 at 9:41 pm

    If you don’t praise my clever writings, I will be forced to take my ball and go home, and then, to quote RMNixon, “you won’t have Richard M. Nixon to kick around anymore.”

  8. July 6, 2007 at 9:45 pm

    The invocation of Tricky Dick is most appropriate. Well done!

  9. July 6, 2007 at 9:54 pm

    But joshing aside, any bloak who…

    What exactly is a “bloak?”

  10. July 6, 2007 at 9:59 pm

    It’s a misspelling of “bloke.”

    Godfrey would be proud.

  11. July 6, 2007 at 11:55 pm

    Kinda thought so. You’ll drive Godfrey to drink.

  12. Anonymous
    July 7, 2007 at 12:01 am

    Heraldo called my Nixon reference “most appropriate” and said it was “well done!”

    Thanks for the kudos, Heraldo!

  13. July 7, 2007 at 12:05 am

    Anytime. Thanks for your humorous comments.

  14. Andrew Bird
    July 7, 2007 at 6:40 am

    The AP Stylebook (what newspapers are *supposed* to follow) dictates using -man & -woman. Chairman, Chairwoman. What’s so difficult/disagreeable about that?

  15. July 7, 2007 at 9:10 am

    “It’s not that I wish to appear a misogynist…”
    Tudor-Matthews starts with a falsehood, and supports it by whining.

    It was opportunistic of me to kick him when Heraldo already had him in a half nelson, but who could resist?

  16. Anonymous
    July 7, 2007 at 9:55 am

    You can only feel sorry for someone so desperate to see his name in print he’ll out himself as an a–hole, and at length.

  17. Anonymous
    July 7, 2007 at 10:16 am

    Actually, has anyone heard of a Godfrey Tudor-Matthews before now? Is “Godfrey Tudor-Matthews” the name of a real person? Has this question been investigated?

    As Eliza’s father said on stage and screen, “I puts it to you and I leaves it to you.”

  18. July 7, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    The first two links in the post go to other local blogs that mention him. Apparently he once sent a note to Fred scolding him over word usage.

  19. July 7, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    Godfrey T-M is real. I have met him.

  20. Anonymous
    July 7, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    OK.

    Now how can we definitively establish that “Fred” is real?

  21. July 7, 2007 at 10:11 pm

    More of Mr. Tudor-Matthews’ hysteria in the Times Standard of 24 June.

  22. July 7, 2007 at 10:34 pm

    Great link.

    Once again, Godfrey — who doesn’t “wish to appear a misogynist” — claims “women in the final stages of labor besiege and crowd our border hospitals so that their offspring will automatically be able to claim residency.”

    Oh, panic! We are being attacked by birthing women! Save us!

  23. Anonymous
    July 8, 2007 at 12:26 am

    No offense intended, Fred.

  24. Anonymous
    July 8, 2007 at 5:27 pm

    Fred is offensive. Remember what he had to say about that boy who was molested? Fred, you need mental health assistance. And you’re not a Libertarian. Fred, you’re a pro-molestation Republican.

  25. Anonymous
    July 9, 2007 at 12:12 am

    Oh, Yes.

    Now I remember O’Reilly saying that the boy who had been abducted and held for about four years really enjoyed being kidnapped and used as a sex toy. I also remember Fred’s defense of those comments by O’Reilly.

    That’s why I stopped reading Fred’s blog.

    Thanks for the reminder, 5:27 pm.

  26. June 28, 2010 at 11:05 am

    So glad to see that Godfrey is still stirring things up after all these years. I am a second generation teen mother from the ghetto in Houston and I’ll never forget what Godfrey did to me! Never! I was suffering from depression and he didn’t even know it. I still don’t know why he did this cause he never explained. Out of nowhere this proper English sounding white man would call me and read the Bible to me, as if performing on stage beside Shakespeare himself. He could easily have toned it down a notch, since no one ever heard him but me. Instead he read with the passion of Christ Himself. Never having had anyone do that for me: not to mention being fatherless, to this stay I think about him often. In fact as new neighbor just moved in and told me how she has been struggling to find herself. I was about to send her an email asking her if I could send her a scripture when I find one that will bless her. I wanted to look up my old friend Godfrey online so she could see who first inspired me, when I found your hilarious post about him. I am thrilled to see that nothing has changed. And even more humbled by my desire to pass his legacy on to a beautiful new neighbor the same way he did for me. Thanks so much for letting me know that he is still calling others to remember the glory of a kinder past. I for one am taking that marvelous tradition into the future. Heck! While I’m at it, I just may invite her to join me for crumpets a spot of tea!

    Believe well!

    Adelaide Zindler
    Home Office Mommy
    http://www.HomeOfficeMommyMagazine.com

  27. Eric Kirk
    June 28, 2010 at 11:44 am

    I’m confused.

  28. anadromous
    June 28, 2010 at 11:59 am

    well this is all quite refreshing indeed!

  29. kateascot
    June 28, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    what i want to know is why Americans speak English?

  30. June 28, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Its a spambot, H usually deletes them quickly, it has happened before.

  31. June 28, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    Spam deletion accomplished. But reading this post again was a hoot!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s