High Priest of (degenerate) Liberalism
March 30, 2010
Leave a Comment » | 
Obama | Tagged: Liberalism, Obama | 
Permalink
Posted by wien1938
Michael Crichton State of Fear
March 14, 2010Hosting a link to the superb talk given by Michael.
Here.
Leave a Comment » | Global Warming | Tagged: Michael Crichton, Speech, State of Fear | Permalink
Posted by wien1938
What Women Want
March 14, 2010Is this so reactionary? A very interesting article by Minette Marin of the Sunday Times. As the Times loses its articles after a couple of days, I’ll copy it here and risk the lawyers.From
The Sunday Times
March 14, 2010
What women want is an end to hectoring by feminists
Minette Marrin
6 Comments
Recommend? (6)
Women beware wimmin. International Women’s Day rolled around once again for the 99th time last week and many of the usual alpha females came out to celebrate.
Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama had an awkward little womanly moment together in the White House, although most Americans ignore the day. Harriet Harman took the opportunity to remind us how few women there are in British boardrooms. Her intrusive Equality Bill, which encourages discrimination against men in the workplace, was going through its final stages in the Commons last week.
It is true, of course, that there has been a lot for women to celebrate in the past century and we have the courage and persistence of earlier generations of feminist women to thank for that. But somewhere along the way feminism in this country has turned into something many women cannot identify with. I can’t. Harman, along with other prominent alpha females, expresses a kind of feminism that is so far divorced from what most women think and want that she might as well belong to another sex. Alpha females seem closer to the alpha male than to the ordinary woman in gender.
Harman’s thinking, like the feminist orthodoxy in the government, is based on the following assumptions, which have always seemed quite wrong to me.
First, that all women want to work (for money, outside the home). Second, that all women, including mothers, ought to work. Third, that all women want to do and are equally suited to doing the same work as men. Fourth, that if the number of women working in an organisation is less than 50% of the total, that is in itself evidence that women are being unjustly discriminated against. Fifth, that motherhood is a problem that makes it difficult for women to work. Sixth, that the problem of motherhood can easily be fixed by paid childcare, subsidised if necessary by the state. Seventh, that what all mothers want above all is “affordable childcare” to enable them to work: children don’t need much of their attention. And finally, that it is for the state to sort out all such family matters.
This is the 1970s mindset of Harman and of many alpha females in high places; this is how women like them feel and talk.
That’s how alpha females behave. They push out babies along with policy papers and tour the interview circuit proudly bearing breast pumps. One prominent headmistress went back to work only a few hours after giving birth to her third child last month, commenting that this would show her schoolgirls what woman is capable of.
It struck me as irresponsible; pregnancy and childbirth usually involve extreme hormonal upheavals and physical demands, even when all is well. It’s not for nothing that for the first few weeks after childbirth women have not been held responsible for their actions in law because they are often not themselves, so to speak.
That’s to say nothing of the psychological needs of mother, baby and other children or of the developmental and emotional needs of children after the first few months. Are these needs really best left to childminders and crèches? Most women don’t think so.
The latest alpha female planning to combine full-time work — very long hours and a constituency — with producing a baby is Joanne Cash, the prospective Tory parliamentary candidate for Westminster.
If she gets into parliament, her first baby will be born only weeks after she takes her seat this summer.
I suspect that most mothers, remembering the arrival of their own babies, will regard this as daft. Even if things go smoothly, the demands of motherhood are such that Cash will be forced either to neglect the baby or to neglect the job. Cash is taking the approved Tory line — it’s not restricted to the left.
There is nothing new about alpha females giving their babies over to other people to look after; that has always been the price of great success, and successful women have taken it for granted. With the best of expensive childcare, it seems to work well.
However, I have come to feel strongly that it isn’t what most women want. I did hand my own first baby over to a full-time nanny so I could go back to a job in television with foreign travel. But before long I realised, like countless women, that what I most wanted was to be with my baby and work part-time from home, which I’ve done ever since.
We all tend to generalise from our own experiences: if Harman has, so have I (but then, I’m not in a position to impose mine by statute). At last there is some good evidence about what women really do feel about all this. Professor Geoff Dench of the Young Foundation has just finished a series of presentations for the Centre for Policy Studies and the Hera Trust based on evidence from the British Social Attitudes surveys since 1983, to be published tomorrow as What Women Want. In his survey of women’s attitudes, one of his conclusions is that the sisterhood is failing mothers.
Apart from married middle-class women in full-time work, most women would prefer to look after their children and work only part-time if possible. Most women value home and family life above a career — hardly surprisingly, since few women are offered careers and most must content themselves with jobs — and, he argues, women with these domestic priorities feel increasingly that the femocracy of career women in power doesn’t speak for them.
This is a bold inference. It’s drawn from the withdrawal of women from political parties, as expressed in the BSA surveys. Men have been increasingly losing interest in political parties over the past 20 years, but the process has been much faster among women and above all among mothers.
It is the Labour party that appears to have lost most support from mothers; support for Labour among working-age, working-class housewives went down from 52% in 1986 to 27% in 2008.
That doesn’t mean they’ve deserted to the Conservatives; the trend is towards “no party” disaffection. It is surely time, now, that women in politics started thinking about what women want, which is what is best for their babies and children.
I suspect it would actually be cheaper and better for government to enable women to look after their own children and families, if they want to, rather than nudging and driving them back into work. But it’s difficult for alpha females to understand such an unliberated desire. Women beware wimmin.
minette.marrin@sunday-times.co.uk
Leave a Comment » | Loonyism | Tagged: Failure, Feminism, Minette Marin, What Women Want | Permalink
Posted by wien1938
Falklands
March 3, 2010On the subject of the Falkland Islands and Argentina, there is nothing to talk about. If Argentina want to make a fuss, go ahead. Two words – national self-determination. You ask the people of the Falklands who they wish to belong to and they will say “Britain”.
Hmm. An election coming up…a populist president trying to elect his wife to replace him…and the sudden arrival of the Falklands issue? Could it be a coincidence or just Argentine politics at work?
Leave a Comment » | Politics | Tagged: Argentina, dispute, Falklands, populists | Permalink
Posted by wien1938
Online Dating is a con
February 22, 2010Especially if you’re a lonely but decent bloke like this poor chap from the USA. I’ll reproduce his comments here but the link to the site posted is here.
***
Online Dating Experience
Five Years and Not Even a Date
38 year old male from Virginia
Hi! I’d like to tell the truth about my experience with Internet dating sites. I’m a reasonably nice looking, clean cut, white male with a nice photograph who has run ads on 11 different sites (primarily Match, which I started with and am still on). I’ve been on as many as four sites at one time and I’ve spent 2 – 9 hours per day for the last five years running searches, changing my ads and sending emails. It has been a terrible experience that has disrupted my work and personal life… but has never led to just one date.
On different occasions I’ve printed out my ad from Match and for an impartial viewpoint have had neighbors, relatives, business persons, pastors and others read my Match ad and without exception they all said my ad was well written and sounded like as fine a man as any woman could find.
I’ve tried it ALL while running my Match ad in different cities throughout VA, NC, MD, TN and the DC area (especially since I’m willing to relocate) hoping a nice lady would notice and write. I’ve tried emails: Let’s be pen-pals, instant message, meet at a restaurant for pleasant conversation, you can email me if you get a lonely spell, put me in touch with a lady who lives locally and of course my true hope: I’m hoping for a committed relationship building a happy future together… and I’ve received extremely few responses from my ad or emails.
Just ONE of MANY things I tried was offering a reward to women (since they weren’t going to write) if they knew of a nice lady and would put her in touch with me… $1,000 then $3,000 then $5,000 and despite complaints about so many women being ‘greedy’ no woman on any site has considered it and if they email they usually never even mention that I offered the reward in my ad or email. One woman did write:
“It sounds like you’re prostituting yourself”
Hmmm… with that idea in mind I finally had in my ad:
“Since genuinely nice girls seem so hard to find, if you’ll please be kind enough to put me in touch with one I’d be happy to donate $3,000 in your honor, or anonymously if you wish, to a good Christian cause to feed hungry children.”
It seems they don’t want to be helpful to a fine man, a fine lady or to hungry children either.
As months turned into years I began to wonder if women’s ads were real. Are they? I tried in my Match ad:
“I’d like to know if you’re ‘real’ so as a gesture of good faith please be willing to speak on my answering machine… ID Block is OK… I’d do it for you!”
In emails I gave my phone number along with that idea and all I got was women who would swear on 20 stacks of Bibles they were a single woman but they would NOT simply speak on my answering machine. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for but it has been.
I receive perhaps four emails per year; 10 at the most per year in response to my Match ad. Even less on other sites. From emails I’ve sent that I’ve tried my best to be as polite, friendly and complimentary as possible I receive perhaps 1 in 20 to 50 emails sent. Believe me… the emails I do receive are bizarre and bewildering, or a series of lies and games, and all too often I’ve received the most sarcastic, hateful vicious emails you can imagine. I now VERY RARELY email or ‘wink’ at women for fear of verbal assaults… so I put in my Match ad:
“PS DON’T FORGET: YOU NEED TO EMAIL ME FIRST PLEASE! Thanks!”
Are women’s dating site ads even real? One mystery is so many women’s ads say they have so many friends, family, go so many places doing so many things… so how do millions of these women never meet a man and end up on a dating site? I’ve asked women in some of my emails:
“…have you received many responses from your ad?”
When I receive a reply they’ve written:
“I get about 3 or 5 a day” and “I had 177 then decided to become a member” and “I’ve been on about a month and I’ve had about 300 emails from men”
YET.. The SAME women’s ads by the thousands are still on before I joined five years ago and they’re ‘Active within 24 hours’ or even ‘Online Now!’ Doing what? I wonder.
Attention men: They’ve had years to read yoru emails and ads regardless of how many they’ve been swamped with! It seems they don’t like my or ANY man’s ads or emails… that’s my one consolation for five years lost.
Another consolation is: Through the years I’ve learned in my own neighborhood of: two married women posing as single… two men posing as women… and 1 woman posing as a man on Internet Dating Sites… along with the following possibilities of who runs women’s ads on dating sites:
1. Married women
2. Men
3. Children running ads as a prank (That photo is of ‘Aunt Jane’ out of the family photo album!)
4. Call Girls! (I’ve heard the Internet has been the best thing to ever happen to prostitution)
5. Women getting ‘revenge’ on their boyfriend
6. Men-hating women to gain access to men to send hate mail
7. Sexual ‘predators’ both men and women posing as women
8. Other ‘Services’ – Russian women etc.
9. The Dating Site running false women’s ads
10. Pornographic ‘links’
11. The mentally disturbed
12. Some ‘Group’ that has the intention of disrupting American men’s lives and causing the loss of millions of productive man-hours every day in America.
Who really knows for certain?
This I do know: Whoever is ‘really’ running women’s ads is doing a great disservice to the reputation of American women. Read 100 women’s ads. Don’t they all sound the same as though American women are all mindless sleep-arounds who “Cuddle” from one “Special Someone” and “Committed” “Lasting” relationship to another… and they’ve never made it work with a man and they’re so “Happy” and “Laughing” about it all and saddest of all… most say they have children and they seem so willing to expose their children to the wrong kind of men… and being extreme about a man’s height, location, income, education, hobbies etc. makes women sound like they’ve never developed a mature adult thinking mind, not serious about what’s important and really matters in a relationship and obviously could never make it work with ANY man. (They never have so far… and by their own account they’ve had many, many chances!)
That’s not building a good reputation in men’s minds about women!
Men: Listen Up! Don’t assume all (or even most) of women’s ads on dating sites are even real.
Yes… I still have my ad on Match and probably will forever because I meet no one through work and don’t know anyone who knows of a nice girl to recommend. dating sites can be very stressful and discouraging but it’s very important to me to have a nice lady in my life to love, care about and share a happy future together. God help me… I don’t think dating sites will.
A quick note to the man who wrote on here about ‘Regardless of what women say they choose the jerk anyway’ How true! Sometimes (often) coworkers will be talking about the latest woman at work or on the news who’s been used, abused, deceived, divorced or taken a beating (or worse) and I’ll say: “And I can’t get a date.” It happened so often I finally put in my Match ad:
“PS For being a respectful man with wholesome values who would treat a woman well… women keep accusing me of being a ‘Christian Gentleman’… I think that’s as fine a compliment as a man can receive but unfortunately that keeps all women away. What if God saw all the divorces and problems and sent a man with the qualities to be a great boyfriend or loving husband thinking that’s what women want? Wouldn’t He be in for a big surprise!”
I could write SO MUCH more but I sincerely hope this message has been helpful in some way to someone… and yes… I have told the truth. Thank you very much for your time.
PS Women and men talk about actually sleeping/having sex with people?!? Hmmm… I’m wondering if I’ll ever see the day when I have a date with a real girl… and if it would ever lead to the hand holding stage… could my heart handle such an experience? Maybe I’ll never know! Thanks again.
6 Comments | Civil Society | Tagged: Fraud, modern gender relations, Online Dating, post-modern men | Permalink
Posted by wien1938
Wondering if the Tories have lost their marbles…
February 20, 2010What on earth is going on with the Tory leadership? George Osbourne appears to be proving himself to be the biggest moron in the Commons.
“Tories offer bank shares for all as poll lead dives” reported in the Times. A “people’s bank bonus”, what on earth has possessed the Conservatives?
While I still intend to vote for Charles Clarke (Labour), I remain puzzled at the lack of content coming out of the Conservative Party, apart from a few people like Michael Gove and David Willets.
Leave a Comment » | Politics | Tagged: bank bonus, Conservatives, political idiocy | Permalink
Posted by wien1938
Gita Sahgal Petition
February 14, 2010Posting link in to petition regarding Gita Sahgal. Sign up or I’ll mangle your firkins!
Leave a Comment » | Human Rights Groups | Tagged: Amnesty International, Gita Sahgal, Islamism | Permalink
Posted by wien1938
Zionist Conspiracy?
February 14, 2010Or a hatchet job by a rather nasty anti-semitic group? Peter Oborne knew what he was doing. I just wonder what the editors of Channel 4 thought they were doing?
Edit:
Also adding this link to a blog entry. The level of ignorance and anti-semitism is deeply worrying in Oxford.
Leave a Comment » | Israel | Tagged: anti-semitism, Foreign Office, Peter Oborne, Zionists | Permalink
Posted by wien1938
An interesting analysis
February 12, 2010Reading Leon Wieseltier who uses this phrase when talking of Charles Krauthammer and Andrew Sullivan, “Unlike Sullivan, he does not present feelings as ideas.”
This is a really interesting turn of phrase that I believe accurately analyses the two different styles of argument – those who argue from reason and those who argue from feeling.
If one argues from a reasoned position, then one, is of necessity, arguing through factual evidence and logical deduction. An argument from feeling, however, is conducted through the irrational, meaning that the language used is directed towards the evocation of emotive response through feelings of guilt, shame and the fear of arguing against the group.
Andew Sullivan has long argued from a position that is fundamentally driven by which ever emotions are dominant in his mind at the time of writing. I cannot say that I am suprised by his “descent into the swamps”. He has long been occupying the banks.
Leave a Comment » | Loonyism | Tagged: Andrew Sullivan, anti-semitism, Charles Krauthammer, Leo Wieseltier | Permalink
Posted by wien1938
The trouble with Modern Women
February 11, 2010I enjoyed reading this article by Charlotte Allen so much that I’m linking to it here. I disagree in a few places and wish conservatives could get over their obsession with virginity. The problem lies in the lack of internal moral discrimination. If people want to have sex, great! Go ahead, have fun but don’t think that instant sexual attraction is the only measure of both sexual attraction and long-term happiness.
I’m not and never been a sexual prude. What I’ve had has been great fun and mutually pleasurable. I can’t understand the obsession with virginity and think that marriage is a good thing if you’re both suited to one another. I’ve known so many happy couples that I wonder what has gone wrong in my age group.
I’ve found the dating game so depressing that I’ve resigned from the gene-pool as it were. You say that you’re a decent chap, looking to find someone nice to share the next sixty years and no one pays any attention. You say that you’re just looking for no-strings-attached sex and you get instant attention – huh?
Honestly, I feel that women need to grow up.
Leave a Comment » | Civil Society | Tagged: Charlotte Allen, Dating, modern women, moral immaturity, Sexism | Permalink
Posted by wien1938
