Tue 4 Mar 2008
Danger, Danger, Danger!! Williams class makes top 10 “Most Dangerous College Courses”.
Posted by cgondek under Blather, Professors/Staff, Quotes, Rankings
Posted at 5:37 pmSo, I’m reading my local news website (KGW.com) and came across a story about how a class at Portland State made the Family Security Matters Second Annual “America’s Most Dangerous College Courses”. Ha, Ha, another nutjob think tank handwringing to get publicity. Then, I went to the site to see the full list, and I’m happy to say that dear old alma mater pulled in at number 9.
9. “Body Politics: Power, Pain, and Pleasure” at Williams College.
Feminist Professor Jana Sawicki has created a politically correct, Lefty gem with her Williams College course that promises to discuss such penetrating questions as, “If bodies and pleasures are historically and socially constituted within unequal power relationships, what can or should we do to transform them?” and “Is the body an inevitable source of resistance and rebellion?”
One look at the course description, and PC words and phrases just jump out at you: only academic Leftists use the terms “unequal power relationships.” Unfortunately, most students can’t decipher Lefty propaganda until after they graduate. Here’s a tip: stay out of this class if you want rational discussions on important political concepts that don’t have anything to do with feminist professors complaining about how the “man” tries to control “their” bodies. You’re likely to come out of this class dumb and brainwashed, and that is dangerous indeed.
If you want to marvel in the full list, it’s right here I can’t say it’s a class that I would choose as an elective, but hey, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Reaction?
March 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
If we’re going to talk about propogandist word choices, perhaps the author would reconsider describing a class as “scary and yes, downright dangerous”. LOL.
(oh, and the class actually sounds like it could be interesting)
March 4th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
The course description sounds like something that Alan Sokol would write.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
What are the chances the author’s name is a pen name, “Jason Rantz”? Perhaps a clever variation on Jason’z Rant. Is this the same organization that’s concerned about a war on holidays?
March 4th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
This makes me proud to have majored in philosophy at Williams. Now, if only that pompous gasbag David Horowitz would spend some time writing a scathing editorial about William. Unfortunately, it’s a price we pay for being a small college - your average brownshirt, happy to make judgments at a distance about schools like Columbia or Harvard that would never admit him, rarely even thinks of Williams alongside these larger bastions of evil lie-bral brainwashing terrorist ideology.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Ronit,
Horowitz went to Columbia as an undergrad and Berkeley for grad school. He’s still an ass, but just sayin’…
March 4th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
addNodeReference(”Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity“);
addNodeReference(”A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies“);
Also note that Prof. Sokal most certainly did not ask for permission to self-publish the above.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
For those interested, here is the course description.
Do we have any readers who took this tutorial? Perhaps someone on campus could post the reading list?
March 4th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
addChildObject (”Bodies that Matter”, “Democracy Matters”);
March 4th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
“Bodies and pleasure…within unequal power relationships”…and no mention of Hegel. Hmmm…
“Students will work in pairs.” Hmmm…
March 4th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Oh, Froshmom!
March 4th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Oh, right back at ya per your link, Ken!
It takes one to know one.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Un-XXXXXXX-believable!
March 4th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
addNodeReference( “Kant’s Inaugural Dissertation“);
March 4th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Very impressive recovery, Mr. Thomas. One can’t go wrong with Kant.
Meanwhile, In Sawickis’s defense, (and much to Frank’s chagrin) I’m with Rory…I think the class sounds interesting!
March 4th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
FM,
The discussion of “bodies” and “matter” — and indeed of the meaning of a ‘world’ — that begins on page 42 or so and following, may be of interest to you given the CGCL themes and your own statement about mind, stars, and other structures. But “the translation doesn’t do justice… ”
Jana’s S’93 version of this class (7-9:30P, top of Hopkins 401) was very good preparation for working with Judith and the larger issues here— glad to see what has become of it. There was some Hegel, and…
March 5th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Ken,
Worth several read-throughs…
Wonderful how you’ve linked different conversations [...]
Something tells me that Sawicki and Butler could have added mightily to my meager little attempt in the ‘gender inequality’ thread.
Ah, but I can at least resort to the ‘imagining’ of how they would have handled the ‘opponents’. [: )]
March 5th, 2008 at 12:45 am
FM,
addNodeReference( “As We May Think“);
addNodeReference( “Swarthmore Summer“);
addQueue ( toWrite ( “Luther and The Evolution of Language and Thought” );
March 5th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Part 1: Rereading the Canon: Refiguring the Body
Week One. Plato on Women and the Body
Plato, Phaedo, 60-67; Republic VII, 514a-521b
Elizabeth Spelman, “Woman as Body: Ancient and Contemporary Views,” 32-41
Luce Irigaray, “Plato’s Hystera,” 243-268.
Week Two. Cartesian Dualism
Descartes, Meditations (First, Second, Fifth, Sixth)
Susan Bordo, The Flight to Objectivity: Essays on Cartesianism and Culture, Chs. 5 & 6.
Luce Irigaray, “Wonder: A Reading of Descartes, The Passions of the Soul,” 72- 82.
Week Three. Hobbes v. Foucault — The Body Politic
Hobbes, Leviathan, 59-60, 141-186
Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 3-31; The History of Sexuality, Volume I, 269-285
(excerpt from The Body, ed. Don Welton)
Moira Gatens, “Corporeal Representation in/and the Body Politic,” 21-28
Adriana Cavarero, Stately Bodies, 99-103, 113-120
Week Four. Hegel/Freud – The “Repressive Hypothesis”
Hegel, “Lordship and Bondage, 111-119
Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents (entire)
Judith Butler, “Subjection, Resistance, Resignification: Between Freud and Foucault,” 83-105
Vicky Kirby, Judith Butler: Live Theory, 1-18 (optional background reading)
Week Five. Marcuse – Eros and Civilization
Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization (selections tba)
Cynthia Willett, The Soul of Justice: Social Bonds and Racial Hubris, “Prologue,” Chapters 5 and 6 Audre Lorde, “Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power,” 277-282
Part II. Power, Bodies, Pleasures: Is it useless to revolt?
Week Six: Foucault — Discipline and Normalization
Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 135-228
Susan Bordo, Unbearable Weight, 139-184
Cressida Heyes, “Foucault Goes to Weight Watchers,” 126-147
Week Seven: Foucault – Care of the Self
Foucault, “The Ethics of the Concern of the Self as a Practice of Freedom,” 281-301
Ladelle McWhorter, Bodies and Pleasures: Foucault and the Politics of Sexual Normalization, 100-175
Cressida Heyes, “Cosmetic Surgery and the Televisual Makeover: A Foucauldian Feminist Reading,” 17-32
Part III. Phenomenology
Week Eight: The Lived Body
Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, 150-177 (excerpts)
Iris Young, “ Throwing Like a Girl,” 27-45; and “Introduction,” 3- 11
Susan Wendell, “Feminism, Disability, and the Transcendence of the Body, “324-333
Gail Weisz, “Splitting the Subject,” 39-63
Week Nine: Racism and Embodiment
Fanon, “The Fact of Blackness, ” Black Skin, White Masks, 109-140
Linda Alcoff, “Toward a Phenomenology of Racial Embodiment,” 267- 282
Lewis Gordon, “Fanon, Philosophy, and Racism,” 41-49
Part IV. Rethinking Feminine Embodiment: Beyond Dualism
Week Ten. Performing Gender, Performing Whiteness
Documentary: Paris is Burning (1990), Dir. Jenny Livingston (Sawyer Reserve)
Judith Butler, “Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion,” 121- 140
Judith Butler, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology
and Feminist Theory,” 415-427.
Bell Hooks, “Is Paris Burning?” Black Looks: Race and Representation, 145-156
Week Eleven. Sexual Difference and Transexuality
Luce Irigaray, “This Sex Which is not One,” 23-33; “The ‘Mechanics’ of Fluids,” 107-
118;“When Our Lips Speak Together, “ 205-218;
Elizabeth Grosz, “Sexed Bodies,” 187-210
Jay Prosser, “A Skin of One’s Own: Toward a Theory of Transsexual Embodiment,” Second Skins, 61-96
Week Twelve: Becoming Animal, Becoming Machine
Rosi Braidotti, Metamorphoses: Toward a Materialist Theory of Becoming, Chapters 3 and 5.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:04 am
This class sounds legit, challenging, and interesting to me, and this topic is certainly an important one (and one with particular resonance in contemporary American culture). This is not like one of the b.s. p.c. drek courses I’ve seen out there (I became familiar primarily through KC Johnson’s blogging of some of the embarassments on the Duke faculty) where it would basically be a serious of lectures on “why all white men are evil” featuring the professor’s crapola unpublished writings as the primary texts.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Good comment, Jeff Z!
And from, I’m sure, too much of a belief that in the liberal arts regardless of the ostensible focus, the exposure to the material opens the mind to much more, I applaud the readings (including Hegel as FM earlier remarked).
I think 10 students will have a blast with the tutorials!
March 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
to 10: Thanks for posting the entire class. It looks absolutely fascinating and as Dick and Jeff implied, one that befits a school like Williams.
K,
I envy you your experience with these professors. I would love to have had that kind of an education.(sigh) As far as your links, I always love them…they are like a treasure hunt. And I did get a little lost on the last few. However, I trust you have something in mind…so I will wait and see.
You know, it might be interesting to have a section of EB that is a library of links the likes of which you come up with and which some of us would never see otherwise. (like V. Bush–talk about prescience!)
Just an idea…
March 6th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Aw shucks, FROSHmom. I’m just the son a sharecropper, and the descendant of a small “familia” which has– mostly– kept to itself in a little valley for– according to the census– a bit over two millenia now.
The Judith I know would have never called any contribution “meager,” but rather tried to expand and enrich it– though I have greatly annoyed her from time to time by feeding her arguments from the introduction above, regarding the ‘focus’ of my own path, back to her.
I also am sometimes left with the distinct impression that David is stalking me: “Judy” and I used to stand in the back of Stanley Fish’s lectures, pacing, muttering to ourselves about the errors, refusing to “sit for this.”
I wish I could say much more about what you describe as “envy–” but– “welcome to the conversation.” Thanks to Ted (Nelson)’s work, and Rogers, and Brewster (Kahle)’s, and Push(pander Singh)’s, et. al., many of the texts are coming online, available to “anyone;” the language and tools are {…}
If only we can draw a few more individuals out of the ivory caves, away from the mesmerizing shadows that appear on their walls, and into the “light of day.”
What’s the right tone here? (I often cannot separate Judy’s style and voice from my own!) Or the appropriate “order of operations?”
The interesting thing to me is that is now possible to make someone “located” like yourself, “part of the conversation,” and a contributor. You can follow the curriculum; you can give your reactions; given your wide experience, you may even wind up writing a substantive response to Kant-Leibniz-Descartes-Hume — certainly, from what I’ve seen, as substantive as many of those individuals awarded doctorates by Berkeley.
Luther: there was no common German language before Luther (and even Hannah Arendt, one of the two women in the Yale curriculum, did not understand that). And then there was the ‘nun’ that Luther “married”… and who shared the project of ‘Reformation’ with him… or perhaps, was more important than he, in the “course of human events.” (Who was Einstein’s partner?)
Finally: as it is my diplomatic duty to assert: the United States must find a political solution to the crisis in Mexico. The door of opportunity is closing: our empire, our way of life, is at stake.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Ahhh, Ken…
I might have passed up responding to your comment if it weren’t for your last paragraph. And so, I hereby shamelessly hijack this thread and subject myself to criticism for length of comment and subject matter un-ephian.
A couple of small disclosures before getting to Mexico. First. like you, I come from ‘rooted stock’, my mom’s DAR standing and genealogy hobby, being fairly sound evidence. And then there is my Alabaman-Cherokee great, great grandmother…
As far as my “envy”? I dislike that word almost as much as I dislike “regret”, but the truth is, my gallivanting around the globe, instead of sitting in a classroom, left huge gaps in my formal education which I am working on yet. I think this is one of the reasons why I like EphBlog so much.
Now, Mexico.
You are right to be so worried…but solving the problem? I am not up to speed on the current D.F. political scene, but I know a thing or two about the make-up of the country. Several decades ago, my child-eyes registered the chasms between the haves and have-nots; the broken-glass topped fortress walls around the beautiful enclaves, within which, was a manner of living I had yet to witness. Maybe things have changed, but if what I hear about the last election is true, then the Mexican elite are still ‘getting their way’.
Then you have the view from our side. You are right, it isn’t an immigration problem. But how to explain that, when the short-sightedness is such that most Americans can’t see past the border checkpoint…unless they have business interests, which then means they are mostly unwilling to fix the problems because of loss of $$$. Those interests, and the hypocrisy inherent in them, are affecting even our primaries in a big way.
So, I sympathize, and I agree, with your concern. And I truly hope that fine minds, with nothing to gain but that which comes from doing the ‘right thing’, are somewhere, somehow, working on it…
March 6th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
See, now this is what I mean by ‘catching up’…I just realized that by ‘millenia’, you must be referring to something other than your American roots…(Sigh)…oh well…there are the Scots on the other side of my family which we trace back to a town in Scotland that matches my last name.
So there!
March 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Apologies to all for any offense on a previous thread. Intemperate vintages are no excuse, but one understands the loss of control one has to meaningful conversation and the concern that such moments mean in the course of events.
——————-
Dangerous College Courses:
Rebellion is the refusal to accept some authority or code or convention. It deals with the subject of submission. It is the powerful source of punishment and pleasure, particularly when the source is regulated. The relationship of gender, food, and sex can be be viewed as disciplinary mechanisms with its implications towards health and illness and the challenges that dominate current promotional discourse.
When we exercise “body politics” we harness supernatural forces for specific use. Rebellion or resistance is a form of pleasure, restoring the body to life. Resistance sanctions internal identity, fidelity, and the power of intention, giving the perpetrators uneasy account of the actions of its recipients. “Gatherings” always make these tormentors uneasy and laws or understandings are passed to deter such “witchcraft”.
The lamentations of women, on the other hand, are not about rebellion against authority but about the resistance to reproduction.
Pregnancy is the confirmation of femininity. The fecund female body is now a contemporary philosophical study of meaningless abjection: the loss of distinction between subject and object or between self and other.
Since feminism seeks a less phallocentric model of pscho-sexual analyses, the reality of biology becomes a traumatic event when the subject confronts materiality over the lack inherent in one’s relation to one’s temporal reality of self.
Meaning collapses when confronted by the patriarchal gaze of males and the feminist predisposition towards “living decay” and the consequent mental and physical by-products contemporary to feminist thought on the well-being of the female body and their narratives of resistance to fecund aging.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
On the mean streets of life where most people live, what counts is the direct, the obvious, the immediate - not the oblique, the nuanced or the speculative.
March 6th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“On the mean streets of life…” is the struggle with your past and the eternal past as present within your life. On my previous thread there is no oblique, nuanced or speculative statements. Your monosyllabic punts are the reductionist attempts to simplify language to the limits of your tolerance.
With the continuing crusade for dumming down social intercourse we have “mean streets” as found within “RAP” and other forms of violence to language in our quest to neutralize diverse social groups. The traditions of Aquinas, Dante, Shakespeare, and the likes of Dr. Johnson are missing today amidst the dizzy distractions of empty gestures and words churned out for public and social effect.
What about the concern for truth or coherence? We can talk facilely about subjects as long as we do not incapacitate ourselves on “moral” grounds and remain constantly attentive to the “golden mean” of our peerless court representatives and their rules of social engagement.
Our current citation for this thread: “Cherchez la femme” in all that you seek.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
*holds mirror to Mr. Broadband*
Condescension towards your elders and fellow ephs? not a good look. Then again, neither is your logic, even when ensconced in polysyllabic backwards elitism (that “eloquent” enough?)
What is, to me, most amazing about your rantings is that your undeniably oversimplified and propagandist versions of anyone who disagrees with you. The bigger the words you use, the less respectful you seem to be to differing opinions. Feminist critiques of prior understandings of body politics are not simply a desire to resist their role in reproduction, but rather to avoid being reduced to that role. It’s a shame you’re unwilling to fully appreciate or grapple with the other side of any argument, instead you look down your (still an undergraduate, i believe?) nose at anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan it seems.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Rory,
My guess is you missed Mr. B’s rather lewd post of a couple of days ago,(which blessedly, was quickly deleted) or you would be including ‘women’ in your list of his “condescencions”.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
You know what? If this really is one of the ten most dangerous courses in America, then American higher education is in great shape. “Dangerous” is such a vacuously stupid word to use, of course, but what I find funny is that in their attempt at being inflammatory this is all they can muster. It’s all so very pathetic, is it not?
dcat
March 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Rory:
Condescension? The gentleman prefers simple straightforward statements, like the KISS Principle: Keep It Simple Stupid. This was not meant nor implied to offend. We all have limits to what we perceive as tolerable. Some take offense because they are predisposed to injury and need to identify themselves as victims.
As to your “polysyllabic backwards elitism”, pray tell, what do you mean by this statement? How are we to intuit this?
The prosaic columns are not “rantings” for there is no hate, anger or violence associated within those paragraphs. Where do they incite violence? To wit, where are the propagandizing techniques that support this assumption?
Big words? Having a vocabulary is not a handicap unless of course we are appealing to an audience for a political vote and policy support, where one should never exceed the vocabulary of a third grade education, but this is a Williams College blogsite. These sentences are not obfuscatious. And with regards to not appreciating the other side of any argument, would you be so kind as to articulate where propositions have been made for a specific side of an argument? Has there been an argument raised bearing sides or positions of which I have taken up one side? And what is the object of your complaint?
I respect other opinions, views and positions. I merely argue for truth and coherence on how I have come to understand it. Occasionally there is humor but you fail to see it. Presenting divergent views should be welcome. Are we to be merely cheerleaders and sycophants?
Your last statement regarding Ronald Reagan, I believe he has passed away and I do not know what you are talking about when you claim that I argue to the left of him. I do not quite understand the implication of this statement. As he was a Republican, I presume you to mean that I am left of his political leanings. In all candor, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat nor a Libertarian. As a recent voter I am not predisposed to party affiliation.
One should treat political or policy decisions carefully, and as such I defer to our more esteemed statesmen of history for guidance rather than the drumming of party sentiment and the emotional appeals for support.
I take great pleasure in being able to participate in these threads. I never gave any thought as to “looking down one’s nose” at any time or any one. Being a declarative character perhaps plays into these notions of yours regarding your displeasure.
Again Rory, thanks for your thoughtful and kind considerations.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:10 am
… and to look up from the platform in the Zocalo, to scan the galleries, again and again, for the muzzle of the rifle, to review the security positions, to keep glancing at the marines on the roofs, wondering if I can rely on them; looking at every approaching helicopter and praying the troops are ours, reviewing the order of operations if shots are fired, which grunt I’m going to grab an automatic weapon from, the weeks and months of training myself to instinctually place myself between the President “like my father” and the assailant, to act with no hesitations, to make sure Vanessa and Rogelio have cover or deal with their injuries, assess the situation, and act…
… weeks later, to listen to a groggy and still-drugged voice waking from emergency surgery in the hospital in Colonia ——– ——-, to see, in the stark and clear reality of the consequences of my actions, that this is a game played with the cards of life and death…
… to stare out the window again tonight, at the spot where Albert Gore surrendered the Presidency, and recall that no record of what the hundreds of us in earshot heard exists in the public record, that Jay Root relied on a broadcast of words spoken some twelve minutes later, that…
March 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I guess “not up to speed” is an understatement…of sorts.
Ken, this is… unfair. I have so many questions and yet don’t feel comfortable asking them. But you can’t tell a story like this without expecting them. And here!? And so???
What do you think could/should be done? All eyes seem to be elsewhere. And, if there is any truth to the JR …’insinuations’ I did find, then how could our involvement not create a bigger ruse? Do you have hopes that our election and a new pres will…change anything?
All very, very, unsettling…
March 7th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Broadband,
I said your post make you seem to look down your nose AT anyone to the left of Reagan (who was pretty far right). Frank and I rarely agree on this board, yet somehow you post notes that condescend at both of us. And yes, this right here is condescending: “Your monosyllabic punts are the reductionist attempts to simplify language to the limits of your tolerance”.
I understand most of what you write. However, I don’t understand the logic behind your word choice. For example, I don’t understand why you replace the word “unclear” or “confusing” with “obfuscatious”. There’s no need (hell, wordpress’ spell checker doesn’t even know the word!) for that–it sounds like using trumped up vocab for no good reason except to appear smart and intimidate potential disagreement into silence via such polysyllabic words.
You argue for coherence, yet you write with such elaborate phrasing (” Intemperate vintages are no excuse, but one understands the loss of control one has to meaningful conversation and the concern that such moments mean in the course of events”) that even your apologies for offending others becoming confusing twists of language that (in this case) I don’t even follow. what? what does losing control of a conversation have to do with lewdness? nevermind…
As for differing opinions–that’s pretty much all I’m good for on this blog!
Intelligent thought is not in the complexity of the terminology, but rather in the clarity and strength of the logic. The highest complement many professors give out (I’ve heard it from anthropologists, historians, and sociologists now) is that someone writes simply and clearly. One of the greatest sociologists of our times is widely appreciated because he writes like he is talking to you.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Enjoying the practice of alliteration, the flow of the sound of the words that are strung together, resounds in the written word. Logic is important as a tool. Life is not linear nor is meaning a mathematical string. Often our experiences are beyond accountable description. Such is the awe and the power of the quantum relationships of energy to matter in its perception of itself.
I am pleased Rory that your need for complimentary appreciation gives you the support such clarity and strength of logic provides.
Given the latitude for expression, certainly the tolerance of this blogsite, short of lewdness, should present no difficulties in managing the veteran verbal affairs of our readers.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
at the very least, when stringing together such absurd sentences, can you make grammatical sense? Your sentence starting “I am pleased” not only misinterpreted my point (I said nothing of receiving said compliment myself, only that it is a high compliment indeed. I’ve only gotten it once myself from professors), but lacked commas. Your final sentence has no subject and is therefore unclear.
Oh, and don’t think I don’t sense the condescending smirk behind that last post (and others). It’s quite a pathetic display of insecurity at this point.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Amen, Rory. David B., so long as you are offering (and accepting?) advice, here’s an idea: active voice. Learn it, live it, love it.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Rory,
Re: your “differing opinion”? Hallelujah for that. There are times where, IMO, you are the cavalry; the clear trumpet call.
Re: above? A valiant effort on your part…and deja vu to another thread.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Rory -
Alas, regardless of subject matter, ‘tolerance’ (subj) ’should present’ (verb) ‘no difficulties’ (obj), does seem to parse …
“As I can show you in this very simple diagram” - song ‘100 ways to loose a man’ from “Wonderful Town’ (Comden and Green, Leonard Bernstein), starring Roz Russell.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Dick–
Nice catch (can you tell I didn’t have to diagram sentences much? lol), though now my critique returns to the original two: learn to use commas (then again, I should have added the word “also” after “but”), and avoid unnecessary vocabulary flair: in this case, “tolerance” is a not an ideal subject subject (I’m not sure that’s what he wanted to say. then again, i’m rarely sure what Mr. Broadband wants to say) and hidden within multiple clauses. But yes, it is technically correct, if undeniably unclear.
I do not claim to be the king of proper grammar–my posts alone should prove that well enough. In fact, considering my mistakes in this thread alone, maybe I shouldn’t offer grammatical advice! Hopefully, my style isn’t quite as bad and my stylistic comments can still stand.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Gentlemen,
Subject, verb, and object, with or without commas, are the least of Mr. B’s issues with being understood.
By the same token, imperfect grammar and/or punctuation, doesn’t really confuse clear intent.
Or, so I hope! [: )]
March 7th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
FM: Votre espoir est en vain. La grammaire est une clé à l’expression dans l’exposition par opposition à l’écriture créatrice.
I know you just love to bounce around in French!
March 7th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Dick,
I ‘bounce around in (very bad) French’ only with those that were part of the Proust thread… for the fun of ‘history’ and continued conversation. Kind of like your milk punch resurfaces with certain people?
And my point, was that Rory’s intent was clear, and appreciated… and my ‘hope’ was that writing foibles, of which I have many, not get in the way of my messages as well.
And to be honest, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say to me.
March 7th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Cher FM,
Here;s what I;m trying to say.
I don’t believe clear expository writing succeeds without a grammatical structure to support it. To this point, I believe that your hope is in vain.
Can a reader determine what the writer is trying to say without the grammatical structure? Sure. Does an ungrammatical sentence add to creating a sense of immediacy or the steam of verisimiltude? You betcha.
Are these stylistic techniques more appropriate to creative writing? I believe so, And I am a big fan of Joyce.
These same anti-grammatics used in expository writing, unless very clearly signaled by the writer as knowing better and there for emphasis, may mark that writer as a dope and make the exposition suspect.
Of course it depends on the writer. A sentence made up of cut-out letters pasted on a ransom note is not going to be parsed.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Dick,
so i agree with; what; you…are. Saying but that was”n’t at all. what i was trying to. Make a point, of but. you probably (Get) that right?
Anyway, I love beautiful writing as well. In fact, I was about to post a P.S. to Ken about his ’story’ above…that I can appreciate the ‘perfectly told’ moment of it without needing an explanation. It only seemed ‘unfair’ because it was so effective in leaving me in a cliff-hanging tizzy.
Chapter Two, perhaps?
March 8th, 2008 at 8:42 am
“Body Politics: Power, Pain, and Pleasure
“If bodies and pleasures are historically and socially constituted within unequal power relationships, what can or should we do to transform them?” and “Is the body an inevitable source of resistance and rebellion?
Now this is a class where I would present these biological arguments as the basis for our matriarchal-feminist societal strategies, as it relates to body politics, power, pain and pleasure::
Females imitate males, adopting roles and exploiting technologies which males have defined and developed in order to disguise her defection from her natural functions.
One of the key features for female robustness (cooperation as an expression of the female policy of imitation), as a long term evolutionary strategy, is provokability. The female will continue to acquire power, continually testing the male in order to establish a new base from which her power can be further incremented. If she miscalculates in her power seeking maneuvers she may provoke a violent reaction.
An aspect regarding males is that males have an instinct to be racist, to protect one’s own kind. Thus anyone who says that they are “anti-racist” are really saying that they are anti-male, thus the laws have been written to undermine male control, dominance and authority. This provides an unnatural advantage to female encounters within male groups, allowing them to capitalize upon her disadvantages.
Thus we see the imposition of taboos and where our language becomes emotionalized. This also fosters irrational and anti-scientific perceptions. The direct consequence of these policies has been to raise the value of her relationship to the point where the risk associated for it outweigh the benefits and risk to men.
The origins of human neurosis is death. The origin of female neurosis is sex (physical or relational). Any creature that does not reproduce becomes extinct. Failing to do so does not generate positive expectations. The fundamental human neurosis is caused by our consciousness of its inevitability (death). The evolution of religion resolves this.
Females want sex (physical or relationships), but basic evolutionary strategy relies on raising the value of sex. Status and value of the female are directly proportional to scarcity or the cost of sex.
Males and females cognate the perception of differences differently. Males make large differences larger and small differences smaller. Females make larger differences smaller and small differences larger. Males will fight to preserve differences but will not risk life over those issues they perceive as trivial.
It is in the collective female interest to minimize differences in age and attractiveness, as well as the wide disparity in practical ability between men and women, thus females routinely disclaim large differences between the sexes, the races, between children and adults, and between animals and humans. This is directly due to abhorrence of violence by women who cannot compete and will not go to war to preserve differences by sacrificing themselves for it.
One of the more glaring contrasts between the sexes is the propensity of females to create problems and then blame males. The more powerful the female, the more trouble she will cause. Females want the right to do everything and the obligation to do nothing.
The fundamental female neurosis derives from a wanting of sex yet denying it in order to raise its value. In accordance with the dynamic laws governing female behavior, the female seeks to shift as much of her neurotic load onto the male as she can, because the confused and disoriented male is easier to manipulate. The neurotic male thus empowers the female, and thus a reinforcing cycle is established.
The more latitute the female is allowed, the more her capricious nature will be expressed, and the more she will project that nature onto the male and the more insecure of his intentions she will become.
Giving away something that is not one’s to give is a female trait of vicarious generosity. It collectively transfers wealth from males to females. The encouragement of large-scale immigration without moderation from the electorate would not be possible without the policies that are feminine in nature. Neither are wealth transfers between those who have and have not.
The premises on female behaviors are:
1. Females cannot tolerate naked masculinity.
2. Status of female is proportional to the status of the male she can attract.
3. Instincts are never annulled they are only displaced.
4. The male instinct is to reduce the costs of sex, the female instinct is to increase the cost of sex.
5. The more resistive the female, the more selective the male becomes.
6. The primary sexual activity of the female is relationships.
7. The less likely the male is to respond, the more likely the female is to signal.
Dynamical Laws:
1. The only power that females have is that which is given to them by males.
2. The only thing which females do with that power is use it against males.
In any voluntary system, it must be to the advantage to the female or she will not participate. Females are never satisfied. In a system where females are allowed free sexual selection, society gives way to a higher standard of living.
8. Females will use any argument to increase the cost of sex, and particularly to avoid physical sex.
When males fight, they usually fight for territory. The point is that in nature, females come with the territory. Whoever dominates the territory dominates, controls and mates with the females. In human society, females have intelligence and language which enables them to employ specious arguments to justify their actions.
The conclusion:
Control of females and in this case our matriarchal-feminist system is mandatory for a successful, civilized humane and compassionate society.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Please, please, fellow readers: Don’t feed the inmates!
March 8th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Gosh, all this sturm und drang from a little post on an obviously ridiculous top ten list from a little known advocacy group? Oy gevalt, I’ll think twice before I attempt this again.
I will say this though, Justin Thyme is one of the most thorough satirists I have ever come across. The sweeping generalizations, the barely contained misogyny, and the undercurrent of a pundit whose opinions about a topic are obviously based on a sublimated unfulfilled desire, really it’s a piece of Swiftian qualities. I laughed through the entire piece. I’m sure your girlfriend did too, Justin. Well done.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Gondo,
Do not regret your post. It was terrific. Please post more.
However, I must admit, I have come to believe that blogging is a very strange thing. It is it’s very own, uniquely self-creating ‘performance art’, all of us being just small little pieces of the end result.
Oh, and I hope you’re right about Justin. Certainly puts a whole different spin on the comment to think it might be meant to be funny. With that in mind, my favorite line is:
“Males make large differences larger and small differences smaller. Females make larger differences smaller and small differences larger.”
Could be largely true, in some small way.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Gondo:
Why cannot other’s see to it?
We thought all of you would observe and enjoin in the humor.
The MooCow Band of Banters
March 9th, 2008 at 12:13 am
MooCow - Beautiful! Excellent! I was completely taken in and am
thoroughly mortified!
Fantastic!
I, shame-faced, retract the scary MF comment and humbly apologize to one and all!
Crawling, but with faith in Williams humor running boundless,
Dick Swart
Dick Swart
March 9th, 2008 at 12:23 am
HOLY COW!
Chris! Way to call it! I am in awe.
Dick, what a moment, nay? C’est la vie, and much better than Proust by a long shot!!!!!
Regards, J. T., and thank you for the ‘much needed laugh’.
All best, FM
March 9th, 2008 at 12:32 am
“…provokabilty” …a long term evolutionary strategy…
LOL!
Geez…I will never look at EB in the same way again…
March 10th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Oh, and Ken…Chapter Two?
Don’t bother. I managed to ‘piece’ together a few things on my own.
I guess for those who have been on the site for a while, and know more about you, your ’story’ (above) wasn’t such a mystery. For me, it was alarming…and unsettling. A little more clarity would have been appreciated.
And if you are so concerned about Mexico, why abandon a real discussion on it? What was the point?
March 10th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
FM,
First, not at all abandoned– but trying to choose from a number of options that might be more appropriate (especially for EB) than a “literal,” “talking heads” forum discussion. Or “useful in addition to…” You can certainly bet I actually spend a good part of the last days thinking through responses… and getting it right. What did Laura Nader say? Can I get someone to send me the tape of it to compare my memory to her expression?
Next, my despair at the current moment comes not from the events of the past years, but specifically from the events of the past three months….
March 10th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Ken,
I won’t broach the subject here except to say this:
“Despair”, although understandable, is pretty useless. The problem is so complex, so big, that the only sane approach is to find the (possibly small) way in which you can contribute. You have connections; use them…network, discuss. These our powerful tools. Be heartened by the fact that you have already made me (and whomever else is reading this) more aware…I will, in turn, try to make others more aware, and so on.
In the meantime, if you do come up with some sort of forum, let me know. I am ‘invested’, so to speak…and have a few (’possibly small’) things to say about it all.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
FM,
Feel free to broach the subject.
What I was about to post was something like this:
In response to our gender discussion, I tried to work up a short series of anecdotes about people telling me stories, or directing me to various sources I would not have seen otherwise. Each piece of the story contains a request– essentially, “do not attach my name to this.”
This final part makes it hard to assemble a great story, because details matter. It also encapsulates– a reasonable paranoia, which is at play here.
The “punch line” of those anecdotes ends– or could be told to end– with a visit to the IFE, the Mexican electoral authority, and the observation (it could be phrased in different ways) that the women working there were not chosen for their intellectual attributes (that’s a gloss).
(From there, one could say a lot about the conduct of elections.)
Have I said too much? The person who told the “punch line” above has already been removed from his or her position; but she or he is alive. Has the situation become such that I am taking a risk by being even so general?
This is an anonymous forum: what if you are not who you say you are? I hope that sounds exactly as paranoid as it seems– but it was my first thought when ‘you’ breached these subjects, and led to a lot of reticence.
Finally, in response to your final point– the most obvious thing is to do what any citizen can still do, to call up every senatorial office, and inform them of my perspective and concerns in direct terms. (Not to sound too ‘blase:’ but it is actually, sometimes, effective).
You’ve also, of course, in the course of this, provoked a few other ideas (still unspoken).
March 11th, 2008 at 12:13 am
With all due respect, do you know what you are doing?
You are playing into the hands of raw government.
You are an intellectual, a verbal person, not a man of arms.
Stay clear of declamatory subjects, or you will be cleared of existence.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Stop your love BS and get a grip.
Otherwise, you may not have time to enjoin in the discussion.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:50 am
D’arcy,
No Spitzer, pie.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Gender, Politics, Inequality, in whichever particular order and/or combination, seem to be the ‘crux of the matter’, in more ways than can be ‘counted’…from thread to thread, and sea to shining sea.
Look, Ken, I can handle just about anything… but D’arcy coming after me. That said, my suggestion above stands, with the offer that you can keep me ‘posted’ in whichever way lends itself. Try to let your concerns guide your actions, but not your morale [...]
March 11th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
“We were sitting with a group of women, peacefully, doing nothing more provocative than knitting and talking and… when jeeps full of soldiers with automatic weapons appeared, jumped out, [and began hitting people with batons...]
["We couldn't see through the smoke, but we could hear shots in the background.] {…}
“Late in the night, the squads(*) arrived, and started pulling people out of their houses…”
— Laura Nader, describing violence in Oaxaca, (October 2006)
(unverified)
* in Spanish, “Commandos de la meurte”
March 12th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Okay…broaching…risking the wrath of [...]
I found this older piece yesterday, along with some pretty astounding current news on border turmoil. I’m not sure if this man’s death is still “unsolved”, but the article goes on to describe Oaxaca in roughly, the same time frame as above.
Hope the link works.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1211-03.htm
March 12th, 2008 at 12:47 am
What you will not be told by most media… is that the three {[individuals]…} that attacked the barricade, where Brad and other journalists were, have been identified as local policemen. They wielded AR-15 rifles and various pistols and fired indiscriminately into the crowd. {…} state radio {…} is saying Brad “was an armed terrorist..”
[H]e was the unlucky one, hit full in the chest,… by a 9mm wide pellet …
-John Dickie, describing the Oct. 27th death of Bradley Will [on Oct. 29]
(reliability: questionable}
[questions: do the rounds match AR-15s?
who issued the rifles?]
March 12th, 2008 at 1:02 am
“Lopez Obrador is expected to announce the members of his cabinet tommorrow, {…} amid an address that will outline the economic policy of his administration {…} in terms of {…} that are largely neo-liberal and conservative [following the European model]… {…} including new {…}, incentives for investment by international corporations, mandatory reductions in spending for {…}, and a {…} in diplomatic relationships with {…}.
— from {—}, {—}
filed 18:—h 07/02/2006 {— bureau}
[never published]
March 12th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Ken,
I have a lot to say…and a lot of questions, but unless other interest in this topic surfaces soon, I think we should consider making this an e-mail conversation.
I know a public forum should be the goal; to generate some sort of ‘helpful’ attention, but I also think that is unlikely to happen here. After all, it doesn’t fit the EB criteria (which would probably be forgiven if there were more than the two of us participating).
What do you think? You can get my e-mail from David if you agree. Maybe I’m wrong and other discussants (besides…critical ones!) will ’surface’…
March 12th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Other options… Do you know anything about the sites below?
The key to getting some real attention would be some sort of national coverage, a “Special”…probably impossible until our own election settles.
Why it hasn’t happened already is the incomprehensible part, especially considering the recent border violence and proposed US funding (for border security) of $12.3 billion!?
http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/01/21/mexico-drug-related-violence-in-
tijuana/http://dianawashingtonvaldez.blogspot.com/2008/01/violence-rocks-us-mexico-border-again.html
March 12th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Aaargh! Trying again…
http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/01/21/mexico-drug-related-violence-in-tijuana/
March 14th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Speaking of Mexico…I put this entire comment together last night, and somehow it got chewed up in EB cyberspace. So, I am hoping it doesn’t show up twice.
But after doing some homework on the situation, I felt compelled to offer a sort of denouement on the subject.
I won’t go into detail about the violence; the kidnappings and decapitations, the murders of mexican pop stars, the journalists who will no longer report for fear of retaliation, the yet, unsolved murder of Bradley Will, the rising sales of armored, bullet-proof cars…
Instead, I have enclosed two links:
The first one deals with the request from mexican officials that the U.S. put better controls on the shipments of weapons making their way from us to them.
The second link reports on how “border security initiatives have increased under Bush from $4.8 billion in 2001 to $12.3 billion this year.”
So, we are supplying the weapons used for all this violence, and we are providing much of the market for the drugs, and our response is to put billions into better fences?
Maybe I will consider posting the most recent stories…about how the violence is making it’s way to the border towns and even across.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ae0f349b5a2797fa94e4da7f5022104f
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Article.aspx?id=1735
March 18th, 2008 at 1:06 am
FM,
You end with what appears as frustration at the pure folly of the US, as it implicitly, explicitly, or by pure “oversight,” consents to allows the mass export of automatic weapons to those who will– at the very least– use those weapons to secure the flow of drugs to the US, the profits from which will then be used to buy more arms, and extend their control– inside the US’s borders, in fact.
The extent of the folly, I am tempted to claim in reply, extends far beyond this. The rhetoric might go something like this: “how much sense does it make,” to subsidize the production of ‘grades’ of corn and other agricultural staple commodities, — to then sell these staple goods to Mexico and other nations at below their actual production cost, and below their cost of production in Mexico — to thus bankrupt and displace Mexican workers and families and communities who depended (past tense) upon these products for a subsistence survival– and at the same time accept that “free trade” between the US and Mexico does not include the exchange of electronics, concrete, transport, telecommunications– all specialty goods which the US produces “better,” which cost several times their US price in Mexico, and upon which still are levied protectionist tariffs which, in effect, exclude US producers– while raising their cost for “average Mexicans” and depriving them of the possibility…
But let me stick, for the moment, to some of the aspects of the drug trade, the traffic in arms, and “the cartels:”
1) Generally, internal media coverage of the “Calderon” ‘narcoguerre’ has portrayed it in a highly positive light– if “at the same time” “highlighting” “its human costs” “in blood.” I find it very hard to find any criteria to judge whether “things would be better or worse” without this “war (against drugs)–” but– certainly “military” action against the “cartels” requires “military” response on the part of the “cartels.”
2) One way of looking at what is occurring in Mexico is as the emergence of a “narcostate” (cf. Ethan Zuckerman, What does it take to close down a narcostate?”)
Such a perspective begs two questions: a) what are the causes of any emerging narcostate within Mexico? b) how do we measure Mexico’s distance from– or to– becoming something like a “failed state?” (Remove the D.F. and the production zones, and what do you have left today?)
3) Historically, other than the presence of federal troops and very tight border control, the major barrier the flow of arms to the southern “rebel” groups was that they were largely poor farmers with little to pay for weapons and, overall, a strong will to maintain independence from the international entanglements which might have provided them with arms routes. (One old joke remarks that the rebels were well-trained mountaineers but perpetually short on bullets). A drug-funded ‘narcostate’ would seem to change this; (so would the tussle to form regional hegemonies)…
4) If there exist economic and other incentives to bring arms across the northern border to sell to members of “drug cartels” and/or other factions, then it is reasonable to assume that there exist equal economic and other incentives to import arms across the southern borders and coasts, as well as to acquire them from the national armories (which have never been entirely secure). And “better US than Venezuela or China” is a sentiment I’ve heard expressed.
5) On the role of the (free) press: at least in regards to the operations of “para”-military groups, {events} seem to “occur and then disappear from reality.” An organized assault occurs on a prison holding rebel leaders or drug lords– or whatever they are– prisoners are lost– details emerge– and a few days later the only remaining report is that shots were mistakenly exchanged between prison guards and troops who were conducting exercises in the area. I doubt any of the ‘central government institutions’ can keep up with this; in Oaxaca, it’s very hard to distinguish between the ‘official’ report of 13 dead, and other reports which would place that figure much higher. It’s equally difficult to really place who conducted the bombings (whose lack of casualties was amazing); or to look at the pictures of a city being bombed less than a thousand miles from US borders, and consider that this is not US national news, while the accidental explosion of a fuel tanker is…
Finally, the question I’m often asked is “why should we (the US) care?,” and so I might as well append it here, “rhetorically.”
March 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Ken,
Here is what I propose;
Regime change. We take over Mexico …and while we are at it, let’s do the same with Canada. Then NAFTA will be so much less of an issue.
Of course, North and South will take on a whole new meaning…
[: )]
I am out of town right now, but I am going to think about your comment. In the meantime, it raises raise questions for me, like:
Is the narcoguerre for real or is it a a sham?
Don’t bigger fences just mean bigger ladders?
Would people start to care more if they knew more… that the violence is, in fact, crossing the borders?
And, lastly, how does anything begin to be a solution until the corruption within is …dealt with?
March 19th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
In my view the merger of all countries in North America is not out of the realm of longer term possibilities.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Frank,
I was just sitting on the chesterfield having a Batt’s Bleu and a tortilla when I saw your post (above): I think you’re on to something, eh?
Dos Molson’s, por favor!
March 20th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Utopian Myths & State
On account of the character of the infinite, that is, the understanding of the assumption that we place on the notion of the eternal within the sphere of existence (as a reaction to the neurosis of impending death), myths allow the subordination of ethics in public affairs, where the definition of virtue becomes a golden mean, allowing believers, who being deceived by words, into producing results which gives capitalism and socialism such high moral value. When no myths are accepted by the masses, you will never provoke a revolt or a general participation. Indifference is not so much a lack of will or a refusal, but a state where the myths are not present within the mind of the reader in order to take a general position.
Myths are not descriptions of things, but the expressions of a determination to act, where the feelings and the ideas of the masses prepare them to enter into a decisive struggle.
The masses are incited to utopian landscapes as an intellectual oasis, where models are constructed comparing comparable facts to existing society where they can appropriate such a reality sufficient to legislate authority and action in order to direct their future experiences towards a political life.
Since myths cannot be refuted, they remain the conviction of a group with a language as seen in the movements of a particular group, giving this group historical significance and verisimilitude.
Socialism is no longer needed for the organization of societies because the masses no longer work in great industries which required the suppression of the State and the appropriation of property. Capitalism is the expression of the discipline of the consuming will of the organization for appetite where the public does violence through changing patterns of continuous consumption.
Socialism and capitalism are secure from refutation in that the myths created by the convictions of its adherents is secure from transformative criticism. Because It is beyond science and reasonable fact, it is a dogma of life with an ongoing morality that permeates every consumer. Society is one large digestive function, an apprentice to the gigantic task of reconstructing the individual according to their individual needs.
Through their newfound slavery of labor, everyone is a revolutionary, everyone is in a reconstructing functionary resource, being who they are and where they see themselves to be.
This is why when the great and venerable BEAR STEARNS was visited by the FED with JPMORGAN CHASE, did the public stand still and stare and wonder how their GODS were quaking.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:45 am
As Ronald Reagan said from time to time, “there he goes again”.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Re Dick’s comment to Frank above; echoes of Nicholas Kristof article mentioned in Gender Inequality thread. You know, Dick, the one you made so much fun of but must not have read?
LOL, same-old, same-old.
Re new Border violence, (see link) when I called someone who lives in San Diego, their response was something like…”Oh, yeah, I don’t know very much about that…except it seems good that the extra soldados are there…http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/01/21/mexico-drug-related-violence-in-tijuana/
March 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Trying link again, although I think it is an EB problem…http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/01/21/mexico-drug-related-violence-in-tijuana/