The King and I Was The WORST Musical of All Time
I recently had the displeasure of seeing the notorious musical The King and I! Countless people had told me many great things about it, so I was really expecting to enjoy myself while viewing it. The truth is - I ABSOLUTELY HATED IT! This dreck was nothing but feminist propaganda. This filth, which I had to sit through three hours of, was dripping with an anti-male agenda. I'm sure it is loved by intelligentsia. But you know me - I'm far from an intellectual elite. I despise the intellectual elites! When you read a Sherwin Stern blog, you know you're not listening to a university professor Pharisee. You're listening to a man who knows what he's talking about. I'm sure that once again my opinions will make me the laughing stock of those who deem themselves as smart. But I must tell the truth - I must not let idiocy go unchecked! People should know that The King and I is the worst musical of all time!
It starts off innocently enough. A British school teacher and her son arrive at Siam. She is going to teach the people of Siam and educate them about new things. Siam is displayed as a dim-witted society ruled by a king who is unaware of his own unintelligence. The King is portrayed as the stereotypical caveman Homer Simpson Neanderthal that so many feminists love showcasing men as. The King is not only an idiot who is ignorant about science, mathematics, literature, art, ect, ect - but he is also a huge misogynist who treats women like dirt. The King, even though he's a gigantic moron, thinks women can't do anything and he believes that women are inferior to men. The comedic irony is supposed to be that a man who is a total fool believes women are so uncapable that they're not able to do anything. This King also makes all of his subjects bow down to him and grovel so low that they worship him like little toads. This is the man who is leading Siam. The characterization of the King is an obvious attempt by the feminists who produced this play to show that all men are stupid and are terrible leaders. The school teacher, by contrast, has all the answers. She's very intelligent, wise, sophisticated and enlightened. All of the people of Siam gravitate to her and they love her instantly. Even the king eventually concedes to listening to her advice. Whereas the king is an archaic meathead, the school teacher is a wonderful person who is able to teach the people of Siam a great many things and bring them out of the stone age. At the end of the play, the King fully embraces her teachings and as he's on the verge of death, the King's son (who is set to takeover) decrees that there will be many new changes in Siam. Everybody rejoices!
The message of the story is that women would make much better leaders than men. Women have all the right answers, according to this play. Men are useless, according to this play. Men make everything worse, according to this play. Men are terrible leaders, according to this play. If only women were in charge of the world, things would be great, according to this play. Women are so much better than men, according to this play. It was so painfully obvious that the person who wrote this nonsense hated men. The person who wrote this play was a sexist. It was nothing less than disgusting sexism against men.
The King and I was feminist propaganda. It was trying to trick society into believing that women are better than men. It played on the myth that men are holding women back. It was one giant cesspool of feminist lies. It truly is a giant tragedy how nobody besides myself can see it. The King and I may be wrapped up in a pretty little package of beautiful music and excellent dancing - along with some very comedic moments - but when you peel it open, it's nothing but absolute feminist shit!
It starts off innocently enough. A British school teacher and her son arrive at Siam. She is going to teach the people of Siam and educate them about new things. Siam is displayed as a dim-witted society ruled by a king who is unaware of his own unintelligence. The King is portrayed as the stereotypical caveman Homer Simpson Neanderthal that so many feminists love showcasing men as. The King is not only an idiot who is ignorant about science, mathematics, literature, art, ect, ect - but he is also a huge misogynist who treats women like dirt. The King, even though he's a gigantic moron, thinks women can't do anything and he believes that women are inferior to men. The comedic irony is supposed to be that a man who is a total fool believes women are so uncapable that they're not able to do anything. This King also makes all of his subjects bow down to him and grovel so low that they worship him like little toads. This is the man who is leading Siam. The characterization of the King is an obvious attempt by the feminists who produced this play to show that all men are stupid and are terrible leaders. The school teacher, by contrast, has all the answers. She's very intelligent, wise, sophisticated and enlightened. All of the people of Siam gravitate to her and they love her instantly. Even the king eventually concedes to listening to her advice. Whereas the king is an archaic meathead, the school teacher is a wonderful person who is able to teach the people of Siam a great many things and bring them out of the stone age. At the end of the play, the King fully embraces her teachings and as he's on the verge of death, the King's son (who is set to takeover) decrees that there will be many new changes in Siam. Everybody rejoices!
The message of the story is that women would make much better leaders than men. Women have all the right answers, according to this play. Men are useless, according to this play. Men make everything worse, according to this play. Men are terrible leaders, according to this play. If only women were in charge of the world, things would be great, according to this play. Women are so much better than men, according to this play. It was so painfully obvious that the person who wrote this nonsense hated men. The person who wrote this play was a sexist. It was nothing less than disgusting sexism against men.
The King and I was feminist propaganda. It was trying to trick society into believing that women are better than men. It played on the myth that men are holding women back. It was one giant cesspool of feminist lies. It truly is a giant tragedy how nobody besides myself can see it. The King and I may be wrapped up in a pretty little package of beautiful music and excellent dancing - along with some very comedic moments - but when you peel it open, it's nothing but absolute feminist shit!
"The King and I" is a musical play by Rogers and Hammerstein (two men) that was first on Broadway in 1951 before the feminist movement was ever begun. The play was based on a 1944 book that described the experiences of a teacher in Siam in the 1860's, again. before feminism was even a thing. In its historical context, the story has nothing to do with feminism at all and is simply a heartwarming tale of respect that was earned, of an unrequited love that could not be recognized and of a strong-willed woman's trial in a world where women were not commonly valued for their ideas due to lingering Victorian stereotypes of their sex (so, maybe, it was a little like feminism, in that sense, before feminism was even defined historically or politically). The King of Siam was not meant to be representative of ALL men. The King of Siam was just the man Anna had to deal with in her experiences as a tutor.
ReplyDeleteUsing the lens of today's feminism on the play is a perfectly valid thing to do as a mental exercise or even in a commentary, as you do. But, it should not color the original history of the play or its original intent to portray a love story of the 1860's, intelligentsia or not. And, btw, knowing how to spell "intelligentsia" is indicative that you are smart and an intellectual. Reviewing a play via the lens of feminism in an intelligible and coherent way also highly indicates this.
Not knowing that "The King and I" is 75 years old and was a musical written by two men that enjoys an incredible, gold-star reputation world-wide is not.
Either that omission was intentional to act as "click bait" for comments like this or it was just plain ignorant of a Bostonian who'd've known better.