[feminism] a fine answer to a supposed detractor

Welshcakes has answered my posts on radicalism:

First of all, let us remember that throughout history, there would have been no change without those who were willing to be strident, to break the law for what they believed in and even to risk their lives for it.

In the following paragraph, if you take out the word "feminism", which claims the credit for women's advances and substitute the word "women" for the people who actually achieved it, then I agree that:

[Feminism], in winning the freedoms and rights that women in western countries now enjoy, was and is a necessary movement, for once freedoms have been won, they have to be protected.

Welshcakes, of course, correctly observes:

Where it all goes wrong, I believe, is when we say, “Ok, we’ve got those so now let’s get more rights and freedoms than men have.” I have never, for instance, gone along with the “wages for housework” idea for none of its proponents ever stopped to consider that single women have to do it as well, and certainly nobody was going to reward us.

This was my point all along. It was radicalism, not feminism, which I was attacking but feminists might tend to overlook that. The next part, strangely, I cannot agree with:

And, however “hard” running a home might be, it cannot, just cannot, be compared with competing in the ruthless, target-setting environment that is the world of work today.

I'm in this "ruthless, target-setting environment" now and I also have to run the home and of the two, I feel the latter is far harder, especially when there is a family. Welshcakes is an adept - just look at her productions - so she might feel the former is harder.

It's a lovely post and argues the case for feminism very well. The feminist lobby could do worse than to snap up her text, as JMB is doing and use it as a bulwark against the sorts of incursions I've seemingly been trying to make.

If you haven't already read it, here it is again.

[bigotry post] roll up and be insulted

The last bigots' post was done on purpose.

My next post might have a go at British men or maybe the gays or straights or maybe Man United or Green Bay Packers fans or the Scots or whoever.

It doesn't really matter - the Italian girls were close to hand so … Poor Tuscan Tony thought I was fisking him but quite the opposite, actually.

The ones I really have it in for are the killjoys who would legislate against anyone expressing his or her opinion. I don't think you fully appreciate over there in the west just how far these people have strangled the life out of western society and are tightening the PC noose more and more every day.

Say what you like but I'm in the land of free speech over here in the fSU [provided you go easy on Vlad the Impaler] and Britain, America and the Antipodes are now like Stalag 13.

In a western office, try saying to any girl, the more feminist the better: "Whoa, really love your butt - wanna shag?" and see what happens. Try saying it here and the girl would grin and get back to her work, striking that idiot off her eligible list.

Try saying over there: "I think you gays can do your biz to your heart's content but I don't think this country should be run by the homosexual mafia," and see how far you get. Try saying it here and they'd turn to each other and call you: "Ham", meaning "lowest form of coarse, uncultured beast", then get back to whatever they were up to.

Try saying that the aborigines are holding the Australian government to ransom over these ridiculous tribal land claims just because they think they'll make some cash out of it. Why don't they kick up a fuss over the Simpson Desert then? No money, eh?" You'd be drummed out of Australia or imprisoned for sedition.

Legislation to prevent a person saying what he feels. That's all this comes down to. You don't like what I say but instead of moving on, you try to invoke the law on me. So let's really open the throttle. Try these for size:

There was absolutely no holocaust and the Jews are holding the world to ransom - so there. Or this one - Islam is insidiously worming it's way into Europe. Let's think of another - Christians are narrow minded bigots. Atheists are irrational morons. What else? The English are greedy and don't wash. The Americans are stupid and have no sense of humour. The Scots want to have their cake and eat it too - [West Lothian]. The only concession to gaiety in Wales is a striped shroud. I'm going to discriminate against the Irish by refusing to. James Higham is a smelly, disgusting little man and he can't even write properly and he probably has a tiny willy. What else can I think up on the spot?

I've run out of ideas. Try this site.

Outraged: "These bigots have to be made to understand …"

Me: "Why so? Why must they be made to understand and what are they going to understand?"

Outraged: "Well they'll think twice after cooling their heels in prison, mark my words …"

Me: "You really think so? You've just given them free publicity, that's all."

Outraged: "Well, it's the principle of the matter. These people can't just run around spouting whatever bile they like…"

Me: "Uh-huh."

[italian girls] the time bomb factor

Mama and her bambinos
UPDATE: It's been pointed out to me today by certain Italians and Welshcakes has also drawn attention to it: "Grammar note, Mr Headmaster: [You do it to others, after all!] The plural of bambino is bambini but as they are all girls in the pic, it should, strictly speaking be bambine."
Thank you, m'lady.

Now this problem of Italian women we've all been grappling with. Just how real or how ridiculous is it? Tuscan Tony set the cat among the pigeons with his statement [and he lives over there]:

The intense diet of pasta and red wine has them playfully puppy-fat laden until the age of around 35, when they suddenly go up like auto-inflating liferafts.

This seemed unfair, even if popular wisdom did dictate that the Italian sweetie becomes the Italian balloon. So I tried to research it but it was so difficult to get hard data. Here is one from a medical record:

Italian women were shorter and fatter compared with age-matched Danish women, but in middle-age, had less abdominal fat distribution.

This seems to suggest that they put the weight on all over, especially in the arms and legs. A glance at the photo above seems to suggest though that it's more that their large frames get better covered, as nature intended, rather than trying to be anorexic any more.

And Italian men are noted for liking their women on the voluptuous side. Twiggy would have no place in Tuscany.

Now to the second major issue - is this post sexist, as Ellee might say?

Well, quite frankly, yes. It is obsessed with women because this blogger is interested in women's bodies, minds, souls and intelligent conversation. I'm afraid the statistics on the fatness of Italian men does not move me to quite the same degree.

And what?

The word "sexist", I feel, is an overused word, invoked at the drop of a hat and always with negative connotations. So let's liberate the word - set it free from its shackles!

Of course a man is going to prefer photos of women or talk about women or make love to them. Would you prefer me to be obsessed about men? I'd rather have a beer and an intelligent conversation with a man than talk with him about his body or sexuality.

I'd be interested in Ruthie Zaftig's take on this and Welshcakes Limoncello's. :)

[sherlock holmes] adventure of what?

Racking the brain trying to remember the Holmes story in which the events I'll describe took place. The thing is, it might have been one of Poirot's but I simply can't remember. I know that the man who tried to help had a partner, so that could be either Watson or Hastings.

Can you help me? Here's the plot, as briefly as I can put it:

Someone, possibly the mother, comes to Holmes [?] asking him to intervene - the daughter has got herself into the clutches of a charming rogue and the mother wants to stop the match. She's tried everything - reason, persuasion, threats, all to no avail of course.

Once a girl gets it into her head that a bad man is interested in her, something romantic turns her head so that reason flies out the window and the more the pressure is applied, the harder she digs her heels in and clings to him.

In this case, the rogue, [whose motivation I'm not entirely sure of - maybe he can't help consuming girls and spitting them out], has schooled her in all the possible people who'll come at her and what they'll say about him.

He explains everything about every possible incident [the ones which could possibly arise, that is] and puts his own slant on it. You know the type of thing - sitting on the edge of the settee, hands clutching, head bowed gravely and her young heart goes out to him.

Sure enough, they do come to her one by one and she "receives" them politely but haughtily.

"Yes, James warned me you would visit, so let me assure you, Mr. H, there is nothing you could possibly add to the wrongful slurs which have already been meted out to my James, the noblest man who ever walked the earth," etc. etc.

Impossible.

Another young woman accosts the silly young thing and in very direct language explains just what a womanizing beast "her James" really is. Same result. Head in the air:

"Yes, well, I can see how the machinations of a woman such as you and an earnest desire to malign and sully the reputation of …" etc.

Call in Holmes.

He has some failures and then hits on the only way. They purloin the rogue's personal diary and leave it where the girl will find it.

Game set and match.

In that diary were all his secret perversions, the way he womanizes for his own all-consuming need and so on. Relationship off and the rogue finally exposed.

So, if you can remember the story, please tell me. I'd be interested to read it again. Thanks.

[tents] fun in the rain

Tents have been the butt of jokes since time immemorial.

We had a super-duper arrangement at the beach, 18x12, with a complicated double awning arrangement over the top, 24x24, which required near scaffolding being erected and can you imagine all the lines and pegs?

My mother was never really mechanical. My father was. You can also imagine the altercations as he'd holler some instruction from a distance which my mother would completely misunderstand and as I was holding the Barnum and Bailey's centre-pole inside, I was the one with the tent collapsing all over him.

Oh, we then had carpets stretched out the front to "privatize" the space which led to the only passage to the beach, through the shrubbery for fifty metres either way and only sometimes did a foolhardy member of the public cross all the cunningly deployed guy lines and cross our hallowed carpet, to the intense glare of my mother.

Once the damned thing was up and running, once all the trenches had been dug around the tent, leading the runoff to a safer place, once my boat was parked at the front and the water, ice and everything else had been brought in, it was great for weeks, seabreeze, fresh air and so on.

Until it rained, of course.

That's why I had to laugh when reading Alice B's account of her experiences vis a vis tents. You remember Alice from the vandals who broke up her "glasshouse" teepee on her allotment.

What is it with tents? Folding poles and water resistant fabrics were invented quite a while ago now, surely it’s not that difficult to design something that basically works. It seems unlikely that people design tents who have never actually camped, but when I thought about getting a new one and saw the way some of them are made I started imagining them improvising budget versions of the product testing machines on those Ikea adverts.

“This tent is fully waterproof to 2000mm hydro static head (the recommended use for the UK is only 1500)” it said. “Abrasion, mildew and ultraviolet resistant” it said. “Fly sheet – 70 Denier Polyester (190T Threads per square inch)” . Very nice.

Cut to me lying in said tent in a muddy field, a very long way from the nearest central heating, curled around the edge with a plastic bag in the middle to catch the steady drips running straight into the tent from the ventilation mesh right in the top.

I can feel every drop, Alice.

[watch carefully] don't be lulled

Lord Nazh, he of the Longshanks' diluted blood and womanizer of royalty, has consistently said the American people wouldn't buy it and there'd be insurrection; Beach Girl said it was already underway.

What are we referring to? To the CFR plan to merge Mexico, Canada and the United States into one state, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, controlled by the NAAC [the CFR, in other words]. Details for those born on Mars are here. As you can see, it's already a done deal with the three Presidents agreeing to it on March 23rd, 2005.

One of the main whistleblowers, Matt of Buckeye Thoughts, now says this:

We're trying to figure out what the hell to do to stop the NAU but as I was telling my best friend (to whom I lent the Corsi book today), it's not going to happen. Sure, they might be able to get some stuff in but the "Grand Compromise" failure was the nail in the coffin.

No American will stand for it!

That was the first time I can remember in my twenty years of life on this planet of an issue touching such a raw nerve with the American public. If any politician tries this (in secret or in open, it's starting to get out, btw, slowly but surely), they will get smited so fast they won't be able to blink.

It might look like we're going down from the outside, but Corsi's book is starting to make a splash. People are starting to learn the truth. The US, Canada, and Mexico will stay sovereign. The citizens of each country will see to it, peacefully. If our gov'ts refuse to listen to us, then force will be used and they will listen.

Count on it!

Now I don't give a damn about being wrong. Don't you know I'm praying to be wrong and Lord Nazh right? Don't you see that I was pushing the issue ad nauseam just to bring it to the public eye, over our way.

Dear Matt and Lord Nazh - don't you boys realize the thing will be done surreptitiously, slice by slice, under different names, never becoming a constitutional issue, never becoming an issue before the election, only after?

I don't think you boys have cottoned on yet to the amazing persistence of these people. Look one more time at Senator Jenning's comment before the U.S. Senate on February 23rd, 1954:

The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is not even a new idea:

October 28, 1939 - John Foster Dulles [later U.S. Secretary of State] proposes that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.

The key words were "without our suspecting the change is underway". You're not even going to know it's happened. You guys are much closer to the action than I and you are Americans after all and I'm not. That gives you way more authority than me to write on this.

And yet ... and yet ...