Join us on the Polecat Cast as we discuss the news of the week, including Chicagoans wanting to take down Milo’s ads on the CTA, Bull Nye’s Emmy nomination for “Sex Junk”, the new Doctor Who, and more! Tune in @6pm Eastern!
New Bill Introduced to Congress
Milo Yiannopoulos’s Book, Dangerous, Making Waves in Chicago
By Andrew G.
The provocateur extraordinaire Milo Yiannopoulos’s book, Dangerous, was released earlier this July. Already surrounded by quite a bit of controversy leading up to its release, it is not free from controversy after the release. In Chicago, the Chicago Transit Authority has ads put up at public transit stops. While the ads were rather plain, with the text “The #1 bestseller the media tried to destroy,” that didn’t stop people from expressing their anger with the ads. Some Chicagoans urged others to file complaints with the CTA.
In a statement to the Chicagoist, the CTA said
“CTA cannot prohibit commercial advertising, in this case advertising for the sale of a book by a political person, based simply on that person’s political viewpoint. Our ad guidelines prohibit ads for products, services or activities that are illegal as well as advertising that is in and of itself disparaging, insulting, degrading or offensive.
For more than 25 years, the CTA has had well-defined guidelines that prohibit ads that are untruthful, misleading, disparaging or have mature content (including the depiction of nudity or sexual content).
Acceptance of advertisement does not constitute CTA’s endorsement of any product or service.”
However, while the CTA has not taken down the book advertisements, the D.C. Metro had decided to take down advertisements after receiving similar backlash earlier this month. Originally, the Metro had actually planned to keep the advertisements up, responding to complaints with
“The display of this ad is consistent with Metro’s policy of remaining content-neutral when accepting advertising. Although Metro understands that feelings and perceptions will vary among individuals within the community, we cannot reject advertising because some find it inappropriate or offensive.”
After being inundated with complaints, D.C. Metro manually reviewed the advertisement and changed its tune. Metro then claimed that there were two guidelines violated. One, “advertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions are prohibited,” and two, “advertisements that are intended to influence public policy are prohibited.” The CTA has a similar guideline prohibiting “Advertisements expressing or advocating an opinion, position or viewpoint on matters of public debate about economic, political, religious or social issues are prohibited.” So, while the CTA has not removed the advertisements yet, there is still the possibility that the CTA could follow D.C. Metro’s lead.
Mrs. Dr. Who
By Brian Martinez
So have you heard the news about the decades old entertainment franchise that has enormous impact on pop-culture in this western country, and has recently changed its historically male protagonist into a female one, causing it to have a future that is uncertain? No I don’t mean Rey from Star Wars, obviously I mean The Doctor from 50+ year old BBC television series Doctor Who.
Actress Jodie Whittaker has been chosen to play the role of the enigmatic and often quirky Doctor on the long running series which has up until now always been played by men in the series canon. On the decision there were a lot of people at the BBC patting themselves on the back as well as eating the ass of the actress for her “bravery” and how she “is an in-demand, funny, inspiring, super-smart force of nature and will bring loads of wit, strength and warmth to the role.”
Jodie Whitakker said of the new direction for her own career, “It feels completely overwhelming, as a feminist, as a woman, as an actor, as a human, as someone who wants to continually push themselves and challenge themselves, and not be boxed in by what you’re told you can and can’t be.
I want to tell the fans not to be scared by my gender,” she said.
“Because this is a really exciting time, and Doctor Who represents everything that’s exciting about change. The fans have lived through so many changes, and this is only a new, different one, not a fearful one,” she added.
Not 24 hours after the announcement, the media took to twitter and other social media spaces to mine for misogynist and fragile cave men who might take issue with the casting, in an effort to virtue signal with stories and viral style videos made to respond to arguments no one is making. They didn’t really find any.
Undeterred, they went ahead and presumed they must be out there, despite the fact that most of the people who are unhappy don’t actually hate women, they just presumed that the Doctor is a male and thought the change was made for ideological reasons as opposed to narrative ones. Plus, many of these anti-feminist dissenters were women themselves. But the media went ahead and made their narcissistic self-righteous clickbait anyway. I mean, how else do you get clicks?
So what do we think about a new Doctor that is female? Well, I can’t speak for all the badgers, but I will give my thoughts. The show almost always sees a fluctuation of fans leaving and new ones adopting the franchise whenever a new Doctor regenerates into the show. Change in general causes this to happen.
When Peter Capaldi was announced as the new Doctor in 2013, female viewers of the show were upset and stopped watching because he was “old and yucky”, unlike the One Direction style Doctors Matt Smith and David Tennant who just preceded him. These changes always affect ratings for a while, then things usually settle down. The problem is however, ratings have been dropping sharply since the last series(or as we call them in the states, season) as a result of generally groan worthy writing and the tired virtue-signaling that goes on. It’s almost as if regular viewers don’t want to watch a sermon, they want to watch entertaining Sci-Fi.
But how is Whittaker’s Doctor going to be different? And how can I possibly know it will be if the show hasn’t even started yet? Well the fact is, I don’t know. It could be great, to be perfectly honest. But I have my doubts. Why?
Because writing a female character when you are a feminist ideologue inherently limits what you can do with the character. The Doctor has historically been quirky and weird, even the butt of the joke at times. He is brilliant, but also very alien, which is the reason companions come along. They represent humanity for the Doctor, and are often the moral compass. A female character that isn’t a strong moral center is very difficult for feminist types to write, as they can only see women in the context of how they are affected and victimized. Therefore they will always have some moral superiority over those around them. On top of that, female characters can NEVER be the butt of some joke, it would make the wimminz look bad, and we can’t have that! There will be challenges when it comes to adversity and suffering, as putting a woman though physical and mental trauma could be seen as promoting violence against women, and we can’t have that if we want to be good little feminist allies.
See, my problem isn’t that the Doctor is going to be a woman, my problem is that when you couple that with feminist writing(and believe me, Moffat and the team are feminists) you will get a timid and spineless product that will effectively neuter any potential for good storytelling a good Sci-Fi show could have in exchange for a show that may only exist as a mouthpiece for Feminist talking points projected through a fetish doll made specifically to deliver the sermon.
And the worst part is, if I am right, the show will tank after 50 years, and it will be a woman’s fault.
Sex Flunk the Emmys
By Mike J.
With the 2017 Emmy awards drawing closer, a full list of the nominations has emerged. The top of the list has the shows one would expect to see nominated, shows like “Stranger Things”, “House of Cards”, and “Westworld”. But if you dig far enough, down into the category of “Writing for a Nonfiction Program” you find that “Bill Nye Saves the World” has been nominated and yes, it was for THAT episode. For the five of you out there unaware, the episode in question centered around the idea that sexuality is on a spectrum and to drive home the point Nye enlisted the help of special musical guest Rachel Bloom who performed a cringe-tastic song entitled “Sex Junk”. The fallout from the performance was enough to make Bill Nye the laughing stock of the internet for the weeks to follow, stripping him of his last shreds of respectability in the process.
While Nye may be the worst offender on his list, he has some stiff competition. Other progressive celebs on the list of nominations, such as Sarah Silverman, Samantha Bee, Meryl Streep, and Stephen Colbert, who is also hosting, should tell you exactly what kind of award show this is going to be. So expect another Hollywood elite circle-jerk with plenty of #RESIST’ing, just like Meryl Streep’s speech at the 2017 Golden Globes, and calls to punch people who don’t politically agree with you, just like David Harbour’s speech at the 2017 Screen Actors Guild Awards, because this trend seems here to stay.
Progressive Teen Feminist Website Affinity Calls For Action Against Kekistan
- TED: Lilly Singh Isn’t Unfunny or Uninteresting, You’re Just an Istophobe! Part 2 | Rantzerker 185 - September 30, 2023
- TED Presents: Lilly Singh Isn’t Unfunny or Uninteresting, You’re Just an Istophobe! | Rantzerker 184 - September 29, 2023
- Misandry Is Concealed by Other “Isms” Study Finds | Maintaining Frame 72 - September 28, 2023