re: For people Bashing Rebecca...get a life. If you want to indulge in nihilism go ahead. Dietary purism and absolutism belongs to people who can not think beyond their narrow existence-ie Republicans. I am sure she generalized...but that is part of thinking and invites debate. I am guessing you want her to talk about however you eat or see your body.
For her to raise the obvious at the start and to bash her for raising it is cutting off any discussion in favor PC BS that the right raises. Believe it or not she is trying to encourage debate...not stupid reactions or cliches.
To state the obvious...women who obsess about their bodies and become nihilist are not as interesting or complete humans as someone who entertains the possibilities that existence presents to us.
PS. I am much more inclined towards women who enjoy what life has to offer and not nihilist. (sigmund5, response to post, Rebecca Traister, “I do not eat rice cakes and salad,” Salon, July 7 2009)
Sigmund5 is “inclined towards women who enjoy what life has to offer,”
not to the stupid, the obsessive, the indulgent--the out-of-control.
But aren’t those who “entertain” upon “the possibilities that existence presents to us,”
taking in a whole big stupid-dumb lot, too? How can one do as much without looking a little silly, even if you take in but one small portion at a time?
How did being dumb before the infinite, get to seem not so dumb and indulgent?
- - - -
I really can't believe I am answering you...talk about putting stupid words in my mouth and presenting a redherry you might want to look it up...but then again that would require being familiar with how language works.
I was just hoping to have a chance to talk to you--no need to shop me a redherry pressie!
Why would language want to work, when it go . . . play! Rebecca plays! We play! Fun times, all! Yay!
I'm going to dolop a bit of sincerity on top of my cheerios tomorrow morning. I'm know it will taste good, but I sure hope it doesn't make me fat!
- - - -
Sorry I meant to type red herring...You make less sense than I do. I checked out your page..are you really a redneck..not that I don't like rednecks
[. . .]
I looked at some of you posts...but damn dude. If you think Fox is a shill for Obama or could ever...you are a wingnut and moonbat. Sorry to call names but damn dude once you get around to posting a logical post...
[. . .]
Wow...I had nutin better to do and I went to your site..making up a lame bog site and shooting your mouth off with a couple of friends......well it doesn't matter. No problem you are incredibly jealous of Rebbeca. No problem with that
Thanks for looking at my posts, sigmund5. I'm flattered. But if i ever catch you looking up my dress--naughty!, naughty!
I like Rebecca. She's great. She wrote an article awhile ago about relationship battles, the sex wars, which was far more sincere and self-aware than it was in any way fun. Since that's the kind of thing you most like, maybe you've already read it. If not, you might want to chase it down. It certainly has stayed in my mind.
Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…
A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.
The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …