Archive | Politics RSS feed for this section

Godey’s Magazine Mockery Of An 1851 Men’s Rights Convention (With Actual Sources)

2 Jan

1851mensrights6Pic Unrelated

It’s a brand new year, and a weekend, so I can understand why folks may be choosing to phone it in at their chosen profession. “Best Of” Articles and such are all over the place; I get it. But the sadclowns over at A Voice For Men have taken it a step further, recycling material from two centuries ago. Unable to find an example of men’s oppression in the past two hundred years, they are currently ugly sobbing about a satirical article from 1852. 1851mensrights7

But rather than, you know, make any commentary on it, they just copy-pasted the text and called it a day. Because ethics in crying about 200 year old satire, I’m sure. They didn’t even post source material, just a couple half-ass links to Wikipedia. With about ten minutes on Google, I managed to track down the source material, which I will now post/reference because public domain. Also, I want this archived somewhere besides A Voice For Men.

1851mensrights8

Anyway, the article comes from the April 1952 issue of Godey’s Magazine And Lady’s Book. The magazine itself was incredibly popular in pre-Civil War America. Edgar Allen Poe got his start there, when they published several of his short stories (including “The Cask Of Amontillado”!). You can find archives of the entire print run of the magazine at archive.org and at accessible-archives.com. The article in question can be found here:

https://archive.org/stream/godeysmagazine44gode#page/268/mode/2up

As for the author, Chericot, Google is really not helping much with finding details. Apparently they also wrote a short story (with a sequel) called “Who Wants A Monkey” for Arthur’s Home Magazine around the same time. Maybe a pen name?

The article itself is as vicious as it is hilarious, in an olde-tymey way.

On taking- a survey of the meeting, one thing struck us very forcibly—the uneasy and restless anxiety that characterized the demeanor of most of the men; the slightest noise caused a general sensation; and, in one instance, the shrill cry of a fishwoman threw a gentleman into hysterics, which he explained, on his recovery, to have resulted from his mistaking it for the voice of his wife.

The basic premise is that the author is beholding a formative “Men’s Rights” meeting, in which a bunch of 19th-century sensitive “nice guy” patriarchs get together to kvetch and wring hands about how empowered their wives have gotten. It’s pretty brutal.

That an unblushing claim has not only been made on our clothes, but on all our masculine privileges; and as this evil has resulted, in the first place, from the impunity with which the women have put their hands in our pockets, and as it will end only in the usurpation of our business, and of our sole right to the ballot-box, it becomes necessary for us to impress upon this rebellious sex our united determination to resist their aggressions

As a work, it definitely hasn’t aged well in terms of racism. There’s a scene involving a Native American MRA that is as embarrassing as it is unnecessary. Seriously, skipping over it doesn’t even make a hiccup in the narrative.

The proceedings themselves are a series of bickerings, non-sequitors and displays of plumery until such moment as the founder’s wife appears, beckoning him home. After which the henpecked revolutionaries tuck tail and disperse.

“Here I am, my dear 1” said a sharp voice, and a small, thin, vinegar-faced lady entered the room, and walked up to the platform, at the head of a numerous procession of females. “My love,” continued she, “it is late; I am afraid you will take cold. Hadn’t you better come home?”

“If you think so, my dear, certainly,” replied Mr. Husband, turning pale, and trembling so he could scarcely stand, perceiving which, his wife affectionately offered him her arm. Mr. Easyled meekly obeyed an imperative gesture from Mrs. Easyled, and Mrs. Bluster picked up the general, who had fainted, and carried him out in her arms.

Exeunt omnes, in wild confusion.

Scans of the article are below:

1851mensrights3a1851mensrights3b1851mensrights4a1851mensrights4b1851mensrights5a1851mensrights5b

Advertisements

There Were No “Men Thinking They’re Napoleon” – Debunking Anti-Trans Armchair Psych

26 Dec

transplanettransnapoleon0

Inevitably, when trans folks existence gets mentioned online, the topic gets bombarded with folks throwing out half-remembered medical/psychological diagnoses about what is “really” going on. Now, armchair philosophy isn’t exclusive to topics related to trans stuff by any means, or is it any less annoying or hostile. I’ve just observed enough that I found common patterns I want to address/de-construct directly.

Also, a reminder that if someone online is claiming to be a professional and throwing around dismissive and pathological implications of your behavior and what medical/psychological measures you “should” be taking to address them, that is very likely a violation of their professional license.

That said, for starters, I actually kind of love when people start throwing this one around: because it proves their knowledge of psychology begins and ends with Bugs Bunny:

transnapoleon2transnapoleon3transnapoleon1

That’s not a thing. “Men who think they were Napoleon” was never a thing. Ever.

It’s a frequently cited example of classic 19th century “schizophrenia” symptoms, but has no actual recorded documentation of such. On page 604 of William James’ 1890 treatise Principles Of Psychology, he describes instances of hypnotizing men to believe they are Napoleon (amongst other things), but only temporarily. It was also used an early-20th century comedy trope misrepresenting the Adlerian concept “Napoleon Complex”. It’s referenced in cartoons, Laurel and Hardy shorts, and even used as a prominent character trait for one of the antagonists in John Steinbeck’s classic story Of Mice And Men. Ironically, Napoleon Complex itself also been proven not to be a thing. Hell, Napoleon wasn’t even particularly short for his time.

But, nine times out of ten, the reason people think it is a thing is because of this:

transnapoleon0

The classic 1956 Bugs Bunny cartoon “Napoleon Bunny-Part” more or less established this concept to mainstream audiences. And, hilariously, you see people reference it like they are citing a case study.

This sort of stuff, however, I don’t have quite the sense of humor for:

transnapoleon4

Comparisons between gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia are inevitable, and always bunk. They aren’t clasified the same, they aren’t treated the same, and they do not respond to the same treatments. Conflation of the two is also very dangerous, because many trans folks experience dysmorphic disorders (eating disorders, self-harm ideations) that need to be treated separately. Also, reminder that Paul McHugh is a domestic terrorist hack and considered a laughingstock by his peers and pretty much anyone but the anti-trans right wing.

Anyway, the “really not thinking this through” award goes to this sort of crap:

transnapoleon5

So, like, how do folks that propose this think this will work? First of all, it’s actually kind of difficult to get committed to a state mental hospital, without police or family escort. Unless you are considered an immediate threat to yourself or someone else, such places are actually reluctant to take folks in, because of costs. For that, these religous right dweebs can thank their idol Ronald Reagan. The idea that politically inconvenient folks can be mass-boarded in mental asylums away from the sight of “decent” people like in a Victorian Novel hasn’t been a thing for decades.

Speaking of cost, who would be paying for this? I thought these sort of dweebs were small government/no-taxation without representation don’t tread on me types?

gadsden22

Right now, even as underfunded as they are, the average yearly cost per state to run their institutional hospitals is over $188,000. By comparison, even though data is limited, the cost for transgender health care is looking like around $77,000 a year (and this data is from an extremely liberal area). Opponents trot out the expense of surgery, but there’s only a handful of surgeons that even take insurance. Many of the well-known surgeons popular for their pioneering techniques do not. Yes, more surgeons will likely be emerging in the future, but what folks that aren’t trans may not be aware of is that word-of-mouth is a huge influence on doctor choice. Many of us forego insurance covered doctors for others with better recommendations. Coverage costs have always sailed way under predictions every time for this and other reasons.

And yeah, I’m definitely putting more thought into this than any of them are. I’m sure someone is gonna diagnose me with something or other for that. Feel free to do so in the comments I guess.

“STONEWALL WAS BY/FOR WHITE PEOPLE!” – #DropTheT Author Complains To Far-Right Website @FDRLST

9 Nov

droptheT0adroptheT1transplanet

(EDITORIAL NOTE BY ME CIRCA AUGUST 2018: Oh shit, shout out to the time I literally burned this motherfucker’s website to the ground. What fun.)

It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that The Assimilationists are at it again. Someone got really, really mad about Roland Emmerich’s terrible new Stonewall movie tanking and started a change dot org petition about it. Seriously. Then they staged an “anonymous” softball interview on far-right thinkpiece site The Federalist to complain about that. Give it up, Roland, your movie fucking blows.

According to “Clayton”, it’s the fault of the transgender movement that Emmerich’s terrible, terrible Stonewall movie flopped. Also apparently the “transgender movement” is the only reason Germaine Greer, famous for authoring a pedophile grooming manual, is considered controversial. Also blah blah blah someone’s still holding a torch for the stupid RuPaul/”tranny” debate from Spring 2014… how gauche.

So, first of all, that Stonewall movie is godawful. Even white gay guys agree. Nobody needs to insert “straight-acting” gay men into “historical” movies anymore, this isn’t the 90s. It’s pandering and insulting. It’s an appeal to respectability and catering to a demographic that honestly is no longer meaningful post-Ellen, post-Will and Grace, and post-RuPaul’s Drag Race, etc. At least to everyone outside the imagination of the petition author.

droptheT3

This sort of mamby pamby “straight acting” Log Cabin assimilationist bullshit has in reality done little to advance gay rights. This change.org petition comes from the same mentality as Gay Pride Whoppers and Rainbow Snack Chips. Many of us in the gay community consider it cloying and insulting to our intelligence. Which is funny because the author claims to be a left-leaning socialist with feminist leanings, while also gushing fondly about the attention his petition received from MRGays like Milo Yiannopolos and white-supremacists.

droptheT2

In summary, as a personal remark to the petition author: how dare you. I’ve been out over 20 years myself, as bisexual and shortly afterwards about my struggle with gender dysphoria. I’ve been disallowed from donating blood my entire adult life because of the same shitty bans that gay men experience; transitioning didn’t change that. I grew up in a state where being gay was illegal until my mid-20s, casting a shadow on many of my formative sexual experiences; transitioning didn’t change that. During that time, I witnessed police crackdowns on drag bars where I worked and was dramatically shaken by the brutal “gay panic” murder of a local fellow drag queen/transsexual. Transitioning didn’t change that.

But hey, you insist there is a line to be drawn between you and I, and I’m inclined to agree. You may have been a “socialist” and “radical” at some point, but now you’re at best you’re a useless bougie liberal prop for the status quo, and I am and will always be a bigger faggot than you ever will.

Drop that.

 

Seriously People, “Spooky” Is Not A Slur.

3 Oct

spooky0

Before I go any further, lemme preface this with a thing. If someone tells you they are uncomfortable with the use of certain terminology around them (no matter how seemingly innocuous) and you go ahead and do so anyway, you’re a turd. Even more so if you go out of your way to do so.  You’re not some brave snowflake championing FREEZE PEACH or whatever, just a jerk that gets off on upsetting people for no reason.

spooky1pictured: not you

That said, the claims that the word “spooky” (or other variants like “spoopy” etc) have roots in anti-black racism are putting the cart before the horse etymologically. We should definitely work on avoiding diminutives and pejoratives rooted in racially charged language, but the racial slur “s***k” is based on the word “spooky” rather than the other way around.

The word “spooky” first appeared in 1854, expanding from “frightening” to including “easily scared” in 1926. The word itself is rooted in the Dutch word for ghost. In the 1940s, the racial slur began to appear as possibly a reference to dark skin being hard to see at night (which led to racist US soldiers referring to the Tuskegee Airmen as the “S***kwaffe”) as well as a reference to a common Minstrel show character of an easily-frightened black man.

tuskegeeairmanpictured: not that

So I definitely get why folks want to distance themselves from that sort of history, and I believe the racial slur still holds weight when used in that context or even as a pejorative whatsoever. But as far as reverse-engineering it the way people seem to do on Tumblr every year around this time just really doesn’t really hold water for me. Prove me wrong in the comments if you’d like.

Check Out Illuminati @MarkDice Conspiracy Theorists Lose Their Shit Over A Bag Of Chips.

20 Sep

gaydoritos0

DISCLAIMER: So, like, it’s pretty well known I’m one of the “bad”, “angry” queers or whatever. My politics align pretty close to the Gay Shame movement. I’m not thrilled by the cultural focus on gay marriage at the expense of other community concerns. I’m not a fan of Dan Savage, I don’t think the It’s Getter Project is as effective as it could be, and I get nauseous at tacky corporate sponsorships. Macklemore? I’d sincerely rather you Mackle-less please. But once a homophobe gets offended and starts pissing and moaning about the “homosexual agenda”, you better believe I’m gonna talk about all of those things like they are the second coming of Christ. With that in mind, It appears Doritos has a design promoting the gay agenda.

gaydoritos1No, not this one, but close enough.

Anyway, why has nobody ever pointed out Mark Dice to me before? Apparently a couple years ago he prayed God to murder Lil Wayne because his music contains “gay sex satanic rituals”, which honestly makes me wish I listened to more Lil Wayne. Apparently he picks fights with Alex Jones and David Icke as well, which is exactly the kind of inter-community conspiracy theorist drama I’d love to see. Right now he’s ugly sobbing all over his Facebook page about a limited edition (as of now, completely sold out) bag of Rainbow Doritos offered with a $10 donation to the It Gets Better project like it was gonna show up at whatever new age grocery he picks up his crystal-infused non-GMO Illuminati Mind Control-free woo food:

gaydoritos2gaydoritos3

The comments, as could be expected, are hilarious:

gaydoritos5Admittedly, I have a perverse definition of “hilarious”

gaydoritos4^Adding this shit to my Amazon wishlist.

gaydoritos6
I kind of want to have hella queer sex with this dude.

And then things get weird. Like, SENPAI NOTICE ME I HAVE MY OWN RIDICULOUS THEORY OF MY OWN sort of weird. A lot of this stuff goes back to GMOs somehow being the source of transgender identity or whatever and demon posession.

gaydoritos7gaydoritos8

As mentioned above, the chips themselves are sold out, so I guess Gayluminati business returns to normal, right? I’ve gotten a little behind in the newsletters.

Wish I’d Known @Pink’s Music Converts You To Satan Years Ago, Because That Is Fabulous.

23 Aug

pink celebrity satanism

So, like, whenever I mention a celebrity or public figure on this blog, I’m usually eviscerating the shit out of them. And I’m particularly merciless against socially tone deaf alt musicians and pop singers. But I don’t know, I just always loved P!nk, even if some of the awkwardly shoehorned animal rights imagery in her videos seems a bit overboard.

pink celebrity satanismLike goddamn, dial it back a notch Immortan Joe.

But yeah, P!nk reminds me of ladies I used to smoke cigarettes with in high school and who wound up showing up at my drag shows a couple years later. She grew up with asthma, like I did, and she’s a child of divorce, also like myself. She also just has this “rowdy hard-partying fag hag” vibe I have a ridiculous soft spot for. So yeah my boyfriend at the time (yes that one) and I were really obsessed with Missundaztood-era P!nk.

pink celebrity satanismAlthough, is it proper to wear Satanic floor patterns after Labor Day?

 So anyway, I bring this up because this recent article of things-that-never-happened-dot-jpeg titled:

Former Satanist: “I Performed Satanic Rituals Inside Abortion Clinics”

fuckin sure you did, buddy

The article features the further “confessions” of “Former Satanic High Wizard (a position that does not exist*)” and gross white dude dreadlock-haver Zachary King who surprise surprise is writing a dumb book called “Abortion Is A Satanic Sacrifice“. Surely it’s going to be a reasoned book that looks at all the complex facets of this controversial social issue.

pink celebrity satanism(pic unrelated)

Alongside the title shenanigans, a lot of hilaribad spoopy claims are made. He claims to have broken every commandment by age 15, which honestly isn’t that impressive anyway except the adultery and murder part. And if dude is trying to get his shit together, why did he never turn himself in and serve time for said murder? There isn’t a statute of limitations on that, and it’s possible someone innocent was charged. You know, if it wasn’t transparent Grade A horseshit. Anyway, even tho in earlier interviews he claims that Kid Rock’s “Bawitdaba” was a legit magic spell (which is so hilariously stupid I wish he’d elaborate), he seems currently set on Pink’s “Like A Pill” video luring impressionable kids to Satanism. Sounds like grandpa is trying to update his references, while still being a decade behind the times.

pink celebrity satanismSeriously dude, cut that turd of a “dreadlock” off and I could
conceivably call you “daddy” – if you catch my drift.

* And yes I know that there are other denominations of Satanism besides LaVey’s Church Of Satan. Seriously, I get it. But like, dude claims to have been a member of a high-ranking member of a “big, world wide cult” and the Church Of Satan is the only one that really fits that bill. Not that it makes a difference, everyone knows Satan worshippers (myself included) are chubby peacenik dweebs in real life. And I’d be willing to bet money the reason that “wizard” is “doing a spell” in that P!nk video is because the director thinks it looks neat.

pink celebrity satanismSeriously, that was pretty cool.

And honestly, the idea of a Satanic New World Order is a fairly transparent smokescreen for a religion that has been the rallying point/justification for European colonization, slavery, white supremacy, establishment of the gender binary, homophobia and, like… just about all of society’s ills, which still remain and deserve to be challenged on their own merits. I think a few upside down crosses and “baphomet hand signals” are the least of everyone’s worries.

pink celebrity satanism

A Pile Of 23 Gadsden Flag Memes Just Because.

8 Aug

I dunno. I just find memes of the Gadsden Flag hilarious. Sue me.

gadsden2gadsden3gadsden4gadsden1gadsden5gadsden6gadsden7gadsden8gadsden9gadsden10gadsden11gadsden12gadsden13gadsden14gadsden15gadsden16gadsden17gadsden18gadsden19gadsden20gadsden21gadsden22gadsden23