Breakfast Food is a Social Construct

The English Spelling Society was allegedly [snark. -D] founded in 1908. Spelling is hard, guys.  Wouldn’t it be so much easier if every word were spelled like it was part of an Avril Levigne song title?  You know, “enuf”, “froot”, “r”, “stoopid.” 

The Society’s ostensible goal is to create a phonetic-based spelling system that would reduce illiteracy and make it an easier language for ESL-ers to learn.  Sounds noble, no?  Well, no.  This is totally idiotic. [IGNOBLE!, even -D.]

 First of all, there’s the fact that the English language, like any other language in the world, is deeply rooted in linguistic history, which imposes a kind of logic on most words, especially the longer, harder-to-sound-out ones.  This same history, given the hodge-podgeyness of our dear language, links English to many other languages in the world, making it easier for at least some non-English speakers to learn. 

Then, there’s the whole issue of dialects.  We’re supposed to be spelling things phonetically, right? So, let’s take the word “roof.”  That one’s pretty easy.  In fact, it’s already phonetically spelled.  Well, yeah, unless you’re from the Midwest, in which case you would spell it “ruff”. [Not all people from the Midwest speak like fucking idiots; Chicagoans say ‘roof’ -D.] or from Glasgow, in which case you’d spell it like, um, “reeyoouf.”  (And think of those poor Boston folks!  Cah?  Owah?) 

Then, of course, there’s the issue of books.  I mean, are we going to change all those great works of literature so that every word is spelled phonetically?  (“Grate Ekspektayshuns”, “The Sownd and the Fyuree” [Even ‘the’ would be ‘thuh’ …or would it be ‘thee’? -D.], “100 Yeers uhv Sowlitood”)  And, if we don’t change them, that means that there will be a whole generation of kids who don’t read books, or only read the newest young adult fiction. [You mean like how things are now? -D.]

And, most importantly, this “Spelling Reform” would effectively eliminate puns.  Those fucking bastards.  They must be stopped.

I was flipping through this one that’s like a tackier version of a Skymall, and found some of the most important motherfucking shirts I have ever seen. One day I will get drunk and order all of them.
 Examples:
 

Many people who take their angst out on the interwebs sound like (are - D.L.) uneducated, obtuse motherfuckers (heh… [Look at us, being all self-aware - D.L.] ) One shining example is “Nine Deuces“ of Rage Against the Man-chine fame. Rage Against the Man-chine is one of those feminist blogs that make you hesitant, out of fear of being remotely associated with these assholes, to admit you go to a woman’s college, are a dyke, or (and, let’s be real here - D.L.) had a brief stint with the gender studies. 

Her blog starts out with a set of rules, including:

Please do not address anti-porn feminists/radical feminists without asking them first if they want to be addressed. I’ll delete any comment that does not adhere to this guideline… I’ll engage in discussion with anyone, but I won’t argue in circles with people who are not arguing in good faith (i.e., people who begin arguing knowing that they’ll never change their opinion regardless of what the facts say)…I suppose that means that you commenters ought to make sure your comments aren’t likely to bore or irritate me.

There is a lot to go through (as Dandy Lion put forth as her contribution, “This whole thing is just a fucking goldmine of idiocy” [I edited shit and added snide little quips too.  The quips!  They were so snide! - D.L.] ) and, as I’m too busy being a miserable drunk, I’ll just quote a few choice bits and let y’all pick around the rest. (My favourite tag is “Sex Positive Feminism Is Neither,” so I’ll start there.)

In a post where she writes about the ties between commodified sex and capitalism, she ponders,

Maybe it makes more sense to say that “capitalists” saw their best interest in repressing non-procreative sex outside the marital chamber because the nuclear family did an excellent job of preserving the labor order that it needed to function in its original form, and thus that capitalists rather than capitalism saw the threat of the sexual revolution on the horizon and responded to it by trying to find a way to turn it into a product to sell to those who fomented it, thus sucking all of the power out of the movement and arrogating it to themselves.

Okay. So the whole post is over a middling issue of semantics (capitalists versus capitalism, because capitalism isn’t a thing that can foresee threats or any such anything,) but beyond that, this woman, who seems to have a pretty invested interest in the study of sex work and pornography, thinks that both were birthed in the 1960s?

In another post, she tells her readers to not bother to read an article she is critiquing, but just to read her analysis and complain about it accordingly.

If you’d rather not read the article, I understand. Worry not; Deuce will sum it all up for you and contextualize the shit out of it so you can go over there and comment without being forced to read Spitznagel’s mediocre writing or his exhaustive list of revolting statutory rape fantasies.

Okay, one more: this one is about the friendly alt-sex porn site, kink.com. They feature predominantly BDSM-oriented pornography and, because of that, they have very strict and specific rules for what is and is not allowed.  This motherfucker has clearly not researched it, or seen any of the videos, because she mentions “footage and photos of …broken skin and blood,” while this company doesn’t allow for blood or cutting. Anyways, this feminist doesn’t want to hear people’s opinions about the matter, even if they’re involved in the industry…

Know what else I don’t want to do? Listen to women (or men) tell me that the women who participate in the creation of these videos for these disgusting motherfuckers to jerk off to do so because the shit feels “amazing.”

The only other solid complaint she has with it, besides the “degrading” acts, is related to the site and company’s aesthetics:

The logos for the site are designed to look like titles for a horror movie; the page backgrounds are dominated by black, gray, and brown to the extent that they remind one of that stupid Tool video; and the videos are nearly all taped in the site’s building at the Armory, a pretty dungeonesque joint by the looks of it.

The Armory is really fucking cool, in case anyone was interested.

Nobody should have to deal with drama of the “shoved over the end-table” variety.

-Paige

Breakfast Food is a Social Construct was founded by two dykes, Dandy Lion and Dandelion, with too much time on their hands and nothing better to do than bone and mock everything.  Unfortunately, there came a day when they were to be parted, due to various circumstances, for 6 WHOLE MONTHS, which rendered boning no longer an option.  Tragedy.  Therefore, they devised a way to channel their sexual frustration into a blog devoted to somewhat bitter mockery.  Thus, Breakfast Food is a Social Construct was formed.  The name is derived from a discussion that took place after Dandy Lion expressed her affinity with Ron Swanson’s motto about breakfast food and pretty, dark-haired women.  Breakfast Food is a Social Construct aims to drop knowledge on everyone about everything.  Because we know the most things.