I have provided his email. Will you write him? The ideas are the source of the problem. Lappen is a lapdog. Chantrill's unfunny & sarcastic editorials signify the hatred the right wing lobs at critical inquiry in general. Never mind POETS, folks, these people will go after anybody. And we should be writing letters for each and every evil tirade they print. Do you?
I know when Jarnot talks people hold their collective geeh! in a patient pee-squeeze, but this shit has been going on for a long time. Maybe we should get Jarnot to send out requests more often? BTW, many folks have posted about American Thinker and nobody said anything. Jarnot, what do you have? And can I have some of it? Please. You've got blogland lapping at your feet.
People didn't even know what "dag" meant until Jarnot posted the OED definition on her blog almost a year after Dagzine had begun posting dags about dags about dags about dags. Yes, I am confessing envy. I picture you as the woman who can bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan; an Enjoli! woman. But hopefully without that purple silky blousy thing and that awful hat. Ok and without the bacon and the frying pan. And with the poems but without the entourage, dammit!
Jarnot said write a letter:
Dear A,
I just thought I'd send something to you that expresses how I think somebody else wants me to be seen by you and how I think that somebody else needs to know that I to did send and did think to send what I have in fact sent to you because that sending expresses not what I necessarily do publicly usually but can do when impressed upon to act outside of my own region of interests
and I just thought you'd like to know that I am going to post my letter on my online journal with a link or two connecting all the other letters, yes there are at least several more, into one chain somebody may find more or less meaningful but at least for the week we're linking to each other we'll read each others' letters and mention each others' letters and link and relink and before all of this is archived I will have participated and maybe this will keep me in good graces not with you of course but with them but this has nothing to do with you although I am sure you inferred that already since I am talking about myself in this letter and nothing about you in this letter and through your inference you will unfortunately learn little about my disagreement with you other than my initial NO which is easier by the way to say than what the NO means and Nothing Other than that will be available to you because I purposefully barred your access to a relevent and explicit discourse because I am writing this letter for them
And this them is a hungry beast burrowed deep within my skin and I attempt to say and do things that matter in a society that eats my words like this syllabled bug before they are uttered sucks them from my mouth and so I think this is an apt measurement of my disgust even though it doesn't really say anything at all but only responds and because it responds rather than says I need the problem like a fix and the pain like the shit just like they do and so my gift to you but a gift without an obligation funny enough and without humiliation because my gift is my humble advertisement for myself humble before you and vanished after you
respectfully,
Nobody in Particular Who Means Much to You or Me
What does writing a fucking letter to Campus Watch say? I know what it is supposed to mean. Getting on a political watch list is as easy as being arrested at a protest or insulting the president publicly, or failing to give a mouthy republican student an A for not shutting up the entire semester.
The letter is part of the spectacle. The spectacle works on its own. It doesn't need you.
The letter fuels the machine of oppression.
You must refuse to participate.
But you get sucked right in.
Awww heck. I guess I'm just going to hell then.
Would be nice if "the opposition" was consistent, no matter what I think.
----
Lappen's essay is nothing compared to her colleague's fascist rhetoric:
From: "The race to unimportance", March 9th, 2005, Christopher Chruchill
Women matter for a simple reason. We need them to make children. Historically, men have been peripheral to this activity, as biogenetic researchers recently discovered. Down the ages, only about half of the men in each generation have succeeded in inserting their genes into the next generation, whereas almost all women have succeeded in this endeavor. In compensation, men have focused their interest on less important activities, like making war and making science. The recent entry of women into historically less important activities like science is therefore important. It implies that the generation problem has at last been solved. What matters now is not the generation of children, but the generation of science.
What the pig Chantrill is going on about is that women are doing the job men should be doing because manhood is at risk. Women are becoming scientists because science isn't considered as important as say videogames, which he claims boys (young men) are more interested in later in the editorial.
Actually, Chantrill does end up arguing that "however hard they try, women will never be as unimportant as men. Whether they like it or not, women matter. Even women of science." Tongue in cheek, this means that try as hard as they might, the liberal women, "the feminists"--who are vigorously attacked in American Thinker--are not as important as men.
Chantrill's editorial should receive attention, not simply because of its hardcore sexism, but especially because of its snide and implied eugenics. Is it shocking that talk about science and maternity, about what kind of individuals we are raising, and who is more or less fit should be the topic of the day in a Conservative journal? No. But it is shocking that the majority of the left is focused on their own particular piece of radical pie.
File Under:... ... ... ... ...
No comments:
Post a Comment