Hyperventilating Ego-Extravaganza

The old bag is at it again:

There is no peace and consequently, I (I, I, I !) have no peace. Every morning, I (I, I, I !) wake up to news about Muslims blowing each other up ... Yesterday, a friend ... told me (ME, ME, ME !) that Arab Muslims are taking over more and more Jewish Israeli land ... They are not allowing me (ME, ME, ME !) to have peaceful thoughts. Every week, sometimes every few days, I (I, I, I !) am informed that yet another Iranian woman has been ... Daily, the news from Afghanistan chills my (MY, MY, MY !) blood ... Thus, Muslims, among whom I (I, I, I !) once lived and whom I (I, I, I !) once loved, are giving me (ME, ME, ME !) no peace in my (MY, MY, MY !) older years. (The ones I (I, I, I !) knew and loved are either dead or living in exile in the West.) ... please explain to me (ME, ME, ME !) why Gretta Duisenberg ... is now suing my (MY, MY, MY !) friend and colleague the eminent Iranian-Dutch professor of philosophy and jurisprudence, Afshin Ellian, for calling her an “anti-Semite,” when she proudly calls herself an “anti-Semite.”

You get the point? The worst about the threat Islam poses to the West is that it causes Professor Chesler to suffer sleepless nights and doesn't allow her to have peaceful thoughts anymore. And now, finally, at last (we are relieved) to the purpose (apart from letting us know that the worst about the threat Islam poses to the West is that it causes Professor Chesler to suffer sleepless nights and doesn't allow her to have peaceful thoughts anymore) of this hyperventilating ego-extravaganza:

Leon de Winter and Abigail Esman are both asking us all to write on their blogs, in our articles, on our Facebook pages that we, too, believe that Gretta Duisenberg is an anti-Semite. In Dutch, de Winter says:

I invite all readers to support journalistic freedom and freedom of expression by writing ‘I, too, think Gretta Duisenberg is an anti-Semite.’

How many people can Duisenberg sue? Can she sue only one person if thousands, perhaps millions, are saying the same thing?

For Heaven's Sake! Almost exactly seven years ago, I (I, I, I !) and the Jerusalem Post called Gretta Duisenberg (and others) antisemites. Countless people must have done so as well before and since then. And now she (SHE, SHE, SHE !) needs to recruit "thousands, perhaps millions" to save her (HER, HER, HER !) "friend and colleague" from a fate worse than death? Give me a break!

In fact, a Google search for "gretta duisenberg antisemite" renders 398,000 results right now and a picture search shows countless pictures poking fun at the evil old Duisen-hag, even including the antisemitism-topic.

For Phyllis Chesler, the world revolves around one thing, Phyllis Chesler's arse. The fact that people take seriously what this lump of hormones blathers, is proof for the fact that feminism has won long ago.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Can't you keep her, Americans?

There is this perfectly idiotic bit from the Emory University website and I couldn't RESIST fiddling with it:

Margot Kässmann (Dr. Rev.), ex-lay-bishopette and as such former head of the Protestant* church in Germany, is culturally enriching Emory University during the fall semester, serving as Distinguished Theologian-in-Residence at the university’s Candler School of Theology, and as a Distinguished Fellow of the Claus M. Halle Institute for Global Learning, which lends a so far unknown meaning to the word "distinguished".

A theologian, pastor, prolific author and able to hold more booze than an entire troop of Russians, Kässmann is an influential leader in the international ecumenical arena and an enormously popular speaker in Europe, often drawing crowds in the thousands, specifically since she was caught in a drunk-driving incident with more than three times over the limit, which proves that we have become an undiscerning, sheepish breed with a knack for the sleazy.

“When I became dean at Candler, I issued her a standing invitation to join us for a semester at our rowdy stagettes whenever she could, and I’m delighted that she has accepted,” says Love, dean of Candler. “Candler faculty and students will be able to interact personally with an extraordinarily creative, charismatic and chadbandian Christian leader. Plus, with our new strategic emphasis on internationalizing the curriculum, whatever that is worth, the fit of having her on campus for a semester could not be better”, says Jan Love. Love is, who would have thought so, female.

Since Kässmann's election in 1983 as one of the youngest members of the board of directors of the WCC, she has broken age and (retch) gender barriers within the leadership of the Protestant church, and it shows. First in 1999 with her election as the first female bishop of the Protestant Church of Hannover — the largest worldwide, then in 2009, when she was elected chair (barf) of the Council of the Protestant Church in Germany (EKD), the governing body of 24 million Protestants. She enjoyed (you bet) a lot of media attention and even granted interviews about intimate matters to the sleaziest of all Caesarean media whores, BILD.

Kässmann’s February 2010 voluntary resignation from her roles as bishop and chair (barf) of the EKD after a drunk-driving conviction when she had always vocally condemned all forms of "excess", has not diminished her popularity, but, as it could be expected in a totally worth- and shameless society, enhanced it: She received several standing ovations at her first major appearance after her resignation, a Bible study for 5,000 people at the Ecumenical “Kirchentag” in Munich this May, which ought to teach Catholics what ecumenism is worth.

“I think the public see her as a leader who models honesty and integrity in the face of difficulty — a model of authentic leadership at a time when too few leaders own up to the consequences of their inappropriate actions,” simpered Love lovingly. Just imagine for a fraction of a moment what the slimy old bag would have said, had a Catholic bishop committed the same "inappropriate action".

Known for her administrative acumen, prophetic witness and pastoral ability to address complex dilemmas of everyday life (burp), Kässmann is the author of more than 40 books on spirituality, the quest for Christian unity, Christian social engagement and Bible study and about all other thinkable footling and fatuous attention whorish things with which a certain ilk of theologians, not all of them female, poisons the hearts and brains of the undiscerning.

During her semester at Candler, Kässmann will deliver lectures, participate in panel discussions, hen parties and preach, addressing such hilariously funny and utterly worthless topics as women’s leadership in the church, post-modern and secular challenges to the church’s mission, and Protestant spirituality, all of which are unbearable below a blood alcohol level of 1.5 o/oo.

Kässmann is the featured speaker at the following events, which are free and open to the public, which is self-explaining because otherwise she wouldn't attend anyway:

Lecture in the Luminaries Series, "The Challenges and Opportunities of Women's Leadership in the Church Worldwide," Sept. 21, 4:30-6:00 p.m., Cannon Chapel, Emory Campus. A reception will follow. Bring your own bottle because Margot will swig the lot. Lecture co-sponsored by Emory’s Office of the Provost, Luminaries Series, Candler School of Theology, la Veuve Clicquot and The Halle Institute.


Preaching, preening and presiding while pissed, Reformation Day Chapel Service, Oct. 19, 11:15 a.m., Cannon Chapel, 510 Kilgo Circle, Emory Campus.

Preaching at Emory University Worship Margot Service on Reformation Sunday, Oct. 31, 11:00 a.m., Cannon Chapel, 510 Kilgo Circle, Emory Campus. Drinks will be served.

Lecture, "Bible, Prayer and Confession: Anticipating the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation," Nov. 16, 4:30-6:00 p.m., Cannon Chapel, 510 Kilgo Circle, Emory Campus. A reception will follow. Bring your own bottle because Margot will swig the lot. Lecture co-sponsored by Candler School of Theology, The Halle Institute and Johnnie Walker. 


* I am not using "Evangelical Church", the literal translation of the German term "Evangelische Kirche", of which Americans are so fond. It is misleading, and so "Protestant" will have to do.

Now I was pointed at a recent bout of verbal diarrhoea of that woman, exactly one of those for which she is so widely revered in this country. She explains Americans how they ought to feel about the Ground Zero Mosque, which is, after all, ten whopping walking minutes away from Ground Zero. "Does this building of a mosque really hurts the feelings of Americans? Does it really have anything to do with the terrorist deed of September 11?" In a word: Don't make such a fuss, Amis!

How was that about the religion of the natives? It was considered inferior, dismissed, eliminated by forced baptisms, wiped out. Today there are Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists here -- and they all define themselves as Americans. [No, NOT ALL do that, Margot.] And yet there is an undercurrent: An American is Christian.

If there is a single politically correct issue, however far-fetched, in the vicinity, that woman will grab it and twist it to fit her own shallow, vain, slimy and sleazy devices.

She then goes on to inform us about the evil Pilgrim Fathers and their rigid understanding of religion, and goes on -- as a German SHE CAN NOT HELP IT -- to wax lyrically about the Koran burning of that "fundamentalist" pastor in Florida that never happened and how hurtful this was for, yes, not just Muslims, but specifically for us as Germans -- the entire old schtick of the child molester who thinks he is especially qualified for a job as a kindergarden teacher.

She left out, I guess yet and just, the slavery issue, and I spare you the rest, Americans. Frankly, I've got neither the time nor the stomach to translate the rest of that totally predictable, hackneyed, undignified drivel. Here we have a woman, a woman who holds a doctorate in theology, a woman who used to head one of the largest Protestant churches worldwide, a woman who has supposedly taught for two months now at an American university, a woman who IS BOUND TO HAVE spoken to Americans, a woman who still doesn't know how Americans, her hosts, think, feel and define themselves. Why? Because she doesn't give a damn as long as she looks pretty in her priestly cassock.

In a word: a woman.

She is supposed to come back to Germany later this year. Do me a favour: Keep her!

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

The Slave Driverette of Modernity

Margot Kässmann, ex-bishopette of Hannover and ex-"chair" of the council of EKD and thus the highest-ranking of Protestant bishops of both sexes in Germany, retired in February, following a drunk driving incident.

The -- inevitable -- demise was taken as a sign of human strength as well as the drunken joyride was taken as an endearing sign of being "just human". She is an expert of and always appealing to basic human stupidity and laziness, for example when she was shameless enough to equate radicalism, religious zeal and potential danger of Muslim and Christian converts and when she draw a big slime trail right through the Scripture when she twisted it to justify the breach of her marital vows. This bishopette, notabene, is divorced, another matter that proves to her adoring followership how cute and endearingly human she is.

Three months and presumably one withdrawal treatment later, the demoted bishopette-soon-to-be-papette made a triumphant return to public life and was received at the oecumenic church congress (Kirchentag) at Munich last week with standing ovations. Serves the Catholic Church right for supporting something that starts with "oecumen". As a staunch opponent of the war in Afghanistan, she spoke about the transformation of a weapon of war into a sign of hope, long bow, rainbow and all that. Yes, we yawned too.

At a sermon in the gallant Cathedral of Our Dear Lady, Munich Archbishop’s own cathedral, no less, Kässmann warned against "demonising" birth control. "We may, however, see it as a gift from God as well" and, with her very own idiosyncratic ability to travel on a slime trail through theology, concluded "for it is about the preservation of life, of freedom, which doesn’t have to degenerate at once into pornography, as much as the sexualisation of our society is, of course, a problem." Can you stomach more? "It’s about love without fear and about responsible parenthood. And for women "it’s about concern for their own lives and those of their own children." Well, whatever. You get the general idea.

Cheers! (Yes I know, that was cheap.)

Dear Catholic Church, your son G. K. Chesterton once said: "The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age." If you want to survive, spiritually and physically, run for the hills at the first sound of "oecumen...", and let the rest have a jolly good time with Ms. Kässmann.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Surprised, Anybody?

The pastoral head of the umbrella organisation of Germany's Protestant churches has admitted drunk-driving after having passed a red light and being caught with a blood alcohol level three times over the legal limit. This is not the first time the church leader has made headlines. Criticising Catholic teachings on homosexuality, the ordination of women and celibacy come to mind. The calling for the withdrawal of German troops from Afghanistan in a sermon on New Year's Day became well known or, if you like, notorious, as well. The representative of Germany's 25 million Protestants, who revels in the role of a moral authority, who has in that capacity criticised bankers for their greed during the financial crisis and condemned all forms of "excess", vocally declared that "Nothing is good in Afghanistan" and urged a speedy withdrawal of the German troops.

Now I will let you in on a secret about German psychology. You can bet your last penny that, if a German opposes a war -- ANY war -- he is really, deep down, opposing WWII, where the evil Americans attacked a trusting and innocent Germany to prevent it from completing their great patriotic deed.

"There is no such thing as a 'just war.' I cannot legitimize it from a Christian point of view," the bishop had stated, and: "There is nothing right in Afghanistan. All these strategies have just obscured the fact that soldiers are using their guns and even killing civilians."

Asked whether that applies to the war against Nazi Germany as well, the reply was affirmative: "They always say, if the Allies hadn’t attacked there wouldn’t have been freedom. But I say — why wasn’t there a strategy to avoid war? Why wasn’t the German opposition to Hitler strengthened? Why weren’t the rails leading to Auschwitz bombed?" And who gives an aviating fornication for the fact that is was the "strategy to avoid war" in the first place that enabled Hitler to turn into a threat to the entire free world.

Predictably, such history-relativising and responsibility-misaligning statements evoked a groundswell of support from the leftist German mainstream, public and media.

And now for the really interesting detail: The bishop is, interest- but not really amazingly, a bishoppette.

That women, known for granting the disgusting German tabloid BILD (no links to BILD from my blogs) interviews about her love life and her theology, never misses a snide remark about the Catholic church, like, for example "I'm not an infallibe papette", which proves either that she doesn't deserve her doctorate in theology or that she is an intellectually dishonest hack and oughtn't to head a Protestant kindergarden, let alone the Protestant church. Papal infallibility is clearly defined, strictly limited and has been executed twice, namely by Pope Pius IX in 1854 regarding the Immaculate Conception and by Pope Pius XII in 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary. But that theologian can safely assume that BILD readers don't know that anyway and whatever if it only makes such a great point against that evil old man in Rome whose throne even SHE (SHE SHE!) won't be -- horribile dictu -- able to reach. All this, mind you, goes by the label of "improving ecumenism".

We have, incidentally, reported on Margot Kässmann already when she was shameless enough to equate the radicalism, religious zeal and potential danger of Muslim and Christian converts and about the big slime spot she left in the Scripture when she twisted it to justify the breach of her marital vows. This bishopette, notabene, is divorced.

But as usual, not the problem is the problem, but how people react to it. The entire leftist public and media have their Attends in a knot to protect this paragon of leftist, i.e. rotten-to-the-core and depraved, values. Her organisation explicitly "covers her back" and the online fora are atwitter with statements saying that this is basically a good thing because it proves that she is, after all, human. And that when we all thought, just like she did herself, that she is godlike. Just imagine for a fraction of a moment what had happened, had a Catholic bishop made the same "honest mistake".

I, personally, find it almost a relief that her statements can now safely be dismissed not just as the the unbalanced rantings of an unhinged woman drugged by the thought of her own importance, but as the unbalanced rantings of an unhinged alcoholic woman drugged by the thought of her own importance. With a blood alcohol level of 1.54 o/oo, a non-alcoholic would have been, at best, able to find the next lavatory in time, but not his car, let alone open it, start it and drive it. That is not bad in itself, she is neither the first nor the last alcoholic in such an office, what IS bad is that she thought that she could get away with it (and that, so it seems, she WILL get away with it) and didn't even bother to call a taxi. Being high on one's own inflated ego and being high on alcohol is, in the end, difficult to tell apart, or so I guess.

If Margot Kässmann was, so far, the first bishopette of the German Protestant church, she is now the first booze-bishopette of the same church. And the latter is only the to-be-expected consequence of the former.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

A Match Made in Heaven Useless Exercise

The internationally known, controversial historian and media personality Niall Ferguson has broken up with his wife of 16 years after a string of adulterous affairs. The 45-year-old Harvard professor has left former newspaper editor Susan Douglas, who had enabled his breakthrough in the media and with whom he has three children from the age of nine to fourteen, for the Somalian-born Islam-critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali, so the Mail informs us earlier this month. And:

The pair are understood to have met at Time magazine’s prestigious 100 Most Influential People In The World party in New York last May. Ferguson and Ms Hirsi Ali, who have both been on the list, were introduced by Belinda Luscombe, the magazine’s art editor.

[...]

Ms Luscombe, a friend of Ms Hirsi Ali, said: ‘I think that is where they met for the first time. In all the years I have known Ayaan, she’s never had a boyfriend. She’s gorgeous, but with a fatwa, it’s tricky to find guys.’

Cry me a river. But there's always another woman's husband or so it seems.

Hirsi Ali, who wants to ban conservative and Christian political parties, which includes immigration restriction parties, in Europe and equates the Catholic faith with Islam, Nazism and Communism, is an outspoken feminist, and yet she's dropping her knickers for a British Conservative and he's quite happy with the idea while the depraved, rotten to the core media stands by and applauds because it's so romantic. Isn't it amazing the way love (for lack of a better word) crosses racial, religious, and political boundaries. But only when it wants to.

Interestingly, in the inroduction of Ferguson's Virtual History (the counter-factualism on which it is based is highly controversial among historians), he explicitly equates Fascism, Communism, and Feminism. But what does it matter for a notorious philanderer if it comes with a new piece of pussy.

Many historians dismiss counterfactual history as sometimes entertaining, but not meeting the standards of serious historical research due to its speculative nature and dismiss it as "a useless exercise". Rather like Ms. Hirsi Ali's criticism of Islam or her "conservative think tank" work, or so it seems.

When Bloggerettes Hit The Internet

Debbie "Photoshop Queen" Schlussel: This is from a blogger, a "conservative" blogger, mind you, who wants to be taken seriously as a pundit and when everything else is said and done ends up just as a -- punditerette.

Why? Because she can't help herself just as she can't help herself about the Photoshopping. I wish John Derbyshire would photoshop his awful haido, but alas he doesn't.

It's hormones, stupid!

Btw, nothing but gushing, sucking-up, "supportive" comments there. Americans deserve what they are getting.

Gosh, that woman is a pain in the proverbial. At least Coulter is entertaining, not whining, and fairly often right on the mark. If she weren't so intellectually dishonest and would get off the idea that her cachectic frame in flimsy little black dresses is something to strut, I'd almost like her.

Who gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama?

President Obama and the Nobel Committee are the laughing stock of the world: "Obama also awarded Nobel Prize in chemistry. 'He's just got great chemistry,' says Nobel Committee." SO funny!

Any idea WHY the Nobel Committee screwed it up THAT big?

That's why:

Thanks to VFR!

Phyllis Chesler's Old Woman Bile Valiant Anti-Jihadism

My favourite feminist academic is having another hot flush power charge at Pajama's Media to the enthustiastic drooling of the run-of-the-mill anti-jihadist one tends to meet in the Internet. My comment may, or may not, pass moderation. Whatever. Here it is:

Goodness, aren't you shooting at a sitting duck? Chesler said pretty much everything that is to say about Wolf's whisked mice droppings, and she wouldn't be Chesler if she wouldn't say a tad too much. And here am I, thinking this is a CONSERVATIVE website. What about the fact that Chesler disses the traditional Western role of women and likens it to the role of Muslim women? For Chesler there is only one alternative to Islam: HER very own brand of feminism.

"In addition, Wolf believes that the marital sex is hotter when women “cover” and reveal their faces and bodies only to their husbands." If you forget about the face bit, what is wrong with that? That is not Islamic, but something that should be held high where conjugal faith and honest women are valued.

Oh by the way, did I ask whether this is a CONSERVATIVE site?

But this is best: "Now that Wolf is no longer the doe-eyed ingenue of yesteryear, she sees the advantage of not being on view at all times." That is first an assumption and second an ad hominem, and to both an academic ought not to stoop, even if she is doing a journalist's job here. It sounds more like the post-climacteric bile of a jealous old crone. However feverishly she may be "anti-Islam", Chesler is STILL the one who said: "mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children" (quotes in the original), and the anti-jihad movement must be pretty desparate if they embrace somebody like her.

Feminists won't save the West, folks! NO feminist will.

Re-reading Chesler's PM-entry, it becomes even more preposterous. Here is the bit I quoted above in its context:

Now that Wolf is no longer the doe-eyed ingenue of yesteryear, she sees the advantage of not being on view at all times. A Westerner, “playing” Muslim-dress up, Wolf claims that hiding in plain view gave her “a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.” In addition, Wolf believes that the marital sex is hotter when women “cover” and reveal their faces and bodies only to their husbands.

Marabel Morgan lives! In the mid-1970s, Morgan advised wives to greet their husbands at the door wearing sexy clothing and/or transparent saran wrap with only themselves underneath. Her book, Total Woman, sold more than ten million copies. According to Morgan, a Christian, “It’s only when a woman surrenders her life to her husband, reveres and worships him and is willing to serve him, that she becomes really beautiful to him.”

Well, what can I say? [What about: "I am a loud-mouthed jerk-ette who does not know her arse from her elbow and not a traditional Western women from one under sharia"?] Here’s a few things.

Most Muslim girls and women are not given a choice about wearing the chador, burqa, abaya, niqab, jilbab, or hijab (headscarf), and those who resist are beaten, threatened with death, arrested, caned or lashed, jailed, or honor murdered by their own families. Is Wolfe thoroughly unfamiliar with the news coming out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan on these very subjects? Has she forgotten the tragic, fiery deaths of those schoolgirls in Saudi Arabia who, in trying to flee their burning schoolhouse, were improperly veiled and who were beaten back by the all-powerful Saudi Morality Police?

I am not sure what sort of rhetorical transition "Well, what can I say? Here’s a few things" is supposed to be. Is she really comparing a housewife in Saran wrap with women in chador, burqa, abaya, niqab, jilbab, or hijab or improperly veiled and beaten "by the all-powerful Saudi Morality Police"? What is her POINT? Should they allowed to wear Saran wrap but not to please their husbands? Does she have a point at all? Do we really need her, of all people, to show Wolf's whisked mice droppings for what they are? Should she be provided with a stage to vent her old-woman frustration on a woman 22 years her junior and by all standards still a stunner, whatever one thinks of her whisked mice droppings? And all that under the banner of anti-jihad?

She isn't speaking for me.

Simper Session

Well, whatever those women say, they can NOT "participate in politics" AND have children AND be "conservatives", AND remain credible. In spite of all the lippy "conservatism": what we see here is sheer and undiluted feminist drivel. And the simpering is unbearable.

But everything for a photo-op, right?

The Missing "Y"

Searching for information on "Oglinggate" with the help of the keywords "Obama" and "sexist" renders some remarkable results. One of them is this:

From: K...... K.... (e-mail her)

Has Steve Sailer or anyone else at VDARE.COM considered that Barack Obama is a sexist?

Obama titled his first book Dreams from My Father, even though his father abandoned him when he was an infant.

Then Obama, to use Sailer’s word, was “ruthless” in allowing the release of his wife Michelle’s “semi-literate” Princeton thesis.

Finally, Sailer reveals that Obama smeared his “dear old granny” in the interest of his political agenda.

Based on Sailer’s accounts, it appears that Obama has issues with women.

As a proud and independent woman, I am offended.

K.... is an educator in Northern California.

This is so rock-hard, flinty-tough, impregnably and intransigently dumb that even I am speechless. Well, for a moment. Do that bimbo and the haufwits who are putting up her drivel really force me to defend Obama again? It seems so. I haven't read Dreams from My Father, however, I read Steve Sailer's America's Half-Blood Prince. From that, it doesn't seem that Obama wrote a eulogy of his deadbeat dad, but vented his racial identity problems which focused, somewhat naturally, on the black parent who ... drumroll ... happened to be the male part in his conception. So he threw granny under the bus, but we can safely assume that he would have submitted gramps to the same treatment had he observed gramps behaving in a similar manner. By the way, he threw his nasty pastor unter the bus as well when the latter became an embarrassment. What does that make him now? A white supremacist-misandrist?

And I don't even WANT to know what the same proud and independent educators, lactation consultants and sanitary engineeresses would have said had Obama NOT allowed the release of his wife's thesis.

Based on all that I'd say that Steve Sailer probably HAS considered that Barack Obama is a sexist and came to the conclusion that no, he isn't. Maybe he (Sailer) is a tad more bright than some uppity teachers, midwifes and cleaning women ... oooops ... educators, lactation consultants and parquet aestheticians.

Any member of a collective, that is sex-obsessed and powerful enough to bully millions of American-English speakers into adapting the name of a rapeseed-derived cooking oil brand in lieu of the generic name is dangerous and potentially capable of ANYthing, for example spouting sheer and undiluted feminist garbage at a "conservative" website and get away with it.

Fat Is A Feminist Issue Indeed

This is one of those little essays I wrote after I first hit the Internet and discovered, the proverbial babe in the woods, feminist message boards more than ten years ago. I have edited it a bit to get rid of the worst smell of naivité.

For women, as much they'd like to appear as being above it, there is one central topic: other women's looks and discussing women's looks is, as every man has to learn the hard way, a volatile topic at best, a snake pit at worst. The following is not a verbatim transcript of message board discussions, but an overview of some of the worst clichés with which a bunch of brainwashed whiners bores us stiff on a regular basis. However, there are different approaches to tackle the problem of one's own inadequacies:

The "It's Conveniently All The Men's Fault" Approach

I feel sorry for these girls that have allowed society to manipulate their minds into believing this is desirable and is in their best interests, but gees..... what do you do to wake women up that they don’t have to take this type of dictates from society, and there is no need for them to flip flop the opposite extreme direction when they wake up and want to become equal and human. I have had my share of manipulations, abuses, and dictates as a female and I realize its not easy for a female who sees very little value in their selves to break loose from those feelings especially when there is always going to be SOME men in society that are going to promote women in negative, unhealthy, or demeaning ways like the modeling and fashion industry.

Well, for starters there are certain unwritten customs governing conversation and the regularity with which they recur among otherwise noticeably different people is first truly amazing and second an indicator that something seriously stinks. For example, if somebody says "..and if you'll forgive me for saying so…" it's invariably the opening for something absolutely unforgivable. Likewise, if somebody says "I am no antisemite but…" one can be 100% sure an antisemitic rant will follow and if, in the course of a conversation covering women's looks, somebody (invariably female) says "I feel sorry for … " [insert models, slim women, generally all non-frumps and -slovens] one can wager one's right of primogeniture against a stale bun that she damn well isn't.

Which brings us right on topic!

Now what IS that obscure entity "society", which is to blame for each and every evil, iniquity, injustice and superfluous kilo? WHO, for heaven's sake, IS "society"? People are not brought up by some nondescript "society", or are they? They are not even brought up by parents but, even in those ever-dwindling cases that there IS a father, and one who is allowed to oppen his mouth, present, by women. THEY shape the young woman's mind.

Men, apart from those who are hell-bent on having a clothes rack to impress their fellow social climbers, like their women soft and rounded and more often than not don't even notice clothing in detail. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world", as the feminists are fond of saying, an insight baffling in its simplicity, accuracy and insight, albeit only taken seriously when it suits the feminist agenda. Women, with the only exception maybe of the truly desperate ones, give a flying fornication about what men think about their looks, it's other women they want to impress.

Now WHO gives Barbie Dolls to little girls? Certainly not the fathers. Men tend to find Barbie Dolls rather silly and I have yet to meet a father who wants his daughter to look like that. That said, it is conveniently overlooked that Mattel, the Barbie-makers, offer quite a lot of exercise options for Barbie, which is certainly a better incentive for girls than teaching them that being fat frees them from male oppression.

Whose idol was the pathologically self-centered, bulimic clothes rack Princess "Di"? Women's or men's? I know only a very few men who were smitten by her, but I know hardly a woman who was not, and from WHOM got poor old Charlie all the flak when he dared to settle for the more homely, but obviously truly devoted, Camilla? Other men? You must be kidding!

But let's assume, for argument's sake, that an anorexic figure IS a male dream and IF it shapes the minds and self-esteem of girls and women, then WHY does obesity outweigh anorexia in real life by far?

It is my firm belief that behind all that shrill obsessing about "dictates from society", "men ... that are going to promote women in negative, unhealthy, or demeaning ways" and the (totally male dominated, of course) "modeling and fashion industry" are two ulterior motives: First, it serves as an instrument of power for Dworkin (ever seen a picture of her?), McKinnon and other vicious hypocrites to reach their ultimate goal, i.e. making women's (and men's, for that) lives miserable. The strategy taps into a potential conflict between men and women. It encourages women to resent men for feeling concerned about their growing weight. And we all know that men never feel real concern or compassion. Hell they hardly feel much at all, or do they? Second, for the majority of women, it serves as an excuse and an ideological underpinning for the simple thing of letting themselves go, namely to go grossly fat. Feminists have a perverse agenda, which glorifies fatness.

Why don't those clay-footed philanthropists "feel sorry" for the poor, pathetic, disorientated female misfits who insult our sense for aesthetics, take two seats in the bus and one and a half in the plane, burden our health system with their cardio-vascular disorders, circulatory disturbances, respiratory and worn-out joint complaints and are just a general pain in the proverbial, and don't even BEGIN telling me they aren't because they damn well ARE. And PARTICULARLY so, because they wouldn't need to be that way. We are not talking about cripples here.

So nobody tells them (or DARES telling them) that it is nothing but their own responsibility to seek therapy and general help and that they might -- just might -- try to eat less and start some exercising. No, they are told they are "victims", a common outlook, which is widely sanctioned by the politically correct psychotherapist mafia and societal mainstream. There is no more viciously malevolent and anti-social sentence than "There there, I can relate to you" because anybody who isn't that fat damn well can't. After Holocaust survivors, cancer survivors, rape survivors, abuse of various sorts survivors, we now have -- obesity survivors! The terminology reveals the agenda: "Something bad has happened to me, it must be someone else’s, preferably the men's, doing". By standing up for fat women, feminism creates a perverted system of female solidarity. Fat women get encouragement, support and even acclaim for an unhealthy lifestyle. Feminists WANT women fat. They want to proselytize women who feel that they are ugly or potentially rejected by men. These are the first and easiest prey for an ideology that fosters men-hating. It's not men who force their views on women; it's a women-shaped society that forces its views on women and it is not beyond feminists to fish even at the very bottom of that foodchain.

But let's change the object. I don't share the condescending attitude of many gestagen-type, naturally slim women towards their less fortunate sisters and their definition of "fat", a definition that quite often starts at wearers of more than a size 8 at a height of 6'10". As somebody who is constantly fighting a, mostly successful, but sometimes grueling, battle against age- and hormone-induced weight gain, I do, however, resent the victimology mentality that is slowly creeping in everywhere and which has taken over the fat-women-community long ago.

Here we have, and I guarantee those quotes are authentic, a different specimen among those brainwashed losers, this one, rather refreshingly, at least without any pretensions at empathy or analysis. This approach is not so much about blaming one's own misery on the men, but to vent one's frustration about one's fat- (although probably not JUST fat-) induced low social status mainly on other women, which shows that sheer and undiluted grudge can sometimes render better results than phony analysis.

The "I'm Absolutely Desperate But Can't Stop Eating" Approach

"sounds to me like you are afraid of the idea that big can be beautiful...why are you afraid?"

"And big men DO LOVE big women because they know that big women, unlike skinny little sluts, will 1) treat them right...ie: not use them for money, not abuse them, not cheat on them and 2) will take care of themselves..ie: not do drugs, etc."

"And, more and more statistics are coming out that say that more men love big women than we know but will not admit it because assholes like you will degrade them for it."

"And statistics today show that big does not equal unhealthy nor unattractive nor lazy nor stupid...in fact, all the stats show just the opposite…"
"…but you, of course, will deny it because you are afraid...you are afraid to open you mind, go against what society and your parents say and to think for yourself."

"…and BBW magazine and Dimensions and Mode would not be selling millions of copies a day and men would not be buying those magazines and would not be writing to the editors of those magazines raving about how they love big women and there would be no men putting ads in those magazines and in newspapers all across the country looking for BIG, BEAUTIFUL WOMEN and the larger size women's fashion industry would not be a multimillion dollar industry.

"BTW, I have seen some really nasty skinny women so I'd shut up if I were you because you do not know what you are talking about. I have seen skinny women who don't shave, don't care about what they wear (they will wear ripped, stained and ill-fitting clothes), will have a cigarette hanging out of their mouth, guzzling beer or vodka, popping pills, throwing up in the streets and passing out."

"At least the so-called "nasty" fat women will shave, shower, be clean and sober and disease-free, will fix their hair nice (as opposed to the rat's nests of the skinny women), will have manicures and pedicures done and be smelling of Georgio instead of stale smoke and alcohol." "Yeah, big women are so nasty, right? So, go ahead. Go after the crab and lice and aids ridden skinny women. If that is what you are into!!!!"

The amount of raw enmity was baffling and left many questions to ask. What does an aesthetic judgment have to do with fear for example, (by the way, it's an old leftist mantra to denounce the conscious, well-founded and reasonable rejection of something as "fear), or what decency and character, cleanliness and grooming have to do with a person's dress size. Or whether the increasing XXL market has less to do with a wishful-thinking-induced sudden preference of men for fat women, instead of an ever growing number of fat women anyway. I asked all this, but to no avail.

Of course, and everybody who has but only one eye to see will have noticed that slovens and frumps are more widespread among the fattie-faction, presumably because they've given up long ago anyway or because they didn't care all that much to begin with, but I was good and refrained from mentioning it.

My take on all that? Simple! Telling women that fat is beautiful is like prescribing tranquilizers to a person who suffers from the squits so that he (or rather she) doesn't mind anymore what she's doing to her pants.

The Urge to Make Aggressive Statements at Any Possible Occasion

And now for something completely different!

I am not really fit to have an opinion on fashion, let alone criticize the sartorial choices of others. My only advice would be: "If you can't afford designer clothes, wear black." Luckily, black goes very well with my colours. When I buy shoes, I always buy expensive and classy ones to wear them for decades. I buy, too, good clothes and have forgone about 10 years ago to wear short skirts. I thought that it would be better I do it while people regret that I do it instead of wishing I'd do it. I think long skirts and pumps look very dressy. The fact that I do not like patterns and prints adds to the lucky circumstance that I can wear my duds for many years without looking too obviously out of place. And to reveal one of my dark secrets: I have a "thing" for ball gowns and evening dresses and own several I have never, or only once, worn. Apart from that, fashionistas can bite me!

But I will explode if I don't say something about Michelle Obama's sartorial choices. That is not because I find the hype about dressing matters worth adding to, but because the hype about the Obamas, who seemingly can't do wrong in the eyes of the world (at least of my part of the world) creeps me out. Here we have examples from the gutter-, as well as from the "quality" media.

Michelle Obama is a great looking woman, or at least she would be wouldn't her resentful nature be written all over her face. At almost six foot, slim and trim, with great legs and arms and a curved figure -- far from the clothes rack appearance of most "supermodels", one should think she couldn't do much wrong in the sartorial field, yet she goes from bad to worse to the sycophantic acclaim of the world.

At her husband's inauguration she wore a cat-sick-yellow (widely described as "golden") thing with ugly texture and an even more ugly meant-to-be "decorative" neckline, together with cow-pat green, voluminous leather gloves.



At the inauguration ball she wore a dress that looked like a wedding dress for a teenage- or early twenty-ish bride from one of the cheaper off-the-rack lines.


To be realistic, that was only what we could expect. I mean... look at the dresses in the pictures below. The first one resembles a Haloween-horror costume, the second would be alright, albeit a bit too tight, weren't it for the colour that would suit hardly any woman's skin tone, and the purple and black colouring of the third, together with the cheap-looking accessories, is a mess as well.

The Obamas are not the only megalomaniac phonies who like to be compared with the Kennedys. The futility of the claim is obvious.

(Wasn't Jackie heavily pregnant at her husband's inauguration?)

To prove our lack of political bias, here is Laura Bush at the same occasion. Nobody has ever accused her of being well dressed, but THAT even beats Michelle Obama's blunders by several lengths.

Hillary at her husband's second inauguration ball: Perfect! She must have a whole staff of extremely competent advisers. Now she is a political heavy-weight herself, she is one of the few female politicians, maybe the only one in the higher echelons of that class, who has escaped the trap of appearing either as butch or simpering. I just wish she would just sometimes wear a skirt.

Mamie Eisenhower in her inaugural ball gown: Timeless chic! I am glad that this is a black-and-white photo, though, because I have a hunch that the dress was in that awful pink she so loved.

Nancy Reagan: Very nice -- for a woman thirty years younger. It is fair to assume that this influenced Hillary's above choice of an inaugural ball gown.

But back to the Obamas. I seem to remember that Jackie Kennedy was much criticized for her choice of French over American designers, when all the world is gushing ecstatically now over Michelle Obama's third-world chic. To suppress the urge to make an -- aggressive -- statement at any possible, and impossible, occasion would do her appearance a world of good.

A Little Too Obviously Jealous

What we have here is based on an old entry from my other blog. Although it, or rather the event that triggered it off, is dating more than three years back, I consider it still topical. It, too, has a strong style-aspect, which merits a publication here. It is about a nasty little bit of racism that went largely unnoticed for obvious reasons, but after having bellyached about it, the question remains what children ought to wear at a dignified public occasion, so here it goes:

An Image A Little Too Carefully Coordinated
By Robin Givhan
Friday, July 22, 2005

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes.


Even the clothes are conservative: Judge John G. Roberts, left, and his wife Jane, right, with their children Jack and Josie listen to President Bush's announcement.
(Pool Photo By Shawn Thew)
[...]

The wife wore a strawberry-pink tweed suit with taupe pumps and pearls, which alone would not have been particularly remarkable, but alongside the nostalgic costuming of the children, the overall effect was of self-consciously crafted perfection. The children, of course, are innocents. They are dressed by their parents. And through their clothes choices, the parents have created the kind of honeyed faultlessness that jams mailboxes every December when personalized Christmas cards arrive bringing greetings "to you and yours" from the Blake family or the Joneses. Everyone looks freshly scrubbed and adorable, just like they have stepped from a Currier & Ives landscape.

In a time when most children are dressed in Gap Kids and retailers of similar price-point and modernity, the parents put young master Jack in an ensemble that calls to mind John F. "John-John" Kennedy Jr.

Separate the child from the clothes, which do not acknowledge trends, popular culture or the passing of time. They are not classic; they are old-fashioned. These clothes are Old World, old money and a cut above the light-up/shoe-buying hoi polloi.

[...]

Dressing appropriately is a somewhat selfless act. It's not about catering to personal comfort. One can't give in fully to private aesthetic preferences. Instead, one asks what would make other people feel respected? What would mark the occasion as noteworthy? What signifies that the moment is bigger than the individual?

But the Roberts family went too far. In announcing John Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, the president inextricably linked the individual -- and his family -- to the sweep of tradition. In their attire, there was nothing too informal; there was nothing immodest. There was only the feeling that, in the desire to be appropriate and respectful of history, the children had been costumed in it.

Well, nobody in his right mind would accuse Ms. Givhan of looking "freshly scrubbed and adorable" or, for that, like a fashion icon with the right of being condescending on the strength of her own self-consciously crafted perfection, and frankly, it is beyond me why the Washington Post (or ANY newspaper, for that) would make such a frump fashion editor. Or why this sort of fashion drivel is allowed to take up a lot of perfectly good space in a "serious" newspaper in the first place, even if it were NOT as politically prejudiced, sneering and vile as it is, but that is not the point.

Neither is the point that this piece of jealous media flotsam has obviously not the slightest compunction about abusing children to vent her well-calculated, class-ridden rants. Yeah, GAP has got ist SO right! X billion flies and hordes of idiot parents can't be wrong, eat more shit and buy more GAP. Who wouldn't just LOVE to see one's little girl clad like an underage prickteaser? Everything (but EVERYTHING!) not to appear "classy".

The real point is, that, had a white journalist written about the appointment of a black man to a major public position and referred to his family's hairdo as "too self-consciouly ethnic" with "their nappy heads standing out too much" we would have had a major earthquake in the media, whereas a not-so-sly dig at a blond pageboy's is quite okay for the self-hating whites in the media.

So now the bellyaching is over and done with, what would be the right choice of dress for children at such an occasion? I personally, think that they ought to be left at home anyway, but then, I am not American and the entire "human touch"-aspect in politics bores me, to put it politely. As it is, I think the Roberts made an excellent choice.

Are Family Values Negotiable?

I finally managed to summarize the rest of the discussion at Terry Morris' Webster's Blogspot about traditional family values. The first instalment can be found here. It was triggered off by Sarah Palin's somewhat doubtful role as a paragon of "conservative" virtues when she, the mother of five children, chose to accept (potentially) one of the most demanding "jobs" in the world.

Is parental supervision feasible nowadays? Can one jettison it and still think of one as a conservative?

Terry Morris said...
Mom wrote:

"I am wondering how you view the latest announcement that Mrs. Palin's unmarried daughter is pregnant. [...] This makes Mrs. Palin look better than the rumor, how?"

Mom, I don't know, I didn't devise the strategy. You'd probably have to ask the McCain team about that one. But the way I view it, in a nutshell, is this:

Bristol Palin has been failed by her parents. Her Mom, the most important female in her life, chose a "career woman's" life over a life of motherhood. She (Mrs. Palin) could have chosen either/or, but she tried to have her cake and eat it too, something that rational people know is impossible. Her Dad, the most important male in her life, chose a supportive spouse's role over the role nature, reason and religion had secured to him.

Thus Bristol Palin has been failed by her parents. But more than being failed, she has been betrayed by them; they are using Bristol and her situation as proof of their "family values."

But as Laura W. wrote at VFR, "supervised children don't get pregnant."

Where, I ask, was Bristol's supervision?
September 2, 2008 10:51 PM

Vanishing American said...
I have to take somewhat of a dissenting view on the pregnancy thing.
First, contrary to what Laura W. says, supervised children DO get pregnant. It happens. When they are old enough for sexual activity and pregnancy, they are also at the age to be somewhat independent. Nobody, not even stay-at-home moms, can supervise their teen children 24/7.
Back in the 'Leave it to Beaver' era, when virtually all mothers were stay-at-home moms, girls did most assuredly get pregnant, even in the best of families, adolescent hormones and urges being what they are.
In those days, it was simply handled more discreetly. I don't question the fact that it happens far, far more often these days, but now it is not even a cause for embarrassment on the part of most teens or their parents. And many of the supposedly conservative parents nevertheless put their girls on the Pill so that there is no risk of pregnancy.
But even the best and most attentive parents find it hard to counteract the influence of popular culture, which is loaded with sexual messages and imagery. Even in our local Christian school, the teens still wallow in the x-rated pop culture of the day, regardless of how strict their parents may be at home. The sexual messages are everywhere, and even those who shelter their kids as much as they can find that their children are exposed second-hand to much of the worst influences. It's everywhere.
I sympathize with parents of teens today; it's harder than ever before to keep kids separated from the corrupt culture around us. I am glad I am past that stage of life and no longer have that battle to fight as a parent.
But those who blame the parents 100 percent are expecting the impossible; children in their teens can't be protected all the time, unless you shackle them to yourselves and never let them out of your sight.
-VA
September 4, 2008 10:45 PM

The_Editrix said...
VA, we are talking about humans, not about mechanical gadgets, so if somebody says that supervised teens don't get pregnant he is bound not to mean that NO teenager got pregnant and that supervision was 24/7. But it was, and that is the difference, the rare exception and nobody shrugged it off as "one of those things".

I don't think that it is simplistic to say that in times when we dared calling "nice girls" by that name, nice girls didn't become pregnant, even though the supervision wasn't (COULDN'T BE) 24/7. Then, it was understood that, at that age, a relationship with a boy or man intimate enough to get one pregnant was out of the question, contraceptives or not. One respected one's parents and -- yes -- one was afraid of the social consequences as well.

And as far as the hormones were concerned, we were expected to sweat it out and we did. Since when are "hormones" an excuse for anything? If for a pregnant teenager now, then what next? For a sex offender?

But it is elitist now to remind girls of the fact that they are "nice girls" and in a time where it is the accepted practice to follow the call of one's hormones they don't have something like a "reputation" to lose anymore either.
September 5, 2008 3:52 AM

Terry Morris said...
To be honest with you all I've been half waiting for someone to come along saying that Bristol and Levi began having sex with the permission of Bristol's parents (and an ecstatic approving response from Republicans.) Something that isn't uncommon today either.

I know quite a few women that became pregnant both as teens and out of wedlock. The common denominator in all of them was lack of parental supervision. In fact, in one case the parents allowed their daughter, on the weekends, to hang out up town, at night, unsupervised ... for thirty minutes at a time. She was required to check in at home every thirty minutes. In my view that isn't supervision; it's a recipe for disaster. I even warned that it was a recipe for disaster before the disaster ever occured. But it didn't change anything, obviously.

VA, isn't it part of a parent's responsibility as a parent to recognize and understand the fact of teenage hormones, and to put up road blocks to their children yielding to them? Further, aren't we supposed to understand that teens with hormones jumping are particularly adept at utilizing what unsupervised time we alot them to their own perceived advantage?...
September 5, 2008 8:07 AM


Terry Morris said...
I wrote in the original entry that I hope beyond hope that Sarah Palin never considered it her choice to abort her baby. This is interesting because the entry was written on Sept. 1.

On September 2 I received an email from Dr. Dobson's CitizenLink organization titled "Gov. Palin announces teen daughter's pregnancy; Dr. Dobson offers Prayer".

Here's an excerpt from that email in which the Palins are quoted on their daughter Bristol's pregnancy:

We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents, they said in a statement Monday. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

If I take what is said by the Palins at face value, then apparently Sarah Palin does believe it is her choice whether to abort her baby or not. In fact she apparently not only believes that she - a 44 year old adult woman - has the right to make this choice, but that her 17 year old minor daughter Bristol (and all 17 year old minor children by extension) have the right to make the choice between life and death for their babies.

So, essentially, the hopes I expressed in the original entry have been dashed.

The least she could have done would have been to make a distinction between an adult woman's choice and a minor child's choice. But she probably looks at it like a lot of other people I know who say that if a boy is old enough to go to war, then he's old enough to purchase and consume liquor, and our laws should reflect that. In Bristol's case (and as I said before, all 17 year old minor girls by extension) Mrs. Palin's logic probably goes "if she's old enough to get pregnant she's old enough to decide to abort."

But maybe I'm just reading too much into her statement. And maybe I'm reading too much into Dr. Dobson's blind support for Palin.
September 7, 2008 5:49 AM

Terry Morris said...
And by the way, I don't know whether any of this stuff people are saying about Levi's (Bristol's boyfriend and the father of her child) MySpace is true, but if it is he sure as heck isn't someone I'd want any of my daughters marrying under any circumstances.

I happen to believe that marriage is not always the answer to righting the wrong of an illegitimate pregnancy. In point of fact it's probably rarely the answer, particularly in today's goofed up world. What mother or father in their right minds would wish upon their teenage daughter a marriage that has a very good chance of failing.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But like I said, I don't know anything about Levi. Maybe he's a great kid and has all the stuff to be a great father and a great husband to Bristol. Could be.
September 7, 2008 6:07 AM

The_Editrix said...
"The least she could have done would have been to make a distinction between an adult woman's choice and a minor child's choice."

Terry, once one allows exceptions from sacredness of life one will find it difficult to support one's stance, factually and ethically. Why should a mature woman have more "right to choose" than a girl? I say (for argument's sake) that a girl has her whole life ahead of her whereas a mature woman lives (in the majority of cases) in more or less secure circumstances. Such an argument is in no way less supportable than yours.

Human life is sacred. Full stop. And any (ANY!) qualification will take to to very slippery grounds.

"But maybe I'm just reading too much into her statement. And maybe I'm reading too much into Dr. Dobson's blind support for Palin."

I don't think you do.

September 8, 2008 2:34 AM

Terry Morris said...
Nora, thank you. Please allow me to clarify my position...

I wasn't trying to say that an adult woman has more right to choose to kill her baby than a teenage minor. I realize that this is an untenable position to take. I was really just trying to make a point concerning Sarah's public statements on the matter, and the apparent content of her "family values".

The Palins released a statement to the press saying that they were proud of their daughter for deciding to have her baby. This implies that 17 year old Bristol Palin was afforded the choice in the matter, and that her parents recognize her right to make that choice (thank God she made the right one, eh?).

As the father of a sixteen year old daughter, I can tell you that I recognize and grant no such choice to my daughter. Not that she would make the wrong one, but it's not her choice to make, neither morally nor as a dependent child living under my roof. As her parent I have complete authority over her until she comes of age. So if there's any "choice" to be made, I'll make it for her ... if "choice" is even the right word here. And I'd never give her any impression that she has such a choice.

The point is that Sarah Palin, if her statement says anything about her view on the subject, seems to believe that a 17 year old minor pregnant child under her care and supervision has an independent choice in whether to have her baby or not. But as parents and guardians we should not even entertain the notion that they have such a choice in any case.

I think it says something about the depth of Palin family values that they put it in these terms without making some qualifications to their statements. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding what they meant.
September 8, 2008 4:54 AM

The_Editrix said...
I understand better now. Thanks for clarifying that for me, Terry.

I am sure I don't "get" some details in their right context because I am not American and I don't want to make my criticism of Sarah Palin, who seems to be a nice woman, sound too personal and judgemental. But one thing she isn't: a conservative. I'd like to refer to the discussion at VfR. At one point Lawrence Auster said that Palin "represents something that has replaced conservatism" for which he hadn't yet a name. I replied that there is no name for it because what she is can't be defined as a political stance. All she is, is "unconventional". So she chose not to abort her child, so she has no hangups about shooting, and she happens to be still married to the same man. Is that enough to be be labelled "conservative"? What a toil is that "unconventional" marriage and family life for her husband?

Being conservative is, as I put it at VFR, not a patchwork of non-politically correct items, it is a lifetime concept, a worldview.

The discussion about the pornographic site somebody recently recommended at VFR shows that it is enough to spite just one politically correct issue (in this case feminism) to pass as a "conservative". More cases in point: Those "Islam critics" who happen to be Muslims and, somewhat naturally, tackle Islam first, but would like to abolish religion generally. Hirsi Ali or Irshad Manji come to mind.

I may be wrong, but nothing I have read about Palin in the Internet resembles your family life, as you describe it here.

As I said, Palin seems to be a nice woman, she may be even an able VP, but to sell her as conservative is akin to false labelling.

As an aside: I am somewhat bound to like her out of sheer cussedness because the German media picture her as a cross between Torquemada and Dzenghis Khan.
September 8, 2008 6:05 AM

Terry Morris said...
Thanks again, Nora. I read your comments at VFR and thought them very interesting and insightful.

I agree with you that Sarah is not a conservative.

I wrote at VFR that there's a large "eccentric" community in Alaska and that there's an element among Alaskans that one might call "rugged individualism", and that this is sometimes mistaken as conservative. I think Sarah can be described as both of these, but not as a conservative.

Incidentally, have you read Wasilla resident Mrs. Kania's postings at VFR?

As a former resident of Alaska I know a little bit about the state and its people, though I claim no deep understanding of them as Mrs. Kania might have. Alaska is not a conservative state for starters, as I said in one posting at VFR. But beyond that, and in reply to some of Mrs. Kania's sincere statements about the Palins, particularly about their being "very normal people," which I translate to mean "they're just your average American family", I take respectful exception in a couple of emails to Auster on the subject. Hopefully he'll find them worthy of posting and you can read them there. If not I'll post them here at my site.

But I like your term "unconventional", Nora. I think it's a better term than my "eccentric" for describing what Sarah Palin is in part.

In Alaska the unconventional is more "normal" than it is here in the lower forty eight. As I wrote in part to Auster, it is not a novelty in Alaska to see a woman shoveling three feet of snow off of her roof while her husband stands safely on the ground giving her directions and orders. But I don't think it's normal either, anymore than I think it's normal to see a woman wade out waste deep into the frigid waters of the Russian River to catch salmon, but neither is it a novelty.

None of that, among other things, is conservative, it's unconventional as you said.
September 8, 2008 6:44 AM

So far, I have still to find a place outside the Auster/Morris orbit where Sarah Palin is discussed according to her merits (or the lack thereof) and not, in Pavlovian drooling, either as the Jeanne d'Arc of Conservatism or a right-wing extremist because she thinks that it is not alright for a woman to murder her unborn child. Information on that would be more than welcome.

Yes, WHY are Female Executives Giving Palin's Thin Credentials a Pass?

The header of this (and the previous) entry is the title of an embarrassingly self-congratulatory article at HuffingtonPost.

As a women's magazine journalist, and now Editor of More Magazine I've spent my entire career championing, celebrating, highlighting, supporting, and raising money for any and all women trying to shatter the glass ceiling. What surprises me, however, is how the passion for shards has gotten even smart women thinking with their hearts instead of their heads. First older women castigated younger women for being infidels if they didn't support Hillary Clinton. Now another group of women wants us to ignore Palin's flyweight credentials for a heavyweight job. My question is: Would any of these corporate success stories hire a similarly thin-resumed job candidate (male or female) to be their number two? To run their multi-billion dollar banking division? To launch their satellite into space? We've all interviewed the candidates who've been pushed too rapidly up the ladder, who can talk the talk but can't really walk the walk.

Yeah right! We all know the world is full of female top-executive success stories who are running their multi-billion dollar banking division and launching satellites into space while being interviewed by ultra-smart female sycophant journalists with a penchant for intensely painful clichés:

...Palin's underdog status, a place women in business know well ... back to a time when she herself might have had to best a man ... These are scenarios any working woman is all too familiar with ... Sexism still exists. It's alive and well ... In one way or another, we're all in the bunker with Sarah Palin.

Yes, outch!

So WHY are female executives giving Palin's thin credentials really a pass?

Maybe out of the same reason women gave Princess Diana's EXTREMELY thin credentials as a wife and mother a pass. I have yet to meet the woman whose decisions and preferences are based on matter-of fact reasons. That a woman can become "executive" of a company (other than one she's inherited) is bound to be based on the fact that men make extracerebral decisions as well, and if one gets at the bottom of female success stories, there is almost invariably a man who kicked it off, as there is in Mrs. Palin's case.

Why are Female Executives Giving Palin's Thin Credentials a Pass?

I wonder how leftists come to denounce Palin for her "far (FAR!) right-wing views" and how conservatives can laud her as a conservative icon. A truly conservative woman would NOT get a full-time job when she has children and push her husband into the marginal role of a grinning zombie. A conservative woman's unmarried 17-y-o daughter would be appropriately supervised and NOT get pregnant and a conservative woman would NOT lumber her children with fatuous Hippie-names like Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig, but (for example) George, Lauren, Fiona, Caroline and David. A conservative women would, too, NOT get publicly "cutesy" when she is cornered. A conservative woman would NOT drivel about the "glass ceiling", an arch-feminist mantra. CHOOSING not to abort a child does one not make a "conservative" or somebody who has got "FAR right-wing views".

That woman is a bluff package if I've have ever seen one. But at least she serves as a bullsh*t-catalyst for all sides of the political spectrum in America.

And, of course, as one of the other commenters at HuffPost put it, however incompetent Palin may be, the question why Americans are giving Obama's thin credentials a pass remains unanswered.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost.

The Megalomania of The Barely-Not-Ugly

While I am writing this, the French President is still regaling the world with his post-climacteric erotic antics. I'd rather see slugs copulate, but it seems that a majority of the the people of this world are unaware that those beyond midlife have sex as well.

Lack of dignity is the antithesis of style, so why this mentioning?

It is because, when I was searching for pictures of one of the great style icons of the last century, Jacqueline Kennedy, Cecilia Sarkozy kept popping up at an undue number of times.

The comparison made me angry and when I'm angry I'm usually at my most effective. So I started to do my own little bit of research and here are some of the results:



The Sarkozys at an informal occasion.



The Kennedys at an informal occasion.





Cecilia at an official occasion and yes, I suppose we CAN be grateful that she at least shaved her armpits.



Jackie at an official occasion.





Cecilia in - no lie - formal evening dress.



Jackie in formal evening dress (Oleg Cassini). Btw. it's worthwhile comparing husbands as well.





Cecilia in ... well, whatever.



Jackie in Cassini.

Can somebody enlighten me what ON EARTH makes the international shmock brigade compare that insipid, wan, nondescript, scruffy woman with her teeth running down her throat with the most glamorous, sparkling, stylish, beautiful woman who ever graced the stage of international politics? Or describe that mediocre, bedraggled couple as "glamorous"? (60,300 Google hits for "sarkozy" and "glamorous"!)

Does one have just to be slimmer than Angela Merkel? Prettier than Golda Meir? Younger than Madame DeGaulle? Is that really enough? Wow! The media must have ADORED Maggie Thatcher - the sex symbol! But then, Maggie was so boring. Thought she had a job to do. As did all the many other two-timed wives in the Elysée. They were no feminists, after all.

Is it forgotten already that Jacqeline with her several academic degrees kept her mouth firmly shut about politics whereas Cecilia, the drop-out student, thought making a good impression at her husbands side wasn't enough for HER HER HER HER?

Forgotten already that Jackie remained the picture of dignity in the face of "Jacks" horrific womanizing (alright, she fleeced Old Joe Kennedy mercilessly in exchange, but at least she kept her side of the bargain) whereas this woman is now publicly whining about her sordid, boring, middleaged, petty bourgeois marital problems?

Will the world find it worthwhile to exhibit Cecilias dresses forty years after her entry into the Elysée?

As Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg put it: "For me and for those who knew my mother, she will always be a part of us, and of our lives, and she will always grace the history she helped to make. With her own sense of style, she interpreted these values and represented President Kennedy and America in a way that captured the world and still does."

What history did Cecilia Sarkozy help to make?

There is plenty of evidence in the Internet that the Sarkozys did dot just suffer such a preposterous comparison gladly, but that they positively encouraged it:



And we, the public? Are we all out of our minds that we swallow something like that without demur? Gosh, I even don't like the Kennedys and I'm more than just a bit critical when it comes to their political heritage, but THAT comparison shows how far we have gone down the drain towards yobbofication already.