Vaginal Fantasy Book Club discussion

I suppose it had to happen eventually. The folks at The National Review learned a thing that didn't come from a 19th century Economics treatise on factory management.

This month, 3-4 decades late, they heard about the Bechdel Test and, predictably, they no like-y. So, words about it. Not smart words, of course. They don't appear to have understood it, know anything about its application, or perused the materials from which they derive their examples. But those aren't the kinds of things that stop an ardent crypto-intellectual who calls him/herself a "conservative" in a way that would probably have made Orwell dry-heave. They are, in fact, the soil from which they grow. Like weeds. And not the good kind that you can put in a pipe. Here's a snippet:



Now, I'm not even going to get into why that particular example adds up to stupid. If it's not readily apparent then explaining why it doesn't make sense isn't going to penetrate. Let's just say that if you're a fan of that kind of argument then, well, this article is full of it....

For those so inclined, here's the full article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article...

Maybe they'll lighten up if we tell them that Ayn Rand (barely) passes the Bechdel test. http://bechdeltest.com/view/5745/atla...

Personally, I'm all out of outrage for people getting irrationally outraged by people getting legitimately outraged because others are being outrageous. Just hire some f-ing women, Hollywood.