When someone asks me what I think of the dialectical materialist method
Text (would be legible on actual shirt):
1. You have no problem with the gender wage gap. But you hate having to pay for dates.
2. You insist that it’s a scientifically proven fact that men are stronger than women. But you complain about society believing that it’s worse for a man to hit a woman than for a woman to hit a man.
3. You believe that the age of consent is unfair and that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with teenage girls. But when you find out that a teenage girl enjoys sex, you believe she’s the biggest slut in the world.
4. You hate when a woman automatically assumes that a man is a douchebag before getting to know him. But when you like a woman who likes another man, you assume he’s a douchebag just because he’s not you.
5. You believe that if women want equality, they should be drafted into the military. But you also believe that the military is not a place for women.
6. You hate when women assume that men are like wild animals. But you believe that a woman who doesn’t cover up and make herself invisible to men is just like someone wearing a meat suit around wild animals.
7. You hate the fact that men are bullied for not conforming to their male gender roles. But when you find out that a man disagrees with your beliefs about women’s rights, your immediate response is to try to emasculate him by comparing him to a woman as an insult.
8. You hate when women assume that there are no nice guys. But you call yourself a nice guy and act like it’s a rare quality that should cause women to be all over you.
9. You hate when women assume that men just want to get laid. But when you find out that a man is a feminist, you assume that he’s just doing it to get laid.
10. You hate when women make generalizations about all men. But when a woman calls you out for being sexist, you claim that all men think like you.
11. You insist that women should be responsible for protecting themselves from being raped. But when they follow the one piece of advice that actually works, which is being aware of red flags, you complain about them assuming that all men are rapists.
The people who own RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org offered to sell them to the former libertarian candidate for a quarter of a million bucks. Instead of accepting their generous free-market offer, Ron Paul went crying to a UN council to take control of the domain name under intellectual property rights.
In related news, Ron Paul fans are crying almost as hard as I’m laughing.
Some advice from Jonathan Swift:
He likewise directed, “that every senator in the great council of a nation, after he had delivered his opinion, and argued in the defence of it, should be obliged to give his vote directly contrary; because if that were done, the result would infallibly terminate in the good of the public.”
When parties in a state are violent, he offered a wonderful contrivance to reconcile them. The method is this: You take a hundred leaders of each party; you dispose them into couples of such whose heads are nearest of a size; then let two nice operators saw off the occiput of each couple at the same time, in such a manner that the brain may be equally divided. Let the occiputs, thus cut off, be interchanged, applying each to the head of his opposite party-man. It seems indeed to be a work that requires some exactness, but the professor assured us, “that if it were dexterously performed, the cure would be infallible.” For he argued thus: “that the two half brains being left to debate the matter between themselves within the space of one skull, would soon come to a good understanding, and produce that moderation, as well as regularity of thinking, so much to be wished for in the heads of those, who imagine they come into the world only to watch and govern its motion: and as to the difference of brains, in quantity or quality, among those who are directors in faction, the doctor assured us, from his own knowledge, that “it was a perfect trifle.”
—Gulliver’s Travels, Part III, Chapter VI
“My senior thesis became the basis of my first two published articles, which appeared in 1965. More importantly, it introduced me to Hofstadter, the premier historian of his generation, who would soon be supervising my dissertation. One day Hofstadter related to me how he had obtained his first full-time teaching position when a job opened in 1941 at the downtown branch of City College because of the dismissal of a victim of the Rapp-Coudert Committee. Students initially boycotted Hofstadter’s lectures as a show of support for his purged predecessor, but eventually they returned to the classroom. Ironically, Hofstadter’s first job resulted from the flourishing of the kind of political paranoia that he would later lament in his historical writings. Even more ironically, the victim of political blacklisting whom Hofstadter replaced was my father.”
-Eric Foner, Who Owns History? Rethinking the Past in a Changing World (2002), 8
(i have actually gotten multiple asks regarding this issue lately. i commiserate.)
When my advisor says he thinks I should publish
- Audre Lorde’s The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House
- Audre Lorde’s Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as...
The Largeness We Can't See
When our laughter skids across the floor
Like beads yanked from some girl’s throat,
What waits where the laughter...
WHEN YOU RUN OUT OF COFFEE: