"In a simpler time Sigmund Freud struggled to understand what women want. Today the significant battle is over what women are for. None of our culture warriors are anywhere close to settling the matter. The prevailing answer is the non-answer, a Newt-worthy challenge to the premise that insists the real purpose of women is nothing in particular. Such an answer may or may not be a landmark in the progress of the human race, but it is anathema to most conservatives of any political party, and for that reason conservative folkways, prejudices, and ideals are once again on trial."
—
James Polulos, “What are women for?”
Can anyone translate WTF this says? I don’t speak word-barf.
(via ilyagerner)
—I think I could translate what Ilya has aptly described as “word barf.” Unfortunately, the translation does not improve the original. Think of the wonderful image yesterday of all the men discussing women’s contraceptive rights: again it’s a man spewminating about “woman,” which will never end well. (Politicalprof)
-
morecoffee liked this
-
momovida liked this
-
djgagnon liked this
-
giomanach reblogged this from ilyagerner
-
catiev liked this
-
bendysouls3 liked this
-
pol102 liked this
-
squashed liked this
-
jacquesofalltrades liked this
-
gilmoure liked this
-
clearwithsparkles liked this
-
nothingxmuch liked this
-
calishi said:
I speak french, english and spanish. Pretty sure this is in greek or wolof not sure.
-
redlightpolitics liked this
-
politicalprof reblogged this from ilyagerner
-
tripfrancis said:
This simply means that Polulos is not any closer to understanding what women are for, by the Conservative definition, that Newt is to understanding why marrying the woman you cheated on your wife with is not anyone’s idea of “strong family values”.
-
kcor-1 liked this
-
ilyagerner posted this
