Dear Mr. Poulos,
You are a fucking idiot.
Oops, that was probably just my estrogen acting up again and ruining all of my rational thoughts! Pardon my initial ad-hominem attack. I will instead attack your article on the basis of its content. No; I will rape your article. I will rape your article because it’s asking for it.
See what I did there? You probably didn’t, but that’s okay. It will all be over soon.
While I insert my mental penis into the quivering, wet vagina where your brain is meant to be, I encourage you to try to lie back and enjoy the experience. Also to try kegels because I think this is the abyss to which Nietzsche had referred.
Ready? No? Oh, well.
Firstly, kudos for name-dropping Freud in your first sentence. That gave me a chuckle. I thank you for that.
Today the significant battle is over what women are for.
Check out the big brains on James!! Don’t you just have your finger on the pulse of the nation. They should call you James “Zeitgeist” Poulos, they should.
Oh, shit, sorry - ad-hominem, again.
Have I misunderstood the battle for control over the means of reproduction this whole time? Is this debate really about our purpose? Well, colour me corrected. Gals, gird your loins, we’re not in 2012 anymore.
On birth control, the Catholic Church is portrayed as the extremist fringe of its own faithful.
Although I think I understand what you meant to say [that the Catholics aren’t as Catholic as we think they are], what you really said was, the Catholic Church is portrayed as not representing the majority of its adherents. This is true, actually, because the last time I checked, priests that fuck little boys [and girls] are sheltered by the church, even though most Catholics, I would assert, aren’t pro-little-boy-fucking.
On abortion, activists labor to extort Komen for the Cure.
Actually, the real issue there was about the breasts [and hypocrisy, a concept you should know all too well as a GOPer], not the vaginas. Breasts, Sir, are not vaginas. You are an example of why sex education is so desperately needed in your American public schools. Also, do you have children? If you did manage to locate a woman with whom to procreate, it would be a miracle because you’ve probably been doing the sex wrong this whole time. Again, breasts =/= vaginas.
If the conservative movement’s nominal unity is actually belied by a stunning range of right-wing views on the status and purpose of women (and believe me, it is), the left’s alleged philosophical uniformity on the woman question is a complete fabrication — despite the fanatical discipline and norm-enforcement of much of the liberal cultural establishment.
I’m going to attempt to re-state your argument, for clarity: Lots of NeoCons have lots of different views on “the status and purpose” of women [sorry, I was under the impression that the suffragettes had taken care of the whole personhood thing] and so they don’t actually all agree on shit! Even though “the left” seems to understand that women are people, they actually don’t all understand that women are people, even though women-as-people seems to be some artificial norm that “the left” has imposed upon itself.
…..What?
I’m not going to delve into that sentence where you mention Potemkin and skirts, except to say that, no, it was not nearly as clever as you think it was.
Anyone serious about thinking through the role of women in today’s civilization is doing worthless work unless they take the controversies on the right hand in hand with the unsuccessfully suppressed tensions on the opposite side of the spectrum, where disagreements far more volatile in their profundity roil respectable liberalism.
Whose civilization? You’re not living in mine, by the sounds of this article. Are you suggesting that, because NeoCons can’t make up their mind about women [or, I would suggest, have made up their mind to control the means of reproduction], we still have to listen to their bullshit? What I actually understand you to say here is: both sides don’t know what they’re talking about but we have to listen to them anyway because it’s up to political parties to determine the status of women.
If you don’t know what’s wrong with that, I think you need to go back to trying to make babies by fucking your wife’s tits. It would be a far better use of your time.
By the way, you are a pedantic asshole.
Lurking beneath this procedural non-judgmentalism was a stubbornly conspicuous judgmental end. Roe couldn’t be overturned, the plurality argued, because Americans might think the Supreme Court was bending to public pressure. The court’s solution was to bend to the public reality that millions of women had altered what it meant to be a woman — and what status that meaning conferred — by having or supporting abortions. On the bogus theory that all linear change is progress, the plurality embraced the immoderate view that a descent into barbarism is impossible.
Sir, you need to put the thesaurus down and pick up a mirror to verify that you are not, in fact, Christopher Hitchens. Strings of big words do not a coherent thought make.
Liberals, of course, generally and characteristically deny that abortion is barbaric.
This is brand-new information.
So postmodern Cynthia Nixon, who used to be straight but now isn’t, tells The New York Times Sunday Magazine exactly what establishment liberals don’t want to hear when it comes to the sexual politics of women — “you don’t get to define my gayness for me.” As Laurie Essig understated it in The Chronicle of Higher Education: “Such talk is heresy among some people in the gay advocacy and the reaction was both immediate and predictable.” Nixon was swiftly accused by the left’s cultural policemen of “aiding and abetting bigots and bashers.”
What does this have to do with…. anything?
Lip service is often paid to the impression that the point of empowering women is to empower them to do whatever they want, but much of the left stops well short of the more radical implications of that easy answer.
Which are, what, exactly? Also, since when did the “easy answer” automatically qualify as being the incorrect answer? Finally, I didn’t hear anyone ask a question except you.
The left’s culture of celebration…
A sentence most worthy of the lolz.
...is hamstrung by the very assertions of should and shouldn’t that contemporary women have inevitably come to make — as the ongoing debate over the advisability of marriage reveals.
If anyone would like to attempt to explain this sentence and how it fits in to anything at all, it would be very much appreciated. You can email your responses to pedantic4lyfe@syonymsanonymous.com.
To the growing discomfort of many, that framework hasn’t come anywhere close to answering even the most basic questions about what women are for…
Dude, who the fuck is asking this question?
It seems to me that the real question should be, what the fuck are men for, anyway? It could be argued that women just need men for their spunk. Maybe you should consider the implications of what I think of your own personhood, Sir, which is, not very much. [Honestly, I think this is what makes misogynists so insecure… they are already aware that, had we the physical strength, we’d chain them all up and milk them like cows. After all, they seem perfectly content to treat their own mothers, sisters, and wives in such a way]. P.S. Chicks don’t actually need your spunk, and your wife probably wants you to stop leaving a dime-sized bruise on her clavicle. Keep it in your pants.
— despite pretty much universal recognition across the political spectrum that a civilization of men, for men, and by men is no civilization at all, a monstrously barbaric, bloody, and brutal enterprise.
A MOMENT OF CLARITY IN AN OTHERWISE OCEAN OF ASSFUCKERY.
A few inherently meaningful implications about what women are for flow naturally from this wise and enduring consensus, but no faction of conservatives or liberals has figured out how to fully grasp, translate, and reconcile them in the context of our political life.
Maybe these clueless individuals should ask women. Or was this “answer” to your “question” not in the thesaurus?
Ironically, one of the best places to look for a way out of the impasse is the strain of left feminism that insists an inherently unique female “voice” actually exists…
I would note how incredulous I am in reaction to your need to put “voice” in quotation marks, but you’re the guy who thinks breasts and vaginas are interchangeable, so mayhap I will refrain. You’d probably say something REALLY stupid, like that maybe women should be consulted about women’s issues.
And, for the grand finale:
Much good would come from a broader recognition that women have a privileged relationship with the natural world.
We do?? Well, shit!! Maybe you should shut the fuck up and listen to us, as we apparently have a direct line to motherfucking NATURE via our birth canal. This is also very, like, 1790s of you. Quaint.
That’s a relationship which must receive its social due — if masculinity in its inherent and imitative varieties
You didn’t get anyone to proofread this shit, did you? “If masculinity in its inherent…varieties…” what now? You know, dictionaries are very similar to thesauri, except that they provide definitions for words you don’t know, instead of giving you a million different ways to say nothing at all.
…(including imitation by quasi-feminized males of quasi-masculinized females!) is not to conquer the world.
If someone like you is taken at all seriously as a journalist, it’s already too fucking late.
EDIT:
If you have issues with my critique of this asshat’s article, they probably fall into one of two categories.
The first would be that I spent too much time attacking Poulos personally and ignored the substantive issues addressed in his article.
To which I would retort: What fucking substantive issues? If you would kindly sum them up for me, we can talk like real grown-ups.
The second would be that I spent too much time attacking his writing style and not enough time on the substantive issues.
To which I would direct you to re-take grade eight english, wherein it was taught that, if a layman [lololol laywoman…. get your snide remarks in now] doesn’t grasp your points, you probably fucked it right up. Finally, I will refer you to the request above, wherein I ask, what fucking substantive issues?
2
