Let's see...
This week, I've had the dog's Cushing's disease confirmed, had a plumber out to stop the pipes in my home from exploding, got The Boy a haircut, new shoes, and his weight in Chick Fil-A nuggets--seriously, he ate FIFTEEN of those tonight; I foresee a growth spurt--practiced lifting handbells that are roughly the size of my child in rapid succession--ow--and oh yeah, worked almost 40 hours.
So there hasn't been a lot of time for me to pay attention to the world at large.
Though I did read this Inside Higher Ed article on KC Johnson's recommendation, and as usual, the comment section is way more interesting than the article could ever hope to be. The article in question is total garbage, not because anyone will disagree with the underlying "Rape is bad, mmmmmkay?" sentiment, but because she seems to think that the Duke lacrosse case is still a pertinent example of weird tribal racist sub-human male behavior--in athletes and fraternities, natch!--that leads to gang rape, based on the fact that the players hired a minority stripper deliberately. Lady, no. Just...no. Whatever points someone could make to refute your underlying assumption that GROUPS OF WHITE MEN=BAD!RACIST!RAPISTS! become utterly unnecessary when one of your examples isn't even factually correct; i.e., the players actually specified a WHITE stripper.
This is pointed out in the comments section, which then devolves into "But they were DRINKING and HIRING STRIPPERS!" versus "So where in America does that justify a 20 year jail sentence?" and we go from there to "They're privileged white guys so it's just an inconvenience to have to spend a million dollars on legal fees" to "Doesn't this make the Champions of the Downtrodden wonder what would happen to a poor minority in this situation" to "Rape stats Lie!" to "I am SHOCKED AND OUTRAGED AT THE VICIOUSNESS ON THIS THREAD AND OMG THE HUMANITY!" That last one puzzles me--as Inside Higher Ed threads go, I think this one's been pretty tame...
Look, I know we all have a tendency to seize upon and interpret current events in ways that resonate with our world view, and to use these events to prove our larger social arguments. But here's the thing--when one of our pet examples turns out not to be such a good example, maybe we should let go of it and move on.
But what do I know? I'm knee deep in dead birds and dog piss.
Maybe tomorrow will be better.
You have to do Lit Crit on academic discoveries. All they're saying is that men are pigs. On the other hand, men's low standards gives women a shot at a man, so it's not all negative for women.
Put the theme ``Men are pigs'' into the hands of a sex that likes to dwell on true love and relationships, displaced in some Freudian way, and you get academic discourse.
This seeks to replace what grandmothers know.
And the guy does, after all, wind up loving the woman, so it's not as if nothing ever works out as she wanted.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at March 9, 2007 11:55 AM"But here's the thing--when one of our pet examples turns out not to be such a good example, maybe we should let go of it and move on."
Nah. Attack! Make lemonade out of lemons and perjoratives out of, for instance, 'swiftboat' and 'lacrosse'.
Remember: 'concern' is the anodyne for any number of awkward facts.
Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at March 9, 2007 03:37 PM