Note: Normal people might find some of this offensive. (We hope. Dear Lord, please!)
One of the reasons we call liberals the alt-left is their opposition to anything traditional or normal – like free speech, patriotism or marriage.
Marriage has been a particular target of the left for many years. Forget the campaign for gay marriage. The left hates the institution, but it’s easier to wreck it from within than without. As The Establishment puts it, “marriage sits at the red-hot heart of our, ahem, white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy.”
Stop laughing. They actually believe this garbage. Katie Tandy, the co-founding editor (or is that confounding editor?), delivered this unique take on weddings: “What Does Marriage Mean When You’re Gender-Fluid (And Loathe The Patriarchy)?” Apparently, that it means you need serious help was not one of the multiple choice answers.
I feel like this column needs a soundtrack to fit in with the ridiculous text and subtext. Cue Frank Sinatra singing Love and Marriage, which TV fans will recognize as the theme for “Married With Children.” Or, perhaps, Modern Love by David Bowie.
Now, if you are in the proper mood, let’s hear Ms./Mx. Tandy’s view of wedding day: “Weddings are, in short, a painful reminder of the sanctioned discrimination that runs rampant in our country, tangling gender, class, identity, and sexuality in a morass of white lace and marzipan flowers.”
Or, the shortened version, she says, “the oppressive shadow of Marriage looms large.” And that brings us to The Establishment’s take on a brand-new movie you are probably dying to see. “Which is why I was genuinely thrilled to learn about D.I.Y.—a film about a gender-fluid couple deftly wrestling with their pending nuptials and what the hell it all means in this day and age.” Genuinely thrilled?
I know you will be shocked to discover that the movie was “written by actors and dear friends Sarah McCarron and Yuval Boim (who, incidentally, are both gay).” Incidentally … In fact, that’s why they are making the film. “We’re making this because we’re both gay and we wanted to tell a story about marriage, which up until now has been a heterosexual institution. But we wanted to tell it from the queer perspective,” explained Yuval.
You certainly get that much. The article goes into detail about pegging, which you’ll recall I described in a column last year. Here’s the lovely definition: “a woman performing anal sex on a man by penetrating him with a strap-on dildo.” Now to a caption in this article: “Sometimes love is pegging.”
Nope. But, your mileage may vary.
And that demented worldview leads us to other interesting nuggets from the alt-left.
Jeremy Lin’s Dreaded Dreadlocks: The beauty of cultural appropriation is two-fold. First, everybody does it. Foods that one ethnic group like become mass marketed, as do clothes, music styles and even holidays. I love some Mexican food or Tex-Mex. Yet, I’m hardly Hispanic. However, it’s only fair because I see tons of people who aren’t Irish-Americans celebrating St. Patrick’s Day along with Irish-Americans like myself. (I actually prefer Mutt-Americans, which goes for all of us who, like me, have several ethnic backgrounds.)
And no one cares. At least, no one sane cares.
That leads us to the race-baiting left. They care. Selectively. It was amusing when Dennis Rodman and Jason Kidd dyed their hair blond. No one was hurt or offended. Beyonce dyes her hair blonde and not only is no one offended, Essence magazine is telling women how they can do the same dye job.
What’s good for the Queen Bey is not equally good for others. Over at The Root, they are upset about the big news. Here’s the lede, actual quote: “Jeremy Lin has dreadlocks.” Horrors, am I right? No? You don’t understand. Lin is of Taiwanese descent.
Yeah, I didn’t care either. But The Root does. It followed that four-word lede with 85 words of filler and then: “What the f---?” Never a publication known for subtlety, it hit the point again, harder. “Again, for the readers just joining us: Jeremy Lin, the Chinese-American basketball player, has mother---ing dreadlocks.”
Former NBA star Kenyon Martin joined in the race shaming. “Do I need to remind this d--- boy that his last name Lin?” Note the use of “boy” and imagine Lin had used that term on an African-American player. Then picture the outrage.
Author Michael Harriot spends nearly 800 words calling Lin out for his haircut. Harriot purports to ask journalistic questions, all in this vein: “Specifically: Nigga, what?” Yep, the rest of the article disparages Lin based on his race and even the basketball skill of a guy who has nearly 5,000 career NBA points.
It turns out liberals never care about the content of your character. They only care if you offend them. And they are always offended by something.
Mansplaining About Evils of Mansplaining: “Mansplaining has become one of the defining phenomena of the 21st century,” according to Lifehacker, apparently a site for hipster doffuses. (Doofi?) It’s one of Haim Saban’s silly sites and it certainly lives down to that rep.
What we get is Tim Donnelly, presumably a man (but it is a lefty site, so who knows?), mansplaining about mansplaining. Liberals call mansplaining, “the intersection between overconfidence and cluelessness where some portion of that gender gets stuck.” In reality, it’s an alt-lefty way to discriminate against men and sound hip trendy at the same time.
We are told it’s a newly diagnosed evil in this actual quote: “But the problem with mansplaining is that until very recently, it’s been a largely unlabeled and pernicious part of society.” In words the article disdains, well, actually, that means you only recently got offended.
The Lifehacker answer to mansplaining? “Basically stay off Twitter forever.” Yes, Lifehacker, which has 4.24 million followers on Twitter and has tweeted nearly 60,000 times, tells you to stay off Twitter. It even tweeted this article telling you to stay off Twitter. Here’s the author’s mansplaining of that suggestion, actual quote two: “Twitter is lousy with mansplainers because the structure of the site makes it easy to immediately disagree with someone without knowing anything about them.”
So Twitter is like every bar or stadium ever? Maybe don’t stay off Twitter, but you might stop following Lifehacker.
Getting Rid Of Latino And Latina: The X rating might be gone, but apparently it still has an impact. Alt-lefties are working hard at adding the scarlet letter to terms like Mr. or Mrs. and now Latina or Latino. (See above, where I slipped it into the text.)
Salon shows us how: “Forget About ‘Latino’ — why I’m all for ‘Latinx,’ and you should be, too.” The article begins complaining about the Spanish language. “Masculine is usually the default for people. But should it be?,” went the beginning of the argument.
Here’s the cruX of the argumenX: “In response to the male-dominant Spanish language, feminist and queer Spanish speakers of Latin American descent devised a gender-neutral alternative to ‘Latino,’ which is masculine in nature. And that’s ‘Latinx’ (pronounced La-tEEn-ex).” Well, that’s helpful. It’s pronounced like Kleenex and not like new, Hispanic member of the X-Men.
Naturally, you can credit alt-lefty media for promoting this language silliness. “Even the New York Times couldn’t resist using it (sparingly, of course). It shouldn’t be long until the Associated Press has something to say, too.” That last part is probably true. Lefty AP is the reason why neutral media won’t call pro-life groups “pro-life.”
Ultimately, this is about liberals promoting life “outside the gender binary,” which if you’ve seen some of the left-wing protest marches, might be understandable. Here’s a detailed PC description that is almost mind-numbing: “They might identify as gender nonconforming (or GNC, an umbrella term for people who don’t follow societal norms around the gender they were assigned at birth), non-binary (a term for all genders that aren’t male or female), gender queer (similar to GNC folks who don’t adhere to the male/female binary) or gender fluid (refers to people whose gender changes; they might identify as female today and male or non-binary tomorrow). They’d likely receive the Mx. title in the Times and use they/them pronouns.” I imagine the people who run GNC just adore this term.
One “expert” defended the term as, “Because this is a word we’re going to be using to respect gender diversity.” Thanks for the clarity. I’ll stick with Latino and Latina then.
Please follow me at @dangainor on Twitter. I’d like to hear from you.
Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow and Vice President for Business and Culture for the Media Research Center.