BlogWonks

This is a bit frustrating. The articles title is “what makes an ideal woman?”, they claim six authors will tell you their score on the situation.  HOWEVER they dont tell you that there is a seventh author squeezed in at the end to quickly inform what the ideal man would be, that way the feminists get to have their snarky responses appended to this article, rather than an “article of their own”.

One would think that  the ideal woman wouldn’t think her two cents as to the ideal man would belong in an article about the ideal woman…

In an effort to make the article a lot better, and more true to its title, i left the last paragraph out, so that those who are interested in her opinion, can then follow the link and be happy. 

 

What makes an ideal woman?

She speaks when she’s spoken to, smells lovely and has a big nose - six writers wax lyrical on their picture of perfection

 

GILES COREN

Once upon a time, a man on the hunt for a wife would set great store by a woman who could cook. But things have changed. And to be honest, I’ll settle for a woman who can eat. A woman who doesn’t poke her food around the plate and hide things under her knife and claim to have a thousand intolerances and allergies. A woman who isn’t “off carbs”, “not drinking this year”, “toying with the macrobiotic thing” or made to “feel funny” by red wine. I don’t want to sound narrow-minded. If I truly love her, then I guess we could always work the food thing through. As long as she isn’t always “tired”. Men are either awake or asleep, but women are always “exhausted”. What the hell is that? If you’re tired, woman, go to bed.

Also, I want a woman who is prepared to admit that what she wants from a man is a big c*** and a lot of money. I am fed up with women always claiming that what they find most sexy is a sense of humour. Because it isn’t true. I know this because I am hilarious. Way more funny than most of the slack-arsed, car-obsessed, office wonk baldies you’ll meet in a wine bar on a Friday night, and yet I practically never get laid. If it were true that women are turned on by a man who makes them laugh, Woody Allen wouldn’t have had to marry his own daughter.

As for a woman with a sense of humour, that’s fine, as long as it simply means that she will laugh at my jokes. Most women only laugh at their own jokes. Shut up. If you say something funny, I’ll let you know. And don’t give me “career”. Only women have “careers”. Men have jobs, to get money, and if we could stop and have babies while someone else earned the loot, believe me, we would. We don’t need a “career” to feel validated. We don’t want to feel validated. We just want to feel boobs. As many as possible. And then, at the last minute, quickly have babies and then die.

 

ALEX JAMES

“Long-legged, expensive, bossy, messy wife required. GSOH not essential in the mornings, but must be able to climb trees and beat me at tennis sometimes.”

I’m not sure if that’s exactly what I would have written before I met her, but that’s what I got and she’s perfect for me. The moment I stop believing my wife is my ideal woman, I guess it’s over. No man can ever be sure whether he’s got a Linda or a Heather on his arm as the confetti falls, but I’m certain that nobody ever walks down the aisle with any sense of compromise. The whole absurdly wonderful, almost impossibly romantic thing about all marriages is that what you are saying to each other is: “You and me, we’re perfect.”

I suppose all men must conjure notions of their ideal partner. Mmmm, let’s see, I’ll take a big slice of Zeta-Jones with some Germaine Greer on top and the Abi Titmuss sauce — but these Frankenstein birds would never fly. Choosing a mate is not like buying a car or a house. Until she comes along, we have no idea what we really like: my imagination couldn’t hold a candle to the real thing. The best part of falling in love with Claire was discovering all the things I didn’t know I wanted or needed.

Of course, it’s not been all roses. There are whacking great thorns, but they’re a vital part of it, too. I think you’ve got to be able to surprise each other sometimes, without meaning to. Our daughter was born last week. Claire was pulling faces I’d never seen before and crushing my hand in hers. “Does anyone ever manage to do this without the swearwords?” I asked the midwife. Oh, yes, she said gently, through the torrent of obscenities. It struck me then that Claire, in her mind probably far from her best or most elegant, was incapable of not looking good, and even her swearing had a kind of grace to it.

I’d never seen Claire, or anyone, look so beautiful. Then I saw my daughter, and that’s a whole other story.

 

AA GILL

The most attractive attribute in a woman, the most melting, the most utterly winning, is gratitude. And the older you get, the more attractive it becomes. The nice thing for men who have been short-changed by Adonis, or fallen out of the ugly tree, is that gratitude is the one honest, decent and admirable emotion money can buy. And surprisingly, quite a small amount of money. You will find it in nature: I recently watched a David Attenborough programme about the bower bird. The male of the species spends all his time preparing the nest in an effort to attract a mate. Day after day, he will bring bauble after bauble — a tireless display of devotion to his future bird. But I saw it slightly differently. It’s not a virtuoso act of love. It’s more what women will do for a couple of bottle tops and an old Oyster card.

But, actually, this is the wrong question altogether. When Casanova was very, very old, and was asked how he had been the most successful seducer of women in the history of sex, he said it was because he loved women, and that there was, in every woman, something that was divinely beautiful, and his gift was that he alone had been able to see it in everyone, when so many other men couldn’t. I knew a man like that once, a white-van man I used to drink with in a pub. He was one of the most unattractive men: sweat-stained wife-beater, paunch, hairy back, a face that looked like it had been made out of melted tyres. He had a foul mouth and fouler breath, was utterly bereft of charm, but all anyone could talk about was how much and how often he got laid. I thought he was patently lying, but he insisted it was absolutely true. So I asked him why he got lucky so much. He said: “I drive round delivering things all day. I’ve got a mattress in the back.” That doesn’t make you any more attractive. “I drive slowly with the sliding door open. Every girl I pass, I say, ‘Do you want a shag?’ And every so often, one in a hundred says yes. It doesn’t take very long to ask a hundred. But that’s not the big deal. The big deal is when they say yes, you’ve got to.” Now that’s gratitude.

 

MATT RUDD

I’ll be honest, in five years of marriage, I quickly learnt to be too afraid to imagine the perfect woman. If I had even so much as looked off into the middle distance and begun to picture a half-Swedish, half-Japanese, permanently 25-year-old, 5ft 8in bisexual gymnast with a medium cup, a penchant for tastefully slutty cocktail dresses and an erotically feisty side that meant arguments about the Iraq war always deteriorated into sex rather than slammed doors, my wife would have known. Now that I have been asked, in a professional capacity, to reveal my views on female perfection, she says I have immunity. That is obviously a lie. A man trap. She will read this and I won’t be allowed to go to Tokyo or Stockholm or bisexual-gymnast meets ever again. So, obviously, my perfect woman is my wife.

But there are ways to improve on perfection. First, the perfect woman would show far greater tolerance of her perfect man’s habits. She would allow, for example, just off the top of my head, not that I have a list or anything, the following: sugar in tea; a healthy scepticism of yoga and/or arnica; at least one curry a week; nonorganic deodorant (ie stuff that works); and free rein in Blockbuster at least twice a year (free rein to include films with explosions in them).

Second, she’d intuitively understand and accept that she was the less accomplished driver. And map reader. And satnav operator.

Third, she would not make any conversation during Sky Cops, Street Wars, Road Wars, Cops on Camera, Cops with Cameras or, latterly, Caribbean Cops.

Fourth and finally, for we don’t want to be unreasonable about these things, she would hate having all the duvet. She would not sleep in a starfish shape. And she would always get the tea in the morning. With sugar in, but I think we have already covered that.

 

TOM STUBBS

Questing for the perfect woman is folly. A check list gets a man nowhere. Like buying property, you’ll never find all you desire: “I really like her: high ceilings, great amenities, but does she have a south-facing garden?” In my own case, foolishly harbouring a romantic ideal has left me marooned, like a cross between Carrie Bradshaw and Travis Bickle, but with more shoes, fewer guns, and the same chin-up routine.

But since you’re interested, here it is. Proficient deployment of glamorous high heels is essential — I call it altitude slickness. She’ll also require the knack of delivering the brushoff to unwanted, intrusive men. Some women have instinctive pest-control abilities, some don’t. My ideal girl also smells lovely and is excellent with profanities, emitting surprising and haphazard outbursts. Her cooking ability is immaterial, but she delights in her food. I’m needy-phobic, so her independence is crucial, as she runs a vigorous schedule of her own activities. We meet without unsavoury embroilment and enjoy jealousy-free satellite manoeuvring, once loyalty is pledged. It’s black and white for me, so no green eye from her. She’ll offer to pay her way; who actually pays is irrelevant, but willingness is critical. Her love of music reveals passion for life, while her dance moves will confirm this.

I’d consider a liaison with 70%, ono, of the above criteria satisfied. I guess you could also chuck in the poise of Rachael WW in Blade Runner, the chic of Faye Dunaway in The Thomas Crown Affair and the impact of the girl on the Rio album cover by Duran Duran. What’s wrong with high aspiration? I’ll be saying that in the queue for my pension, pondering whether the striking open-plan reception with balcony and sought-after views was “the one”.

 

DOM JOLY

Let’s start with Béatrice Dalle from Betty Blue, but without the mental side. I fancied her when I was 16 — I thought she was gorgeous, exotic, and I liked the idea of having a French girlfriend. Then I once saw her interviewed and realised she was an absolute lunatic. I kind of like stability; I’m pretty all over the shop myself, so I like someone to balance it out. Now I’ve grown up, my ideal has got even more sensible, boring even, such as Jennifer Aniston.

I also have a thing about noses. My wife has a normal nose, but when she lined up pictures of all my exes, she pointed out that they all had prominent ones. I do like weird, strong noses. Not Jodie Marsh, obviously. Natascha McElhone has a wonderful nose, and I had a big crush on Laura Dern in Wild at Heart, but that went with Jurassic Park.

I am very disappointed that I have a crush on Sarah Palin — and I don’t think I’m alone. I loathe everything about her politically, but there’s something about her. It’s not the librarian bun and glasses, it’s just that I find women in power attractive, perhaps because they’re bright. I can’t stand women like Kate Moss. She is hideous, the exact example of a skank I would snog at Glastonbury and end up regretting. I think Agyness is gorgeous, but reminds me of the girls I fancied at 18.

Having a similar sense of humour is obviously a biggie, because if they don’t, the whole thing goes downhill. Sarcasm, cynicism, maybe a goth past — although I do tend to like sloaney girls, which feeds into the nose thing. My ideal woman used to be Patti Smith on the cover of Horses. She’s got that very cool, confident New York vibe, that no-bullshit stuff. All my life I’ve thought I’ve known what I was after, but I have never ended up with it — and what I have ended up with is a 5ft 2in Canadian blonde, who turns out to be ideal.

 

 

So much can be said, but sometimes it’s better if you come to your own decisions on it.

A. S. Byatt denounces ’sexist’ Orange prize

The all-women Orange literature prize is still needed, despite women winning prizes in fair competition with men, the organisers have said.

The Orange prize longlist, published yesterday, includes Anne Enright’s The Gathering, which won the unisex Booker a few weeks ago. In the past two years, women have won both the Booker and Costa literary awards.

The novelist A. S. Byatt told The Times that the Orange was a sexist prize, saying that she was so critical of what it stands for that she forbids her publishers to submit her novels for consideration. “Such a prize was never needed,” she said, noting that many works of literature were by women.

John Sutherland, the academic, said that ghettoising women writers did them more harm them good. Anita Brookner, a Booker winner, has dismissed positive discrimination and is also believed to have declined having her novels entered for the Orange.

Harriet Hastings, project director of the Orange prize, shrugged off the criticisms, maintaining that it was international and had no need to justify its existence: “Although major prizes have been won by women, the value of the Orange is as a celebration of women’s fiction.”

She dismissed the suggestion that there would be an outcry from women if anyone tried to introduce a prize for the best male novel, saying that she would actually welcome it.

The 20 contenders in the longlist for 2008 Orange Broadband Prize for Fiction include Enright, the Irish author, and the Scottish writer A. L. Kennedy, who was awarded the £30,000 Costa Book of the Year award for Day, a harrowing wartime novel.

Last year Kiran Desai became the youngest woman to win the Booker with The Inheritance of Loss, a story of an embittered retired judge in the Himalayas, while Stef Penney won the Costa for The Tenderness of Wolves a murder-mystery set in Canada.

This time seven debut novelists are up against established writers such as Deborah Moggach and Rose Tremain.

Also on the list is Linda Grant, whose victory in the 2000 prize was clouded by the discovery that passages of her novel bore a striking similarity to Mandate Days, a 1997 historical work by Joshua Sherman, who made a formal complaint to her publisher, Granta Books. Before the prize was announced, Granta agreed to include an acknowledgement to Dr Sherman in future editions. This time Grant has been longlisted for The Clothes on Their Back, a novel about identity and belonging.

The Orange has been controversial since its launch in 1996. Alain de Botton said at the time: “What is it about being a woman that is particularly under threat, in need of attention, or indeed distinctive from being a man when it comes to picking up a pen?”

Kirsty Lang, chairman of this year’s panel, denied yesterday that the Orange was positive discrimination, saying that most readers are women, and prizes are to attract readers.

She accepted, however, that having scanned 120 entries, she found “a lot of dross” and noticed the “misery memoir” seeping into feminine fiction. “If they haven’t had the unhappy childhood, then they make one up. Lots of grim child sex abuse.”

The other judges are Lisa Allardice, review editor at The Guardian, Lily Allen, the musician, Philippa Gregory, the novelist, and Bel Mooney, the novelist and journalist. They will announce the shortlist on April 15 and the winner on June 4.

Well I guess the girls are going to take over technology “the cyberpioneers of the moment are digitally effusive teenage girls”.

Sorry, Boys, This Is Our Domain

By STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM

THE prototypical computer whiz of popular imagination — pasty, geeky, male — has failed to live up to his reputation.

Research shows that among the youngest Internet users, the primary creators of Web content (blogs, graphics, photographs, Web sites) are not misfits resembling the Lone Gunmen of “The X Files.” On the contrary, the cyberpioneers of the moment are digitally effusive teenage girls.

“Most guys don’t have patience for this kind of thing,” said Nicole Dominguez, 13, of Miramar, Fla., whose hobbies include designing free icons, layouts and “glitters” (shimmering animations) for the Web and MySpace pages of other teenagers. “It’s really hard.”

Nicole posts her graphics, as well as her own HTML and CSS computer coding pointers (she is self-taught), on the pink and violet Sodevious.net, a domain her mother bought for her in October.

“If you did a poll I think you’d find that boys rarely have sites,” she said. “It’s mostly girls.”

Indeed, a study published in December by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that among Web users ages 12 to 17, significantly more girls than boys blog (35 percent of girls compared with 20 percent of boys) and create or work on their own Web pages (32 percent of girls compared with 22 percent of boys).

Girls also eclipse boys when it comes to building or working on Web sites for other people and creating profiles on social networking sites (70 percent of girls 15 to 17 have one, versus 57 percent of boys 15 to 17). Video posting was the sole area in which boys outdid girls: boys are almost twice as likely as girls to post video files.

Explanations for the gender imbalance are nearly as wide-ranging as cybergirls themselves. The girls include bloggers who pontificate on timeless teenage matters such as “evil teachers” and being “grounded for life,” to would-be Martha Stewarts — entrepreneurs whose online pursuits generate more money than a summer’s worth of baby-sitting.

“I was the first teenage podcaster to receive a major sponsorship,” said Martina Butler, 17, of San Francisco, who for three years has been recording an indie music show, Emo Girl Talk, from her basement. Her first corporate sponsorship, from Nature’s Cure, an acne medication, was reported in 2005 in Brandweek, the marketing trade magazine.

Since then, more than half a dozen companies, including Go Daddy, the Internet domain and hosting provider, have paid to be mentioned in her podcasts, which are posted every Sunday on Emogirltalk.com.

“It’s really only getting bigger for me,” said Martina, an aspiring television and radio host who was tickled to learn about the Pew study.

“I’m not surprised because girls are very creative,” she said, “sometimes more creative than men. We’re spunky. And boys … ” Her voice trailed off to laughter.

The “girls rule” trend in content creation has been percolating for a few years — a Pew study published in 2005 also found that teenage girls were the primary content creators — but the gender gap for blogging, in particular, has widened.

As teenage bloggers nearly doubled from 2004 to 2006, almost all the growth was because of “the increased activity of girls,” the Pew report said.

The findings have implications beyond blogging, according to Pew, because bloggers are “much more likely to engage in other content-creating activities than nonblogging teens.”

But even though girls surpass boys as Web content creators, the imbalance among adults in the computer industry remains. Women hold about 27 percent of jobs in computer and mathematical occupations, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In American high schools, girls comprised fewer than 15 percent of students who took the AP computer science exam in 2006, and there was a 70 percent decline in the number of incoming undergraduate women choosing to major in computer science from 2000 to 2005, according to the National Center for Women & Information Technology.

Scholars who study computer science say there are several reasons for the dearth of women: introductory courses are often uninspiring; it is difficult to shake existing stereotypes about men excelling in the sciences; and there are few female role models. It is possible that the girls who produce glitters today will develop an interest in the rigorous science behind computing, but some scholars are reluctant to draw that conclusion.

“We can hope that this translates, but so far the gap has remained,” said Jane Margolis, an author of “Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing” (MIT Press, 2002). While pleased that girls are mastering programs like Paint Shop Pro, Ms. Margolis emphasized the profound distinction between using existing software and a desire to invent new technology.

Teasing out why girls are prolific Web content creators usually leads to speculation and generalization. Although girls have outperformed boys in reading and writing for years, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, this does not automatically translate into a collective yen to blog or sign up for a MySpace page. Rather, some scholars argue, girls are the dominant online content creators because both sexes are influenced by cultural expectations.

“Girls are trained to make stories about themselves,” said Pat Gill, the interim director for the Institute for Communications Research and an associate professor of gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

From a young age they learn that they are objects, Professor Gill said, so they learn how to describe themselves. Historically, girls and women have been expected to be social, communal and skilled in decorative arts.

“This would be called the feminization of the Internet,” she said.

Boys, she added, are generally taught “to engage in ways that aren’t confessional, that aren’t emotional.”

Research by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, the result of focus groups and interviews with young people 13 to 22, suggests that girls’ online practices tend to be about their desire to express themselves, particularly their originality.

“With young women it’s much more about expressing yourself to others in the way that wearing certain clothes to school does,” said John Palfrey, the executive director of the Berkman Center. “It ties into identity expression in the real world.”

That desire is never so evident as when girls criticize online copycats who essentially steal their Web page backgrounds and graphics by hotlinking (linking to someone else’s image so it appears on one’s own Web page). Aside from depleting bandwidth, it is the digital equivalent of arriving at a party wearing the same dress as another girl, Professor Palfrey said.

No wonder that girls post aggressive warnings on their sites such as “Do not jock, copy, steal, or redistribute any of my stuff!” or, more to the point: “hotlink and die.”

While creating content enables girls to experiment with how they want to present themselves to the world, they are obviously interested in maintaining and forging relationships.

When Lauren Renner, 16, was in fifth grade, she and a friend, Sarada Cleary, now 14, both of Oceanside, Calif., began writing about their lives on Agirlsworld.com, an interactive e-zine with articles written for and by girls.

“Girls from everywhere would read it and would ask questions about what they should do with a problem,” Lauren said. “I think girls like to help with other people’s problems or questions, kind of, like, motherly, to everybody.”

Today Lauren and Sarada are among more than 1,000 girls who regularly submit content to Agirlsworld. They make a few extra dollars writing online articles and dreaming up holiday-related activities, like Mother’s Day breakfast recipes, which are posted on the site.

“At school there’s just a certain type of people,” Sarada said. “They’re just local. Online you get to experience their culture through them.”

THE one area where boys surpass girls in creating Web content is posting videos. This is not because girls are not proficient users of the technology, Professor Palfrey said. He suggested, rather, that videos are often less about personal expression and more about impressing others. It’s an ideal way for members of a subculture — skateboarders, snowboarders — to demonstrate their athleticism, he said.

Zach Saltzman, 17, of Memphis, said content creation among his circle of male friends includes having a Facebook profile and posting videos of lacrosse games and original short films on YouTube.

“I actually really never thought about doing my own Web site,” said Zach after returning from an SAT class.

He hasn’t posted a video himself and doesn’t have a blog because, as he put it, “it really never interested me and I don’t have time to keep up with it.”

Zach does, however, have a Facebook profile where he uploads digital photographs.

“It’s really the only way I keep my pictures organized because I don’t make photo albums and stuff like that,” he said.

Asked whether the findings of the Pew study seemed accurate to him, he said: “That’s what I see happening. The girls are much more into putting something up and getting responses.”

Well this was an interesting surprise, and I am not even sure how I came across it, though I know the area in Queens mentioned and Kaufman Astoria (not mentioned, but hurting bad because of the writers strike).

It seems that the media has found its new “IT”. Metrosexual didn’t stick, Uber whatever didn’t fly, Andro emo oh no somthings didnt cut it, so besides the up and coming, you heard it here first Yaoi (???), we will soon see “shows about socially inept, WII-savvy young men that are still trying to figure out their place in the world”.

Do We Need Girlfriends or Cashmere Jungle?

The You Tube cult favorite, “We Need Girlfriends” (WNG), chronicles the lives of three 20-somethings, living in Astoria, as they attempt to navigate through the tough terrain of the dating landscape. But for these guys, pimping ain’t easy and it’s their butterfingers-dating-style that is attracting millions of viewers to their site weneedgirlfriends.tv. And now, a pilot for CBS, with Darren Star of “Sex and the City” and “Cashmere Mafia” fame as executive producer is in the works, with former “Saved By The Bell” director Dennis Erdman also attached.

So with characters like WNG’s Henry, Tom and Rod that capture the spirit of what Stephanie Rosenbloom describes in last week’s Styles section, as the “New York City beta male — that gentle, endearingly awkward, self-conscious soul for whom love is a battlefield”, have we grown weary of the fiercely charming, fearless, ambitious women that shows like “Cashmere Mafia” and “Lipstick Jungle” continue to represent? Do we now crave watching shows about socially inept, WII-savvy young men that are still trying to figure out their place in the world?

And on Valentine’s Day, as I hope that my 25-year old boyfriend will stop playing ‘brickbreaker’ on his blackberry long enough so that we can have a decent night together, I wonder if guys like my boyfriend, Henry, Tom and Rod need to grow up or if I just need to relax and just roll with it.

Speaking of rolling with it, I chatted with Xanadu The Musical’s Kerry Butler a couple of weeks ago about her reoccurring role as Reese in “Lipstick Jungle”, her adopted Ethiopian daughter Segi and her love of the ukelele, which she plans to incorporate in her upcoming full-length album. Read excerpts from our interview below. Then, keep reading to find out why 2 of the co-creators of the show, “We Need Girlfriends”, Brian Amyot and Steven Tsapelas prefer the day after Valentine’s Day than the actual holiday. I’ll give you a hint. It’s cheaper.

I will spare us the interview with the Ukelele playing adoptive mother making an album ’stuff’, as I know we are all dying to know about the socially inept guys in queens.

Congrats on the deal with CBS and the opportunity to work with producer Darren Star on the pilot. How will your show be different than Cashmere Mafia?
Steven Tsapelas: Cashmere, like Sex and the City, portrayed the lives of well off, female, Manhattanites. Our show will portray the other side of the coin. First off, the characters in “We Need Girlfriends” don’t live in a nice apartment–they’re crammed into a small three bedroom in the boroughs. Instead of eating at nice restaurants or attending big social events, they’ll eat in diners and drink in dive bars. Second, our characters are by no means glamorous in their dress. And thirdly, our characters are still transitioning from college to adulthood, so while they’ve had the first big relationship of their adult lives, they’re still working on finding the second or third. And it’s a constant struggle.

What do you love about being single on Valentine’s Day?
Brian Amyot: I’m very split down the middle about Valentine’s Day. If you have someone to spend it with, that’s great, and it can be a special day. If you don’t have someone to spend it with, no problem, I don’t get depressed or upset about it–it’s just another day. I guess the thing I love is that you save money on flowers and candy. I know that doesn’t sound very romantic.

Steven Tsapelas: I prefer being single on February 15th. Then I can buy a half price box of giant chocolates and sulk while watching “Be My Valentine, Charlie Brown.” That’s my favorite thing.

Do you think that living in Queens is a strike against you as you try to navigate through the dating system in search of girlfriends? Are you ever tempted to move to Manhattan to increase your chances?
Brian Amyot: There is something very nice about living in Queens–Astoria specifically. It has a very “neighborhood” feel. So being surrounded by familiar and comfortable people and places I think increases your chances of meeting people. You can at least get some great friendships, if not romantic relationships.

Steven Tsapelas: Most young people that live in Queens and Brooklyn gravitate towards bars in the city anyway. I think being single in any part of New York City is tough, because there are so many people and so much choice that you can’t really make a commitment to anyone without thinking, “What better people am I missing by being in a relationship?” Besides, Queens has the Bohemian Hall Beer Garden, which trumps any New York City bar.

Well there you have it… and he is right about the Bohemian Hall Beer Garden. With 800 cultures in Astoria, there is also a great selection of authentic foods.

But I digress.

Is this the kind of show we want to see? Anyone care to take bets on wheter or not it will actually give a peek into the real world of socially inept, WII-savvy young men that are still trying to figure out their place in the world?

I for one won’t hold my breath. Though you will have to excuse me, I think its time to possibly hit the Beer Garden.

As people who mock the Death of Heath Ledger?

This, my friend, is why Liberals hate Conservatives with a passion.

If Gibson is wanting to Promote Conservative values, he is not doing a very good job.

Mark me up as someone, who doesn’t think that this is funny, at all.

More here

brought to you by venome, spew, and hatred… (why blame an individual when you can blame the group as if the whole group is like the few?) - click here

Delusional twit… she doesnt see her own behavior illustrates the case against her own delusion… however if you read carefully in the first paragraph, she explains that she only has half a brain…

the emphasis in the post is mine…

I hate men. Yes, I am a feminist. No, not all feminists hate men. But at this point in my life I have begun to wonder why any woman with half a brain would NOT hate men. It is perhaps testament to the amazing moral superiority of women that most women do not hate men in spite of the tortures men inflict upon them, their children, and each other. Or perhaps it is a reason why feminism has not succeeded. Perhaps in order for women to stop being chattel under the bootheels of cruel, stupid men, they will have to learn to hate men at least a little.

This journal will consist of a list of good reasons to hate men.

I will grant the naysayers this - that the actions which make men, as a class, hateable, are not engaged in or supported, even passively, by all men. In other words, there are probably a few good men out there, who really do not condone in any way, shape or form, any of the following:

Rape
Murder
War
Environmental destruction for the sake of “jobs”
Wife beating
Girlfriend beating
Porn
BDSM
Street harassment of women
Forced veiling of women
Incest
Statutory rape
Forced pregnancy and birth
Giving fetii more rights than the women in whose bodies they are growing

But I haven’t personally met any. I’ve heard of a precious few via their writings in print and online. Less than ten. Out of thousands of men I have met in my life, I can count the “good” ones on one hand. And what I listed above as a description of “good” is, for me, not even “good” but just “not bad”, as in “not evil and unempathetic”.

Every man I have had personal interactions with supports at least 2-3 of the above things, or engages in them.

Every single one.

That is, in and of itself, enough to make any sensible woman want to run away to join an Amazonian cult. Alas, I am not able to do so. But I can bitch about how much I hate men on LJ.

And you know, for a start, maybe that’s enough. Men have such fragile and pathetic little egos that even though they enjoy almost complete and total world domination, they are awfully threatened by women speaking up for themselves even a little bit. This is why even the most timid feminist woman saying “perhaps maybe you guys should look at this particular instance of gross mistreatment of women and realize that it isn’t in the spirit of fair play” will get buried under a mountain of hate mail from offended penis owners who insist she must be a man-hater because she isn’t begging to suck their ugly cocks in overawed gratitude for their gracious gift of allowing her to continue breathing. So I can imagine how they will look at this journal.

So in order to piss them off even more, their comments will not be allowed to appear here. This is a no males zone.

Only friends may comment here and no male person shall be friended, nor shall any female apologist for males. Transwomen I shall consider female and allow to post here under the same rules an non-transwomen - if they will not speak up in defense of males. No female bashing is allowed here. No male praising is allowed here. That you can get a plenty in every other sector of the world.

This is a female safe zone, a feminist safe zone, a girl and woman and transwoman safe zone, a place where males will get the verbal bashing they deserve. If you BOYS don’t like it, you don’t have to read it. If you get a mental wedgie from reading it, that’s your own fucking problem.

But perhaps hate is not the correct word in the end. To paraphrase one of that tiny number of men I repsect for not being a total shit, “Hate is not an emotion, hate is behavior.” I have extreme dislike towards men, but I do not: beat them; rape them; kill them; stalk them; take away their civil liberties; agitate for laws to be passed that impede upon their reproductive choices; advocate that they be raped for misbehaving; or any of the tortures inflicted upon women so often they no don’t even make the back page of the newspaper unless the crime has some particular sensationalistic value. A lot is said about how women who stand up for themselves hate men. Very little is said about the obvious and ubiquitous hatred of most men for women.

Well, I’ll have a lot to say about it here.

is it any wonder that she has no decent men in her life? any decent guy would run away, far away, for a long long time… bout the only ones that would deal with such a person are predators… so her own behavior skews the world around her, and she thinks that its representitive of the mass and the norm.

guess what? i will bet that most women, knwo more than ten men that are decent… and in fact, most women cant name ten men that are horrible…

i cant name one that would approve of her list of things… so i am wondering where the heck does this sad little person live to have met so many? generally, they havent met much of any… the feminists that i have met that mostly talk like this, are dworkinesque… ie. gargoyles, and their hatred stems from no one liking them…

after all… with this person, whats not to like?

Ultimately in a free capitalist society (well msotly free) the usual thing that stops most plans of grand change for the illusory better is that: it’s not profitable, so its not progress, and so eventually they give up the losing tack and return to what does work.

Well, this bit of true speak has come full circle today in hollyweird. They have gone back to the same old assertions that in the past were assigned to something akin to patriarchal protectionism. In the past, women were not casted in leading roles as often as men. As is well known today thanks to chick dom flicks (with women who can beat up 200lb men whith military training, not break a sweat, and take their punches like Foreman did.)

Anyway… things have come full circle… the studiios asserted in the past that it was economics that drove their choices (that and ideology where it was profitable), not patriarchy. Though the women got their way and movies were made, because there was no way to prove the point that they all knew, that their test screenings showed them, and tons of other things. to oppose the witches of hollyweird and the other fembots would have garnered them much misery.

Now today with Feminism on the wane, despite what it seems, and the studios having tighter margins (since re-imagining what we love to some perverted form, just doesn’t make money like making what we love and giving us what we want. Compare the new Willy Wonka to Lord of the Rings to see what I mean). They have to somehow boost sales (and still push ideology. anyone see the horrible movie shooter? I am sorry I did), and so they turn back and they basically have come to the conclusion. We can’t afford ideology AND womens leads…

Which one do you think they jettisoned, or will try to?

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,22564799-10388,00.html

Women don’t cut it for Warners

THE President of Warner Brothers Pictures has caused an uproar in the US after allegedly declaring that the studio will no longer make films with a female in the lead role.
Warner Bros. head Jeff Robinov made the order following the disappointing box-office takings for two recent female vehicles - Jodie Foster’s The Brave One ($US42 million worldwide) and Nicole Kidman’s The Invasion ($14 million).
US newspaper LA Weekly has reported the story, quoting three separate Warner Bros. producers.
Women’s rights activists are fuming at the studio boss’s remarks after struggling for so long to win equal pay.
“If that’s what he said, when movies with men as the lead fail, no one says we’ll stop making movies with men in the lead,” said noted attorney Gloria Allred.
“This is an insult to all moviegoers and particularly women. It is truly unfortunate that women get blamed for decisions which are made by men.
“Instead of taking responsibility for their own lack of judgment about which scripts to make, directors to hire and budgets to OK, some men in the movie industry find it easier to place blame for their lack of success on women leads and to exclude talented female actors from the top employment opportunities in Hollywood in favour of macho males.”
[the rest of the article can be found at the link provided above]

So which is it folks? You know they are going to back peddle… but is it an excuse? is it a fact? Do male lead role movies have a higher percentage of success than female lead role movies? If so, doesn’t that kind of negate the clever come back of Allred?

“If that’s what he said, when movies with men as the lead fail, no one says we’ll stop making movies with men in the lead”..

Well, that’s looking at it individually… trying to make them equivalent..

If the studio makes ten male lead films and ten female lead roles, and 8 out of the ten male roles make money and only 4 out of ten of the female roles do, then the push of Allred makes no sense.

In fact it only makes sense to someone that DOESN’T want to check out the facts. After all, Allred did not have time to do so, and so said whatever she could to make first strike BEFORE any real valid information would be lent to the argument.

So let us know!! Or at least let me know…

Is this a cover-up by male executives of hollyweird passing the blame for the choice of bad scripts?

[No one of course is mentioning that these actresses also chose these bad scripts to be in. that would be inconvenient, no?]

Or is the fact that they can get better returns on the money they spend on male lead movies?

So which is it? Or is it something else? Is it like the difference between the NBA and WNBA, or is it a patriarchal conspiracy?

by Jim Kouri, CPP

Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty recently endorsed fellow Law & Order star Fred Thompson for President of the United States.

During a telephone conversation with this writer, Moriarty said:

“Whoever does occupy the White House will not overturn Roe v. Wade, nor will he or she put the dictatorial Supreme Court in its place.

“However, I will personally vote for Mr. Fred Thompson and help his campaign as best I can, but I don’t believe his entrance into this campaign ever carried enough pro-life commitment to do the job that has to be done. In addition, since the Republican Party has been so corrupted by the Nixon/Kissinger years, such corruption is too profound for one Republican as President to overcome.

“Contained in the human rights paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, the one beginning ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident,’ are the very essential ingredients to the meaning of America. Anything that veers or attempts to deny the self-evident truths contained therein is to my mind un-American. Therefore the Clinton Democrats, better known as Progressives, and the Giuliani Republicans, Progressives incognito, both have, to my mind, become profoundly disloyal to the meaning of their own birthplace.

“As a Declarationist, I declare unequivocally that all men are created equal. They are not gestated as possible candidates for abortion. They are no more eligible for abortion than African Americans are automatically eligible for slavery.

“The fundamental rights contained in that human rights paragraph are ‘inalienable.’ Nothing a Progressive Clintonite can say or do will ever re-write the human rights paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. No dance that Rudolph Giuliani may want to perform around his ’strict constructionist’ alibi for not really being pro-abortion, none of his high stepping can re-write his proven record as a pro-abortionist.”

To interview actor Michael Moriarty, call or write to Jim Kouri at copmagazine@aol.com or (201) 941-5397.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

This morning my Mozilla start page opened up to a link of a featured video from The View in which the hosts purportedly went after some blogger for one reason or another. I clicked on it but honestly was not familiar with their sacrificial lamb, Perez Hilton, before doing so. Yet The View is a show I know quite well as it is a toxic societal cesspool and the perfect embodiment of the self-absorption and narcissism that so afflicts and debilitates the essence of so many modern women. If its hosts were going to roast young Mr. Hilton then I thought I would respond by providing a testament to their bias and irrationality.

They began the episode by introducing him and pointing out that he had “the most hated website in Hollywood.” The hosts also let their audience know that what was about to transpire was a gigantic conflict of interest because all four of the harpies on stage were probably castigated at one time or another by Mr. Hilton.

An examination of his website reveals it to be exactly the trivial and irrelevant sort of thing one would expect, but its political incorrectness gave it unexpected value. The guy says whatever he wants and will entertain his readers by defiling whatever or whomever he wants—and thank God for that!

After scanning a few of his headlines and neo-stories I was quite pleased. This is the type of doppelganger who can do a tsunami’s worth of damage to our societal engineers. Even if you could care less about the moronic celebrities to which he has seemingly devoted his life you still have to appreciate his irreverence. The man is an asset.

For example, I was rolling after reading what he had to say about some large lesbian who bullied him at L.A.’s Outfest:

The night was so much fun until this drunk bitch that was volunteering began getting belligerent with Perez. She even shoved us off the stage TWICE for no apparent reason, other than she was drunk. Security eventually escorted that ho out of the building.
And, luck would have it, as we were going through the pictures from last night, the drunk douche (above with horns) was in one of our photos. Isn’t she sexy?????

At any rate, what was so remarkable about The View’s attempt to take down Mr. Hilton was the cowardice, imbecility, and incompetence that the hosts displayed in the process. All four of these mental featherweights grilled him and had nothing to show for their efforts.

They sat him in the strategic position of having two harridans on his right and two harridans on his left. Perhaps they hoped that this would destabilize him in the midst of their assault. This was a faulty assumption. Mr. Hilton was calm and unflappable throughout the interview. In fact he was fifty times more professional than anyone else on stage. Their emotion addled commentary did not befoul him as he responded to their ire with good cheer and pleasantries. I do not know how many The View fanatics he won over but he clearly outclassed all four of these half-witted beasts.

For the past forty years, the dominant theme of our politics has been emotion over reason. Here, the show’s anchors displayed considerable self-righteousness and faux outrage over Perez’s alleged ridicule of children. Maybe they hoped to alienate him from their affect-plagued audience, but they failed to cite one example of his ever humiliating a child. When I perused his site I could not find one instance of his ever doing so.

The truth is that many of us have been illogically besieged in this manner by self-indulgent emotionacs and the tactic they took with Mr. Hilton was pure subterfuge. The priestesses used the holy shrine of children as a mace with which to flail the young man and continued with the same inane trope while avoiding the mentioning of any specifics.

The truth is that they were infuriated by the way Mr. Hilton had satirized them, or people like them, in the past and were now out for blood. Luckily, they were too witless to spill any. Their obvious irritability and condescension undermined their best efforts to vilify the young dish artist.

One of them, Elisabeth Hasselback, mentioned at outset that his nickname for her was “Elisabitch” and then proceeded to prove Mr. Hilton quite prescient in his understanding of human personality for the duration of the interview. Another seemed to following a pre-written script by making note of the out-and-proud Mr. Hilton’s being gay—even though he had already responded to a question about his earnings with the quip, “a lady doesn’t discuss her finances.”

The bottom line here is that Mr. Hilton’s acerbic treatment of celebrities is exactly what those vapid and intellectually impoverished bonobos deserve. That our glitterati are so incensed by his daggers lets the world know exactly how non-substantive and brittle they actually are. This elite spends their days partying, navel gazing, and wasting the lives with which they were blessed.

What better proof of the extent to which our culture has declined than when a conservative writer feels warm, paternal, and protective towards a homosexual gossip columnist. Yes, these are gay days indeed. Bravo young man, at least to me, you are absolutely fabulous.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island and a soon-to-be released book on women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

Roman Genn is one of the most distinctive cartoonists in the world with a style both striking and vivacious. In my opinion, his bravery and irreverence are a crucial factor behind his artistic success and excellence. Those of us who read National Review have long been aware of his work as he is their principal cartoonist. A special store devoted to his prints has been created at their website. He also maintains rgenn.com where one can read his full biography and also examine a significant number of his caricatures and oil paintings. His work has appeared at most of the major media outlets such as The New York Sun, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times. Luckily for us, Roman’s big personality and sense of humor are on display in the interview below.

BC: Roman, the first thing I have to ask you about is your new role as a big time artist. You’ve just had a major show out in Los Angeles so should we now refer to you as an artist formerly known as a caricaturist? In all seriousness, does the art world look down on cartoonists?

Roman Genn: Yes. In fact Leonardo still suffers greatly from that reputation, and Goya and Daumier also never managed to recover. To avoid their pitiful fate, I spend most of my time in front of the mirror practicing achromatic utterances on Foucault and collecting the wrinkles in the middle of my forehead in the sagacious manner of One Who Has Learned the Laws of Nature. I need to work on my “tired of life” smile some more, though. It still doesn’t match my black pants.

BC: How do critics react to your political orientation? Was, “the house cartoonist for National Review,” used by them to alert potential buyers that a buck for you is a buck for the right wing?

Roman Genn: A buck for me will unquestionably go to traditionally liberal causes: Booze & Women! (Well…one woman.) No one suspects a thing - I have skillfully camouflaged my dreadful Ludendorffian beliefs with libertarian social values. Besides, I heavily rely on human vanity – for, next to war, art is the greatest way to immortalize a reputation.

BC: As a conservative who is probably speaking to conservatives in this interview, what do you make of the art world? Is it as goofy as we imagine it to be?

Roman Genn: Are you in fact suggesting that the stalagmites of dried dreck garnished with polysyllable waffling are less profound than Velasquez’s de Gongora?!!! But seriously, there are many excellent artists working today who unfortunately lack the indispensable gifts necessary for demagoguery and self-promotion, while the bad ones are full of passionate intensity. Roger Kimball and James Panero do an excellent job covering those trends for The New Criterion.

BC: Speaking of right wing, how would you characterize your views today? What’s your opinion of Mr. Bush?

Roman Genn: He lost me with that wristwatch of his (known as the Albanian incident). A Man incapable of protecting his accessories from third world thieves does not deserve to run this country. Unless, of course, he stuck it back in his pocket. In that case, we should amend the Constitution and reelect him for a third term.

BC: Pardon my ignorance in regards to the actual production process, but I must ask you as to how your work is created. Do you paint, ink, or sketch upon a large canvass and then reduce the product to whatever size is most convenient?

Roman Genn: She Who Inspires promised me a kiss for anything in oil and thru a complicated mathematical calculation I came to the conclusion that ten pieces would multiply the reward tenfold, thus the current series “Gloria mundi” came to be.

I try to paint from life, but I had such a miserable experience with Bonaparte, who wouldn’t sit still and kept mumbling about catching a cold and something incoherent about Wellington (my French is not that good, not to mention that awful Corsican accent of his), so I finally decided to work from photos, videos and to harass historians, soldiers and journalists into consulting me on technicalities. For example, former federal judge Abraham Sofaer (who was in the unique position to sit in judgment of Ariel Sharon) was vital in providing an invaluable first hand observation on the General’s personality. For Orwell’s portrayal I mostly relied on the superb writings of Robert Conquest, David Pryce-Jones and Christopher Hitchens, in addition to Orwell’s own, to guide me. Some historians would suggest different directions—Bernard Lewis recommended Liddell Hart, but Pryce-Jones advised to go with Aldington for a study of T.E. Lawrence. The Neruda piece was prompted by a lovely elegy from Dorfman in the Los Angeles Times, titled “Neruda’s verses howl against terror of today and yesterday.” A bloodthirsty reactionary like me couldn’t ignore such peculiar admiration of a Stalinist lackey!

And sometimes it’s a quote I see that inspires me, like Churchill’ s, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Or Napoleon’s “I love power. But it is as an artist that I love it. I love it as a musician loves his violin, to draw out its sounds and chords and harmonies.”

BC: What is your work routine like?

Roman Genn: Nine to five (9pm till about 5 am, that is) I spend listening to books on tape—usually Paul Johnson, William Manchester or some other wise Brit. The first half of the day is usually wasted contemplating the murder of the leaf blowers and tree trimmers, which I think should be made legal in the State of California!

BC: Some of your pieces, such as the clever depictions of Napoleon Bonaparte and Winston Churchill that you just alluded to, rely heavily on the viewer having a background knowledge of history. Does this fact limit your commercial appeal? It seems to me that the general population is about as interested in history as they are in quadratic equations.

Roman Genn: Yes, Sir Winston’s life and achievements are undoubtedly less interesting than Ms. Hilton’s current legal predicament. As Liddell Hart put it to J.M. Scammell, “I’ve done enough knight-errantry of forlorn heroes to know the difficulty. If I had done Hannibal instead of Scipio, or Lee instead of Sherman, I should have sold double or treble.” Pity he doesn’t know we still read him.

BC: I have to ask you, as I know that you’re as much of a history fanatic as I am, what is it about the past that so enthralls you? How might you sell our need to examine antiquity to a skeptic? I honestly believe it is as big a conduit for the understanding of humans as is psychology.

Roman Genn: I derive immense pleasure from saying “not quite, actually in 1815…” every time someone screams “Unprecedented!” Psychology is not completely detached though, probably the flaws and ambitions of those who have the power to influence the currents of nations determine the course of events more that anything else. But our inability to gain knowledge from history is staggering nonetheless. For instance, it is my deepest belief (and here I differ from my fellow conservatives) that modern democracies are incapable of fighting effectively and wining a war of any duration against nonwestern opponents. (Notable exceptions being, what Bernard Lewis calls Kuwaitus interruptus and the Israeli wars), reasons being primarily, the complete lack of understanding of ideological warfare, as well as the inability to control the home front. And yet no lessons have been learned and no changes have been made. It is our great fortune thus far that our current adversaries do not employ Mansteins and Guderians, but that may very well change, so who knows? All of this, plus other minor things, lead me to believe that this is going be a long and interesting century….

BC: Is there a period that you enjoy studying more than any other? What is it your favorite?

Roman Genn: Probably the period from 1929 to 1945, the “subterranean world, where pathological fantasies disguised as ideas were churned out by crooks and half-educated fanatics for the benefit of the ignorant and superstitious” in Norman Cohn’s words, the very culmination of the ravaged century. The sheer immensity of that struggle and tragedy fascinates me.

BC: As one who experienced the madness of the Soviet Union first hand, are you at all worried about the effect the Nanny State has had on America? If government “has to move” every time somebody is hurt, then how can we avoid becoming mini-Soviets ourselves?

Roman Genn: Well, someone was definitely hurting every time the Soviets moved! However, the one thing their bureaucratic brothers in the DHS could learn from them is the practice of accepting small cash donations in appreciation of the promptness and efficiency of processing applications from law-abiding residents (I need a damn passport to go on the NR cruise!)

BC: Does any part of you lament the eventual loss of Russia? Its population seems to be declining with each passing minute. Do you still think of it as your homeland?

Roman Genn: All of it is a clever ruse, designed to deceive Mark Steyn. When the Motherland calls, billions of patriotic sperms are going to aufmarsch from of their assembly areas, advancing en masse and, swiftly overwhelming the intended uterus, heroically plant the Imperial Tricolor in the ovum! As for being nostalgic-I definitely miss homicidal alcoholics with delusions of grandeur.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island, and is currently at work on a book concerning women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

This article is also available as a podcast. Click below to listen, or download the mp3 here. (iPod users can download the mp4 file here.)

[coolplayer width="250" height="30" autoplay="false" download="hide" type="audio/mpeg"]
http://mensnewsdaily.com/mp3s/chapin-on-imusFINAL.mp3[/coolplayer]

In Chicago, one must pity the atheists. Imagine how difficult it is to argue that Heaven and Hell are a fairy tale when one of the Devil’s chief operatives makes daily broadcasts from a fashionable address in the West Loop. Of course, the operative I refer to is none other than the phenomenally successful multi-billionaire, and supposedly oppressed person, Oprah Winfrey.

Today, the talk show host applied her fantastically ignorant mind to the question of Don Imus. The episode was called, “Oprah’s Town Hall: Now What?” The now what must be truly perplexing because she has dedicated tomorrow’s show to the subject as well. Her angle is not difficult to discern as it provides her with yet another fabricated opportunity to cast shame upon men and Caucasians in general.

As most readers already know, Don Imus is a person and not merely a question. The sixtyish shock jock recently got fired by both CBS and MSNBC for calling the Rutgers female basketball players, “nappy-headed hos.” To the normal person, his statement was strange and inexplicable.

When the actual telecast is viewed its context becomes clearer. Imus attempted to make light of the toughness of the player’s physical appearance. He thought they looked like a bunch of tattoo scarred thugs. Imus (unwisely) compared them to gangstas in the language of the street. Everyone then assumed that his intent was racist, but that’s far from certain—even though perpetual PC dupes like ESPN have no doubts. “Nappy headed ho” by itself, while admittedly dumb and in poor taste, does not only refer to black women because many white youths of both sexes Africanize their hair. Making one’s straight hair kinky appears to be in style at the moment. As far as humor goes, his attempt missed the mark by many miles, but I see no hatred in his words.

If anything, what he said seemed to be more of a class comment as the Tennessee team to which he compared the Rutgers girls is unquestionably racially integrated. Their team picture depicts seven black players and four white players who share a feminine appearance and are devoid of brands or tattoos. This could have been easily clarified by Imus but he was too busy apologizing and making-out with the feet of race shysters to find the time to do so.

Reaction to his faux pas was not immediate. Just as with all politically correct crusades, momentum built slowly before reaching a level of hysteria. The story only reached Shandra Levy proportions after the usual band of jackasses was recruited to harass Imus’s employers and assault the American psyche. With Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Oprah Winfrey, and the mainstream media, any life or career can become forfeit in just a few hours time.

This was all unfortunately brought to my attention today as I sat in the doctor’s office at 9 am. His TV was set to “The Oprah Winfrey Show” and the program was stocked with all manner of luminaries from various parts of the left side of the political spectrum. One of the most offensive was a psychologist named Robin Smith who talked about Imus embodying the sickening racism and systematic oppression that is so rife in other parts of the world but suspiciously absent from the United States. Well, actually, that wasn’t what her position. Her version of reality, issued as she sat upon a perch of privilege, focused only on America and purposely avoided any mention of the greater world.

Oprah placed on her website the supposed theme of the show. She asked viewers as to whether or not there is “a double standard in this country?” I’m glad she did because there are a myriad of double standards in this country. The most obvious one on display here is that only a white American can get fired for making what someone somewhere construes to be a racial comment about somebody else. Nothing like that ever happens to black or Hispanics because they are the chosen mascots of political correctness. A case in point comes from only a few traffic lights away from where I now type, in the person of Ozzie Guillen. He still manages the White Sox despite his calling a sports columnist a “fag.” Pariah status is reserved for white males offenders alone in our anti-intellectual PC society.

Another double standard is that most words of hatred are only words of hatred when they are spoken by Caucasians. A shock jock of a different color could have gotten away with what Imus said and there would have been no drama at all. Had his ancestors hailed from Kenya or Mozambique, Imus could have even said the N-word. White people have numerous words with which they’re not allowed to say and many of them we don’t even know about until after we say them [recall the infamous “niggardly” incident].

Everyday it seems as if there are more and more words that result in our being condemned by some kind of ism. For the last twenty years, I always thought that the “N-word” was the only one truly off limits. Last month, I discovered that faggot has also been added to the list while today, Oprah, informed her audience that “bitch” and “ho” are words of devastation as well. Here we see yet another reason why PC is so pernicious. In the case of all these words, arbitrary distinctions have been made in an attempt to control our actions and dominate our speech. In my opinion, there should be no words whose utterance automatically equates with an individual having some sort of psychological condition—particularly not ones as mundane and overused as “bitch” and “ho” [rather delicious it is that “ho” stands for “whore” but is now referred to as the h-word].

Here, yet again, is another double standard because there are all sorts of words which men are not allowed to call women, such as the c-word, the h-word, and the b-word, but there are none for which women are not allowed to call men. A woman can say anything she wants to about a man and get away with it. The reason for this is that women are yet another privileged class within America today. Our society is loath to hold them responsible for anything that they might say or do. They are the most comical of PC mascots as their heartiness and extended lifespan make a mockery out of their supposed sensitivity and vulnerability.

Here we come to a double standard within a double standard as there’s absolutely no equality at all within Oprah’s treatment of women on her show. They allegedly are the superiors of men yet their beings can be torn asunder by merely having a few banal, uncreative names tossed their way. Only weaklings suffer psychological trauma when they are exposed to insults by persons they don’t know and who have no meaning or importance in their lives. No superhero in history ever shattered like porcelain after hearing a term of disparagement. As a society, all of our citizens must learn to deal with criticism and getting insulted. There’s no need to conduct a witch hunt, a town hall meeting or a therapy session after noting the hostility of another. Defending oneself or refusing to associate with those who demean you is best practice in such a situation.

It’s a fine habit to get into even if you don’t happen to be a PC avatar of goodness and glory on this earth. Let’s consider for a moment what would happen if your narrator was placed in the position of those Rutgers girls and a guy like Tavis Smiley called him a “bald-headed cracker” on the air. Obviously, no one would be too bothered by this—although there really isn’t much of a parallel here as Imus said no terms of racial derision—but my way of dealing with it would be first to grant out that I was bald-headed and second to inquire if Smiley had any idea where the next International Brotherhood of the Crackerazzi Convention was going to be held so I could acquire some advance tickets.* Please note that I suspiciously left out of my response: “I’m going to call you an ism.”

Whenever I argue along these lines someone usually claims that it isn’t an accurate comparison because “white people are bothered by stuff like that,” but the fact is that nobody is really bothered by much of anything unless society tells them that they should be. Being called a name is not a nuclear weapon of interpersonal interaction and it doesn’t “dehumanize” anyone. It’s just a name, and, unless one has a criminally inflated sense of self-esteem, it means very little. America’s true sickness isn’t racism; it’s PC therapism which is interposed upon our relations with one another.

The major mission of political correctness is to subjugate our thoughts, feelings, and souls within a dungeon of sterility wherein the definition of being human is morphed into “never saying anything wrong or offensive to anyone.” Human beings simply aren’t like that. We frequently get mad or angry and say things we don’t really mean. That’s what happens when blood, rather than synthetic oil, courses through one’s capillaries. Every time somebody says something that we don’t like it doesn’t equate with their being abnormal and some kind of “ism.” I wish the American population would save their resentment for the self-glorifying buffoons demanding our eternal repentance rather than pouring it upon a self-glorifying buffoon who’s trying to entertain us.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island, and is currently at work on a book concerning women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

*Actually, given how silly things have gotten in society. I would probably fake “getting verklempt” over their words: “When I began losing my hair in 1994 my whole world caved in—no more combs, no more brushes, no more shampoo, no more gel, no more expensive trips to the barber—hey, wait a minute…”

That’s exactly what America is on the path of doing…digesting the cold, hard truth. That foul language is grotesque and does not belong on the airwaves. 

As a country, we’ve been in the gutter so long that many of us think it’s a right for anyone to publicly bash a person with foul language on the basis of free speech.  Civility a bygone trait it seems like. But there was a ray of hope when Don Imus paid for his remarks about the Rutgers ladies basketball team. 

The media is abuzz about the “fallout” after Don Imus was booted from CBS and MSNBC.  There is no need for a “falling out” over this incident. It is being blown out of proportion, as the media wonders, “what’s next for him?” I could care less. Imus made his bed, now he has to lie in it.

Others are making this incident out to be a racial one. It is not racial to call someone to account for what comes out of his/her mouth that is clearly offensive. We must start somewhere, and now, America can clearly look at part of what is dragging down our society.  Don Imus was only parroting what our society has produced…those in the entertainment business who think it’s fine to put down others with foul language. 

The Don Imus incident has caused many to want to put a stop to degrading comments in the media and to confront it.  That is what is occurring, and thank goodness!

Black conservative blogger Akindele Akinyemi is one of many people who lament the troubles of the black community. The following are his thoughts, meant to acknowledge the problems of the black community and to hopefully urge others to step up and correct what is sadly wrong in our communities:

“…I feel it’s a d-mn shame that Black liberals are always protesting and demanding White people be fired for saying something stupid yet we give Blacks who consistently call or sisters bit-h-s and h-es on a regular basis a free pass. We degrade our race by trying to live like Good Times or live out our lives in poverty. We enjoy sagging our pants in public, even in church where it is supposed to be a House of God.

What about Black radio promoting sex, soft porn and violence on the air? I did not see anyone protesting Black radio but you are protesting someone who gave a stupid comment. The images that are shown on Black TV can be compared to a minstrel show. We show brothers and sisters straight screw-ng on TV (not making love), calling each other bit-hes on popular Black situation comedies, and showing the most un-Christian images on TV. Will you ever see Al Sharpton demanding positive images on TV? H-ll no unless it has a liberal twist….”

View the entire blog segment here:

http://onedetroitnetwork.blogspot.com/2007/04/black-liberals-need-to-stop-double.html

As Mr. Akinyemi mentions the liberalization of the black community, he is accenting and is showing his concern of the way the “anything goes” mentality has been pervasive among blacks. Because conservative blacks would not allow or condone such vile behavior.

As one can see, this sort of behavior is manifested everywhere. And not only in the black community either, we have a problem with our overall culture as Americans.  Don Imus was but a blip on the radar screen in all of this.  But truly, the only way that the black community and America as a whole can recover is to take on the filth on the airwaves and hopefully, in the music videos and in the rap and hip-hop music.

Will the black community hold itself to account? We can’t point the finger and say one person should be fired for demeaning comments about blacks and females when our own behavior is just as vile. 

Looking at the music in today’s society…how can those who see vile behavior and negative music lyrics appropriate, elevate themselves in society when they are too busy “rump-shaking” it such offensive music?  If you look around, you will notice just how music has an affect on the morals and behavior of our society.  Why are there so many deadbeat-dads and such a surge in irresponsibility when it comes to sex and a lack of accountability for one’s actions?  Music seems to glorify the negative these days.  Tell me how that is helping our young people achieve their dreams?!

Allow me to time travel for a little bit. I remember in the 1980’s when the music was over-the-top silly, it was about having fun and mixing good beats and experimenting with sounds.  There were successful love ballads that were not degrading that made it big on the charts as well. The music surely had an affect over the overall mood of the country, and it was a fairly good decade.  How have we gone from such a good era in music to now pushing filth on the airwaves?

Yes it’s time to digest the fact that we have allowed the filth to go on for too long.  And something needs to change.  And it is not political correctness to want action taken against someone in the public eye who consistently uses degrading comments to express themselves.

It’s time to digest that yes, Imus was fired and should have been.

America needs to pull herself from the gutter, shake Herself off, be the society that exemplifies respect towards all, and be a society that inspires.

*Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites including RenewAmerica.us, Michnews.com, Daley-Times Post, Renaissance Women ( http://www.rwnetwork.net/ ) , Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Mensnewsdaily.com, ConservativeCrusader.com, and other news sites like AmericanChronicle.com.  She is a columnist and a reporter for the Mid-South Patriot ( www.freewebs.com/midsouth-patriot ) in Memphis, TN.  Felicia hails from a military background, and has been politically active since the 2000 elections. She has been a guest speaker on various conservative internet talk radio shows including KFNX News talk radio with Clancy Jaynce (www. insidepoliticswithclancyjayne.com). 

You may email Felicia: Feereports@aol.com. 

Why can’t certain celebrities, news personalities, politicians and the like watch their mouths? In this age, with all the strides being made to foster respect towards women and equality among all races, one would think it unfathomable for someone to call a black person a “nappy headed h-e.” Or disrespect ANYONE regardless of race for that matter.

When Michael Richards went on his rant in a Hollywood nightclub, disrespecting blacks by calling them “ni–ers,” it received attention in the news, then it was forgotten. Now the famous radio talk show host Don Imus has lowered his standards by calling some on the Rutgers ladies basketball team “nappy headed h-es.”

Since when is it ok to refer to ladies as h-es? The “nappy headed” part was vile as well, but the word h-e has an even more damaging effect.  It’s among the lowest word one can come up with when referring to females.  

Imus has apologized profusely and tried to make amends.  I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noticed, but the hip-hop and rap music industry has also lowered itself by addressing women in derogatory terms and showing scantily clad women gyrating in music videos. If Imus has apologized, so should they. The apology is one step to healing and to realizing how permissible we have been in allowing these words to be freely spoken, and what harmful effects they are having in our society. Don Imus is not the only one who has used the term loosely.

But apologies are not the cure-all to a wayward tongue.  If an apology and slap on the wrist is all it takes when an offense like this is made, to me, this sparks a free for all on outrageous comments and not a crackdown on the incessant tongue slip-ups we are hearing lately. The acknowledgement that one has done wrong and preparation to receive backlash or some form of punishment should come into play.  Imus has been suspended for 2 weeks from his show, but he is lucky he is not sued for slander. What he said was downright racist!

I truly believe that Don Imus should not get a 2 weeks suspension or slap on the wrist. That is not enough time to do any damage to his career. It has been said that he will not be fired because his show brings in many sponsors… again, here’s another disgusting case of it being all about the money.  This is not the first time Imus has been under fire for disgusting comments. His show has spewed garbage about tennis star Serena Williams and others, and I believe it’s time to can his show.

If celebrities, politicians, or people in the media cannot control their mouths, why should the public want to or need to listen to their rants? Why should these offending people continue their careers corrupting the public with their nastiness? It’s all so embarrassing!  How can we come together as a nation when we are too busy attacking each other negatively?

Free speech you say? No way! I don’t believe our Founding Fathers thought it would be permissible to attack someone in such a manner.

As the Michael Richards incident came and went, I hope that people will not brush this recent incident under the rug and ignore it. At some point, we as a society have to come to grips with filthy elements that are causing our nation to slide into the gutter.  We need to confront, rebuke it, and in this case, remove it from the airwaves.

And in the case of the music industry, we as consumers have to make the choice whether or not we want to purchase such filth to let it permeate our homes.

Inflammatory rhetoric has no place in the media! 

See the offending statement by Don Imus here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264646,00.html
*Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites including RenewAmerica.us, Michnews.com, Daley-Times Post, Renaissance Women ( http://www.rwnetwork.net/ ) , Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Mensnewsdaily.com, ConservativeCrusader.com, and other news sites like AmericanChronicle.com.  She is a columnist and a reporter for the Mid-South Patriot ( www.freewebs.com/midsouth-patriot ) in Memphis, TN.  Felicia hails from a military background, and has been politically active since the 2000 elections. She has been a guest speaker on various conservative internet talk radio shows.

You may email Felicia: Feereports@aol.com  

Hollywood continues in its attempt to shove untruths down our throats. But it all depends on whether or not the American public ingests the lies or not. 

James Cameron, director of the famed Titanic film has joined the list of those who continue in their pursuit to disprove the deity of Jesus Christ. In his documentary to air on the Discovery Channel March 4th, (called The Lost Tomb of Jesus) Cameron claims that he has found the place where Jesus was buried, that he has found the coffins of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and son Judah.  Christians FIRMLY believe that Jesus was entombed, but wrapped in a burial cloth and not enclosed in some coffin!  Christians believe Christ rose from the dead, and now sits at the right hand side of The Father.  Jesus is God’s Son. 

I haven’t heard of such disrespect of the Christian faith since Ron Howard’s The Da Vinci Code made it’s debut, and what is even more disgusting is that both Cameron and Howard make mention that Jesus was married and had a son. 

The Da Vinci Code film was more of a fictional conspiracy- type film, where viewers were not to think that any of the film’s messages were true. However, it could have easily planted a seed in a person’s mind to start thinking, “What if?”

Cameron’s film however uses an archaeological site supposedly to prove his claim.  But even archaeologists aren’t buying it.

Amos Kloner, an Israeli archaeologist told the BBC that, “the names marked on the coffins were very common at the time.” 

When the tomb was discovered, Kloner was one of the first people to investigate. 

He says, “I don’t accept the news that it was used by Jesus or his family.”

“The documentary filmmakers are using it to sell their film.”

Why of course they are!  Cameron definitely is pushing this film for the sake of dollars and not for integrity’s sake.

He exclaims, “It doesn’t get bigger than this.”

“We’ve done our homework; we’ve made the case; and now it’s time for the debate to begin,” says Cameron.

He obviously HASN’T done his “homework” when there are those from the scientific community who are debunking his outrageous claims. It’s just another attempt to railroad Christianity.

Read More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6397373.stm

***

As if there wasn’t anything else that borders on such trickery and outrageousness to come to light…get ready for Al Gore.  Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth won for Best Documentary at the Oscars this past week.

Gore panders to the radical environmentalists and the left, because the average American citizen isn’t listening.  There have been too many people in the scientific community to stand up and debunk the Global Warming theory, many of whom end up being shunned for having a differing opinion. There are those that believe that human activity may somewhat contribute to Global Warming, but not on a scale to suggest that the earth is in extreme danger.  Of course, we as humans are living on this earth, we are sure to affect it in some way.  And on a grand scale, the earth is always warming and cooling, according to climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball, PhD., of Winnipeg, CA. 

“There is no doubt warming has occurred since approximately 1680 the nadir of the Little Ice Age. However warming has also generally occurred since the major ice sheets started to melt about 18,000 years ago. In between there have been periods of cooling, the most recent from 1940 to 1980, hence the concern about cooling at that time. The mistake was in assuming the trend would continue. The fact is the climate changes all the time so you can pick any period you want to argue it was cooling or warming,” says Ball.

Read more of Dr. Ball’s thought provoking analysis on Global Warming here: http://www.geocities.com/zacherle_hoag/tball 

***

In Al Gore’s view, Global Warming is worthy of the hype and frantic calls for help that permeate his movie.  Funny thing is, if the former Vice President wanted to purvey to the public a sense of emergency regarding the Global Warming issue, wouldn’t he make an effort also to set an example?

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Al Gore’s Tennessee mansion “consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year.”  Gore’s excuse to that? He uses renewable energy sources as well. 

Sorry Al, but you are still using an astronomical amount of energy. If politicians are going to buy into the Global Warming hype, they should stop rolling around in SUVs, flying in their private jets, and using an insane amount of energy, and start practicing what they preach.

Bottom line, there are those who are trying through all odds to change society’s way of thinking on specific controversial subjects. Logic isn’t in the equation with them, it is purely propaganda meant to sell the public “their” way of thinking.

And rational thinking people need not buy into the madness. 

Related Reading:

Jesus tomb found, says film-maker:                         http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6397373.stm           

Interview With Dr. Timothy Ball- The Myth of Global Warming?: http://www.geocities.com/zacherle_hoag/tball 

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

*Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites including RenewAmerica.us, Michnews.com, Daley-Times Post, Renaissance Women ( http://www.rwnetwork.net/ ) , Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Mensnewsdaily.com, ConservativeCrusader.com, and other news sites like AmericanChronicle.  Felicia also does freelance writing/reporting in her area. 

You may email Felicia: Feereports@aol.com