Comments on: Another 20-year-old who thinks he’s got it all figured out

By: a person

a person — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:00:03 +0000

There are few things sadder than 20-year old conservatives. But 20-year old conservative windbags are among them…

By: BCist

BCist — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:39:15 +0000

Scottish men’s fashion would blow this guys mind.

By: Jen

Jen — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:59:40 +0000

And let’s not forget the whole Elizabethan thing of men wearing TIGHTS with all their junk strung up for the whole world to view. Worn with a very micro-mini tunic of course. And earrings, in both ears. Yadda yadda yadda.

By: Harpy

Harpy — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:10:31 +0000

Yeah, European men stopped wearing skirts in the 6th century. Sure. Well, I guess those 15thC short houppelandes were more like a minidress, really, what with the stockings and all. Let’s not mention all those 16th C pouffy hotpants with the lace frills, either. Then the frock coats with tight (or pouffy again) breeches. And more lace frills. And delicately embroidered high heels with matching stockings. NO! None of this happened! PANTS ONLY. LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU.

By: StarWatcher

StarWatcher — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:49:02 +0000

I spent quite some time writing a 1000-word response, then couldn’t post it. Phooey. And here, I’m preaching to the choir. So I’ll limit myself to my last paragraph —

“To finish, I must say that I particularly like (not!) your subtle digs at feminism. Simply put, feminism means that I (a woman) am — or should be — completely equal to you (a man). I have equal rights to vote, to choose my own job, to own my own home, and to — gasp! — clothe myself as I choose, subject to the dress code of my place of business. How *dare* you suggest that I should adapt my clothing or physical appearance because of what YOU want to SEE. Try to remember — Lincoln did away with slavery.

By: Lindsay

Lindsay — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:14:32 +0000

Here’s what confused me, apart from the immutable/only-around-since-the-6th-century paradox:

“Equality of dignity does not equal equality of status.”

I’d like to know what dignity *IS* to him then. Is it entirely internal, a mechanism by which those deemed Inferior can content themselves with their lesser allotment? If it is that, it seems to me that “dignity” is a chump’s game, and any respect he professes for women with “dignity” will look an awful lot like contempt.

Sigh. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

By: Tapetum

Tapetum — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:56:47 +0000

No, no, littlem. I like whorification. It seems like a perfect word; it’s just that he’s using it wrong. This piece, for example, is standard-bearer for the whorification of the conservative anti-feminist intellect. Whores, and who is or is not whorish being all they can wrap their brains around these days, and that not too well.

By: Rose

Rose — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:08:24 +0000

In 1997 I worked for a computer training center in NYC that had a no pants, skirts or dresses only, policy for women employees. I shit you not. In 1997. In New York. I didn’t work there long.

By: wriggles

wriggles — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:16:48 +0000

Is it patronizing to feel the earnestness? He’s a trier.

By: littlem

littlem — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:38:58 +0000

“Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs.”

Yeah, cuz ummm… then you have to REEED and … uh … stuff.

Also, “whorification”??? WTFication?!?

Also, with the “unveiled hair,” here’s the thing … perhaps someone could alert the Daily Texan that he’s SOUNDING LIKE THOSE DARKIE MUZLIMZ OH NOES !11!!

Then maybe at least he’d be removed from having a public forum for his spew.