Joanna Brooks Plays Fast and Loose With Church Statement

[_MsJack]

although her areas of specialization - woman's studies, and politically oriented literary studies, do bespeak a perhaps less than deeply concentrated intellectual capacity or temperament

Yes. Because, Lord knows, neither women nor African Americans nor Native Americans (her areas of expertise) have ever produced anything worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study.

[_Morley]

although her areas of specialization - woman's studies, and politically oriented literary studies, do bespeak a perhaps less than deeply concentrated intellectual capacity or temperament

Yes. Because, Lord knows, neither women nor African Americans nor Native Americans (her areas of expertise) have ever produced anything worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study.

Heaven help us.

[_Buffalo]

although her areas of specialization - woman's studies, and politically oriented literary studies, do bespeak a perhaps less than deeply concentrated intellectual capacity or temperament

Yes. Because, Lord knows, neither women nor African Americans nor Native Americans (her areas of expertise) have ever produced anything worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study.

We already know that Droopy hates black people. It's no surprise that he hates those groups as well.

[_Droopy]

Yes. Because, Lord knows, neither women nor African Americans nor Native Americans (her areas of expertise) have ever produced anything worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study.

Oh, of course they have, its just that the "Native American" and "African American" "studies" departments and courses of study really aren't, in the normal course of events, about that.

I suspect that what Brooks has spent most of her intellectual life pursuing is not necessarily black and Amerindian literature worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study, but deeply concentrated intellectual study of black and Amerindian literature grounded in the idea that its worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study simply because its black or American Indian literature, and because the particular kind of literature she's studying provides a politically correct and purifying foil to the "white male eurocentric" literature such academic departments were created and usually exist to resist and oppose on ideological grounds.

[_harmony]

I suspect that what Brooks has spent most of her intellectual life pursuing is not necessarily black and Amerindian literature worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study, but deeply concentrated intellectual study of black and Amerindian literature grounded in the idea that its worthy of deeply concentrated intellectual study simply because its black or American Indian literature, and because the particular kind of literature she's studying provides a politically correct and purifying foil to the "white male eurocentric" literature such academic departments were created and usually exist to resist and oppose on ideological grounds.

93 words, which in aggragate, actually say nothing.

Good grief.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It might be more productive, Droopy, if you actually read Brooks's published scholarship, or better yet, if you tried to engage her. She's fairly active online. Why don't you confront her with your criticism and see how it goes? See what you manage to get out of the exchange.

[_Droopy]

93 words, which in aggragate, actually say nothing.

Good grief.

Given the general reading comprehension level here of around 7th to 8th grade, coming in well under that is shameful, Harmony.

More likely, you just don't want to go there.

[_Kishkumen]

It might be more productive, Droopy, if you actually read Brooks's published scholarship, or better yet, if you tried to engage her. She's fairly active online. Why don't you confront her with your criticism and see how it goes? See what you manage to get out of the exchange.

Now there's an idea. Popcorn!

[_Droopy]

It might be more productive, Droopy, if you actually read Brooks's published scholarship, or better yet, if you tried to engage her. She's fairly active online. Why don't you confront her with your criticism and see how it goes? See what you manage to get out of the exchange.

I've just begun a re-reading of an overview of 20th century French philosophy (Robert Wickes' excellent and detailed study of the main currents) and an anthology of readings on Hegel (Hegel, edited by Michael Inwood (Trinity College, Oxford) and have also just started a re-reading of Wolfgang Schivelbusch's Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, so I don't really have time to concern myself with Brook's "Reform Mormon" animadversions.

I've partaken of a portion of her online essays, however, and I think my criticisms thus far accurately reflect her pretty traditional literary/humanities academic leftism. Woman's studies puts her well beyond LDS doctrinal/philosophical boundaries to the point that any argument about whether this could represent any legitimate form of Mormonism is moot.

[_Kishkumen]

What a load of tripe.