Wow, that was an interesting experience reading that article. I must say, I would never choose to read it and in fact had it not been a class assignment I would have probably put it down. That is a personal choice, not to say it shouldn't have been printed.
The organization of the article is a little bit all over the place. I am confused on what the purpose of the article is. The author does not support the behavior of these men, he paints them in a negative light comparing them to "frat boys" and being part of a "classless society" that is "abusive in the barn." Yet at the same time, mocks right wing conservatives for disapproving of their behavior. Perhaps the author is just shining light on this culture of people, but it would have been more effective had he used the opinions of liberals as well. I find it hard to believe that only conservatives do not approve.
Personally the article's title was misleading and had nothing to do with the piece. What began as a commentary on the movie Zoo soon evolved into a tirade against Rush Limbaugh.
I also think that his comparison between bestiality and objectifying women could have been a lot stronger. I personally did not see the connection between the two and did not agree with the comparison of Limbaugh to zoophiles.
This is definatly a controversial topic to write about and publish. But I agree with Lindsey, this article is scattered. The biggest problem I have with this article is I almost feel the authors own discomfort in dealing with this topic. The piece attemps to explore the psychology behind these actions but really fails. While the repoter describes a scene in which they all gather togeather, it doesn't do much other than describe the event. It feels like the reporting is incomplete and gaps are filled with really lame Rush Limbaugh references. I also agree that the comparison between bestiality and the objectifying of women could have been way stronger. This piece read more like a draft than a publishable piece.
This piece was ridiculous. It was disjointed, poorly put together, and full of logical fallacies.
We start with saying that allowing publications like "Heather has Two Mommies" leads to zoophilia and the ability of movies like Zoo to be published. Then the author argues that point, but not very effectively.
Side note here... I hate to say this, but I don't think a culture that didn't embrace these much milder publications would be even *more* amenable to this kind of movie... Not saying that one leads to the other, because that's also a logical fallacy. Just trying to open another perspective here. Ok. End sidetrack.
Then we end up comparing these guys to frat boys, somehow pulling in Abu Ghraib and Rush Limbaugh, without really ever connecting anything together. We see some scattered quotes from the Right Wing radio maven, but no context for them. Great. That proves a lot, doesn't it?
The author insists that the movie is very hetero. Great, now show me why. All I see is the word hetero thrown in and then some ranting about frat boy attitudes. All heterosexual males are frat boys? Don't think that's what the author was saying, but Saletan's logic seems to operate in much the same manner, with how this article is written. Random words, statements that don't necessarily follow, then a conclusion.
I never saw how women were objectified. I never saw how the sexual psychology of these men really worked. All I saw were veiled descriptions of guys who enjoy being molested by horses. I never saw how Rush Limbaugh could possibly be factored into all of this, or Abu Ghraib. If you're going to try to tie all of that mess together, you better have a much better way of doing it.
I don't buy it. I would never read this article again, and I would probably be hesitant to read another Saletan article, regardless of subject, based on the level of craft I just saw.
I wouldn't even categorize this piece as a feature, really. It's more of a critical preview--a poorly written one. It's a shame, too, because there are all kinds of complexities that could be examined here that aren't.
This article wasn’t about zoophilia or homosexuality—it was an attack on Rush Limbaugh. I really dislike him… so I didn’t mind the public ridicule, but aren’t the intellectuals at Slate supposed to be above that or something?
I agree with Kat. The article didn't delve deeply into the topic at all. It was very much a critique on the views of conservatives voiced through Rush Limbaugh. The organization of the piece is scattered and hard to follow.
For such a controversial and interesting topic, I kept reading hoping to find out more about zoophilia, yet I don't feel that my questions were really sufficiently answered. I couldn't really see the connection to homosexuality or conservatism either way. The comparisons drawn did not, in my opinion have enough support.
Because no one can ever keep track of me, I started a blog when I first moved to California, but am now back in Michigan and have my first real job. So now it's about the new adventures I will have, in an old town.
7 comments:
Wow, that was an interesting experience reading that article. I must say, I would never choose to read it and in fact had it not been a class assignment I would have probably put it down. That is a personal choice, not to say it shouldn't have been printed.
The organization of the article is a little bit all over the place. I am confused on what the purpose of the article is. The author does not support the behavior of these men, he paints them in a negative light comparing them to "frat boys" and being part of a "classless society" that is "abusive in the barn." Yet at the same time, mocks right wing conservatives for disapproving of their behavior. Perhaps the author is just shining light on this culture of people, but it would have been more effective had he used the opinions of liberals as well. I find it hard to believe that only conservatives do not approve.
Personally the article's title was misleading and had nothing to do with the piece. What began as a commentary on the movie Zoo soon evolved into a tirade against Rush Limbaugh.
I also think that his comparison between bestiality and objectifying women could have been a lot stronger. I personally did not see the connection between the two and did not agree with the comparison of Limbaugh to zoophiles.
This is definatly a controversial topic to write about and publish. But I agree with Lindsey, this article is scattered. The biggest problem I have with this article is I almost feel the authors own discomfort in dealing with this topic. The piece attemps to explore the psychology behind these actions but really fails. While the repoter describes a scene in which they all gather togeather, it doesn't do much other than describe the event. It feels like the reporting is incomplete and gaps are filled with really lame Rush Limbaugh references. I also agree that the comparison between bestiality and the objectifying of women could have been way stronger. This piece read more like a draft than a publishable piece.
This piece was ridiculous. It was disjointed, poorly put together, and full of logical fallacies.
We start with saying that allowing publications like "Heather has Two Mommies" leads to zoophilia and the ability of movies like Zoo to be published. Then the author argues that point, but not very effectively.
Side note here... I hate to say this, but I don't think a culture that didn't embrace these much milder publications would be even *more* amenable to this kind of movie... Not saying that one leads to the other, because that's also a logical fallacy. Just trying to open another perspective here. Ok. End sidetrack.
Then we end up comparing these guys to frat boys, somehow pulling in Abu Ghraib and Rush Limbaugh, without really ever connecting anything together. We see some scattered quotes from the Right Wing radio maven, but no context for them. Great. That proves a lot, doesn't it?
The author insists that the movie is very hetero. Great, now show me why. All I see is the word hetero thrown in and then some ranting about frat boy attitudes. All heterosexual males are frat boys? Don't think that's what the author was saying, but Saletan's logic seems to operate in much the same manner, with how this article is written. Random words, statements that don't necessarily follow, then a conclusion.
I never saw how women were objectified. I never saw how the sexual psychology of these men really worked. All I saw were veiled descriptions of guys who enjoy being molested by horses. I never saw how Rush Limbaugh could possibly be factored into all of this, or Abu Ghraib. If you're going to try to tie all of that mess together, you better have a much better way of doing it.
I don't buy it. I would never read this article again, and I would probably be hesitant to read another Saletan article, regardless of subject, based on the level of craft I just saw.
I wouldn't even categorize this piece as a feature, really. It's more of a critical preview--a poorly written one. It's a shame, too, because there are all kinds of complexities that could be examined here that aren't.
A disappointing choice for discussion.
This article wasn’t about zoophilia or homosexuality—it was an attack on Rush Limbaugh. I really dislike him… so I didn’t mind the public ridicule, but aren’t the intellectuals at Slate supposed to be above that or something?
I agree with Kat. The article didn't delve deeply into the topic at all. It was very much a critique on the views of conservatives voiced through Rush Limbaugh. The organization of the piece is scattered and hard to follow.
For such a controversial and interesting topic, I kept reading hoping to find out more about zoophilia, yet I don't feel that my questions were really sufficiently answered. I couldn't really see the connection to homosexuality or conservatism either way. The comparisons drawn did not, in my opinion have enough support.
Opulently I agree but I about the collection should secure more info then it has.
Post a Comment