I don't know what to title this little post, but it's along the lines of: What The Government's Doing To Piss Me Off Today. Life can be an ordeal at times when you're not a financially advantaged person. Believe me, I know. It doesn't make you a bad person. But if you're a welfare recipient, you're right down there with a leprous, syphilitic, mass-murdering, gang-raping rodent if the Government is anything to go by. Today's news headlines are along the lines of the Morrison Government cracking down on 'welfare bludgers' travelling overseas.
Is this even constitutional? Weee-llll, given people who owe child support are occasionally stopped at airports, perhaps it is. The creeps in charge seem to be extending that power to cover people owing money to the Commonwealth, or 'welfare rorters and bludgers' as the Murdoch press is so fond of dubbing them. Also, let's face it: that scabrous old shit Rupert Murdoch is the puppeteer of the Liberal party, his arthritic, gnarled, and knotted old fingers working the strings on the marionettes as they dance around Parliament House, dropping this leader and that one because the said leaders aren't conducive to Rupe's grand plan (which appears to be making a pile of money that reaches the moon).
What this blogger takes issue to is the arrogant and draconian nature of this plan. Next thing, instead of lacing up his Oxfords of a morning, Scummo will be lacing up jackboots.
Travelling bludgers, Scummo? Then surely this includes Bronwyn Bishop, aka Bronnie the Beehive, with her helicopter rides!
To my knowledge, having debts is not a crime. So why should people be not allowed overseas travel? What if someone else has actually paid for the journey? What if the purpose of the journey is a funeral? And what if these people who allegedly owe money to the Commonwealth are actually victims of the robodebt generated by Centrelink's computer system? Is this fair? I'm running with 'No'.
'We don't believe people who owe the Commonwealth money should be allowed overseas travel,' they're saying. Well, I don't believe the country should be run by Indue-loving, needlessly punitive, welfare-bashing pustules-on-a-diseased-donkey-dick, but hey, here we are!
Those of you who know me well will know I have miniscule patience with Social Justice Warriors. You know, the people who wake up and wonder what they can be offended by that day, and on whose behalf. Last night, I read in my Twitter feed a company that manufactures costumes has withdrawn the latest idea for the upcoming Hallowe'en festival: a sexy imagining of the robes worn in The Handmaid's Tale. Nearly every negative comment I read described the company as being 'tone-deaf' in this current sensitive climate. As an aside, what's with the constant description of something possibly insensitive as 'tone-deaf'. I thought 'tone-deaf' was me attempting to croak out a tune!
It's like someone has cried, 'I'm offended because this is fetishising the costume representing the oppression and punishment, and stripping of individuality of women insofar as it dictates what women can wear, so I'm going to call for its removal from sale because I don't think people should be allowed to wear this and express their individuality!' See where I'm going with this? Try some irony, SJWs; it's good for the blood.
You think the costume is offensive? Then that's your problem. Nobody is forcing you to dress thus for the Hallowe'en celebrations, and from the sounds of it, you'd not really be a laugh-a-minute at costume parties, anyway. You'd be too frightened of cultural appropriation, or sexism, or ageism, or fetishisation, or being mistaken for someone who might have a sense of humour. Let me point out this:
1. The Handmaid's Tale is fiction. Yes, there are some creepy parallels in real life, but at the end of the day, this is a work of FICTION, and the costume is a parody.
2. Anything is capable of being fetishised. I'm personally irritated by sexy nurse costumes because nurses do a damned important job, but that's my problem and I'm not about to tell people they can't dress this way for a party. I once read an article about fetishes (I like to remain informed), and one of the contributors had a thing for the smell of freshly baked bread. Do we ban bakeries now?
3. A Clockwork Orange is also a violent and dystopian art work, so can people not dress like Alex De Large because, in your labyrinthine logic, this is a glorification of violence?
4. You probably need to have a really good poo.
So, those of you annoyed at having the sexy handmaid costume withdrawn, let me suggest this: go to a charity shop, buy a red dress and some draping fabric. You can either fashion costume yourself, or else a crafty friend could stitch you up the cape, a minidress, and a bonnet. Also, you will be supporting the charity shop and doing much more for society than people who whinge for nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment