Terrifying Objects
Because victimhood is currency and status, and therefore terribly competitive.
The particulars of that “interconnected nature” are, sadly, not disclosed. Instead, the word “intersectionality” is deployed as some self-explanatory justification, both for the expansion of the museum and, one assumes, the additional funding.
The Museum of Sexist Objects is, it seems, a triumph in every possible way, according to those paid to curate its wonders, and to generally look busy while nobody cares. With Ferris State history professor Tracy Busch adding that the museum “has accomplished its vision by increasing awareness of the damage that sexism causes to not only women and girls, but also to men and the LGBTQ+ community.” Though, again, specifics on these points are not articulated.
Other priorities, however, are made clear:
Objects deemed sexist and reprehensible – sorry, “artefacts of intolerance” – include a child’s ironing playset, a set of false eyelashes, a joke sign about beer being better than women, a glamour calendar featuring pneumatic ladies in minimal lingerie, a “Hillary Sucks” poster, and, bizarrely, a signed publicity photograph of Dr Condoleezza Rice.
Other morally corrupting artefacts include a Condoleezza Rice promotional bobble-head doll – “Condi 2008” – which is somehow sexist and oppressive, unlike the near-identical promotional bobble-head dolls of male politicians.
Oh, and a 1997 novelty foodstuff by the name of Pasta Boobs.
Needless to say, the corresponding novelty pasta for ladies’ hen parties – shaped as you’d imagine – was not deemed worthy of inclusion.
Readers who feel an urge to tut about such things, and to generally disapprove, can do so, thanks to the museum’s website, which can be found here.
I was at a wedding last week and requested the DJ to play Fat Bottom Girls.
I’ve assured my wife that Freddie is singing “Flat Bottom Girls.”
There’s a reason I’ve been married over 30 years.
Well, there’s so much practised unrealism, so many incoherent rules that can seemingly change at any moment – so much goddamn pretending – it’s hard to see how one might have a meaningful exchange.
Assuming one were willing to spend time on such a project.
[ Finishes compiling tomorrow’s Ephemera ahead of schedule. Savours glorious moment. ]
What do you expect from a “sadistic, misogynistic, homophobic, sometimes violent” man?
Time to cancel (checks notes) George Orwell.
OTOH, irony being pretty ironic at times, just rewrite him, “It’s not like we’re giving money to George Orwell and rewarding him for being a misogynist.” On sale today, be sure to rush to your nearest bookshop.
You know, I’m not sure Ms Newman’s gratuitous retelling of Nineteen Eighty-Four will have quite the same impact or lingering significance. Despite it elaborating on “how Julia gets goods on the black market,” and featuring “plenty of detail about Julia’s sex life,” Such as people who like to “fart after sex.”
…and featuring “plenty of detail about Julia’s sex life,” Such as people who like to “fart after sex.”
What? You don’t find that, “…ingenious, sensitive to the original, and above all witty…” let alone worth 18.99 Imperial Dollars?
I highly recommend everyone rush to your Amazon link to buy her other “…dazzling, mindbending novel in which all people with a Y chromosome mysteriously disappear from the face of the earth…”, even if it did cause, “…displeasure of many on social media, this included trans women as well as men.”
Of course causing the displeasure of “trans” women should have Newman up on the cancellation block also.
True. But ignoring these people has far worse consequences. As I’ve said before, there is a reason we have sharp words in our language. There’s a reason they are in the dictionary. This deference to decorum when dealing with people who, let’s be real, are actually idiots in the colloquial/modern sense of the word is why they are legion. Don’t take them seriously by treating them with the respect of normal political or social opposition. They should be treated with contempt. Publicly.
Regarding Newman’s novel wherein all the men vanish, I waded through the reviews, in a stunning burst of original originality never before seen in dystopian fiction, it was all a dream – sorry for the spoiler for any of you who dashed off to David’s Amazon link to purchase this
masterpieceheadpersonpiece.However there was this:
I am guessing that would be fitting for anything she wrote.
These twits are unhappy and want us all to join them. Sex is everywhere and has moved major events in world history (Trojan war for example). Being unable to accept this is…juvenile? perverse? Words fail me. Married couples are the happiest and the more sex they have the happier they are. Children of married parents are the best adjusted and do best as they grow up (by any objective measure).
Something I think worth bearing in mind amid all the racism claims is that it was no small miracle that the world escaped from being stuck in a feudal society like 1200AD Europe (or worse). It was a very unique culture and series of events that gave us the Renaissance and then the industrial revolution. It happened only and once in N. Europe. If it had not happened those people in most of the world would still be in the stone age. In spite of the Left romanticizing primitive life, it sucks.
Speaking of women in general, I see that my two year old second cousin twice removed has read 1000 books before kindergarten. There’s a certificate and everything so likely this is not all that unusual. Can you believe it?
Frankly, no.
Now if the certificate said ‘chewed’ . . .
“read 1000 books”–if I count how many times I’ve read “goodnight moon” to my grandkids, it might be 1000…
[…] insulting behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.
Well the Age of Reason ended with…Napoleon if historians are to be believed, so…?
Yes, I know. Not being an eidetic about these things I had to verify that we are not still within said age, according to the smart people. I was prepared to declare an end to said age but it appears I’m about 200 years too late. Yet again.
OTOH, irony being pretty ironic at times, just rewrite him, “It’s not like we’re giving money to George Orwell and rewarding him for being a misogynist.”
Let’s have versions where a secondary character is the main character and by definition is more centered and fleshed out.
If the sensualist nihilist Julia written by Orwell, or perceived by Winston (“[part of a generation] who had grown up … accepting the Party as something unalterable, like the sky, not rebelling against its authority but simply evading it, as a rabbit dodges a dog”) doesn’t pass your feminist checklist, go ahead and invent your own Julia.
If your theory is that Orwell secretly meant, or unconsciously meant, or should have meant Julia to be Julius, or the proles to be People of Color, then write your book that critics will describe as both subverting and renewing the stale pale Orwellian tradition.
But what I don’t understand is why the literary estate of an author thinks its fiduciary duty is to commission a feminist take and somehow make it canonical.
Orwell: in the novel, Julia is merely a literary device to prompt Winston to disobey. Through her he discovers his humanity, his will, his passion. It has nothing to do with feminism or patriarchy–though do note that all such totalitarian regimes are very rigidly patriarchal AND puritanical. But likely the feminist rewriter failed to understand the book at all.
Meanwhile in England’s green and pleasant land…
1) An intersectional conundrum, climate hysteria protesters vs. “asylum” seekers.
2) Higher education at its finest, the University of
HogwartsExeter will offer a degree in “Magic and Occult Science”.Of course they are.
Well of course it is, almost ripped from today’s headlines.
Does “hot” mean something else in Australia?
Genuinely curious about that.
Alexandra Ripley’s sequel to Gone with the Wind was chosen because it was ludicrous and therefore wouldn’t supplant Margaret Mitchell’s work.
there’s so much practised unrealism, so many incoherent rules
Perhaps it’s the decade of dealing with people with severe cluster B personality disorders, but the beliefs are actually quite consistent and comprehensible once you look at the person’s desired outcome. Per Lileks the obvious underlying paradigm is painted savages good, white people bad. It’s that simple.
ignoring these people has far worse consequences
Perhaps I shoud have said “taking these people at face value” instead, but ultimately if a mendacious sociopath wants to create a museum wth their own money that’s their own lookout. It’s the fact that somewhere along the line someone took them seriously enough to give them money – very likely taxpayer money – that’s the problem.
It was a very unique culture and series of events that gave us the Renaissance and then the industrial revolution
One thing that you have to realize when talking about history is that people’s popular understanding of European history is heavily coloured by the Victorians, who were, to be blunt, lying jingoistic pricks. There was no Renaissance in southern Europe because there was no Dark Age – society, culture and technology proceeded largely unhindered, and the description of the Dark Ages as a collapse of civilzation into barbarism is basically wrong.
Now, you can make a strong argument that the odd phenomenon of English kings especially being devout to the point of expending resources to bring missionaries from Rome to the island, or abdicating and entering monasteries late in their lives, played a critical part in bringing England and northern France back from the regional collapse caused by the withdrawal of the legions.
Exactly.
I was inclined to blame that on the mud, but yeah. Kinda. Sorta. The Dark Ages thing I go back and forth on. It seems like way too much of a contrivance of historians, used much too broadly, that while somewhat useful for summarizing a large part of Northern European history that isn’t all that interesting (hence the Victorian’s necessity for it) still is a useful warning against that sort of societal collapse from stupidity that happens on a much smaller, national/regional scale.