Horsefaces Unite

Every woman whose face is longer than it's wide has been likened to a horse at some point, either to her horseface or behind her back. Every man too, for all I know. Children see the joke and so do other women. Though a horseface myself I was always distracted by the face length of Anna Gunn (Skyler White) in "Breaking Bad", however good an actress she is. As a horseface myself I find President Trump's use of the term in a tweet about Stormy Daniels hilarious. Almost predictably by now, Trump's use of the nickname has caused yet more complaints about lack of chivalry. How can a man publicly say such a thing about a woman? He's hardly the first, which everybody seems to forget, but granted he is the most prominent. How can he? Simple: he's giving as good as he gets, if not better. That's what he does when attacked, whether by a man or woman. He's an equal opportunity offender. So what's the problem with that, when feminism says women should be treated the same as men? Ah but there's the rub, so to speak. Because the aggrieved woman in question, Ms Daniels, gets naked in public, has sex onscreen for money, had consensual sex with a married man for potential career advancement, accepts a lot of money to keep quiet about her tryst years later when he emerges as a politician, dishonours her contract by talking about him very publicly indeed, and accusing him of intimidation by proxy, then publishes a book about him in which his genitalia, the genitalia of the President of the United States of America mind you, is described with such imaginative detail that it is discussed at length, so to speak, in all the major news outlets - and this woman gets touted up and down as a heroine of feminism, an empowered woman, a working woman, a single mom doing the best for herself and her daughter. Again, ladies and your male feminist allies, you can't have it both ways. If every woman is a heroine no matter what she does with her life, then why can't she weather an uncomplimentary nickname in retaliation to her own lack of good manners? Chivalry is all to do with horses, etymologically speaking. I like horses, and embrace my likeness to them. Hurray for horsefaces, I say.

The worst thing was the laughter

More proof that feminism is backtracking to the most chivalrous notions of how women should be treated. Did anyone notice the role of laughter in statements from Kavanaugh accusers? The woman who alleged that someone exposed himself (or was it a fake?) to her at a drinking party mentioned that the worst thing about the evening was the hilarity among the boys. In the recent 'Sixty Minutes' interview with Donald Trump, Lesley Stahl chided Trump for making fun of Christine Blasey Ford's many memory lapses because, she appealed to him, Christine had claimed to be most distressed by the laughter of the boys as they left the room of her alleged assault. So how could he, big bad Trump, make use of humour in criticising her 'I don't knows'? Laughter, especially if it feels derisive, can be mortifying yes, but to anyone, not just to women. The idea that it is worse when directed at women is one that used to be common currency, however - until it got laughed out of town - derisively - by feminism. On what grounds does feminism resort to it now?

Kavanaugh feminists

Women using emotional manipulation in the Brett Kavanaugh situation - a bit rich, isn't it? Christine Blasey Ford herself kicked this off in grand style during her statement to the senate judiciary committee. Her little-girl tone, cutesy gestures and facial expressions and, especially, the expertly delivered tremor in her voice at key moments were quite astonishing, all the more so that she turns out to have been a pussy-hat marching, Trump-hating feminist before emerging on the national scene so recently. Then there were the women who ambushed Jeff Flake, one of whom displayed the same tremulous voice as Blasey Ford as she tried to shame Flake for being rational, claiming that she, as a 'survivor', was invalidated by his masculine judiciousness. This woman was later interviewed on a news programme and her forthright tone against men was distinctly lacking its earlier pathos. Another woman tried to shame Orrin Hatch and, upon being urged by him to 'grow up', wailed: 'You can't talk to women like that!' Now, I'm all for appealing to the better nature of men. I think it's a wonderful thing for men to be caring and protective towards women. The chivalric code is one of the most amazing inventions of Western society, not only in itself but in giving us gentlemanliness, its direct descendent. But then I'm not a feminist. I have watched in utter dismay for the last few decades as feminism has derided paternalism, chivalry, basic good manners, and oh dear, anything patriarchal. From childhood and youth in the 1960s and 1970s (I'm the same generation as Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford) I have lived through the ever-coarsening interactions between men and women, driven by the sexual revolution and women's insistence that there is no difference between the sexes. Yet now feminists are marching in the streets, clad in black to emphasise victimhood, clamouring for women to be 'protected'. Ladies, you can't do this. You don't get to be hell-bent on 'equality', and then, when things don't go your way, turn around and demand that men - the men you previously said should treat you like men - lay themselves in the mud for you to walk over. The archetypal courteous gesture of a man laying his cloak down for his lady's feet to be kept clean and dry doesn't begin to satisfy you now. Though you would have spat on the cloak five minutes ago, men must now lay down their very selves, their careers, their lives and families, everything they have tried to build. How can this be?

Blasey Ford's after party

How did Christine Blasey Ford get home? She refers to a sexual "attack", allegedly at the hands of a teenage Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge. She says she was pushed into a room, pinned down, groped and, most traumatically, prevented from screaming and almost of breathing by a hand over her mouth. This "attack" is now routinely described in commentaries as an 'attempted rape', even though the boys were, by her own admission, drunk and laughing, and it seems they gave up on her very easily after they all toppled off the bed and she made her escape. Victims of genuine attempted rapes, as opposed to drunken gropings, might not be convinced by this description of the alleged crime. But more importantly, if this 'attack' had been as traumatic as she claims, with lifelong repercussions, there would have been something to show for it afterwards. Fifteen year-old Christine Blasey would have been visibly shaken. She would have been dishevelled. Her clothes would have been a mess. Her face would bear the marks of the strong pressure from the assailant's hand. The person who drove her home would have noticed something very wrong, both in her physical appearance and in her demeanour. Her obvious distress would have prompted at least some discussion of what had just happened. And yet this mystery driver has not been named. No one has come forward claiming to be that driver. So far, all is silence. I don't doubt that something happened to Blasey Ford when she was younger, but her claim that, whatever it was, happened how and when she described it at the hearing is highly suspicious.

Bodyguard blokes

Finally, a scene I could thoroughly enjoy after the disappointing demise of Julia Montague in "Bodyguard". Without the interplay between Keeley Hawes and the titular bodyguard  David Budd (Richard Madden), there was hardly anything that rang true in episodes four to six until the scene where Budd, his boss Deepak Sharma and Expo expert Daniel Chung work together to defuse the bomb strapped to Budd's manly torso. Finally, blokes being blokes! And not a woman in sight! Finally, men being the best of what they can be, relying on each other and uttering things like "a man whose word is his bond"! This triggered an actual physical release of tension in me, humble viewer, catching up on iPlayer the day after the finale. "Bodyguard" has been irritating from the start in its insistence on casting women in every possible traditionally male occupation or career. Montague herself was compelling and played by Hawes with great aplomb, but the other high-ranking women, Craddock and Sampson, were unbelievable and terribly dull. The character of Anne Sampson was especially tedious, as portrayed with a bored drawl and an expression of permanent lemon-sucking distaste by Gina McKee, an otherwise good actress, I think, who was presumably either miscast or misdirected. Worse, most of the main women, from top brass to Budd's wife Vicky, were laden with the same huge blotches of rust-coloured blusher, for some reason. The white women, that is: Louise was exempted from the blush brush. Ominously, Nadia was spared any visible make-up at all. Maybe that was an important clue? That and the fact that the estranged but still caring Mrs Budd rejected her husband's attempt at intimacy after he'd performed an overwhelmingly heroic service to society, and saved their children in the process, at the start of episode 1. That's a bit harsh, I thought. But her instincts were clearly more refined. By the end of episode 6, when Nadia is truly defused, Vicky becomes all friendly again at last. And why not? Her husband is a hero, his face is back to normal, he's gorgeous, he loves her, he loves their children, and he's finally gelled his hair again. What's more, he's apparently well on the way to being healed mentally. This last point is an excellent advertisement for the power of Occupational Health, to which Budd is compassionately sent in the end by the McKee character. We see Budd entering the room (M18, perhaps a joke on MI5 and MI6?) and being greeted by the therapist: a woman, of course, with curly, indie locks and a flowing patterned scarf. Do we believe that this woman can help a man who has seen horrors in Afghanistan with his comrades and been through the further traumas of episodes 1 to 6? I don't. But I love happy endings, and if that's what it takes for the Budd family to drive off happily in a shiny Qashqai in the final scene, then I can try very hard to chalk up the therapist to merely the obtrusive feminism of the series as a whole.

Can it, Meghan

By virtue of her marriage to Prince Harry, Ms Megan Markle is now Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex, also the Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel. Good for her, I'm all for it. Long live the monarchy and the patriarchy. But she needs to drop her battle cry of "I am proud to be a woman and a feminist", which takes pride of place on her new royal website page. (https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex) You can't have both the perks of patriarchy and the self-righteous claim to independence. It's either/or. She's chosen the patriarchy (hurrays all around) and should abide by her choice. She should also, by the bye, honour her marital vows this time. And as for the 'gender equality' she is apparently still committed to: could Prince Harry have a bold-letter quote on his page, declaring "I am proud to be a man and a Men's Rights Activist"? Of course not.

Gun control celebs

How about this: all of those actors who have ever made money - some of them truckloads of money - by playing someone who uses firearms don't get to lecture regular citizens about gun control. Or at least not until they give to charity all the income they've earned that way in the past, and pledge never again to portray a character who uses a firearm. As for politicians, journalists etc: anyone who has the privilege of personal or workplace armed protection doesn't get to lecture either.

'Peoplekind': they couldn't agree more

Everyone has been mocking Justin Trudeau for interrupting a young woman at an event in Edmonton by telling her to say 'peoplekind' rather than 'mankind'. He's trying to get out of this spot of bother by claiming his comment was a joke. Fine, let's say it was a joke. Donald Trump says lots of jokes that people get all upset about because they misunderstand his sense of humour. However, the big difference here is that the young woman herself was very happy with Trudeau's correction, as were all the young people surrounding her. They cheered! They clapped! They thanked him! Arguably, Trudeau could have resorted to interrupting the young woman because her question was so long-winded and had by then veered into nutcase territory, with her claim that: 'maternal love is the love that's going to change the future of mankind.' And Trudeau might have been intent, also, on avoiding or delaying having to answer the question, which was about restrictions against religious organisations - and that would have been a good question. But the organisation the young woman was speaking for is crackpot in itself. It calls itself the World Mission Society Church of God and aims to be 'Spreading the love of the Mother' i.e. God the Mother (wmscog.com). It claims that the plural 'Elohim' in the Old Testament refers to God as Father and Mother. It proclaims the new name of Jesus, necessary for salvation, as Christ Ahnsahnghong, with reference, apparently, to someone in South Korea who founded the church in 1964. In short, it's full of heresies. As the video clip shows, the young missionary advocates of this church are fully on board with Trudeau's woke agenda in terms of eradicating maleness. That is a far more disturbing snapshot of Canada at the moment that any of the stupidities Trudeau regularly utters.