SGarza.QuestionFromMatt-FeministPedagogy History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output - Cancel

Changed line 9 from:
Of course, as you said, it could be a cheap ploy to drive up page views.
to:
Of course, as you said, it could just be a cheap ploy to drive up page views.
Changed lines 6-7 from:
'''response from ed''
to:
'''response from ed'''
Added lines 4-9:
----------

'''response from ed''

I wondered the same thing also, Matt. Why would Jarratt use Limbaugh as an example? For me, one explanantion was that Jarratt uses Limbaugh as a metonymic device to signify or make a connection with patriarchy and sexist. To use metonymy is to distinguish sides or positions.
Of course, as you said, it could be a cheap ploy to drive up page views.
Added lines 1-3:
I mostly enjoyed article on Feminism but a very minor reference irritated me.
->''"The violence invested in this symbolic representation of angry feminists is capture powerfully in Rush ubiquitous coinage, 'feminazi.'" (125)''
I have no objections to offense at this depiction of feminism, but I do wonder about her choice to bring Limbaugh into the debate. He has made a career out of hyperbole like coining terms like , and no doubt, anyone with an audience the size of his warrants concern about their impact on society. So should we ignore extreme comments like the ones Limbaugh and others of his ilk from both sides of the political aisle make, or should we address them head on? Or in the world of search engine optimization, is Jarratt making a cheep ploy to drive up page views by dropping the name of a controversial figure?