Okay. Who let this sentence get into the paper?
The numbers of women who study martial arts, box, own guns and listen to Courtney Love and Foxy Brown records have been on the increase for decades.
Not even going to point out that "decades" is not really the timespan I'd choose for Courtney or Foxy.
The article is about women, violence, and the media, or "Is carnage empowering?" blah blah blah. Apparently, the Times has copped to the fact that the ladies are going to see Kill Bill, too! So, are women in on the whole joke that is cartoon violence, or are they venting their anger [at asinine articles?] vicariously? Who can tell?
[E]ven in these violent roles, screen heroines still cannot have it all. Unlike classic Homeric male action heroes, who level cities and slay suitors in order to win the girl, the protagonists of "Kill Bill" and the "Charlie's Angels" movies do not drop the armor for amour. They are, like the schoolgirl assassin played by Ms. Kuriyama, literally impenetrable, in love or in war.
But NYT writers can have it all. It seems that if "literally impenetrable" articles that cite various yammering "experts" run under the rubric "Cultural Studies," rigor gets tossed out the window. With its head cut off. Feh.
