Observing the “loons”
By Bruce McQuain
And a special apology to the avian species known as loons. No, we’re talking about the human variety. For instance:
Cleaning poop off the sidewalk is racist now. We’ve all barely recovered from hearing The Planet of the Apes is racist and now this!
A Seattle councilman is opposed to hosing sidewalks that reek of urination and excrement near a local courthouse because he fears that it might be racially insensitive. Power washing reminds him of hoses used against civil rights activists.
How absurd can one be. If the act of power washing reminds him of the “hoses” used against “civil right activists”, what do the feces represent? Shouldn’t someone be offended by that? Surely someone is offended. I mean it’s a perfect chance for those of the cult of the perpetually offended to claim that the feces must represent the “civil rights activists” and get all huffy about it.
No takers?
Or how about this loon. You may know her:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi slammed Republicans for trying to “rip away” health care for transgender service members.
In a statement Thursday, Pelosi said the “disgusting” attempt to restrict funds from being used to provide gender transition treatments is “unprecedented, unacceptable and undermines our national security.”
“Undermines national security?” Not letting someone sponge off the taxpayer and have an elective operation undermines our national security? Since when? Of course if you’re familiar with this specific species of loon you know she’ll say silly stuff like this in all seriousness and expect you to take it that way as well. Then 2 days later she’ll be spouting the opposite line without exhibiting a single bit of shame. We call this one the Nancy loon.
And on to the “Mommy Dearest” loon. This loon shouldn’t be allowed to lay eggs much less hatch them. And she needs to be kept away from other chicks as well:
Feminist writer Jody Allard has a habit of shaming her two sons, one of whom she says is suicidal, for simply disagreeing with her, or worse, for simply being male. Last week, writing in Role Reboot, the mother of two yet again relentlessly shamed her sons for their biology, and then topped herself by explaining that they are, like every other man, “not safe.”
And by “not safe,” she means prospective rapists.
Allard first asserts that while her sons are “good boys,” they aren’t “safe boys,” before bragging about a “semi-viral” essay she wrote for The Washington Post in which she shames her sons for their role in feminist-constructed “rape culture” for merely having penises.
“My essay went semi-viral, and for the first time my sons encountered my words about them on their friends’ phones, their teachers’ computers, and even overheard them discussed by strangers on a crowded metro bus. It was one thing to agree to be written about in relative obscurity, and quite another thing to have my words intrude on their daily lives,” she explains.
Youngsters who’ve done nothing but have the unfortunate accident of being born to a serial abuser who constantly shames them for their assumed potential because of their … biology. She’s the consumate bigot who is so fearful and hate filled that she takes out her fears on her own flesh and blood. Mother of the year, no?
Finally, the LGBTQXN?< whatever loon, found mostly in academia and obscure branches of science and pseudoscience. In this case the subspecies is the geography loon:
Two feminist geographers are encouraging their colleagues to be more mindful about citing the research of white males because doing so contributes to “the reproduction of white heteromasculinity of geographical thought and scholarship.”
Writing in “Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography,” Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne argue that considering an author’s gender, race or sexuality prior to citation can be an effective “feminist and anti-racist technology of resistance that demonstrates engagement with those authors and voices we want to carry forward.”
The authors point out that whether an academic’s research is cited by his peers has significant implications for promotion, tenure and influence. Therefore, to cite only white men “does a disservice to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism.”
The authors define “white heteromasculinism” as “an intersectional system of oppression describing on-going processes that bolster the status of those who are white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.”
Because considering an author’s “gender, race or sexuality” obviously lends more social credibility if they’re anything but “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” The credibility of their work? Yeah, that takes second place to the proper ordering of meaningless ephemera such as … gender, race and/or sexuality.
What a world.
BTW … no podcast tonight, we’ll be back next week.
~McQ
qando.net |
