Comments on: In case you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:23:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: Comrade PhysioProf Sat, 03 Apr 2010 22:42:23 +0000

That guy is a moron.

Brooks is not really a moron. Rather, he is a remorseless liar. Every single word he writes is crafted–not necessarily very well–to reframe sick-fuck far-right-wing propaganda so that it is palatable to lazy “moderates” who aren’t really paying attention to what they’re reading. Whether he really believes anything he writes is completely incidental to his purposes in writing it.

And yes, Driftglass is a fucking genius, with some of his best stuff eviscerating Brooks.

By: LadyProf Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:33:28 +0000 Late to the party, but I propose a round of Switch That Gender.

Take Best Actor, this year Jeff Bridges. Imagine Jeff Bridges married to a skanky, trashy spouse like the one Bullock drew. Skanky trashy spouse cheats on Bridges and the marriage is rumored to be in trouble. I’ll make a tiny editorial change to the Brooks prose:

Then came the news reports claiming that BRIDGES’ WIFE is an adulterous jerk. So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?

Brooks goes on to say Jeff Bridges would be crazy to prefer his Oscar over marital happiness, the most important thing in life.

Could you imagine it? Not one word about how awful it was of Bridges’ skanky wife to betray her marital vows? No pity for the charming celebrity victim? And a hint that Jeff Bridges was wrong for trying to have it all?

This has been another round of Switch That Gender!

By: Historiann Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:23:53 +0000 Heh. A faithful reader (but someone too shy to comment) sent this in: apparently, Brooks has his own entry in “Dickipedia!” From the entry:

Brooks is very interested in anthropology, psychology and sociology, and likes to apply the language and tools of these fields to his analysis of politics and pop culture. He wishes to be taken very seriously by scholars in these fields, and would be, if only he hadn’t been born extremely lazy.

Because of this condition, Brooks is unable to do any of the actual analysis and research that would ordinarily give a person credibility in these fields. Many have criticized the insular nature of academia. They claim that those who, like Brooks, were born lazy, or, to use the more politically correct term, “differently incentivized,” are discriminated against.

Brooks has been able to surmount these obstacles with surprising success. At an early age, he resolved that he would overcome his disability through a combination of dishonesty and smiling. This potent combination worked to a stunning degree, and Brooks has become one of the leaders in public influence, as well as serving as a role model to those all over the world who happened to have been born lazy and dishonest and have nice smiles.

By: Janice Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:38:33 +0000 See? Those women who go out and achieve success? They do it at a “fateful” cost — they sacrifice their happy marriages that they were sure to enjoy had they only stayed at home, caring for kids and cooking up a nice warm meal for their provider/husband.

Now if only Sandra Bullock had never made any movies, I’m positive that this Jesse James would never have screwed around behind her back with some random woman. And if he did, it wasn’t his fault — it was those evil womens who, yeah!, who tempted him!

/end sarcasm

If I had a bit more time, I’d write something that mirrors Brooks’ fatuous column, only it begins with Jesse James enjoying great media success with his show and his wife and all that, then blowing that to screw around. And how shouldn’t that be a lesson that monumental egos and celebrity (even D-list) fantasy are no substitute for holding on to reality and, you know, cleaving to your partner or being honest and upfront if that loving feeling is gone.

But my head hurts too much from banging it against the desk over this and other issues.

By: Historiann Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:24:28 +0000 truffula: funny, that. Studs Terkel listened to working people and gave them a voice with his writing, but I don’t remember him ever making an argument on principal that working people shouldn’t be paid so as not to risk their unhappiness.

Fie on your Preznit.

By: Historiann Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:22:45 +0000 Perpetua: everybody knows that the Masters of the Universe who run Wall Street are making the supreme sacrifice of taking all of our money so that the rest of us can be happy! Don’t you understand how hard they have it?

Speaking of Holy Week: it’s positively Christ-like.

By: truffula Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:22:13 +0000 your president is seriously arguing that because money doesn’t make people “happy”, faculty don’t deserve raises???

It’s more like: hey, I know faculty salaries are low but happiness is not about your job or your salary, now is it? He says he learned this from Studs Terkel. Well, not directly from Studs Terkel or anything he wrote, but from Working, A Musical.

By: Perpetua Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:39:51 +0000 @ Truffula: Are you saying that your president is seriously arguing that because money doesn’t make people “happy”, faculty don’t deserve raises??? I vote we apply that logic to Wall Street before academics.

By: Fratguy Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:39:30 +0000 Yeah, Jesse James. Got his start on the Discovery channel hosting “Monster Garage” where he and his renegade band of mechanics and fabricators would atempt to mate two large machines together in some kind of real life “Transrormer” fantasy. It was pretty much in the mold of all of Discovery’s prgramming for the testosterone demographic. I think that his dalliances have been a career booster as he has not done much since.

By: Indyanna Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:46:39 +0000 The guy’s name is really Jesse James?!? (The closest I get to this stuff is about three feet, at the grocery checkout counter). Brooks needs to write on why actresses fall for cowboy-desperadoes, then?