Two or three things about the Norwegian horror:
There is a German Facebook group "I am conservative and I denounce the terror assault in Norway" ("Ich bin konservativ und verurteile den Terroranschlag in Norwegen"). Why does a "conservative" need to distance himself from such a monstrous crime? Are conservatives known for planting bombs in government buildings? Of butchering the children of their political opponents? What will they do next? Distance themselves from breathing because that mass murdering scum breathes -- sad to say -- as well? Those who excuse themselves accuse themselves.
Which leads us to the term "terrorist", which is as falsely as liberally (ha ha) applied here. That man is a mass murderer. Terror is something to establish fear and soften opposition to achieve a political goal within a defined framework. The IRA comes to mind, as does the Basque ETA or -- dare I say it -- Islam, and while multiculturalists and Gutmenschen stumble over their own legs in the attempt to euphemise the countless heinous deeds committed by Muslims in the spirit of Islam as as "isolated cases", conservatives jump the gun in anticipating obedience to declare that they have nothing to do with this mass murderer. Who would have thought so.
There is another aspect, maybe the most irritating one. 800 young people plus attendants, coaches and other carers -- there must have been a three-figure number of able-bodied men in their late teens or twenties on that island. The murderer had to load and re-load that gun again and again during those hellish 90 minutes. However, as far as we know, no attempt was made to overpower him. Different from the people of hero flight 93, the young people would even have had a decent chance to survive. Is that the outcome of more than 40 years of misandry, of denouncing and criminalising the best qualities of the male sex? Have they heard once to often the debased creed that "violence has never taken anybody anywhere"? God help us!
Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.
Showing posts with label "Conservative" Frauds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Conservative" Frauds. Show all posts
Monday, 25 July 2011
Sunday, 17 October 2010
The Answer to a Long-Asked Question
For a long time I am vaguely thinking about the reasons for the obvious gap between what I perceive as justified complaints from American men about the corrupting effect of feminism and women's "sexual liberation", about the disastrous consequences it has for their lifes and society in general, and what I see here, at my end. "Hypergamy" is a concept I always understood only theoretically and which I did not consider part of my culture. Now, at the most interesting Australian blog The Social Pathologist, which I found by chance, as one does, in the Internet, and specifically at the entries The Virgin Bride and The Programmable Sex (including the comments) I found at last an explanation that makes actually sense (plus an interesting sideline about the nature of Islam).
The Social Pathologist, who is a doctor, has a matter-of-fact attitude towards the female nature, backs up his points with a lot of data and is lacking the sneering, cynical and contemptuous attitude of Roissy and his ilk, something I find unsavoury and hard to tolerate.
Here is where I come in:
The Social Pathologist, who is a doctor, has a matter-of-fact attitude towards the female nature, backs up his points with a lot of data and is lacking the sneering, cynical and contemptuous attitude of Roissy and his ilk, something I find unsavoury and hard to tolerate.
Here is where I come in:
It seems, that every society has got its own aphrodisiac and that women always make the worst of it."Some [pissant artist] burns a koran and it's art, some [non-Christian preacher where Christians are a minority] puts a crucifix in urine and that's a hate crime."
Point taken and yes, there are two sides of that matter -- theoretically. However, the fact remains that no embassies burn and no people die if somebody puts a crucifix in urine. Maybe it's a conservative thing to understand that "equality" isn't the answer to everything.
"The whole divorce end point is complicated by a whole host of variables."
SO true!
IQ (at least occupational status correlated to IQ) does decrease divorce rate........... in America. In other countries it increases it."
I'd wager that is, because American society is in many things lower middle class (or petty bourgeois, if you like that better) in its VALUES. ("What WILL people say!") From my experience -- I am a German who was partly socialised in England -- people above a certain stratum simply don't care what others say about them.
Fascinating discussion. Keep up the good work!
The Editrix, thanks for dropping by.
However, the fact remains that no embassies burn and no people die if somebody puts a crucifix in urine.
That's because Christians don't care. If they did the embassy's would burn. The only reason why the towelheads burn embassies if because they love Allah, we give God lip service.
I'd wager that is, because American society is in many things lower middle class (or petty bourgeois, if you like that better) in its VALUES.
It is both American society's strength and weakness. America probably cannot scale the heights of European glory, nor can plumb the depths of European wickedness.
people above a certain stratum simply don't care what others say about them.
So true, but it's a fatal flaw to have when the criticism leveled against one is legitimate. Sometimes its most beneficial to care about public opinion, most times its not."It is both American society's strength and weakness."
Indeed! I was trying not to be judgemental, just stating a fact. A lot of American traits we tend to sneer at are really strengths.
I find this blog most interesting because it seems to deal with the facts of female nature, different from the Roissy-ites, in a matter-of-fact and non-contemptuous way. Many of the complaints of American men, of which I have no doubt that they are justified, I find as exotic as I might find the the mating rites of some Australo-Papuan tribe.
To make an attempt at putting the problem, as I see it for the European society in which I live, into words: Women are not able to live their sexuality in a self-reliant and responsible way. They simply don't possess the ethical and moral fibre necessary for that and need the confinements of a TRADITIONAL marriage. The most destructive single cause for the decline of our civilisation is the sexual liberation of women. I see a woman at the root of virtual each and every marital and familial failure I am watching. I see sluttiness, idleness, vanity, lack of backbone, morals and common decency. What I do NOT see is "hypergamy". But then, when I first came across the American wedding cult, five-figure wedding dress, diamond ring, the lot, more than ten years ago in the Internet, it was one of those Australo-Papuan culture shocks as well. I am not saying that we are any better in Europe or Germany, we aren't, and the outcome for marriages and families is just as disastrous here. All I am saying is that the underlying motives are different, and that wouldn't be so if "hypergamy" were really a biological given.
I see this as food for thought and further discussion, not as the ultimate truth.
However, and on a different note: I'd like to strongly contradict your statement about Muslims. I don't think Muslims love their Allah, which is not the God of the Bible, as we love the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They just hate everything and everybody that doesn't fit into their debased world view. I strongly deny that we can learn anything from them. Any similarity with a traditional Christian view, be it the love of God, women's modesty or whatever, is purely pheno- not genotypical.
Off my soapbox now. ;-)It seems I ought to have read your entry "The Programmable Sex" first. It goes a long way towards explaining the differences. If one assumes that women's sexuality does indeed reflect societal norms and peer group pressure, it is not so amazing anymore that American woman go for material gain and a diamond ring when looking out for a mate, and German women for (far more frightening) idealistic reasons. Don't take that as a flattering description. Germans are at their most obnoxious, even dangerous, when their sense for idealism is tickled. If I think of the failed marriages within my circle of friends and acquaintances, I'd wager that the adulteresses are very sure that they really "love" that man, "deserve" him and can make him SO much happier than his wife can, in brief, that they are doing actually a good and meritorious, even noble, thing. Few of those I have in mind right now have gained much financially, but, again, that doesn't make them in the least better than any American gold digger and the marriage and family they broke up is just as broken.
The same applies to the wives who leave their husbands because they are bored. They usually don't improve their financial status.
Reversely, you would be amazed for what German men are exchanging attractive, charming and even rich wives. The Roissy-ites with their scale of female attractiveness would be stunned. I am not a man, so I can only say that I haven't a clue what makes them tick. Admiration from the cook or groom they don't get from their wives? Maybe, but why MARRY them?
I have been thinking for a while now rather sketchily in that direction because the differences are so obvious to me when I have no reason to doubt the complaints of the American men. Thank you and this blog for helping me clarifying that.
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
The Peculiar Way of Women to Deal with Their Problems
F.C. sent me the following comment via email:
Yes, I am female. "Editrix" is the female form of the male "Editor". Why are you asking? Would you expect a female to be more lenient in her judgement of women because she is one herself? If that is the case, I don't agree.
As for Phyllis Chesler, I think I made a good job of proving my point that Chesler is a hysterical egomaniac and grotesquely overrated shame to any academic environment, and that she is not criticising Islam as such, but talking about her (HER HER HER) personal problems with it. It's all in my various articles about her in German and English. Not my judgement is horrible, it's the plain truth. Chesler is horrible. You, on the other hand, just said you think she is wonderful. I would be seriously interested to learn why you think that. No provocation or sarcasm intended.
Now Nagla Imam: So evil Islamists gave her a bad name by doctoring (how?) what she said about Israel. I guess they did that because they knew what a worldwide outcry would ensue because the Jews generally and Israel specifically are so well loved everywhere, as proven by the massive protests against what she said.
(But sarcasm aside and let's for argument's sake assume they DID doctor her statements. The question remains WHERE THE OUTCRY WAS because we had to believe that she had really said that. The feminists' reaction, however: *CRICKETS*.)
I will say what I think of all that: No Muslim in a Muslim country will convert to Christianity lightly, so in that she is credible. I think it just proves that hatred of Jews is the spiritual staple of Islam and the West. She may have, as it was discussed at a blog, tried to give herself some notoriety to protect herself, but again, it would be a peculiar, peculiarly ineffective -- and very telling -- way of doing so. She may be simply a crackpot, but I don't think it's quite that simple. One thing I know: That a case like that will typically and enthusiastically be picked up by Pajamas Media, this great melting pot of a couple of liberals who don't like Islamic extremism (but have mostly nothing against Islam as such) and thus consider themselves "conservatives".
And to revert to the topic of this blog: I wonder whether a man would have dealt with his personal problems in a similarly less-than-straightforward way.
Thank you again for your opinion. Great food for thought!
Hallo, I found your Blog through this and I wanted to comment that last one ... I was wondering are you a Female or a Male? Your Judgement against ... about Phyllis Chesler is really horrible (and I say that being a Female) - I say, Dr. Phyllis Chesler is just wonderful.First, thank you for your kind words, F.C. As for the points you have addressed:
Anyway, I saw your Post about Nagla Al-Imam and her Statements: People recently talk(ed) about her, since she appearently converted to Christianity and got persecuted by the Authorities of her Country. About her, an Article appeared on PajamasMedia.
Thank you for approaching Islam/-ic/-ist Threat ... that's great.
I wish you a nice Day and Life.
Yes, I am female. "Editrix" is the female form of the male "Editor". Why are you asking? Would you expect a female to be more lenient in her judgement of women because she is one herself? If that is the case, I don't agree.
As for Phyllis Chesler, I think I made a good job of proving my point that Chesler is a hysterical egomaniac and grotesquely overrated shame to any academic environment, and that she is not criticising Islam as such, but talking about her (HER HER HER) personal problems with it. It's all in my various articles about her in German and English. Not my judgement is horrible, it's the plain truth. Chesler is horrible. You, on the other hand, just said you think she is wonderful. I would be seriously interested to learn why you think that. No provocation or sarcasm intended.
Now Nagla Imam: So evil Islamists gave her a bad name by doctoring (how?) what she said about Israel. I guess they did that because they knew what a worldwide outcry would ensue because the Jews generally and Israel specifically are so well loved everywhere, as proven by the massive protests against what she said.
(But sarcasm aside and let's for argument's sake assume they DID doctor her statements. The question remains WHERE THE OUTCRY WAS because we had to believe that she had really said that. The feminists' reaction, however: *CRICKETS*.)
I will say what I think of all that: No Muslim in a Muslim country will convert to Christianity lightly, so in that she is credible. I think it just proves that hatred of Jews is the spiritual staple of Islam and the West. She may have, as it was discussed at a blog, tried to give herself some notoriety to protect herself, but again, it would be a peculiar, peculiarly ineffective -- and very telling -- way of doing so. She may be simply a crackpot, but I don't think it's quite that simple. One thing I know: That a case like that will typically and enthusiastically be picked up by Pajamas Media, this great melting pot of a couple of liberals who don't like Islamic extremism (but have mostly nothing against Islam as such) and thus consider themselves "conservatives".
And to revert to the topic of this blog: I wonder whether a man would have dealt with his personal problems in a similarly less-than-straightforward way.
Thank you again for your opinion. Great food for thought!
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
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.Cry me a river. But there's always another woman's husband or so it seems.
[...]
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.’
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.
Saturday, 2 January 2010
The Call of the Double-X-Chromosome
This is from my German blog. The header is picking up that of an article in the German newspaper "Tagesspiegel", which is, notabene, considered "conservative". Under the headline "The Call of The Muezzin", Claudia Keller, always out to explain to unappreciative Germans the virtues of Islam, writes something that is (I am trying to translate my native language anger) "so abysmally dumb, shit-for-brain-bottomless stupid, self destructive, undignified and footling that it must have been written by a woman about women." The quote from the Tagesspiegel says:
One may approve of such vulgarity or not, but true it is. They embrace Islam because they associate the role of a mother and homemaker with the humiliating, undignified and ultimately pornographic status Islam assigns to women, they are good for nothing and rationalize their justified feeling of inadequacy by "wanting to escape the achievement-oriented society" and, at least to me, worst, they consider a medieval death cult with doubtful aesthetics, that cultivates a sick image of masculinity where homosexuality is as strictly taboo-ed as widely practised, "fateful" and "romantic". Well, at least now I know why "romance", this pukeworthy Americanism for "love", disgusts me so much. For heaven's sake! Look at that woman. The word "simpering" must have been INVENTED to describe her!
Apropos beating!
The article says, too (and appreciatively, by the way), that the Muslim organisation "Islamarchiv in Soest" estimates the current number of German converts to be 25,000, two thirds of them women. And now the INcredible part: Previous to 9/11 between 200 and 250 Germans converted to Islam, post-911 1,000, 2,000, once even 4,000, a year. Should those figures be authentic (and I think they are, more or less) the mixture of oestrogen-addled brains, anti-Americanism, self-hatred and anticipatory obedience is stunning!
Convert? To Islam? Unthinkable for many. But every year it is done by thousands in Germany. Most of them are women. Three encounters.To this, I then add: "And they all did it because they are *umb *unts."
Sonja did it, to be recognized as a mother and homemaker. Franziska, because she was enthusiastic about the romantic, fateful element in it. Ulrike wanted to escape the achievement-oriented society.
One may approve of such vulgarity or not, but true it is. They embrace Islam because they associate the role of a mother and homemaker with the humiliating, undignified and ultimately pornographic status Islam assigns to women, they are good for nothing and rationalize their justified feeling of inadequacy by "wanting to escape the achievement-oriented society" and, at least to me, worst, they consider a medieval death cult with doubtful aesthetics, that cultivates a sick image of masculinity where homosexuality is as strictly taboo-ed as widely practised, "fateful" and "romantic". Well, at least now I know why "romance", this pukeworthy Americanism for "love", disgusts me so much. For heaven's sake! Look at that woman. The word "simpering" must have been INVENTED to describe her!
(She) doesn't feel completely at home in the Wedding [a Berlin suburb] mosque. The Macho ways of many Arab men go on her nerves. She won't concentrate so hard on her work for the mosque in the future.My guess is that she won't stay for ever a "Muslima" and embrace wicca, satanism or Bach flowers next, which will be a good thing, because otherwise one of those romantic Muslim men will apply a fateful beating to her to wipe that smug smile off her face.
Apropos beating!
... that the husband is allowed to beat his wife if she doesn't obey him and goes astray, applies only to "extreme circumstances", when nothing else helps. She herself wouldn't be in for anything like that anyway [We are relieved!], she as a convert, is much more devout than her husband who doesn't take religion all that seriously anyway and doesn't visit the mosque. "I am very worried because of that, Jasmin [That's the one who wants to escape the achievement-oriented society!] says. She would like to save her husband from hell, but so far all discussions led to nothing.Maybe that is because he considers her the moron she is. Maybe Islam HAS a point, after all. (That was sarcasm!)
The article says, too (and appreciatively, by the way), that the Muslim organisation "Islamarchiv in Soest" estimates the current number of German converts to be 25,000, two thirds of them women. And now the INcredible part: Previous to 9/11 between 200 and 250 Germans converted to Islam, post-911 1,000, 2,000, once even 4,000, a year. Should those figures be authentic (and I think they are, more or less) the mixture of oestrogen-addled brains, anti-Americanism, self-hatred and anticipatory obedience is stunning!
Sunday, 18 October 2009
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.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
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:
She isn't speaking for me.
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.Re-reading Chesler's PM-entry, it becomes even more preposterous. Here is the bit I quoted above in its context:
"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.
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.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?
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?
She isn't speaking for me.
Monday, 24 August 2009
The Chicken of Equality and Tolerance are Coming Home to Roost
Two comments from my other blog:Women have not just alienated and emasculated their own natural protectors, but those of their sons as well.
Friday, 31 July 2009
Women and Guns
Ilana Mercer quotes Sarah Palin appreciatively:
Of course, everybody who knows the first things about animals and wildlife will prefer game to meat from domestic animals, for both, animal welfare and reasons of edibility. Wildlife had had a good life in its natural surroundings when it finally meets its maker. It doesn't know what has hit it, it hasn't been raised on "hygienic" concrete floor, hip to hip with other poor critters, without a look at the blue sky ever, possibly even in the dark, fed with doubtful, chemically "enhanced" food. It isn't beaten into a butchery where it will be forced to smell the fear and the blood of all the animals slaughtered before. I'll gladly grant the guns their fun in exchange for providing me with meat that is not like that. Hey, I even know a farmer/butcher who shoots his free-ranging beef in the field, so that they'll never know what hit them. Meet from animals that haven't experienced stress before they died tastes better as well, a simple matter of chemistry.
I realize that German shooting and American hunting are very different. While I'm known to be a scourge of my own people, and while the eternal and spiritual values Germans tend to foist on that sport (ooops... of course it's no sport, it's a semi-sacred endeavour to better the world) go sometimes seriously on my nerves, at least our pork chops aren't tormented to death over a longish period of time and we don't see a point in chasing a terrified tame animal within a manageable enclosure while blowing holes into it. If that makes us leftist pinko commies or treehuggers -- so be it.
But I digress. The question I'd like to answer is: Now we know that "we", the members of a post-modern society, do indeed NOT "need" to hunt to eat meat, does a hunting woman really convey the proper image for a traditional, conservative society? Ilana Mercer seems to think so:
Did you watch "El Dorado"? It can be seen, I think, as somewhat emblematic for women and guns. Where does the trouble come from? From a gun-toting, irresponsible girl who refuses to listen to her father. (I wonder whether they wore jeans that looked as if the wearer had been poured into them and such carefully dishevelled manes in the old West, but that's beside the point here.) And nothing will outline the nature of feminism better than her quip: "They haven't gotten around shooting women yet," when a man offers to escort her in a town highly charged with hostility. So it is alright for HER to tote a gun (and shooting men in the process) while she takes it for granted that no man will shoot her. Sheer and undiluted feminism. American men, you've brought it all upon yourselves!
If you look at the scene where that girl "Joey" comes to the prison with her sister-in-law whose husband has just beed kidnapped by the bad guys, the difference between a woman carrying a gun in self-defense and one who does it aggressively becomes quite obvious. There is nothing boastful, warchick-y about the other woman. She just does what she has to do.
I shoot as well, although I haven't killed anything yet, I am the holder of a shooting license, to be precise. Shooting in Germany is a largely all-male affair and I have yet to meet a woman who complains about it. I like to attend the annual general meeting of the regional guns' association because I and another woman of my age are usually the only ones present and among the youngest attendees to boot. I can't think in a hurry about any other venue where that would be the case. I know quite a few women who have, like myself, undergone the lengthy and expensive process to acquire a shooting license and who will reply, when asked why they have done it, to help their husbands, or to be licensed to lead dogs at gundog trials. I know very few who actually enjoy the stalking and killing bit. Not that I blame those who do, it just doesn't seem to be the norm and I think that tells its own story.
So this German challenges the lippy American "war chick" and "gun toting women" culture as something that may be very American but can in no way be called "conservative".
Like Sarah Palin, really!
"Hollywood needs to know: We eat therefore we hunt."While I agree with what this quip is supposed to convey, (as I perceive it), namely that meat does NOT come out of the deep freeze and that we, as a society, have to kill to eat, there are several things that can be (and ARE) said about it. One of them is that animals ought not to be killed for fun and that farm animals is all we need to supply us with meat. Wildlife numbers, members of that faction argue, can be controlled by professionals. Of course, the stench of the Puritan surrounding this statement, who will sniff out if anybody anywhere on the globe has fun and will try to stop it at once, is overpowering. I just quoted it to show that we do NOT have to hunt to eat and that Palin's statement stripped to its bones, catchy as it may be, is simply wrong.
Of course, everybody who knows the first things about animals and wildlife will prefer game to meat from domestic animals, for both, animal welfare and reasons of edibility. Wildlife had had a good life in its natural surroundings when it finally meets its maker. It doesn't know what has hit it, it hasn't been raised on "hygienic" concrete floor, hip to hip with other poor critters, without a look at the blue sky ever, possibly even in the dark, fed with doubtful, chemically "enhanced" food. It isn't beaten into a butchery where it will be forced to smell the fear and the blood of all the animals slaughtered before. I'll gladly grant the guns their fun in exchange for providing me with meat that is not like that. Hey, I even know a farmer/butcher who shoots his free-ranging beef in the field, so that they'll never know what hit them. Meet from animals that haven't experienced stress before they died tastes better as well, a simple matter of chemistry.
I realize that German shooting and American hunting are very different. While I'm known to be a scourge of my own people, and while the eternal and spiritual values Germans tend to foist on that sport (ooops... of course it's no sport, it's a semi-sacred endeavour to better the world) go sometimes seriously on my nerves, at least our pork chops aren't tormented to death over a longish period of time and we don't see a point in chasing a terrified tame animal within a manageable enclosure while blowing holes into it. If that makes us leftist pinko commies or treehuggers -- so be it.
But I digress. The question I'd like to answer is: Now we know that "we", the members of a post-modern society, do indeed NOT "need" to hunt to eat meat, does a hunting woman really convey the proper image for a traditional, conservative society? Ilana Mercer seems to think so:
Palin is a terrific specimen of a woman. Would that there were more disciplined, gun-toting, hunting, energetic local leaders like this lady in my state. She’s not a philosopher or a thinker; but she should be the Gold Standard for the all-American archetype of a woman (and not the vacuous California toothy booby bimbo).And while I largely agree with her assessment of Palin's good qualities, I once again challenge Palin's qualities to represent truly conservative and traditional values. It may be a matter of taste, but I don't think that the demonstrative wearing of weapons for other purposes than self-defense, befits a woman. I don't think, either, that women, on a large scale, can handle the responsibility that comes with it, and while it is the height of hypocrisy to revile Palin because she kills wildlife but not her unborn child, it is not very wise to promote a gun-toting Palin as a female role model fit for emulation.
Did you watch "El Dorado"? It can be seen, I think, as somewhat emblematic for women and guns. Where does the trouble come from? From a gun-toting, irresponsible girl who refuses to listen to her father. (I wonder whether they wore jeans that looked as if the wearer had been poured into them and such carefully dishevelled manes in the old West, but that's beside the point here.) And nothing will outline the nature of feminism better than her quip: "They haven't gotten around shooting women yet," when a man offers to escort her in a town highly charged with hostility. So it is alright for HER to tote a gun (and shooting men in the process) while she takes it for granted that no man will shoot her. Sheer and undiluted feminism. American men, you've brought it all upon yourselves!
If you look at the scene where that girl "Joey" comes to the prison with her sister-in-law whose husband has just beed kidnapped by the bad guys, the difference between a woman carrying a gun in self-defense and one who does it aggressively becomes quite obvious. There is nothing boastful, warchick-y about the other woman. She just does what she has to do.
I shoot as well, although I haven't killed anything yet, I am the holder of a shooting license, to be precise. Shooting in Germany is a largely all-male affair and I have yet to meet a woman who complains about it. I like to attend the annual general meeting of the regional guns' association because I and another woman of my age are usually the only ones present and among the youngest attendees to boot. I can't think in a hurry about any other venue where that would be the case. I know quite a few women who have, like myself, undergone the lengthy and expensive process to acquire a shooting license and who will reply, when asked why they have done it, to help their husbands, or to be licensed to lead dogs at gundog trials. I know very few who actually enjoy the stalking and killing bit. Not that I blame those who do, it just doesn't seem to be the norm and I think that tells its own story.So this German challenges the lippy American "war chick" and "gun toting women" culture as something that may be very American but can in no way be called "conservative".
Like Sarah Palin, really!
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?
Monday, 27 July 2009
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)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?
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.
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.
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Recommended Reading
From Lawrence Auster's VFR:
By the way, have you noticed the predominance of highly placed women in the idiocies being discussed in the below entries? The Episcopal Presiding Bishopette who says that individual salvation is a heresy and wants to replace it with African style village collectivism; the female federal judge who says that as a “wise Latina” she would be a better judge than a white man; and the female soon-to-be ex governor who makes her personal drama the centerpiece of her supposedly conservative politics. I am not attributing the madness of Western self-destruction to women, but it is clear that the more a society has women in leading positions, the more that society goes downhill.It's worth to read the mentioned entries in detail.
Sunday, 12 July 2009
Females Let Loose
Lately, a picture of President Obama staring (or maybe not, but let's for argument's sake say he did) at a girl's behind at the G8 summit caused a major brouhaha. I guess they have nothing else to worry about.The reactions by "conservatives" are amazing. From "Negro sensuality" via "We once again have a President who is more interested in the ass of a 16-year old then doing the right thing for our country" to "just a 'regular dumb guy... looking for a little butt action ... and bows to Saudi royalty, too", there are all kinds of topical, witty, straight-to-the-point, politically savvy and punctuation-conscious comments. One was even worrying what Little Miss Flimsy Dress might "feel" having those evil evil men staring at her butt. I'd say: satisfaction that the dress worked so well and she got all the attention she clearly doesn't deserve. However, what none of those "conservatives" asked was what the parents of that girl thought, when they let a girl that young strut her behind, barely concealed by a thin bit of cloth, at an international political gathering. Or rather: What a girl has AT ALL to do at an international political gathering.
I'd never thought that I'd ever say anything nice about Obama but the storm in a teacup about an instinctive and natural male reaction just shows what a bunch of sexually repressed and emasculated weirdoes Americans are. The behind of that girl didn't look like 16. What is a normal, healthy male supposed to do? Say: "Excuse me Madam, but before I stare at your arse, are you above legal age?"
Elsewhere, 9-year old girls are marriageable, consummation included. But who cares? It's so much more sexy to be outraged if a normal American guy stares at a behind that looks 25, if only the girl attached to it is 16.
Saturday, 2 May 2009
To Each Her Own
Carrie Prejean, the oldest looking twentysomething in the history of mankind, has dared to have an opinion in the wrong place, namely at a beauty pageant. That is one of those disgusting, undignified American spectacles, where the "beauty" of walking, breathing breast implants with blonde manes on top and long legs below is judged. Of course, they have talent as well. They are striving to care for the special education needs of elementary school children or cure cancer. Carrie had made a mistake in that she wasn't all over her tolerant top about "gay marriage" when asked. One can safely assume now that she didn't twig the implications of that question and that the answer she gave would cost her years of efforts of acquiring a spectacular, carefully and studied dishevelled blonde mane and turning a (presumably) normal, even pretty, young face into a frightening frozen mask with a lot of teeth.One could ask now what a nice Christian girl is doing at such a cynical, lewd, lower class public display, and draw the conclusion that one thing Carrie isn't: an icon of and victim for any "conservative" cause.
One could ask now, too, what business a disgusting poofter like Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. has to judge over female beauty.
Well... I guess "business" is the operative word and maybe such an understanding of female beauty is even asking for exactly such a judge.And now excuse me, I am going to throw up.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Mother-woman gives up whatever ghost of a unique talent she may have had
Or: Riding the Old Nag of Science to Death -- Backwards and Again
In the latest edition of Middle East Forum Phyllis Chesler is, so it seems, quite out of character carrying a torch for the Western male.
Differing Characteristics of Honor Killings and Domestic Violence
Is she? (Colouring added by me.)
In 2003 I wrote about Chesler's, then new, book "The New Anti-Semitism", at that time rather restrained:
We have dicussed "honour killings" and the matter of "honour" in Muslim societies generally (for example) here, here, here, here or here. Many continuative links provided.
| Honor Killings | Domestic Violence |
| Committed mainly by Muslims against Muslim girls/young adult women. | Committed by men of all faiths usually against adult women. |
| Committed mainly by fathers against their teenage daughters and daughters in their early twenties. Wives and older-age daughters may also be victims, but to a lesser extent. | Committed by an adult male spouse against an adult female spouse or intimate partner. |
| Carefully planned. Death threats are often used as a means of control. | The murder is often unplanned and spontaneous. |
| The planning and execution involve multiple family members and can include mothers, sisters, brothers, male cousins, uncles, grandfathers, etc. If the girl escapes, the extended family will continue to search for her to kill her. | The murder is carried out by one man with no family complicity. |
| The reason given for the honor killing is that the girl or young woman has "dishonored" the family. | The batterer-murderer does not claim any family concept of "honor." The reasons may range from a poorly cooked meal to suspected infidelity to the woman's trying to protect the children from his abuse or turning to the authorities for help. |
| At least half the time, the killings are carried out with barbaric ferocity. The female victim is often raped, burned alive, stoned or beaten to death, cut at the throat, decapitated, stabbed numerous times, suffocated slowly, etc. | While some men do beat a spouse to death, they often simply shoot or stab them. |
| The extended family and community valorize the honor killing. They do not condemn the perpetrators in the name of Islam. Mainly, honor killings are seen as normative. | The batterer-murderer is seen as a criminal; no one defends him as a hero. Such men are often viewed as sociopaths, mentally ill, or evil. |
| The murderer(s) do not show remorse. Instead, they experience themselves as "victims," defending themselves from the girl's actions and trying to restore their lost family honor. | Sometimes, remorse or regret is exhibited. |
I read the book and I was disappointed. Chesler is an annoying woman, and that in more than one respect. A founding mother of second-wave feminism, she is not just a man-hater and sloppy researcher if it suits her agenda (in her 1986 book Mothers on Trial she stated that 70 percent of mothers in custody battles lost, which was based on an extremely non-random sample of 60 women, but frequently used as a feminist mantra) and, even worse, one of those irritating women who send their dignity, education and brain flying when they marry a Western-educated Muslim, followed him to his native country, find it -- surprise, surprise -- less than accomodating there and are then jumping on the victim-bandwagon. [...] Not to speak of Chesler's basic credibility problem. An "academic" who writes, as Chesler does in "Women and Madness", that "mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children" (inverted commas by the author!) has lost any right to have her say on any conservative cause. Correction: On ANYthing.And to answer my own question: no she isn't. This man-hating ogre (or is it ogress?) who has presumably destroyed as many families as the average post-WWII armed conflict, is -- again -- up to her old tricks and, under the disguise of informing about the difference of "normal" domestic violence and Muslim "honour killings", fudging in her anti-social feminist drivel. What is the truth about domestic violence?
Despite the criticisms leveled at Steinmetz and her concept of the battered husband, violence directed at husbands has been reported by others. For instance, Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetz (1980) estimated that about one in eight men in the United States acted violently during marital conflict. However, they estimated a similar number of women also acted violently during marital conflict. They also noted that in a majority of these cases, violence was a mutual or bilateral activity, with only 27% of cases finding that husbands were the sole perpetrators of violence and 24% of cases finding only wives acting violently. With respect to serious violence, as judged by the Conflict Tactics Scales (Note 2), these authors stated that the rate for men beaten by their wives was 4.6%; a figure that indicated "over 2 million very violent wives." While 47% of those husbands who beat their wives did so severely three or more times a year, 53% of women who beat their husbands severely did so three or more times a year. In a later article, Straus and Gelles (1986) reviewed both their own and other studies in the United States and reported somewhat equivalent assault rates for both male-to-female and female-to-male. In their 1975 survey, Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz (1980) estimated that approximately 38 out of every 1000 families experience severe husband-to-wife violence, while 46 out of every l000 families experience severe wife-to-husband violence. Ten years later, Straus & Gelles (1986) reported that the rates have dropped from 38 to 30 and 46 and 44 per 1000 couples, respectively. In overall acts of violence, as defined by the Conflict Tactics Scales, husband-to-wife rates of violence were 121 and 113 and wife-to-husband rates of violence were 116 and 121 per 1000 couples for the two study years (i.e., 1975 and 1985). Although Straus and Gelles (1986) did not dwell on these comparisons, they did make a statement that seems to run counter to the prevailing academic and public perception of the time, namely, that "an important and distressing finding about violence in American families is that, in marked contrast to the behavior of women outside the family, women are about as violent within the family as men" (p. 470). The small change in the wife-to-husband rate of violence, as opposed to some change in the husband-to-wife violence, was suggested to result from a lack of attention or concern to male victimization. The case for giving due regard to domestic women-on-men assaults and an acceptance of this higher level of victimization was backed by reference to other studies finding similar levels of male victimization (Brutz & Ingoldsby, 1984; Gelles, 1974; Giles-Sims, 1983; Jourilles & O'Leary, 1985; Lane & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1985; ; Laner & Thompson, 1982; Makepeace, 1983; Sack, Keller, & Howard, 1982; Saunders, 1986; Scanzoni, 1978; Steinmetz, 1977, 1977-78; Szinovacz, 1983). In conclusion, summarized such data as Straus and Gelles (1986) indicating that women engage in minor assaults against their male partners at a slightly higher rate than for the same attacks upon women by men. In situations in which both partners use violence, men and women were also almost equally responsible for the first blow, but in only one quarter of these relationships was the man the sole victim. At more potentially injurious levels of assault, men were considered to exceed women in their aggressive behavior and it was suggested that a relative rate in the order of 6 or 7 to 1 (male versus female) was evident for the perpetration of injurious assaults.Can we really believe that the scientific findings from decades ago have not yet arrived at Professor Chesler's desk? In post-Renaissance Europe, society ostracized and humiliated hen-pecked husbands. In France, for example, a "battered" husband was forced to trot around town riding a donkey backwards. It is safe to assume that enough men are, despite the worst efforts of a feminist society, still carrying some faint remnants of the patriarchal ethos telling him that a husband is expected to protect his wife and family instead of being beaten by her. Thus, a battered husband may be just -- dare I say it -- ashamed to admit that he has been the victim of female violence, which makes one wonder about the number of unreported cases. But, thanks to the Cheslers of this world, as we children of the post-feminist age know, men do not suffer from subtle feelings like shame, victimization or humiliation. Only women do that. I wish that hysteric woman would just shut up or at least stop abusing her academic position to deal with her personal problems. As a saviour -- saviouresse -- of Western civilization she is simply miscast.
We have dicussed "honour killings" and the matter of "honour" in Muslim societies generally (for example) here, here, here, here or here. Many continuative links provided.
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Islam's Intolerance is the Fault of the West
Now, as the question why young men with a "migration background" beat German pensioners to a pulp, is safely and satisfactorily answered, the question why young men with a "migration background" beat homosexuals to a pulp needs similar processing. This is done by one Hans Peter Pökel who is introduced as somebody who "does research in the field of gender images in the classical Arab literature" and who "works at the institute for Semitic and Arabic studies at the Freie Universität Berlin" in yesterday's Tagesspiegel, a major Berlin newspaper, considered to be on the more conservative side of the political spectrum. Arab sexuality, Pökel says, is...
So we know now, that the reason for the hanging, stoning and flogging of homosexuals (and presumably for the hanging, raping, flogging and stoning of little girls, women and generally everybody who has somehow caused the wrath of the basically tolerant Mullahs, not to speak of the decapitations and mutilations) is not Islam, "but those who are aiming to see their own rejection justified by the religious sources". I am sure Pökel (whose name equals the German word for "pickle" and generates most appropriate Google ads) can explain as well why our own "Westernized" sexuality and prudishness does NOT hang homosexuals but allows something like that...
... and then vilifies those who say that a lifestyle illustrated by the above pictures does nothing to further the cause of homosexual "families".
How absolutely debased and rotten to the core is a man... correction: is a medium... correction: is a society whose media publishes a justification of sex with children with the ultimate goal of excusing Islam of what it is.
To be fair, judging from Pökel's qualifications, it must have taken the Tagesspiegel and editor-in-charge Andrea Dernbach some time until they found somebody in the deepest bilges of academia ready and willing to forward something like the above.
First posted here. Read the still topical earlier entries at Roncesvalles: Volker explains what makes the world go round, Islam Is Mercy and If the Mullah Isn't Watching....
...paradoxically ... very much Westernized. With Colonialism, Victorian prudishness was imported to the Orient and there was that mixture of fascination and disgust with the allegedly sensually-wimpish, lascivious Orient. This is a cliché that is fought in Arab countries even today by showing specific strictness and turning sexuality into a taboo generally. And the prosecution of homosexuals is very often quite cruel. For that, the authentic Islamic tradition can hardly be hold responsible, but those who are aiming to see their own rejection justified by the religious sources.But hey! Pökel can more than just blame the West ex cathedra for some less-than-perfect circumstances in Muslim countries. Muslims really, deep down and when nobody is looking, are very tolerant of gay sex because...
...the penetrating man is even today not really seen as homosexual, a view that is, by the way, not typical Islamic, but part of the culture in the entire Mediterranean. An adolescent is not seen as a man and therefore sex with him is not seen as anything blameworthy. But he will become taboo as soon as the first sign of a beard becomes visible and he will then be expected to marry.Yes, you are reading this right. This scholar of Arabic studies is not just justifying sex with children, but taking it as a positive sign of tolerance towards homosexuals in Muslim societies.
So we know now, that the reason for the hanging, stoning and flogging of homosexuals (and presumably for the hanging, raping, flogging and stoning of little girls, women and generally everybody who has somehow caused the wrath of the basically tolerant Mullahs, not to speak of the decapitations and mutilations) is not Islam, "but those who are aiming to see their own rejection justified by the religious sources". I am sure Pökel (whose name equals the German word for "pickle" and generates most appropriate Google ads) can explain as well why our own "Westernized" sexuality and prudishness does NOT hang homosexuals but allows something like that...
... and then vilifies those who say that a lifestyle illustrated by the above pictures does nothing to further the cause of homosexual "families".How absolutely debased and rotten to the core is a man... correction: is a medium... correction: is a society whose media publishes a justification of sex with children with the ultimate goal of excusing Islam of what it is.
To be fair, judging from Pökel's qualifications, it must have taken the Tagesspiegel and editor-in-charge Andrea Dernbach some time until they found somebody in the deepest bilges of academia ready and willing to forward something like the above.
First posted here. Read the still topical earlier entries at Roncesvalles: Volker explains what makes the world go round, Islam Is Mercy and If the Mullah Isn't Watching....
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Cultural Damage of Obscene Proportions
Searching for information about hunting and shooting, I just discovered the blog An Englishman's Castle. A succinct post about the introduction of ID cards to Britain amused me greatly.
But it gets even better in the comment section:
However, great blog find. Oh the joys of the Internet!
Finally One Genuine Good Reason To Welcome ID CardsThe content of the linked "Telegraph" article was even funnier than the Englishman's post, albeit, one can safely assume, unintentionally so.
US celebrities like Madonna won't come to Britain because of ID cards - Telegraph
Britain will suffer cultural and economic damage from the introduction of identity cards for foreigners, preventing stars such as Madonna staying in the UK, according to a group of academics and writers.One can only wonder what perception of culture the members of this "group of academics and writers" possess to quote, of all people, Madonna as an example, Madonna, the woman whose face is much more obscene than all the semi-pornographic pictures of her together.
But it gets even better in the comment section:
When she moved from the USA to the UK, she made a measurable difference in the two countries' rankings in the intellectual property revenues league tables. I can't find the reference right now, but I think she may even have single-handedly put the UK in first place. Soaking the rich and bitching at the successful is surely the exclusive remit of our talent-free communist masters and their running dogs?Such an argument comes in handy to effectively dicredit any criticism one doesn't like. Bitching at Madonna is not bitching at a successful, it is bitching at a, well, bitch. A bitch who happens to be successful and what that says about our culture I don't even WANT to exploit. The fact that she made a considerable difference in the British/American intellectual property rankings ought to lead to a re-evaluation of the definition of "intellectual" in those countries, not to an apology of Madonna, at least that is my understanding of the matter. That a "conservative", who ought to stand for family values, should defend that slag because she is successful is rather funny (both, peculiar and haha). But then, maybe the commenter doesn't see himself as one, although those who are ranting about "communists" everywhere usually do.
However, great blog find. Oh the joys of the Internet!
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, 9 October 2008
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?
Is parental supervision feasible nowadays? Can one jettison it and still think of one as a conservative?
Terry Morris said...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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Nature abhors a vacuum and I've heard that the same applies to spiritual beliefs. The West has abandoned much of its spirituality (primarily Christianity) for secularism. Perhaps this has left a void that is now being filled increasingly by Islam. Many people no longer have a basis (spiritual or historical) for refusing or opposing it. That and they have been conditioned by multiculturalism to see Islam as co-equal to anything produced in the west. Its just another way to live. (We must ignore the stoning of women or homosexuals, honor killings or threats to assimilate or annihilate those who do not embrace the true faith)
I don't know, I'm just casting a line out here for reasons. So many people seem hell-bent on proving they tolerate or accept Islam while overlooking its significant dark acts. Yet they are quick to pounce on any shortcomings of conservatives, Christians or Jews as reasons for rejecting and ostracizing those people, be they real or as is frequently the case, imagined. It puzzles and confounds me.
23 August, 2009 05:03
Western submission to Islam has many reasons. Material considerations, love for totalitarian ideologies or, the spiritual vacuum you describe or, as in Germany, the well-founded hope that Muslims will finish what Germans were forced to stop 64 years ago.
Also, there is the aspect of Western women who have totally emasculated their men and are now nostalgically seeking for aggressive, violent, sweaty masculinity. That they are totally ignoring the rape statistics is probably something that has to do with the mental incostistency from which the majority of the female sex suffers.
Another, and specifically unsavoury, aspect is that of a certain cross-cultural affinity, which is largely overlooked, probably because the mere thought is too repulsive to most sane and healthy people to be taken as something that ought to be considered. How debased and rotten to the core is a society whose media publishes a justification of sex with children with the goal of excusing Islam of what it is? This aspect is more important that we wish it to be.
24 August, 2009 20:49