November 30, 2007

• You think that was satire? I thought he was just kind of a pig (he is from Texas). He has a few points, but mini skirts and feminism leading to the "whorification" of women in general? What a crock of shit. Also, I sell kilts for a living. So I have some slightly different opinions on what is masculine and feminine. Especially for an American.
• Because my boss isn't in, and I have time to kill: 1. Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex. “Obligation of our form”? Defining ourselves by our ability to attract the opposite sex? That’s one way to define ourselves – Kierkegaard and Nietzsche have better suggestions, though. Not to mention that a whole lot of people feel perfectly ‘fulfilled’ in other ways than a-flirtin’ an’ a-courtin’. 2. What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. Demonstrably untrue. What men have found attractive in women depends on where and when they live. 3. What men find attractive in women - the form of a true lady - is objectively identifiable, just as it was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In short, femininity is sexy, and sexy is timeless and universal. If the claim is, then, that “sexy” is ‘universally attractive’, that’s just a simple tautology, and not much of an argument. (And I’ve never known “sexy” to be one of the Platonic forms, although I suppose it could be. "And, my dear Glaucon, is it not so that crotchless tiger-striped panties are sexy, and are beloved by the gods?" "For surely, Socrates, it must be so...") 4. What's not sexy is feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the "new woman.” Also demonstrably untrue. Feminism (if indeed there is one ‘Feminism’ to speak of) is not nearly about adopting men’s roles as a means of self-advancement or assurance, as it is protecting and promoting women’s identities and values in and of themselves, whether in relation to men or not (again, if such generalizations can even be made). Feminists would be just as likely to embrace traditionally-women’s attire as reject it, and either set be true to what their version of Feminism is. And if buddy doesn’t think that Feminism is sexy – a woman with a brain on her shoulders who actually thinks about her place in the world as a woman and individual – I can’t say much for his taste, but that’s another story. 5. The wearing of pants by women represents the masculinization of the fairer sex, which is not at all attractive. Two words: Marlene Dietrich. 6. The miniskirt, a dress of sorts that doesn't extend below the knees, is both lacking in modesty and elegance. Even if that were true, so? Elegance is essential to femininity, and the lack thereof implies a sort of masculinization. So, logically then, miniskirts imply masculinity? Dude, I don’t know where you’ve been hanging out, but... 7.Modesty is essential to feminine virtue, and the lack thereof implies a state of whorification. Aah, here we go. The Madonna/Whore complex. I was wondering when we’d reach that... If your argument hadn't defeated itself already, consider it done now. 8. The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood. See, it’s here that I think buddy must be engaging in satire, but for the life of me, I can’t figure the point of it. The “uncovered shoulders” and “unveiled hair” may be a subtle jab at burquas, but even if it is, what’s buddy’s point? If this is satire, it’s extremely poor. And “Ladyhood”? Perhaps buddy can enlighten us, by defining what “Ladyhood” is, and indeed, how that’s incompatible with “Feminism”? Guys like this just piss me off. I hope he enjoys his well-deserved shitstorm...
• "The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood." Bolding is mine. If this isn't satire, this guy wants pretty much burkas for all.
• This dude's next column? Uppity negroes.
• sounds like the columnist has hairy toes and lives under a bridge.
• If this isn't satire, this guy wants pretty much burkas for all. But that's just it. For it to be satire, it has to have a purpose, otherwise it's just aimless mockery. For the life of me, I can't figure out what buddy's point would be -- there's not even a hint of 'everything I just said? the opposite'. If it is intended as satire, he's failed.
• Satire. How can pants be deemed a move toward masculinity, and then in the paragraph the Captain sites be deemed to make women whores? What kind of whores do pants make them? Masculine whores? Satire. Mystery solved. Next case?
• I dunno, I'm almost willing to believe that someone could (a) be this stupid, and (b) be stupid enough to publish someone this stupid. I site our state's largest newspaper and a full 70% of its columnists as an example.
• Crackpot. That said, I personally don't find women in pants to be all that sexy. Unless they're my pants.
• "When I sees women, I pants." - Some Guy
• *smacks rocket so hard his collups ring** If this isn't satire, this guy wants pretty much burkas for all. Na, just 50% Will somebody please plug his arsehole? He's spouting shite.
• Probably the guy submitted this standard 5-paragraph essay as homework in some cultural history class, got a C because, subject matter and analysis aside, it's just crappy writing, and decided he'd "show" the prof by submitting it to the school newspaper, which has lower standards. We used to get these things over the transom all the time. On the subject of dresses, clothing, pretty much everything humans cover themselves with, the really great book is Anne Hollander's Seeing Through Clothes .
• New rule: KevvinSevvin must take part in more MoFi threads.
• yeah I bet this guy gets laid a lot. harhar. what an ultramaroon.
• Considering he spends the first paragraph saying the same thing over and over again, I wonder how he got through those first two years of college. Don't they have freshman writing seminars at the U of T?
• Imagine when that guy learns that women can vote!
• yes, and kick ass...
• "Androgynous masculinization" is an oxymoron. As opposed to this hack, who's just a moron.

• Dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world.

  Ze szubyekt vishes he vas a voman und could vear a dress.

  Such has been the case since the western man adopted pants to replace the tunic in the sixth century (an aspect of the West's Germanic barbarian heritage)

  Ze szubyect ist enamored of the idea of men in tunics, aber he must abandon it als olden times.

  Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs.

  Ze szubyect exhibits an innate gender confusion.

  Dresses are the indelible image of womanhood because of the symbolic nature of pants and dresses. If all fashions are symbolic, dresses in particular symbolize womanhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true lady, the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility.

  Ze szubyect is a virgin who is doing his best to avoid getting laid.

  These defining aspects of womanhood are immutable. We all tacitly reaffirm these attributes in our attempts to find a partner. Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex.

  It's perfectly normal for kids to want to forego the enjoyment of sex during their first (or more) years of college. What's not normal is that they want to extend their abstinence (or enforce their abstinence) on others. Waste of fucking time, really.
• Damn, but I wish I could hit these idiots repeatedly over the head with a clue stick! Locally we now have the Idaho Family Task Force headed up by the shit-spouting Rep. Steven Thayn. He and his pet committee have concluded two things: 1. Idaho families should include two parents with mom staying at home to raise the children. 2. It should be very difficult for this familial unit to break apart. So, you working mothers get yer ass back into the kitchen and quit working just to please your ego and buy those fripperies while yer kids languish, uncared for. As for no-fault divorce, hell, you don't need divorce if your a good little wifey. If you happen to be married to some deadbeat or abuser, you damn well better have the lawyer to prove it (and be prepared to beg or prostitute yourself, because you won't have an honest job to pay him.) As far as the deadbeat asshole that was quite willing to let my daughter support the children AND him when they were divorced, I don't know how THAT would fit into Thayne's little scenario. Hard to be a stay-at-home mom when dad won't get a job. He had them on welfare until Mr. BlueHorse and I let them move in, and we supported his lazy ass for 18 months before she divorced him. Afterwards, we had mom and kidlets stay with us so mom could get more schooling to get a decent job, and damn good thing, since he doesn't pay a lick of child support. Now they're a happy family "unit", with a working mom and a good life--and it doesn't include a deadbeat dad--failure in Thayn's eyes. Oddly enough, Thayn's "special" task force made no recommendation for minimum safety standards for day cares or early childhood education--Idaho ranked last in the nation for in-home child care safety standards in 2007. Additionally, Idaho averages a 25 percent college graduation rate compared to the national average of 37 percent. We've got women and children living in cars in Boise because there's not enough space in shelters. The dirty little secret is that we've got one of the highest rates of child and spousal abuse. But why focus on keeping kids safe or giving them shelter or an education? The real kicker to this story of our family-values guy? Thayn's son was arrested earlier this year on a charge of domestic battery. He later pled guilty to disturbing the peace. Damon Thayn now says the police account is exaggerated, though he admits he had an argument with his wife that got physical. Geddaloada this crap: Both Steven Thayn and his son say the restraining order put in place after the April incident did more harm than good by keeping the couple from working out their problems. "The laws are set up in a lot of ways to destroy families," Damon Thayn said. Damon Thayn says he and his wife are together, happy and expecting their first child. Somehow I missed the part where his wife said everything is hunky-dory. Now he gets a shot at a two-fer next time he's feeling like using a familial punching bag. If we can just get those nasty little restraining orders out of the way, all couples could be so happy together. Thayne Senior's wife stayed home on the family farm and raised the eight fruits of his loins, and judging by what type of a husband the son appears to have turned out to be, I'll bet THAT was some special childhood. Keep 'em poor, barefoot, and pregnant, smack 'em if they give you any lip, and above all, make sure they go to church reg'lar. We have our own special Christian Taliban organizing right here in the USA.
• Methinks that there are more than a few bats loose in the old belfry.
• Oh, I agree. The 'poxyklips is coming. The christian right-winger nutjobs are bringing it on a wagon.