Yesterday, I was sitting in a department meeting for ninety minutes listening to a bunch of liberals whine and argue about things of little or no consequence. But, suddenly, in the middle of the meeting, something happened that has never happened in my eighteen years in the department. That’s right - a liberal came up with a good idea! It sounded unique in its simplicity as he suggested “Let’s all move to Madison, Wisconsin, where they have collective bargaining!”
Shortly after work I went home to smoke a fat one (a Cuban Cohiba, not a joint) and enjoy an evening strumming my 1962 Stratocaster (American, not Cuban, made). As I reflected on the day’s events I thought about how much better things would be if the faculty really did revolt and move to Madison, Wisconsin. Shortly after I went to bed I fell into a dream.
In my dream the liberals were all gone and I had to rebuild the university from the ground up. Before I began hiring, I made this major announcement: “Faculty will have to teach four classes a semester, instead of just three. This will allow us to cut back on the number of adjunct faculty we hire. It will also mean that faculty can teach instead of doing research that is absolutely useless at best and harmful to society at worst.”
That part of my dream might have been caused by my recent decision to pick up a copy of the journal Feminist Theory, which is a favorite among some of my angry feminist colleagues (I use the term “colleagues” loosely). In the journal, I read an article by Jane Kilby called “Incest and the Question of the Child’s Love.” Just by reading the following abstract one can see that the term feminist scholar, like gay conservative, is an oxymoron:
“In contrast to Judith Herman, who understands incest exclusively in terms of power, Judith Butler insists on the importance of the child’s love for our understanding of incest. Butler’s thinking in this respect is suggestive but underdeveloped, while also holding considerable implications for how we might understand the role of violence in social life. This article develops and assesses her thinking on the child’s love and its relation to the question of violence and trauma more generally. At issue is the question of how we are to understand violence. Is it always motivated? Is it always destructive? And finally are there limits to what can be understood?”
Brilliant scholarship, isn’t it? Next thing you know the Journal of Homosexuality will publish an article called “First Degree Murder and the Question of Matthew Shepard’s Love.” Was it really motived by hate? Or was Matthew really into that sort of thing? Can we ever really see things from his perspective?
Exposed: Dem Candidate's Misleading Statements on Spending, Borrowing for AZ Universities | Ky Sisson
White House: Ask DOJ About What's in The Fast and Furious Documents Covered By Obama's Executive Privilege | Katie Pavlich
Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against IRS From Targeted Group True the Vote; Tea Party Outraged | Katie Pavlich