On Word Barf

February 17, 2012

Earlier today, Ilya Gerner posted a comment he termed “word barf.” I agreed, and for the sake of simplicity let me take the time to reproduce the comment that induced this reaction here. It’s mercifully short.

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.

In response, one of my Facebook friends—female, which matters here—commented, “Get back to us when you boys have all settled on a single answer so we can ignore it more efficiently.”

Which seemed to me dead solid perfect: one can bloviate and fulminate and otherwise try to decide for people what they’re “for,” but unless the people involved consent to this bloviation and fulmination, well, then, it’s so much noise and hot air.

Excellent.

12:42pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZPUuPyGZTMCG

(Notes: 16)