17/6/00

Society is to Blame

Football thugs are made, not born.

The Observer

"The Conservative Party and its allies in the press like to mock political correctness, but the first target for change has to be the increasing cultural acceptance of a xenophobic attit

In its totally blind and outright support for political correctness here's the Observer getting it all wrong yet again. 

If you read the article you'll see that The Observer blames the lack of political correctness and "the increasing cultural acceptance of a xenophobic attitude to foreigners" as the cause of the disgraceful behaviour of some of England's football fans in Belgium.

But would The Observer also blame burglaries, drunkenness, sexual assault, domestic violence, rape, muggings, theft, hooliganism, graffiti, bad manners, drugs, vandalism on a lack of political correctness? Or are they also going to argue that the Conservative party is actually encouraging all of these things by its rhetoric?

The Observer is talking rubbish!

The Observer's lack of understanding of what 'makes' boys behave badly, and men behave even worse, is absolutely astonishing. 

The behaviour of these hooligans, as well as all the other things mentioned above, is THE RESULT OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! 

It is precisely because of political correctness that parents and teachers are not allowed to BRING UP OUR CHILDREN PROPERLY.

And it is because interfering busybodies from the social services and the 'charities' keep demonising parents and, worse, prosecuting them for trying to control their children.

It is, therefore, newspapers like The Observer that are more responsible than most for the behaviour of our football hooligans, and for a host of other ills in our society.

An ocean of evidence from the past 30 years rolls out before this newspaper and its journalists. But they simply refuse to see it, or to acknowledge it.

Because they are so politically correct, and, therefore, so blind.

See Talkin' 'Bout my Generation

END

(Press the BACK button on your browser.)

12/6/00

Talkin' 'Bout my Generation

Why has liberalism become a dirty word in politics? asks Will Hutton. Liberal values have always been a force for good.

The Observer

The problem with Will Hutton and so many of his ilk is that what he would like to be so, is, in fact, not so, but he believes it to be so because it is politically correct! For example, politically correct educationalists think that all children are born with the same 'ability'. It would certainly be very agreeable if they were; but they are not. And to structure our laws and policies on politically-correct falsehoods is a recipe for FAILURE.

In his article, Will Hutton talks about smacking, and in so doing he reveals that he fundamentally doesn't understand the issues involved. He says ...

"For example, a growing number of parents believe that it is inexcusable to smack their children in any circumstance; 

While this may be true, the numbers remain small. Further, while parents admit to believing in one thing they are actually doing another. Will Hutton conveniently forgets the 20 years of vicious, hysterical, anti-smacking lobbying and the fact that parents are now being prosecuted for smacking. Add to all this the vicious weapon of political-correctness which demonises parents who say otherwise, and Will Hutton doesn't really have much to celebrate here. Parents have simply been bludgeoned into the position they find themselves in. And it is the 'liberal' Will Huttons of this world who have done this! There is nothing 'liberal' about these Will Huttons.  

Children need clear boundaries and deterrents for breaking them, certainly, but sanctions - withdrawing their pocket-money, say - should be aimed at helping them to understand the legitimacy of the boundaries.

These are the words of someone who is fudging and fluffing and who knows precious little about children. I can just imagine a distraught single mother of four telling her angry, hyperactive, seven-year old son that unless he stops punching his sister and pulling down the curtains he will have his pocket money withdrawn while at the same time calmly telling her four-year old daughter who's kicking the frying pan around the room and screaming that if she doesn't stop she'll fine her 5p.

And when that doesn't work, what does the mother withdraw next? Food? And does Will Hutton really believe that, in such hysterical states, young children will actually give a toss about pocket money or food?

You can be rigorous about the way you parent while respecting your childrens' rights.

Children have a right to be brought up properly so that they have a good chance of growing up into healthy, productive adults who will succeed in the future. Removing parents' rights and powers to do their job effectively is a massive act of child abuse, because it is removing children's rights to be properly brought up.

Yes. Will Hutton is right in the sense that, with regard to this issue, society has backed away from the smack. Perhaps, now, therefore, Will should peer out of the window of his office, look closely at the kids, and see the results of his paper's 20-year propaganda campaign against parents.

From his article, it is also clear that Will Hutton would like to see more effort put into rehabilitating offenders. But wouldn't it be a far better idea to bring up our children properly in the first place, and to stop interfering politically-correct busybodies from thwarting parents' attempts to do this? 

By doing this, rehabilitable offenders wouldn't have offended in the first place!

And think of how much society could benefit from this.

See The Smacking Myths

END

(Press the BACK button on your browser.)

"After years of research, what British women have long complained about, and British men have secretly feared, has been confirmed: British men are flops in bed. British women, by contrast, are the most sexually liberated and self-confident in the English-speaking world." The Observer

Aren't British women just wonderful !

But can you even imagine this newspaper printing the text 'British women are flops in bed'? It would never happen, would it? No matter what the evidence. 

And this is why, in my view, this newspaper can never be trusted on all the other issues on which it claims to provide a balanced view.

We are accustomed to hearing derogatory jokes about the readers of the Sun - their reading age or IQ. Yet not even Sun readers could be conned into believing the sexist rubbish that emanates continually from The Observer. Its articles are infected with it. And its readers, presumably, are those spiteful feminists who moisten themselves and get off by demeaning and denigrating half the UK population, together with those, "I'll Get It Ms," Lick-Lick politically-correct little mummies' boys who run around offices. 

We've already had The Observer denigrating teenage boys who are performing poorly at schools, apparently, because they are 'too busy wanking' and, more recently, castigating men who go to the doctors by claiming that they are simply moaning about nothing at all, and are, therefore, depriving those women who 'are in real need'!

Well, let's take a look at the 'research'. It's by a woman called Shere Hite, who likes to sell books about sex based on her 'research'. 

In the 1960's she published The Hite Report which rapidly became known as The sh*te Report here in the UK because it was so clearly off the mark when it came to describing real women. Well, she has now followed this up with a new book called The New Hite Report, and this suffers from the very same glaring deficiencies.

Most of the trouble is that her conclusions are so riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, and so 'feministified', that throwing it on to some burning logs would generate much more light, and pleasure, than reading it.

The first thing to note is that, according to Ms Hite, women in the UK are less likely to buy vaginal deodorants. Apparently, UK women think that they smell better than Americans or Australians.

Now there's arrogance.

And, according to The Observer, 'there are plenty of good reasons for them [British men] to feel inadequate'. Oh, I'll bet there are. And The Observer's best 'investigative' journalists are, as we speak, snooping and loitering in dark shadows in the four corners of the globe trying to find many more reasons for British men to feel 'inadequate'.

Wash my socks.

"[British women] are far less satisfied with their partners than women elsewhere." 

I wonder if that's because the men in the UK don't try so hard any more. Perhaps, it's not worth it for them. I mean, one might as well move on. Get a new partner. Just for a month or two. It's a lot safer. 

Maybe the laws regarding marriage and relationships are now just so corrupted and discriminatory against men that they just can't be bothered.

Or maybe it's the lack of deodorant.

Maybe the women here don't try hard enough. They expect too much, for too little in return - a bit like Tess Kingham, the woman MP who's threatening to quit Parliament because, I imagine, she's not allowed to lop out her tits to feed her new offspring while the MPs are in discussion, amongst other things.

But I should hope not.

Women don't really expect Parliament to discuss matters of national importance to the sounds of babies sucking, squirting, burping and farting, do they? There's enough of that from New Labour.

She's chosen to have three young children and Parliament cannot, it seems, cater for her every need. So, she's huffing off.

It's feminism all over. Women have to be catered for hand and foot. Their garden must always be full of roses. Or they huff off.

Of course British women are less satisfied! And quite right too. Until they, too, start standing up for the rights of their men, then men are not going to find them a worthwhile 'investment'. And the more they support papers like The Observer, the less satisfied they'll be.

Apparently, 'More than 60 per cent of UK women complained that sex with men followed a regular pattern'. And almost two-thirds of British women fake orgasms. 

"Almost two-thirds of British women complain that their men are ill-informed about the sexual desires of a woman's body - far more than in other countries."

So, in other words, the women cheat and the men don't bother. 

Well, it's got to be that they don't bother, hasn't it? Surely Shere Hite is not telling us that British women 'are the most sexually liberated and self-confident in the English-speaking world' and, at the very the same time, is also telling us that they do not even have the confidence to inform men about their bodies? 

And if British men are so ill-informed, why is that?

Whose fault is it?

Who is supposed to be informing them, if not women? 

Whose responsibility is it to inform the men?

Well, as you will already have learned from this website, women don't seem to take responsibility for most things that they are, in fact, responsible for. It comes as no surprise, therefore, to note that a whopping 60% of women blame men for their failure to be so informed about their very own bodies. 

Presumably their partners are supposed to derive this knowledge from the vapours and pheromones that circumnavigate the love chamber.

Surely, it is the women who should be informing the men about their bodies? 

And they don't have to do it all verbally, or with pencil and paper. They can moan, wince, sigh and contort, in a manner which informs. 

Can't British women even do this? 

Of course they can. 

If they can huff and puff in such large numbers in order to fake their orgasms, then surely they can sigh and moan to inform the men about her bodies?

You see, taken all together, it just doesn't make sense ... 

... UNLESS ... 

you consider the possibility that British men know well enough about women's bodies, but they can't be bothered. And, as I've mentioned, I think that there is strong evidence for this, particularly if one also looks at the larger picture concerning current relationships between men and women.

Anyway, listen to this. 'Women from Britain are more likely to have regular sex with a man if they don't have an orgasm with him'.

Yep. That's what it says.

In other words, if a man wants a lot of sex, he shouldn't give the woman an orgasm!

So, in the end, we discover that British men are possibly not so daft after all. Nor that inadequate. 

My guess is that they simply put less effort and less energy into things that are less worthwhile, and the happy discovery is that from their very lassitude they end up getting more sex!

A bit of a double whammy for women there, I think. 

Anyway, putting all these research findings into some coherent message is simple. Men are reducing the amount of attention and care that they give to women.

We've been saying it in the UKMM for years.

Whether it's the plumber overcharging a woman for the bill, or her partner falling asleep, British men are backing away and losing respect for the gender that does nothing but whine, complain, condemn and corrupt.

And papers like The Observer make all these matters worse by, in my view, their perpetual, poisonous, prejudicial, politically-correct, propaganda.

END

(Press the BACK button on your browser.)

It's their 'journalists' that I laugh at. I imagine them creeping on their knees before their feminist viragos begging for commissions and pleading for work, so desperate that they will say anything, do anything, to ingratiate themselves.

And I'm still gobsmacked that someone with Will Hutton's brains has anything to do with them.

Take a look at these.

1. This article (The Guardian 16 May 2000) talks about the fact that 1 million 'people' in Scotland are functionally illiterate. "400,000 of them are unable to work because they lack the basic skills to hold down a job; and 1.2m cannot do the basic sums needed to calculate how much change they should get."

Read the article, and notice that NOT ONCE does it mention the fact that three times as many men as women are affected by this appalling indictment of our education system. 

Can you imagine the outcry if we were letting down THREE TIMES more women than men in this way? The Equal Opportunities Commission would have a field day. The government would be bludgeoned into action. They would provide millions of pounds. There would be a month of national hysteria.

But The Guardian doesn't even want you to know about this massive gender difference which discriminates against men. They want to hide it. They don't want you to see it. 

Guardian readers are hidden from the reality. They're too precious and politically correct to face the facts.

2. In this article in The Observer (7 May 2000) we are told about Moaning Men. Apparently, an astonishing (and, frankly, unbelievable) piece of 'research' overturns what GPs and doctors have been telling us for years, and it overturns what we all seemed to agree upon. According to this new 'research', it is, apparently, not men who are reluctant to go to the doctor, it is women! 

We men, apparently, are so wimpy that we creep along to the doctor even for a sniffle! 

(And no-one ever noticed, not even the doctors! After all these decades! Astonishing!)

Here's what The Observer says.

"Men are the real moaners about their health. By contrast, women are much more stoical about their ailments.

... British researchers have found that men are more likely to exaggerate their medical woes, while women underplay them. 

... As a result, women are often denied proper health care for quite serious conditions - even heart disease - while men are given preferential treatment when they complain of these illnesses."

Guess who did the 'research'? 

A certain Professor 'SALLY' Macintyre, of the Medical Research Council.

(Well. Well. Well. We knew it wouldn't be 'SAM' - unless he wanted to ingratiate his way up the feminist jobs ladder.)

And notice how this pathetic newspaper deals with these issues.

For example, for years we were told that men were less likely than women to seek help from doctors because they were wimps - too scared to go and find out what may be a problem. Women, on the other hand, were far more 'intelligent', more 'brave', seeking advice and sorting out matters responsibly, in a mature and adult fashion.

Now, apparently, the opposite is true. It is men, apparently, who seek the doctors help more often. 

Are men now, therefore, at last, to be seen as the 'intelligent' ones? The 'brave' ones? The 'mature' ones? And is it now the women who are to be seen as the frightened wimps?

Of course not. According to this ridiculous 'news'paper, this new finding means that women are being 'denied proper health care' while the men are simply deemed to be "MOANING" and taking up valuable resources.

It's as amazing as it is sexist as it is pathetic! 

And it's as transparent as glass.

But what do you expect from creeping journalists who have to lick the shoes of every feminist in the office if they are to keep their jobs?

It doesn't matter what the facts are. According to this newspaper, men are crap, whatever they do, whatever they don't do, whatever the research discovers, and whatever the truth is.

3.  Who suffers most, men or women? In this, the Letters page of The Observer (14 May 2000) we see one brave soul, Brian Abbott, writing a letter that casts some doubts on the findings above. Of course, this pathetic newspaper follows his letter immediately by one from DR Mary Joannou (a doctor notice, not a humble 'Brian')  who tells us that it is, in fact, mostly "women who suffer in silence". (And she's a doctor, she should know!)

Well. Well. Well. 

And, of course, Dr Joannou refrains from pointing out that it is men who, statistically speaking, suffer by far the most from serious illnesses. And, of course, she doesn't even bother to point out that men have some seven fewer years of actual life in which to suffer!

I can already see The Observer headlines. 

'MEN only average six short years of suffering while WOMEN average a whopping THIRTEEN."

And there won't be a mention of the fact that this is because the men have died! 

If men don't go to the doctor's, then they're wimps, and, presumably, they should be treated with the contempt that they deserve. If they do go to the doctor's, then they're 'moaners', and, as a result, women are being 'denied proper health care'.

Goodness me! Does this newspaper have any integrity at all? Do its journalists have to lick every feminist orifice whichever way it points?

Men die seven years earlier. They suffer more from nearly every medical disease and ailment that there is. They are educationally disadvantaged massively compared to women. They make up 80% of the homeless. There are more of them in care homes (as BOYS) and in prisons. They are more likely to be wrongfully arrested, wrongfully imprisoned, mugged, assaulted or murdered. They are 5 times more likely to lose their children, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, 3 times more likely to lose their homes, 20 times more likely to be killed or injured at work, and, probably, about 1000 times more likely to be demeaned, denigrated and ridiculed by the media.

However, according to the fawning creeps who work for these two papers, it is the women "who suffer in silence".

Children's Viewing on Channel 4

The programmes below are just some of the ones that I happen to have noticed recently. Channel 4 has been dishing out this kind of crap to our children for years. It's pretty disgusting that a mainstream, national TV station should be infecting our young children with the promotion of gender hostility, loose sexuality and relationship conflict.

Your own children may not watch this rubbish, but others do, and the effects of it invade and infect the playground with controversial material, and a 'consciousness', that really should not be present in seven year olds!

21/June/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Unfaithful lovers are exposed.

20/June/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Teenage fathers are given a telling off.

14/June/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - A woman meets her unfaithful husband's lover.

13/June/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Guests in secret love triangles.

1/June/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Lesbians who look like men.

29/May/00 - Channel 4 Montel Williams 4.55pm - Feminist author Naomi Woolf discusses teenage sex.

25/May/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Guest who drink and drive.

24/May/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Girlfriends and mothers find out who knows more abut their 'special' man.

23/May/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Tug-of-love custody battles involving gay parents.

17/May/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - A heated debate on children's beauty contests.

16/May/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - A teenager tells her parents that she is pregnant for the second time.

11/May/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Guests plan to dump their partners for Latin lovers

10/May/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Guests who turned against their close relatives because they were gay.

9/May/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - A mixed-race girl who doesn't want her mother dating black men

4/May/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Gay and Lesbian guests reconsider their sexual orientation

3/May/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Men who want to date older women

20/April/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Women guests confront their fiancés about their sexuality

20/April/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Transsexual Guests Come Out 

18/April/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Pregnant Teenage Criminals Experience Jail 

14/April/00 - Channel 4 Montel Williams 4.55pm - Teenagers who have falsely accused their parents of abusing them.

13/April/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Guests reveal their sexy secrets.

10/April/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Cheating partners are put on the spot by an eager audience.

7/April/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Women who were jilted after becoming pregnant.

31/March/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Unfaithful men attempt to patch things up with their partners.

23/March/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Guests pick up friend's ex-lovers. 

21/March/00 - Channel 4 Ricki Lake 4.55pm - Women tell their cheating partners that they might get a second chance. 

END

(Press the BACK button on your browser.)