The more I think about Daily Texan articles like this--or, maybe, the less I "think about" them--the more useful I think they can be. I've used this one about SUVs a few times. It is crazy in a different way and is, I am just about positive, ironic. I am not yet completely sure what I like about these things or what I think can be achieved with them (so of course, I won't say that I've used it successfully).

Let me say that one good thing about an article like this might be that, most likely, a large portion of your students will be way more than willing to say it has a terrible argument and there is likely to be a lively discussion about it. This has been my experience with the SUV article, at least. But when my students immediately jump to "it's a terrible argument," they seem to mostly mean, "I don't like some or all of the claims it makes," and they aren't really paying much attention to the argument at all.

This is, I have to say, pretty much the same reaction I have to these arguments. I read what they say as so much of a punch in the face that I don't read how they say it at all.

So this is a good place to be in for two reasons: 1) I am in much the same position with regard to these articles as the students who speak up; 2) the class is now facing the difference between what a text says and how it says, which is obviously an important issue for rhetoric and reading.

Wow. My particular favorite (in the sense that it's hilariously awful in pretty much every way) is: "What's not sexy is feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the "new woman.""

I also like: "Elegance is essential to femininity, and the lack thereof implies a sort of masculinization."

Is this a joke?