What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Thursday roundup

In April of 2009, a Florida judge struck down a local ordinance which prohibited wearing saggy pants in public, declaring the law "unconstitutional". (What, you didn't know that you have a constitutional right to walk about town with your pants around your knees? Consider yourself duly informed.) I blogged about a similar ordinance in 2007, but never followed up with the legal challenges. I know I should be outraged at stories of judicial insanity like this, but find myself wavering instead between despair and indifference. It's out of control, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Please tell me I'm wrong.

*******

At the same time, one may be encouraged by other stories which suggest that reality and ordinary common sense are hard to exterminate. Despite the best efforts of America's liberal intelligentsia to promote women to the forefront of everything, male writers still dominate in the world of publishing. Naturally, the news isn't being taken very well by some:

"Ack. This is so sickening. It reminds me of how Joanne Rowling had to put 'J.K. Rowling' on her American books, because it was felt that boys wouldn’t read books written by a woman. Sickening, sickening, sickening." - Laura
"As long as FAMILY issues are treated as WOMEN’S issues, women will have fewer opportunities to contribute in other areas, because so much of their collective time and energy must be spent on FAMILY. As long as women in this country are treated as less fully human than men, men will have more opportunities to contribute, and they will perpetuate their own perspectives, often by promoting the work of other men over that of women." - Leslie Spitz-Edson

*******

This article by Mark T. Mitchell at Front Porch Republic, on the relevance of Wendell Berry's agrarianism to life in the city, is well worth a read:

Our entire economy, our very culture of work, leisure, and home is constructed around the idea of easy mobility and the disintegration of various aspects of our lives. We live in one place, work in another, shop in another, worship in another, and take our leisure somewhere else. According to Berry, an integrated life, a life of integrity, is one characterized by membership in a community in which one lives, works, worships, and conducts the vast majority of other human activities. The choice is stark: “If we do not live where we work, and when we work, we are wasting our lives, and our work too.”

*******

The new film "Atlas Shrugged", based on the novel by Ayn Rand, looks to be as charming as its creator:

Here's the first part of a televised interview with the high priestess of atheistic capitalism in 1959:

Comments (43)

At 1:31 in the *Atlas Shrugged* trailer:

"What's Wrong With the World?"

Heh. Looks like great fun.

Ayn Rand was, indeed, not the least bit "charming." No more than, say, John Calvin, or Martin Luther.

"This article by Mark T. Mitchell at Front Porch Republic, on the relevance of Wendell Berry's agrarianism to life in the city, is well worth a read"

Absolutely. Also very good on FPR at present is Jason Peters' piece on Aldo Leopold.

Rob, Mitchell's article also touches on a commitment to place, a favorite theme of Berry's. But I am of the opinion that not just any place will do. Increasingly those who commit to one place over the long haul find that, in the end, their children and their neighbors have up and left and they are still all alone. The commitment is not rewarded. A transient world is a lonely world, and devotion to place is useless in isolation. I'm not sure what the answer is here. Some communities are more settled than others, and young people may do well to seek and find such places - with an eye toward building a large extended family for their progeny.

The commitment is not rewarded.

You may be surprised to hear me, of all people, say this, but I think a commitment to place is rewarded in a lot of ways. If you love your house (as I do), just being in that house over more than a decade and looking forward to it for the foreseeable future is a reward. Just _not having to move_.

Jeff, a month or two ago Mitchell posted a piece at FPR on exactly that question -- what do you do if "your place" is not a good one, or once was, but is now disintegrating?

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/02/alice-springs-a-really-bad-place/

Here's my comment from there:

Allen Tate quotes Milton, “Wherever we do well is home,” then goes on to remark that “wherever we are allowed best to realize our natures…is the proper place to live.” I was raised in a small town situated not too far outside of a big city. I’m not an urban guy — I lived in the city for about five years and didn’t much like it — and would not “do well” there. The suburbs aren’t much better, imo.

It seems that we wouldn’t go amiss by finding a place where we can best “realize our natures,” and then plant ourselves there, so to speak. In some cases it may very well be the place where we were raised, or perhaps somewhere not far from it.

Of course, I don’t think that either Milton or Tate was advocating “shopping” for a place, like one would shop for a car, in the sense of trying to find one that’s perfect for you. I think most of us who are attuned to these things can tell when we’re in a given place whether it resonates with us or not. We’ve all had the experience of visiting a place and saying to ourselves either, “Man, I’d love to live here!” or “Never in a million years!”

I still carry a good deal of affection for the small town where I grew up even though the town itself has changed a lot. It has morphed into more of a bedroom community for the city as opposed to the mostly self-contained community it used to be. Still, I have little doubt that if circumstances prompted me to move back there, I would, and I don’t doubt that I’d “do well” there.

Allen Tate quotes Milton, “Wherever we do well is home,” then goes on to remark that “wherever we are allowed best to realize our natures…is the proper place to live.”

I agree with that, Rob. It makes sense, too, that the place where most people are best allowed to realize their natures is - or ought to be - not far from the place of their birth, the home of their fathers and grandfathers. The realities of a fallen world have always disrupted man's natural attachment to his ancestral home with wars, famines, calamities and persecutions; and there are certainly those who, for mysterious reasons, truly are called to live elsewhere; - but our age is unique in denying the importance of this attachment altogether. And so there are, today, a great many people who are truly exiles in their own communities (to the limited extent they have a community at all).

You may be surprised to hear me, of all people, say this, but I think a commitment to place is rewarded in a lot of ways. If you love your house (as I do), just being in that house over more than a decade and looking forward to it for the foreseeable future is a reward. Just _not having to move_.

Oh, that's certainly true Lydia. But by a commitment to "place" I meant to include a commitment, also, to the people of that place. And if those people leave, and if your children leave, and if someday you must leave the house you love for health or financial reasons, you don't really have a "place" - a community, a home - that is yours anymore.

I'm certainly sad when people I love move away. And it happens more than I like to see. I suppose the only solution--a partial one--is all one's life to be making new friends within the old types of associations. For example, if you continue to belong to a church over decades, you make friends from among the new people who come even when some of your old friends leave. In that way, at any given time, you do have a community in that group. And I do find that even people who are themselves new or relatively new to a group or organization tend to have a kind of reverence for people who have been part of that organization for a long time.

A home school association, though looser even than a local church, can serve something of the same function. One of the difficulties, though, with finding this kind of community within a home school association is that the parents whose children are all finally grown up may feel that there is no place for them in the association, unless they actually have grandchildren in that group. Why go to the Talent Night if none of those performing are your children or grandchildren? Why have your family in the directory, etc.? Because it is an association geared to the education of children, it may be difficult to find a place for the empty nest parents and for grandparents whose children don't live in the area. I think this is something home schoolers should themselves think about and talk about. It will be a long time before I am in that position, but when that day comes, I still hope to have a place and stay in touch with that community--by helping out, hopefully still holding my regular home hymn sings, etc.

Ayn Rand was, indeed, not the least bit "charming." No more than, say, John Calvin, or Martin Luther.

But at least John Calvin knew how to dress:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/03/22/sharp-dressed-calvinist/

Lydia, the problem of empty nester homeschoolers is not a problem our group has yet. Well, not much. Almost all of the earliest members of our group (started in 1996 or so) still have younger kids in 1st or 2nd grade, it seems, except there are one or two families that only had a couple kids, who are now done. So far, we have found that these parents have taken up parish volunteering, and since the homeschool group is organized around the church, the "done" parents are still seeing the rest of us a lot.

I think that a home and a place to rest are usually more about the people that inhabit it, and the manner in which they are prepared to interact, than it is about a certain physical plant, so to speak. Living in a small town wouldn't mean much to a "small town type" person if the people all started acting just like the big city people do most of the time. Perhaps it is just my personality profile peeping through, but IMO a large city cannot be a place that promotes development of human nature unless it is composed of many real small communities where individuals hold and support each other, where each member is known and accepted (though they didn't have to like each other) - a loose extension of family in a sense. Which would tend to make a city into a collection of small towns, almost. Neighborhoods in cities used to do this, back when more than half the people in a neighborhood had been there for 20 years and more, and they all knew each other.

I read the linked article which you describe as demonstrating male dominance in publishing. It actually says no such thing; it shows that men dominate book review articles in certain elite magazines, which is hardly the same thing as all of publishing. In fact, I think that with J.K. Rowling, Stephanie Meyer, and Suzanne Collins of "The Hunger Games," women writers sell the large majority of the books on the market today.

"our age is unique in denying the importance of this attachment altogether"

Treating mobility as an unalloyed blessing has no doubt contributed to this mentality. Also a combination of consumerism and economic pressure has fostered the notion that we should live where we work rather than work where we live. Life follows "the job."

This is not to say that there's anything wrong with people who have to move to find work. There will always be that phenomenon among us. But there is a difference, I'd say, between people who have little choice in the matter, and those who view their living place as an accident of upward mobility.

Jeff C and Rob G,

Please stop by my new blog and check out my new post commenting on Professor Mitchell's interesting essay. I really, really don't like Wendell Berry, but what's interesting about his essay is that I'm not even sure why he bothered with Berry -- most of his thoughtful ideas about 'reforming' the suburbs come from Jane Jacobs, who I do admire and respect.

Anyway, here's the link in case you are interested (and don't be shy about commenting over there):

http://imnotherzog.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/wendell-berry-is-insane/

I may take a look, Jeff, but I doubt if I'll really have any truck with someone who "really, really" doesn't like Berry, and furthermore thinks he's insane. To me that's about as logical as Sinead O'Connor's ripping up a picture of the Pope.

I read the linked article which you describe as demonstrating male dominance in publishing. It actually says no such thing; it shows that men dominate book review articles in certain elite magazines, which is hardly the same thing as all of publishing.

Karen, men wrote 78% of reviews and 74% of the books reviewed. All in very liberal, feminist-friendly journals and magazines. Men and women actually write about the same number of published books, but book reviews in prominent venues with large circulations among the literati indicate "dominance" when it comes to influence.

In fact, I think that with J.K. Rowling, Stephanie Meyer, and Suzanne Collins of "The Hunger Games," women writers sell the large majority of the books on the market today.

From a little search engine work I have found it claimed that women purchase 68% of books and 80% of fiction. That strikes me as entirely plausible. Unfortunately most of what women read today is frivolous, trivial, and wholly unsubstantial fluff, much like the slutty women's magazines that numerically dominate the supermarket checkout aisles. This assessment is likely also valid with respect to most of what women write.

So, Jeff, men read only high-minded and improving stuff? I have little use for "Twilight," but our entire family enjoyed the Harry Potter books, and my sons loved "The Hunger Games." (My sons are 9 and 12, so take their opinions for what they're worth.)

I'm more interested in your definition of "influential." The editors of literary magazines hire men to review books by other men, and that automatically means those books are influential? Do all the reviews praise the books, or do at least a few reviews pan the work? Does a book panned in the pages of "The Atlantic" retain it's influence? Are those books taught in schools? Do thousands of writers copy those writers? On what facts do you base your assertion that these books are more important to publishing than the sales figures for Stephanie Meyers? I don't like the "Twilight" books, but I can show you an entire section of "Paranormal Romance" at my local Barnes & Noble, indicating that lots of publishers were "influenced" by the adventures of Bella and Edward into investing a significant amount of cash into similar books. Do you have any concrete evidence to support your claim?

Rob G.,

The post title is obviously hyberbole, although I really, really do think Berry's ideas, taken to their obvious conclusion, are crazy (and I think Professor Mitchell basically agrees with me, as you'll read in my post). Anyway, if you do stop by and leave a comment I will remain open minded and respectful!

"I really, really do think Berry's ideas, taken to their obvious conclusion, are crazy (and I think Professor Mitchell basically agrees with me, as you'll read in my post)"

I rather doubt it, considering this:

http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=2e193ca6-6817-41a1-99b7-f6a4da36febf

...which contains contributions from other such notable crazies as Anthony Esolen, Allen Carlson and Patrick Deneen.

I don't like the "Twilight" books, but I can show you an entire section of "Paranormal Romance" at my local Barnes & Noble, indicating that lots of publishers were "influenced" by the adventures of Bella and Edward into investing a significant amount of cash into similar books.

I have no doubt that "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" are included in the 25% of female-authored books reviewed. How does this contradict the data in the linked article or my own conclusions from it?

Because it's specific data contradicting your assertion that men "dominate" publishing. Men don't sell more books, buy more books, or write more books. So, what, precisely, do men dominate?

Men write more books of seriousness, influence and importance. That's an entirely non-controversial assertion to anyone who is not a doctrinaire feminist ideologue.

No, I don't have any "data". You cited two female authors of influence; I could cite ten male authors of influence, and that, too, would prove nothing. The question of what constitutes seriousness, influence and importance doesn't lend itself to "data".

Karen,

You should have quit while you were merely behind. Twilight and "paranormal romance" sections? Seriously?

May Heaven and all her Saints preserve us from the triumphs of feminism in publishing!

Kamilla

Twilight and "paranormal romance" sections? Seriously?

I was going to say something about this un-serious and tawdry genre, but didn't want get into a spitting match about "well, the books are influential, aren't they???"

"Men write more books of seriousness, influence and importance. That's an entirely non-controversial assertion to anyone who is not a doctrinaire feminist ideologue.

No, I don't have any "data". "

You sure don't.

Let's check, oh, I dunno -- the latest NY Time Bestseller lists, shall we? (http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/overview.html)

Top 15 Fiction titles: 8 titles by male authors, 7 of which are genre mystery / thrillers.
7 titles by female authors, only two (or maybe three) of which are genre fiction, the rest of are serious literary works dealing with racism, gay rights, literary history, economics.

Top 15 Non-fiction titles: Again 8 by male authors. Topics include (from top to bottom) a three year old's "encounter with Jesus and the angels"; a rock star's life; an attempt at a mnemonics championship; a superannuated gasbag's bloviating about human nature; a failed president's whining efforts to duck responsibility; an ex-Nazi pedophile-protecting Pope's ruminations about the nature of God; and what look like a couple of interesting titles on cutting-edge physics and the failures of our economic system.

The 7 by female authors cover such fluffy, smutty topics as survival in a Japanese prisoner of war camp, the conflict between cutting edge medicine and ethics, one of the more important rulers of the classical past, a dog's-eye view of the world (okay, you got me on that one), a memoir of alcoholism and child abuse, another memoir of being a celebrity chef (yeah, okay that one too), and an examination of native resistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Whew! Thank heavens the fellas are "dominating" the publishing world, with their seriousness and steady morals, to protect us from those frivolous girl scribblers!

Oh, you silly New York Times, with your doctrinal feminist ideological "data"...

Men write more books of seriousness, influence and importance.

What does this mean? Seriously. How can you define "seriousness, influence, and importance," (either separately or together) such that 1) the definition is uncontroversial and 2) you can show men write more books with those characteristics? This is not posed as an accusation. It is a question I hope you will freely answer.

Full disclosure: though I'm a man, you'd probably consider me a "feminist ideologue."

However, I think that the request for evidence and a broadly applicable definition of terms is good practice regardless of one's views. It may be the case that you don't actually have an argument; the contention that your claim does not require any defense bodes poorly in that regard.

If you have no argument, no evidence, no definitions and no defense; if you rely on the assumption that people agree with you as the only way to get them to agree with you, then, well, I'm afraid you're simply writing bullshit. (I use the term as defined in the scholarly work On Bullshit, which defines "bullshit" as describing claims made without respect for the truth.)

I will at least assume we share the definition of uncontroversial meaning "without substantial disagreemet." However, I am somewhat puzzled by what you mean by "feminist idealogue." It seems to me that you are using it to mean "anyone who disagrees with me"; in which case, you're obviously correct that if you discount everyone who disagrees agrees with you, then everyone remaining will agree with you; this is what's called a tautology, and outside of math and logic, they are generally considered pointless and meaningless. If you're trying to say something with any intellectual merit whatsoever, it would have to mean something else, and I'm curious what.

You claim that men are "serious, influential, and important," while women are "frivolous, trivial, unsubstantial, and slutty" without providing a single piece of data, not even cherry-picked data. Last I checked, important work of any sort has to provide some sort of contribution; baseless assertions, such as your own, do not meet the requirements.

Heh-heh. The feminist fur rises on the backs and the claws come out. Note how ad hominem attacks on male writers are combined with "objective" data.

No matter how unfeminine feminists become they still can't seem to avoid the catfight.

Row'rrrrr!

Note how ad hominem attacks on male writers are combined with "objective" data.
No matter how unfeminine feminists become they still can't seem to avoid the catfight.

Note how the substance of the three preceding posts is ignored, in favor of a cliche'd and sexist description of an argument presented by a woman, or in favor of a woman.

This is obviously not a serious place.

"Note how the substance of the three preceding posts is ignored, in favor of a cliche'd and sexist description of an argument presented by a woman, or in favor of a woman."

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

Note how ad hominem attacks on male writers are combined with "objective" data.

It's pretty clear that you're not listening to anything people are saying. Still, I'd like you to point me to an ad hominem attack, if you please. Remember: an "ad hominem" is not an insult. It is an insult used to make an argument.

Oh, and justify your scare quotes. In what sense is the NYTimes best seller list anything other than objective?

No matter how unfeminine feminists become they still can't seem to avoid the catfight. Row'rrrrr!

Really? Ok. First of all, yes, I'm pretty unfeminine (by what I presume your definition to be). I've got hairy legs, usually a beard, I weigh over 200 pounds, I never shave except sometimes on my face, and oh, yeah, I'm A MAN. It's a pretty old stereotype you're taking for a run around the yard there. Be careful. It might just die on top of you.

Second, I want to make it clear that this is not an ad hominem. I am not arguing against you in my following statement. I am insulting you, because the only response this message deserves is an insult.

You, sir, are an embarrassment. You are as intellectually incurious and dishonest as you are wrongheaded, sexist as you are unfunny. I wish I could ascribe your response to honest, old fashioned stupidity and ignorance, but given your cogent responses above and your exposure to the internet, I can only conclude that you are holding onto sexist ideas due to prejudice. May you someday remove your head from the nether orifice into which you have inserted it, so that your self-satisfied guffawing does not cause your entire body to topple over every time you think you've said something clever.

There, done with the insults. I'll happily retract them and apologize if you show that you've read and responded to, rather than pitifully mocked, any of the sensible criticism contained in my, Ravanan, or most importantly, hapax's comments.

Boy, ya'll feministas are a testy bunch, ain't ya?

Ever see those bumper stickers that say "Doing my part to p*ss off the religious right"? Let's just say that my comments were designed to do the same to the feminist left. It appears to have worked. I loathe feminism with the heat of 1,000 suns, and am not afraid to say so. Insults from feminists I accept as badges of honor. Sorry if that bums you out.

Re: Hapax's argument. The NYT Bestseller list is hardly the place to judge either literary merit or cultural influence, as the sword there cuts decidedly both ways, as he/she indicates. But notice that his/her post is laced with invective against authors with whom he/she has disagreements. That was my initial beef.

This thread has gotten so awesome!

Rob G.,

Thanks for that link (see this is why I need you commenting over at my blog)! In the book you link to, I found this quote:

"Wendell Berry calls his readers to live lives of gratitude..."

Apparently, though, Berry is NOT grateful for the wonders of modern life, including the flush toliet:

http://imnotherzog.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/wendell-berry-is-insane/

Remind me again why so many people take him seriously...

Boy, ya'll feministas are a testy bunch, ain't ya?

Nope, just me. Everyone else has been unfailingly polite, albiet critical.

Ever see those bumper stickers that say "Doing my part to p*ss off the religious right"? Let's just say that my comments were designed to do the same to the feminist left.

So you're being needlessly provocative as immaturely as possible? Well done; you've really nailed that one. I don't see how that's something to be proud of.

It appears to have worked.

Not really. There's a clear distinction between anger and contempt. I'm in the latter category.

I loathe feminism with the heat of 1,000 suns, and am not afraid to say so.

Boy, given the heat energy of even a single sun, your brain must melt right out of your ears whenever you think about feminism. Which, ironically, would explain the maturity and sensibility of your responses.

Insults from feminists I accept as badges of honor.

Oh, then let me just pin this "intellectually incurious and dishonest as you are wrongheaded, sexist as you are unfunny" badge on you. Sorry if the point pricks ya!

The NYT Bestseller list is hardly the place to judge either literary merit or cultural influence, as the sword there cuts decidedly both ways, as he/she indicates.

1) The sword cutting both ways is exactly what hapax argued. Men and women are more balanced in the publishing world than the WWWTW article suggests.
2) Suppose that's not a good place to judge "literary merit or cultural influence." What would be better?

But notice that his/her post is laced with invective against authors with whom he/she has disagreements. That was my initial beef.

I'm genuinely confused where you got this idea from. hapax is one of the most unfailingly polite people I've ever read, and there was not a single obscenity in her response. Are you talking about the sarcasm in the final line? If so, well, mote, meet plank. You've been sarcastic far more than she, and without making an argument.

This thread has gotten so awesome!

You're welcome! It's always my pleasure to contribute to awesomeosity.

About the The NYT bestsellers list:

1. Seven of the top ten authors in both (print and e-book) fiction and nonfiction are men.
2. Seven of the top ten authors in hardcover nonfiction are men.
3. Seven of the ten authors of the only important books (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12) in hardcover nonfiction are men.
4. The list denotes popular influence only and says nothing about seriousness, importance or quality.
5. The list for this week may or may not reflect the sex distribution of authors over, say, the past year, or the past ten years.
6. Even so, men still dominate.

Hapax shamelessly slanders and insults the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. The next commenter to do so will be banned.

"Hapax shamelessly slanders and insults the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI."

Yes, and then there's the bit about the superannuated bloviating gasbag. Not sure who that is, but where I come from that'd be considered an insult.

Ah, but "hapax is one of the most unfailingly polite people I've ever read". Which tells us all we need to know about "Erl". And what is it with these weirdos and their screen names from another planet?

By the way, Rob, it's not he/she anymore, it's s/he.

Trust me. I keep up with this stuff.

"Remind me again why so many people take him seriously..."

Uh, because we read him attentively and avoid taking things out of context?

"By the way, Rob, it's not he/she anymore, it's s/he."

Oh, I know Jeff. But that represents an idol to which I will not offer the smallest pinch of incense. ;-)

[List of arguments about the NY Times cite]

So, yes, you can slice up the data in lots of different ways. Sure. But hapax was using the top 15 as presented, and I dont see why you should cut the data differently without compelling reason.

6. Even so, men still dominate.

Statement of belief and conclusion, rather than analysis. You're not really interested in defending this assertion.

Hapax shamelessly slanders and insults the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

Well . . . it's true, innit? I recognize that this may be grounds for a banning, based on your aggressive definition of slanders and insults, but yes, factually speaking, Pope Benedict XVI was a member of the Nazi youth in his childhood. And he did participate in Church operations to shield priests who molested children from legal consequences. I admit that these are perhaps the two most negative elements of the Pope's biography, presented without context. But the truth is never slander.

the bit about the superannuated bloviating gasbag. Not sure who that is

Touché. I hadn't remembered that, because I assumed that you were leaping to your own defense, rather than getting furious at hapax because she insulted someone you couldn't even identify. But I'll admit, that's fairly rude--though one of the rudest things I've ever seen her write. (It's David Brooks, by the way.)

And what is it with these weirdos and their screen names from another planet?

I prefer not to have my full name connected with admittedly inflammatory things I say on the internet sometimes. You seem to be willing to have your names connected to substantially sexist things you say on the internet. I think each choice has its own merits.

Or, you know, I'm from Pluto or something.

But that represents an idol to which I will not offer the smallest pinch of incense.

The idol of . . . acknowledging that sometimes you don't know the appropriate pronoun to use? The idol of politeness? The idol of linguistic beauty? I'm . . . perplexed. I can see the problems you'd have with zie or something gender neutral, wrongheaded as those problems would be. But seriously, deliberately fighting for an archaic constructions of ambiguous third person singular pronouns?

Well, its been fun, but I should probably bow out for the sake of everyone's blood pressure. Have a lovely evening, ladies and gentlemen. Feel free to get the last word.

"The idol of . . . acknowledging that sometimes you don't know the appropriate pronoun to use? The idol of politeness? The idol of linguistic beauty? I'm . . . perplexed."

It is a feminist grammatical construct; its use is agenda-driven, just as the replacement of BC and AD with BCE and CE is agenda-driven. I do not accept either agenda, hence I will not use those agenda-driven grammatical constructs.

From the "no comment" file:

Happened to hear Hannity last night on his TV show urging the viewers to go see Atlas Shrugged, one of the best movies he's ever seen, he said, and the movie that "Hollywood doesn't want you to see." The film doesn't come out till April 15, but apparently he's been to a pre-release screening.


Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.