In one of last month’s Dickinsonians, Mr Joshua Davis ’13, issued upon my humble publication, the square, a verbal bitch-slapping, which was much deserved on our part. Mr Joshua Davis ’13, upon whom my highest regards must be recorded, decried the bitter offense I cast upon our Native American brethren in the form of mine latest square cover, which depicted our native friends feasting with the white man at a theme party in 1621. The theme party was inappropriately titled, “Native Bros & Pilgrim Hoes: Thanksgiving Mixer 1621.”
Mr Joshua Davis ’13 decreed the plain truth that the square’s sole purpose is to be The Onion, and proclaimeth that Thine Onions hath ne’er—indeed, would’st ne’er—have such a lapse in morality as to partake in the “hoe-bro dichotomy,” which he hath brilliantly coined. Indeed, good friends, do not decry Mr Joshua Davis ’13! It be not his fault that he hath no knowledge of certain Onion articles, such as “Bro, You’re A God Among Bros,” nor Onion greeting cards featuring Santa Claus and reading “Ho. Ho. Ho.” Nay, he is correcteth: Thine Onions wouldst ne’er sink to such childishness as the square sank to with our latest cover! Ne’er you mind Onion headlines such as “VH1 Reality Show Bus Crashes in California Causing Major Slut Spill!” They do not existeth!
Indeed, Mr Joshua Davis ’13 notes that “academically,” satire ne’er makes its point through the use of “uncreative, explicit stock words.” And he is quite correct! The great literary satirists wouldst ne’er use such language! John Dryden was just a potty-mouthed nincompoop that went around calling Thomas Shadwell “Sh*twell” from “Assley Hall!” Alexander Pope just some sexist prick that went around decrying “Most women have no characters at all” and describing them as prostituting, capricious, narcissistic, and filthy! And indeed, Queen Anne was right to call Johnathan Swift’s Tale of a Tub profanity, for it disparaged all of Christianity!
Politeness, not candor, should rule!
Ne’er mind you that Mr Joshua Davis Class ‘o Thirteen’s argument thenceforth began to disintegrate into less and less plausible scenarios like, “the cover enforces gender stereotypes, especially because hoe is another word for prostitute, as in bros only think of women as good for sex.” I’m sorry, Mr Joshua Davis ’13, did you just attempt to argue that the natives used the pilgrims for sex and that reinforces gender stereotypes? If anyone got effed over in this deal, as Mr Joshua Davis Ambassador for the Class of the Year of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Thirteen points out, it was the other way around—so, what did we reinforce again? The whole fucking point of the cover was to display the absurdity of stereotypes!
Did you even read the letter from the editor, Josh?
It was on the other side of the cover. There you go, just flip it over. See that argument for the infinite multiplicity of identity? That goes for sexuality too. Yeah, hoes and bros does seem pretty silly, doesn’t it? Got ya a little upset? Got ya thinkin’, “Hey, that’s not right”? Good. I’m glad we got ya thinkin’ about how crazy the performance of singular identities through stereotypes can be. Yeah. Glad we had this chat.
I should give mad props to Cheryl Keen, who dreamt up and designed the cover, which I think is an excellent social commentary, to the extent that an image can be.
Keep reading the square,