I suppose I could have called it a tales of two blondes...
Have you ever noticed how only women are ever identified as such nominalized adjectives? as if their hair color were the sum total of their identities, or at least among the most important facets thereof. It's a kind of synecdoche, isn't it? or is it a metonym? or are they the same thing?
In an case, it's demeaning, (when it is not ironic.)
Strangely, I think it's meant to be complimentary.
A frazzled, homely, overweight woman is never identified in headlines as "the brunette," is she?
I digress.
Anyway, there are many difference in the two situations, but the points of similarity make the whole thing deliciously risible.
I think it's funny that a famous, out-spoken blonde, invited to speak at a Catholic institution, in one case causes the sponsoring organization to be denied any promotion or publicity for the event within the diocese because on another topic entirely she has opposing views to that of the local bishop on a prudential matter although the bishop hasn't really come up with any specifics to which he objects; and in the other, when her entire claim to fame is as the nation's most notable champion of a grave sin that cries out to heaven on which her view is opposed to the Truth always and everywhere by the Church Universal, in a matter that is non-negotiable, it's um, you know... free expression, and people of good will agreeing to disagree, and of course she's publicly welcomed!
It's just funny.
Sad, but funny.
(And I say this as someone who would probably agree with the bishop in the first case, if he were to make his objections known, and who doesn't hold with most of the views of his blonde.)
 | ||||||||
| Really? REALLY??? |
 |
| That's right... in your FACE, pro-lifers! |
One last thing - can I just say how smarmy I think it is that Georgetown University values their "faith tradition" as opposed to valuing the actual Faith?
No comments:
Post a Comment