Image 01 Image 03

Columbia University Prof Suggests Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is a Queer Icon

Columbia University Prof Suggests Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is a Queer Icon

“’Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ is a ‘queer’ icon whether ‘conservatives’ like it or not”

Merry Christmas from the campus left. Is there any holiday that progressives can’t ruin with politics?

Campus Reform reports:

Ivy League prof: Rudolph is ‘queerest holiday special’ even though conservatives will be ‘infuriated’

“Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” is a “queer” icon whether “conservatives” like it or not, according to one Ivy League professor.

Columbia University English professor Jennifer Finney Boylan, has offered a whole new take on the classic Christmas claymation “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” claiming that the film is “the queerest holiday special ever” in a recent New York Times opinion piece.

Boylan began a gender transition to live as a woman at the age of 42. In her article, she compares her life experience to the Christmas classic, saying, “the subtext of this ridiculous story was the truth of my own improbable life. A fabulously blond elf who doesn’t like to make toys? A reindeer who is cast out by those who are supposed to love him, on account of an accident of birth?”

Boylan notes that she expects “conservatives” to be “infuriated by this suggestion,” adding that “conservatives seem to miss the point of a lot of things having to do with Christmas.” This supposedly includes that Charles Dickens’ ‘A Christmas Carol’ employs a “fundamental critique of capitalism”

“But please. Do enjoy your $60 Keep America Great hat tree ornament finished in 24-karat gold,” Boylan wrote.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This supposedly includes that Charles Dickens’ ‘A Christmas Carol’ employs a “fundamental critique of capitalism”

What a fruitcake.

After his epiphany Scrooge starts using his own resources in ways he—the rascally capitalist—sees fit. He obviously does not agitate for the government—or, indeed, any other individual or business—to match his new generosity, nor for any Central Committee to tell him how to spend it. When he promises Cratchitt that he will see to the medical care of Tiny Tim, he’s not talking about Medicare for All; he’s talking about paying those expensive Harley Street doctors with his own money—and capitalist money, at that. When he promises the two unnamed gentlemen to support their efforts to provide for the poor and needy in the Christmas season, he’s donating to a private effort—not a government one—and, again, with his own resources.

A Christmas Carol is an appeal for the use of capitalist accumulations of wealth to be spent, in part, on charitable projects. For this to amount to anything, there must be capitalist accumulations in the first place. The capitalism comes first, then the paternal generosity. Dickens, through Scrooge’s first incarnation and his verbal joust with the two gentlemen, explicitly rejects the notion that government programs can do the job. The later Scrooge doesn’t change that opinion; he does what he thinks appropriate without further direction from government or society.

For Dickens, it’s free markets über alles . . . with some helpful suggestions for how the resulting private wealth might be used.

I believe that’s called appropriation in the smarmy academic buffoonery world.

But, will alcoholics everywhere give up their seasonal icon w/o a fight?

An English prof is telling us this. I took as few English classes as possible in college, as nonsensical “interpretations” from English profs didn’t begin yesterday.

AIUI the story of Rudolph was made up by a father to comfort his little child who was caught up in a family crisis.

Guess he missed the part in which Rudolph falls in love with Clarice who is a doe aka female!

People pay big bucks to be taught about a cartoon character’s sexuality, huh?

Got it.