Archive for the 'Lousy hypocrites' Category

Another 20-year-old who thinks he’s got it all figured out

Published at November 23, 2007 in Lousy hypocrites, Religious nuts, Pantysniffing, Woman-Hating and Dipshittery. 16 Comments

Time to create a “fuckwit college columnists” tag. Because, really, who deserves it more than Ryan Haecker, writing for the Daily Texan?

Ryan certainly starts with a bang:

Dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world.

Grab the popcorn, kids! There’s gonna be a show!

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

Wow. Just…wow.

Dresses are the epitome of womanhood because they allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs. That’s deep, man.

Really, you have to love a guy who switches from immutability to change back to immutability all within a couple of sentences. Dresses have been the epitome of womanhood, but only since the sixth century. Yet they’re an immutable sign of femininity, because pants — which have only been around since the sixth century — are an immutable sign of masculinity. Dresses symbolize fucking and piety all at the same time — maybe nun’s habits get this guy hot.

But that last sentence really amuses me. Let’s see it again:

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.

I dunno about you, but I can flirt just fine in pants. But this whole “obligations of our form” business makes me chuckle — because I can’t help thinking of that scene in The King and I where the children of the court keep trying to look up Anna’s dress because they think English women must be shaped like their dresses since they don’t wear pants like other women.

You might say these things were once true but times have changed. Not so. The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women. What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of femininity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period. 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.

Um, Ryan? Women’s bodies may very well be the same as they’ve ever been, but it doesn’t follow that a) what men find attractive in women is immutable and unchanging; or b) that therefore dresses are the only thing that’s feminine and/or sexy. Because, as you’ve stated in paragraph 1, in the West, there’s only been a pants/dresses distinction since the sixth century, and even if you’re a Young Earth Creationist, that’s just a drop in the bucket, history-wise.
Like all opinion pieces, there must be someone whose opinion Ryan is implicitly if not outright refuting — the villain of the story, so to speak. And this is where he busts out the villain. Who could it be?

Wait for it…. wait for it….

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.”

That’s right! You can blame ANYTHING on feminism! Continue reading ‘Another 20-year-old who thinks he’s got it all figured out’

Can it really be true?

Published at August 27, 2007 in Lousy hypocrites, Political theater, Crime and Schadenfreudelicious. 5 Comments

Is Alberto Gonzalez really going to resign today?

I’ll believe it when I see it.

And in the meantime, I’ll start fretting about which GOP hack they’re going to pick to replace him, and how much of a tongue bath the Dems in the Senate will give the guy.

If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Except, well, when nobody can figure out whether you should do the time to begin with.

Published at July 31, 2007 in Hear me roar, Lousy hypocrites, Religious nuts, Political theater, Delusion and Dipshittery. 2 Comments

Jill’s on fire today, asking pro-lifers some very pointed questions. In fact, the same questions that were asked in this video [now located here, because YouTube took down the one I’d embedded], which inspired the Anna Quindlen column Jill’s responding to:

I know there are at least a few regular readers who self-identify as “pro-life.” So here’s a question for you: How much time should she do?
One goal of the anti-choice movement is to outlaw abortion. But, as Anna Quindlen points out, anti-choice activists are almost never able to identify what the legal consequences should be for women who terminate their pregnancies. So, pro-lifers, tell me: What should the penalty be? How much time in jail should a woman face for abortion? . . .

Continue reading ‘If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Except, well, when nobody can figure out whether you should do the time to begin with.’

Terms I never want to hear again

Published at July 29, 2007 in Lousy hypocrites, Religious nuts, Political theater and Dipshittery. 7 Comments

“Flag desecration” and “sanctity of marriage.” I’d also like to see a ban on using “football field” as a unit of measure, but I’m kind of a dreamer.

184_patriot.jpg

From Dahlia Lithwick’s piece:

Do you want to know what’s destroying the sanctity of marriage? Phone messages like the ones we’d get at my old divorce firm in Reno, Nev., left on Saturday mornings and picked up on Monday: “Beeep. Hi? My name is Misty and I think I maybe got married last night. Could someone call me back and tell me if I could get an annulment? I’m at Circus Circus? Room—honey what room is this—oh yeah. Room 407. Thank you. Beeep.”

It just doesn’t get much more sacred than that.

The idea that the government is involved in something “sacred,” and that it is this “sanctity” that justifies the denial of equal rights to marry, really rubs me the wrong way. After all, marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is a bundle of rights and responsibilities. Churches may see marriage as a sacred union of two souls — the Catholic Church treats it as a sacrament — but there’s a reason the priest invokes the power of the state when solemnizing the marriage — without it, the marriage has no legal effect. But you can hit a drive-through wedding chapel and have exactly the same effect.
Then there’s “flag desecration” — again, resting on the idea that the flag, in and of itself, is a sacred object. And the fun part is that the people who are most upset by “desecration” of the flag seem to have the least regard for the ideals which the flag is supposed to represent. Such as free speech: Continue reading ‘Terms I never want to hear again’