Henceforth, anyone invoking Jonathan Swift to defend rabid partisan frothing shall be boiled in oil and eaten by cantankerous wolverines.
(or browse the Archives by date, category, tags etc)
get blog updates
Recent Comments
- LotusBen on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Ismone on Prudie on “real” rape
- Kristin Rawls on “Kill the Gays” Bill is Back in Uganda
- Kristin Rawls on “Kill the Gays” Bill is Back in Uganda
- Sarah Harper on FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the U Ugly! edition
- Kristin Rawls on “Kill the Gays” Bill is Back in Uganda
- Joe from an alternate universe on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Emolee on 9th Circuit Says Prop 8 is Unconstitutional
- Kristin Rawls on “Kill the Gays” Bill is Back in Uganda
- Kristin Rawls on “Kill the Gays” Bill is Back in Uganda
Most Commented Recent Posts
- An Asexual Map for Sex-Positive Feminism (138)
- Women refuses to give raped daughter EC, brags about it on internet. (129)
- So should we just start calling high heels "body modification"? (128)
- Some Transformative Justice Links (127)
- Prudie on "real" rape (110)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the "So a girl and a vibrator walk onto a plane..." edition (89)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the REAL FEMINISTS edition (77)
- "Kill the Gays" Bill is Back in Uganda (73)
- Facts, myths, and blankety-blank lies about Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Foundation (65)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: The Baby-Killing Whores Edition (63)
Yes Means Yes!
Reproductive Health Matters
We’re in the Guardian
More of Feministe On
For wordpress.com support
just for you, a widget as requested
Sponsored By
Tried and Tested
The authors of this website have hand-selected these titles because we believe they may be of interest to a feminist audience.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Would that be concurrently or consecutively?
Perhaps consecutively, if the wolverines are in the mood for a little fondue.
Except Coulter who should be eaten by Harpies.
I don’t think that LA Times column was meant as a defense of Coulter’s writing. I think it was, umm, satire.
Waiting for the rant
The National Review Online has an article up which should make the fine women and people at Pandagon, Feministe & Feministing once more beat the verbal hell out of them. (Alas – the Pandas are migrating today . . we’ll…
Waiting for the rant
The National Review Online has an article up which should make the fine women and people at Pandagon, Feministe & Feministing once more beat the verbal hell out of them. (Alas – the Pandas are migrating today . . we’ll…
I’ve been thinking for a while that it’s possible that Coulter doesn’t believe what she’s saying. Whether or not she’s a satirist, I think that she’s doing a great job of maligning the right and making conservatives look crazy.
Jenny: as in she’s really a liberal and this is all an incredibly detailed joe job?
I know someone who knew her in law school and is pretty sure it’s an act, since she wasn’t like that before. But where Swift used the persona he created to lampoon and to expose the hypocrisy and idiocy of those who would identify or support the persona, Coulter is doing no such thing. It’s pretty clear that she has contempt for her audience even as she makes a ton of money off them.
Here’s what columnist Paul Campos said about her:
BTW, I’m in favor of dragging her through flaming walls of rabid rattlesnakes (tm Milo Bloom).
yeah, I kind of thought that the LA Times op-ed was itself satire; it’s so brazen and over-the-top. Plus, there are a few clues: things like calling small breasts a “physical deformity” and “Not just anyone gets endorsed by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture” – that’s got to be downright sarcastic, right? right?
I’ve known people like Coulter, too, who are given to saying outrageous things and for whom earnestly held beliefs are sidenote to celebrity. I’m not suggesting that she’s actually a liberal any more than I could suggest that Stone Cold Steve Austin is actually an “actor” depicting a wrestler.
Apparently, she used to date Bill Maher, not that it matters. I think it sort of indicates that she’s not as vitriolic as she appears to be since she had an intimate relationship with someone with whom she disagrees.
Does it really matter if Coulter isn’t as vitriolic as she appears to be? What do her rants actually “prove”, apart from the fact that if you poke liberals with a stick long enough, they’ll eventually fight back?
Either Coulter is a.) a genuine whackjob who really, really thinks (like she says) that women probably shouldn’t vote despite having and evidently exercising her OWN right to vote
or
b.) someone whose primary goal is to maintain notoriety by being famously irreverent, insensitive, and often cruel. Like Howard Stern, shocking is her schtick, and it’s making her millions.
Either way, Coulter’s vitriol is almost not worth responding to. The way she sees it, her job is to infuriate liberals. I’m reminded of a quote, and I don’t know who said it originally, but’s something like, “Use caution when debating an idiot. It’s often difficult for observers to tell who is who.” There’s another one that says, “When arguing with an idiot, make sure that the other person isn’t doing the same thing.”
Personally, though, I’m torn. Should we keep responding to Coulter or should we try deflate her ego by refusing to give her the reaction she so obviously wants? I’ve been trying to get Coulter off my radar for years–she’s not easy to ignore.
I think part of the difference is, I dunno, Swift thought that eating Irish babies was actually, in the end, sort of a bad idea, and that maybe by, say, tossing it out as a logical end to certain arguments made by his contemporaries, I don’t know, people would maybe see those arguments as equally horrifying.
Swift-style satire on her part would be more like pretending to advocate straw-liberal views in the extreme to make liberals look bad, right? And we’ve got good evidence that she’s not doing the same for conservative views, if this law-school stuff is spot-on.
She’s just…well…not sophisticated enough to compare to Swift.
I agree with little light and think the comparison to Swift is over the top. Her comments stroke conservatives by directing attacking liberals. I don’t necessarily see where the great talent and satire comes in for that.
And the writer’s ‘satire’ isn’t all that brilliant either.
Coulter’s words and messages are hyperolic yes, but her popularity I think, like Rush’s are based on deep hatreds and a real repressed rage that is brewing in this country. They are tapping in and enjoying the fruit. Unfortunately, consuming serves to spread its seeds as well.
Yes, but sarcasm is not satire, and if that’s the extent of one’s satire, one should not presume to mention Swift in the same breath with one’s own name.
You know who else loves to invoke Jonathan Swift and A Modest Proposal? Dawn Eden. Except her point is more along the lines of “feminists eat babies.”
I think that a lot of conservative “satirists” don’t understand the nature of satire. Satire is about ridiculing pernicious ideas through exaggeration, not celebrating them.