Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics The Media "We scream, We Swoon, How Dumb Can We Get?"

Ok, I will go back and reconsider the article whose link you posted. That said, when I am looking to discover an author's primary goal, I prefer to read and analyze for myself what the author has written, rather than depending upon another person's analysis of what was written.
I do not entirely dispute your point here, I would, however also point out that when we make fun of Mr. Bush, we commonly do so with our own political bias. I suppose that those who have a different bias would find the humor at Mr. Bush's expense less entertaining. And so when you discuss the root of the piece's failure to be funny, you are IMO likely illustrating your own political views.
The above quote is presented as shedding a light on the author's motives. The quote does help us discover Ms. Allen’s political bias, and that is interesting. We are further informed that this writer (who likely has her own bias) "suspects" the motivation of the author based upon the author's political affiliation. Please forgive me if I do not consider this suspicion to be an authoritative analysis of the author’s intent or the flaws of that intent.


Let us together admit an obvious truth. When a person with a political bias (which includes most of us) writes something critical of thoughts of others who have a differing bias... then it is often that case that the piece is written in a way that will be provocative for the people of the bias being criticized.

Keeping that in mind, it is no surprise that what was written is offensive to those having a different persuasion. But I propose that we set aside that reflexive emotional reaction to consider what was written from a more dispassionate perspective. Ms Allen makes the point that

Surely it is no surprise that many critics of the "women's movement" feel that the movement has concentrated on certain objectives in such a single-minded way that has insufficiently valued the life choices of women who choose to live a more traditional lifestyle. We may disagree with that evaluation of the women's movement, but it is a position that does not seem outrageous to me.

You go on to quote Ms. Allen as saying


These are words that many people find so very abhorrent... and frankly unforgivable. It seems likely that Ms. Allen intended ( and succeeded) in provoking such a reaction. Never the less, the question remains as to whether Ms. Allen intended these words with the simple meaning that has generated such widespread outrage.

Ms. Allen is clearly not describing the life that she herself leads. She is not describing the lives of her friends. She is not describing her own aspirations or the aspirations of her friends. And there seems no reason to believe that Ms. Allen is trying to evangelize a general trend among her gender to cohere around the words that she has written. And in that respect, it seems to me inappropriate to react with the presumption that Ms Allen is trying to promote this conception as a viable vision for modern women. What ever Ms, Allen means by these words, it seems that it is not her meaning that has provoked such prolonged outrage.
As I have previously written, I agree that the piece is poorly written and serves few objectives other than the self-gratification of the author in provoking blind rage among her political opponents.

It is generally recognized that the human mind produces exceedingly poor analysis when it is engulfed in strong emotions such as the anger. Given that so many renters have described their own anger at this piece, we should proceed with some caution in concluding that these angry posters have accurately evaluated the nature of the piece.

And so, when you say "There is no amount of editing that can correct the non sequiturs in logic" ... I wonder if you have accurately read the piece. No offense intended here, but IMO what is going on with you and with many others is that there is an emotional reaction that starts with the title itself. The emotional reaction is intense anger/disgust. And the reading of the piece is done in the context of validating that reaction. And when one reads things in the piece that do not validate those emotions, those things are evaluated as logical non-sequiturs. I propose that the apparent non-sequiturs may either reflect poor writing by the author, or alternatively a misunderstanding of the piece itself by readers who considering the piece in an emotionally charge state.

In a previous posting I have gone through a detailed analysis of my own understanding of the piece. I will not repeat that analysis since anyone who may be interested can refer back to that posting. I will say only that my analysis seems to conform to what Ms. Allen said of her piece in the chat transcript. And further that if one grants my analysis, the apparent non-sequiturs disappear.

Finally, I want to say a few words about why I have taken the trouble to respond so extensively concerning and article that I find largely without merit.

I did not participate in the initial postings on this thread. I did not comment because I was largely disinterested in the article in question. What got me interested was the near universal anger that the article generated. So I decided to have a look to see what it was all about. And having looked, it seemed to me that the general reaction of posters on this thread was not justified (IMO) by what I found in the piece itself. And what in turn struck my interest was to explore the foundation for these postings by people who I would most often agree with. And so my attempt has not been to validate the piece itself, but rather to explore the validity of the reactions to the piece that have been posted on this forum..

I have found that to be an interesting exercise. And if this little indulgence of mine has inadvertently annoyed anyone, please accept my apology because that was not my intent.

And on that happy note, I think I will be calling an end to further discussion on this topic.