Women in white

The women wore white at the State of the Union Address, allegedly in honour of the Suffragettes and early feminists generally, who are referred to (eg. by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) as the 'mothers of the movement'. The picture above sums up their reaction to President Trump's call for a ban on late-term abortion (i.e. when the baby is fully sentient and in many cases could survive outside the womb). They were unmoved, shall we say, except for those who actively shook their head in a 'no' response. They stolidly sat on the solid fact that early feminists were against abortion.
Here is the women in white's reaction to being Congresswomen:


Yay us, who have cushy indoor jobs that allow for perfect grooming, glossy hair and the symbolic wearing of white! Yay us, who are in no way going down sewers or mines, up scaffolding or electricity masts, or breaking up concrete on roads or being exposed to all weathers in a multitude of other jobs done by men to keep everything going, including our ability to stand here and high five each other in our specialness! No doubt the wearing of white was meant as a celebration of political progress. But morally and spiritually speaking there seems precious little to celebrate. Of what movement are these women the mothers? What are they pushing for except for numerical parity in only the 'tippy tops' of white-collar jobs - and at the expense of motherhood? Sadly, what they most look like in such photos is an illustration of Philippians 3:19: "their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things." An image of frivolity where seriousness should be.

12 Reasons why Nick Sandmann should be a Gillette poster boy

Why isn't Nick Sandmann a poster boy for Gillette? Tagline: The Best A Teen Can Be. He deserves it for:

1. Caring about the very weakest and voiceless among us.
2. Taking an over 1,000 miles road trip to attend a peaceful demonstration in honour of all life.
3. Enduring sustained verbal abuse, of the vilest sort, hurled at him (and his friends) by a group of adult strangers, for no reason except for the colour of his skin and his baseball cap.
4. Holding his ground when confronted by another group of adult strangers, who invaded his personal space to challenge him in a sustained way, again for no reason except for the colour of his skin and his baseball cap.
5. Doing what he could, in the moment, to prevent the situation from getting worse, though acutely fearing that it would. 
6. Accepting the leadership role foisted on him by the situation.
7. Helping his peers to remain calm and respectful against the onslaught of hostility from two groups of adult men. 
8. Enduring with meekness the multiple cameras focused on him, recording his every facial expression. 
9. Trying different facial expressions to cope with the weirdness of the in-your-face challenge of a  much older man and his constant drum-beating.
10. Having to withstand merciless abuse, threats, prejudice, hatred and calls to violence from news media, celebrities, politicians and everybody else who claims to be against those very things.
11. Keeping his cool during a shameful interview - by a star journalist on national television - in which he was portrayed as responsible for the initial situation and the subsequent vitriol.
12. Refusing to be bullied into apologising for existing.

So why isn't he a poster boy? Because the Gillette ad was about politics not behaviour. And the colour of his skin, his baseball cap and, as it also happened, his religion, were enough to bring the wrath of Social Justice down on Nick Sandmann, making a mockery of his commendable behaviour. Just a reminder, people: tests of character don't often come in the low-grade scenarios of the infamous Gillette ad. The most truthful tests come in situations of chaos and bewilderment, when things don't  make sense anymore and you lose most of your reference points. All you disgraceful adults who piled onto this poor kid because he stood and because he smiled awkwardly, if you think you would have done any better at 16 or 17, on a visit from Kentucky to D.C, confronted with unprovoked street hostility of this magnitude, with cameras and drum-beating in your face, you are lying to yourselves. To others of course too, but firstly to yourselves. Humble introspection and honest remembering of what it's like to be a teenager are strongly advised.

Respect for Elders?

It's lovely to see public opinion commenting about the respect due to an 'elderly' man, Nathan Phillips, who is 64. On the subject of an older elder, the President of the United States, aged 72, the reverse is true: the more disrespect, calumnies, slander and outright hatred, the better.

Januhairy for men

The best response to Gillette's morally incoherent ad for razor blades would be for as many men as possible to stop shaving. Men of the Western world, get bushy. Go full bearded, rediscover the patriarchal look; flaunt the one masculine advantage you have that women will never want to claim for themselves. Before the Gillette ad sucked up all the attention, we had 'Januhairy', whereby a pretty young female student challenged other women to grow out their armpit and leg hair as a form of liberation. But, as in the previous hairy-is-free feminist expression of the 1970s, this call does not seem to extend to growing out a good haircut (or indeed, getting rid of extensions). Nor, as far as I can tell, does it encourage women to let their facial hair proliferate annoyingly, or random nose hairs to dangle, or mole hairs to sprout unimpeded, or brows to recolonise the upper slopes every which way. It's a stunt that conveniently allows for feminine grooming where feminine grooming is most visible and looks good in photographs. For men to reclaim their maleness in the form of facial hair would be a far more honest protest.

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?