Feminists have persuasively shown the connection between sexualized violence, which, if we are being generous, might be the kind of "idea" First Amendment mucks are apparently concerned about (violence in the head), and real violence, inflicted through sex in the home or in the street, against women.Mucks? I guess that's short for "high-muck-a-muck." Which means: poohbah.
And my response is: Pooh. Bah.
Posts
55 comments:
What does the excerpted sentence mean?
It seems to be asserting that a link between "sexualized" (presumably imaginary) violence and real, actual violence has been "persuasively shown" by "feminists."
Are feminists peer reviewed?
"What does the excerpted sentence mean?"
It means the book is written in tedious prose.
With strong assertions that things are true.
Dotted with nonexistent slang.
If I may judge by one sentence.
And what's the argument that I many not?
It's called sampling.
If "mucks" is short for "high-muck-a-muck", what is "persuasively" short for?
Looks like a real page-turner. Try not to spoil the ending.
I await the new America built by the forces of resentment against high muckie mucks. Actually it will be, it already is, an America falling to pieces.
So in some respects, it could be considered as containing an indirect Gilbert and Sullivan reference (if mucks=poohbahs, that is), but nowhere near as clever or entertaining as the original.
That's the sort of Amazon link I avoid clicking. You never know what Amazon will start recommending for you afterwards.
Did you read the editorial reviews at Amamazon? Yowzah!
It's interesting how the harder edge of GLBT & feminists studies share a common assumption with the Christian right: that GLBT behavior is environmental and not inborn. The hard edge thinks that with enough preaching and coercion, a large chunk of women can be brought over to see the non-hetero light.
Otherwise, if you think GLBT behavior is genetic, you're forever stuck with the 1 - 2 % of the population will be lesbian. Like, always and forever.
Good luck on ending hetero hegemony with those numbers!
Sex in the home is violence?
Fine. Then we really must do it in the park, where schoolchildren can watch. But in cold weather, home is a lot cheaper than a nice hotel, and far more sanitary than one with hourly rates.
There is no "straight supremacy". It is undeniably the natural order. However, there is also an enlightened order, and it is desirable to establish a reasonable compromise between the two.
As for the feminist argument, men are not raping women on a whim for a simple reason: we are capable of self-moderating behavior.
What American children are taught in grade school is a false understanding of reality. Not all men are evil, and not all women are angels. It is an individual and often circumstantial description.
This book is published by Cambridge University Press.
So GLBT enlightenment is going to call for a ban on Hitchcock movies?
What fun enlightenment will be! . . .
Remember, everybody thought the ERA was inevitable, too.
Shannon Gilreath: Wake Forest law professor.
Imagine an academic career studying and teaching your own sense of victimhood. Lame.
I commend you for making it to the end of that sentence. You're made of stronger stuff than me.
Imagine an academic career studying and teaching your own sense of victimhood. Lame.
In Fall of 2008, Eugene Volokh published five or six of the final exams from Barack Obama's "Constitutional Law" courses at the University of Chicago. Based on the exam questions, the classes consisted entirely of Grievance Studies.
"It's interesting how the harder edge of GLBT & feminists studies share a common assumption with the Christian right: that GLBT behavior is environmental and not inborn."
Speaking of, was Shannon in-born as a man or a woman? Looks like he hasn't yet started shaving, nttawwt... Still, rebelling against the First Amendment is probably nothing if you've been rebelling against your in-born gender.
As for the price? I think this professor still thinks it's a required casebook, and has priced the work -- and written it? -- accordingly.
"This book is published by Cambridge University Press."
That's like saying, "This blog is written by a law professor."
Liberation!!!
More of that boundary free living making people bored>
It is like naked women are very boring compared to dressed up women revealing that there is more to discover underneath.
When sex is only an addiction, the real pleasure of intimacy is gone.
In this picture,
http://www.wfu.edu/wgs/staff/gilreath.htm
he looks like the law student known as "mitch" (dropped the last name because of childhood abuse), who later got a law professor job, adjunct clinical?, at UW Madison.
Professors -- they seem to get diversity points in hiring too.
And, sometimes after you read that one sentence, you wish you could "unread" it so it would not have lowered your IQ.
Good grief! I looked at Shannon Gilreath's photo and I thought: "Whoa! Does Rachel Maddow teach in law school?"
Althouse, did you order the book, or was it sent to you by the author or publisher?
And I can't help but noting this early submission in the professor's Women and Gender Studies career work:
•Book Review: Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America’s Courts, International Journal of Legal Information, Fall 2003.
Sometimes, starting all this victim "restitution" talk leads down a very slippery slope and gathers ground in other ... disciplines.
Much like, the ever widening classifications of "disability" that now require legal public accomodations for home-schooled teenage stutterers, it seems.
What is this country coming to? Will we all be allowed to craft our own "victimhood" status soon? And write the recipe for accomodations/corrections needed for our future participation?
"Althouse, did you order the book, or was it sent to you by the author or publisher?"
Go ahead and guess first, deborah? (One out of two is pretty good odds.)
Hint: use context clues from elsewhere in the blog.
Yeah, she said, 'falls into my hands,' didn't she?
Yes, one sentence or paragraph is often enough to judge a book, lit or non-lit.
http://law.wisc.edu/profiles/mitch@wisc.edu
A little closer to home, what the hell does that last sentence mean anyway? "a challenging but balanced experiential learning environment for students"
"Mitch has long been determined to increase access to justice, so much so that he worked overtime to graduate from the UW-Law School early in December 2003. He immediately went on to co-found Community Justice Incorporated, a non-profit charitable law firm that provides direct legal services to low-income individuals. His practice focuses primarily in the areas of housing law, employment law, government benefits, and Guardian ad litem work. As a clinical faculty member his pedagogical focus centers on creating a challenging but balanced experiential learning environment for students and researching improved methods to deliver legal services to those in need."
I wish more law professors came up through "the real world" and weren't conditioned to operate in sheltered but stimulative, effectively artificial environments. Might do the world a lot more good.
"a challenging but balanced experiential learning environment for students"
I'm imagining the law students up on a balance beam, while more and more items are placed on their server-bearing trays....
Speaking as a native Tar Heel; "Mucks" is western North Carolina slang for muckety-mucks or muck-a-mucks. With a last name like Gilreath there's a very likely chance that the author is a native of western NC.
Maybe they just misspelled "mooks"? I like the idea of lawyer mooks. Or maybe it's short for "muckrakers", for some reason.
However, there's a depressingly large chance that it was a misspelled obscenity or some kind of bizarre neologism.
"Persuasively" is short for: "Commonly believed by all right-thinking people despite not only a lack of hard evidence, but wheelbarrows full of contrary evidence."
I presume the book was hucked through Althouse's window.
Feminist don't have anything to show, and if they showed it, I'd not be interested.
Last refuge of the terminally ugly. But at least they have "vagina minds" -- Ensler's Vagina Monologues, which even Camille Paglia described as "ravingly anti-male."
The feminists are proud of their pussies,
But they're really just whacked-out old hussies.
As ugly as hell,
Which we all can tell,
So they claim men are simply too fussy.
I hope it was open.
... Ensler's Vagina Monologues, which even Camille Paglia described as "ravingly anti-male."
I prefer to call them the "Twat Tirades."
"Okay, Poohbah, I'd say they're tender enough now!"
Once again, I have unearthed rare, prehistoric video, this time the origins of Sexual Violence.
The term "Grand Poobah" was used on the television show The Flintstones as the name of a high ranking elected position in a men's club. Fred Flintstone and his friend Barney Rubble were members of the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes Lodge No. 26. The lodge is a spoof of men's clubs like the Freemasons, the Shriners, the Elks Club and the Moose Lodge.
Vaginas!
The name Shannon is just too perfect for the he or she pictured. I wonder what his or her given name really is.
I'd fuck it if it's a she. But not if it's a he.
I once asked a lesbian why she hated cock. She said she didn't hate cock. Only what was attached to it.
Love that kind of blunt honesty.
Why is it always either/or, environment or genes?
Lamarck ain't dead as far as I'm concerned.
High muck a muck is Wobbly lingo.
The correct term is "[high] muckety-muck". If you are talking about a single discrete person, then it's permissible to alternately use "muck-a-muck". You need to do that because no person is a muck. If you are speaking generically about a group of people, then use muckety-muck (adjective-noun), or with the additional superlative. The high muckety-muck is the leader (if there is one).
A person can be a "mook", short for "mookie", as in "Ya big dope! What a mook!". Mooks and muckety-mucks are a disjoint set.
Reference: As If.
I'd alwasy heard it as "muckety mucks," but the meaning's the same.
Chinook jargon.
The source of muck-a-muck. The Wobblies adopted this from the lumber and rail camps they recruited in.
This Wobbly talk makes me think of that Mad Man hobo episode from Season One.
Maybe she is a geek. The original use of that term was for the carnival acts that bit the heads off live chickens and such other delights.
Reads like BarryO's writing before it's been edited by Bill Ayers or Jon Favreau.
"Studies" writers like to torture language and meaning because they hate it so. They're all about feelings and symbols (hence the constant reference to "code" and "dog whistles") as opposed to meaning and language. Also, English is the language of the enemy (white folks, men). So they make up words to express their arcane emo-concepts, the "definitions" of which can go on for paragraphs. The poor reader has to wade around, read and reread sentences, paragraphs, sometimes even whole chapters to get a handle on what's being said. They stole this method from Marx and his disciples who did the same thing first.
Closed at the word "Feminists."
There are no such beasts!
Eh. I'm going to wait for the movie. Then not go see it.
What does being gay have anying to do with disliking the opposite sex?
Gay people have a parent, siblings, grandparents and other extended relatives of the opposite sex.
Mucks?
Contemporary variation on "muggles": i.e., non-magic folk (see; Harry Potter)
It's not even grammatical. But what do you expect?
But most people don't parse sentences as closely as law professors do, so she'll get a pass from the audience that matters to her.
However this woman's syntax perfectly reflects her sloppy thinking, so there's a big fat clue.
Post a Comment