- The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 13, 2002

Sex and the superwoman
"'Sex and the City,' once it mustered a striking frankness on the tube about urban men and women, has gone about squandering it. Instead of plunging into all the strange new present-day configurations of sex and emotion, the series has proceeded to divide sex from emotion. As the series rolled along, you became aware of [an] artifice, an un-mimetic quality startling in a series that was supposed to be a candid look at urban life: none of these women is hurt by sex.
"In urban America, you do not so much meet a romantic partner as inherit the product of someone else's romantic crimes. People get hurt, they become hard, they grow shrewd and wary. But these four women a journalist, a public-relations executive, a corporate lawyer, and an art dealer, all high achievers, all in their 30s are constantly humiliated, insulted, and embarrassed without the slightest effect on their egos or their self-esteem."
"These are four single women in early middle age who appear to have been injured in just about every way a woman can get hurt by men, and they are not even on anti-depressants."
Lee Siegel, writing on "Relationshipism," in the Nov. 18 issue of the New Republic

Animal what?
A "human morality based on individual rights makes for an awkward fit when applied to the natural world. This should come as no surprise: Morality is an artifact of human culture, devised to help us negotiate social relations. It's very good for that. But just as we recognize that nature doesn't provide an adequate guide for human social conduct, isn't it anthropocentric to assume that our moral system offers an adequate guide for nature?"
"To contemplate such questions from the vantage of a farm is to appreciate just how parochial and urban an ideology animals rights really is. It could thrive only in a world where people have lost contact with the natural world, where animals no longer pose a threat to us and human mastery of nature seems absolute."
"[H]umans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on this earth. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion. Eating meat helped make us what we are, in a social and biological sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the fire where the meat was cooked, human culture first flourished. Granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will entail the sacrifice of part of our identity our own animality."
Michael Pollan, writing on "An Animal's Place," Sunday in the New York Times Magazine

Liberal hysteria
"In the wake of the sweeping, startling GOP victories in last week's election, despairing Democrats confront a bitter existential dilemma: Is life worth living under a Republican regime?
"Listening to the grim comments of prominent pundits and politicos, it's obvious that some of liberalism's leading lights feel sincerely uncertain about the answer to that question."
"'The landscape this Nov. 6 is barren,' wailed Matthew Rothschild in the Progressive."
"Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, sounded even more pessimistic in a mourning-after statement following the election: 'With Trent Lott running the Senate and George W. Bush in charge of the White House and Supreme Court,' she warned, 'the health and welfare of America's and the world's women and families have never been in greater jeopardy.'
"Less hysterical observers might wonder if the 'world's women and families' actually faced 'greater jeopardy' from Hitler or Stalin (or bin Laden, for that matter) than from Trent Lott andBush."
Michael Medved, writing on "Liberal response to GOP victory: A public nervous breakdown," Monday in World Net Daily at www.worldnetdaily.com

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide