It has come to my attention that some of you in the media are spreading a rumour that Leslie Nielsen has died. This could not be further from the truth.
Now it is true that he's ill. Slightly ill. But he's just fine, he's out there acting, free to lead a life of religious fulfilment.
Bye, Detective Drebin.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Intemperate Overblown Rant No. 2
In which Miss Josephine Asher expresses her wish for a simpler time.
I am going to come right out and say it: Josephine Asher is RIGHT.
Yes, the pursuit for gender equality IS sucking the life out of relationships.
Just the other day, I was about to go out hunting, when my wife said, "Don't forget to vacuum", and I was reduced to a blubbering wreck. "Stop sucking the life out of our relationship!" I screamed, putting down my crossbow and going for a good lie-down.
It seems these days that all I ever do is wear aprons, push trolleys, do my own ironing. It's so humiliating for a man like me, who has such masculine potential if only he were allowed to express it instead of being constantly forced to do the washing up and arrange flowers attractively in vases. Like Josephine's friend "Dave", I feel like I have surrendered my balls. Surrendered them to a vast and evil army, made up of feminism allied with housework and armed with sharp, pointy equality-spears that are stabbing me right in the balls, except they're not because I surrendered them, so they are stabbing me right in my smooth, sexless groin.
Are you happy, feminism? Happy you have reduced me to a Ken Doll with an open wound? Me and "Dave" both?
To be blunt, feminisn:
Thanks to feminism I have failed to master basic masculine skills, which has caused a catastrophic decline in my self-esteem. Thank God I found out. For years I felt bad because I couldn't change a tyre or put up a shelf or kill a jaguar with my bare hands. I thought it was a failing in myself. Only now do I see: it was FEMINISM all along. Those accursed harpies insisting on equal status just drove the usefulness right out of me, and now I am good for nothing save baking scones and braiding hair.
Why, Feminism? Why do you insist on making me less of a man? Why can't it be like it was in the old days, when men were men and women were women and everyone was happy with that, and if they weren't they took powerful anti-depressants and repressed their feelings in a healthy and socially lubricative way, and there were never any arguments over who was going to go out and earn a living at the steelworks or merchant bank and who was going to stay home tending to the children and honey-glazing a ham? Don't we all yearn for those days? I know I do.
Just think of how it makes us feel, when we see a woman, say, build a house, or fire a gun, or drive a car or wear long pants. It makes us feel small. It makes us feel insignificant. It make us feel weak and effeminate. Let's not beat around the bush here: every time a woman picks up a briefcase, a man's penis turns to dust.
I yearn for a time when I wasn't surrounded by independent women. When the females in my circle were not constantly giving me migraines with their carping insistences on having "lives". When relationships were based, as David Deida points out, on "sexual polarity" and we weren't all mixed up and confused by all this sexual equality. Why can't I have a "ravishee", dammit? It's been so long since I felt like a ravisher, like a powerful, confident man making love to a reluctant woman who wasn't really into it. And isn't that what every man wants, in the end?
I'm so grateful to Miss Asher for saying what we were all thinking: independent women abandon their femininity. And what we want are truly feminine women. There is no greater turn-off than a woman who, instead of making herself pretty for you, spends all her time having opinions. What's feminine about that? What's the point of a woman who you can have an intelligent conversation with, if her demented pursuit of equality has caused her to get all mannish on you? What's sexy about a woman who challenges you, who engages you, whose company you enjoy? Why would any man want a woman whose personality delights him? Why would any man want a woman with a personality at all? When did "personality" become so important?
And yet feminism has conned us into thinking we could be happy with this arrangement; that we could be happy with women gadding about the place "independently".
Today it seems the only way you can form a relationship with a woman is by treating her as an actual human being, and frankly, we're not wired for that, ladies. Men are not designed for equal partnerships. We are not predisposed towards mutual respect. We are not genetically structured so as to be capable of acting in a remotely decent manner towards fellow human beings of the opposite sex. When you try to force us to do it, society breaks down, as it is doing right now. Men are reduced to poor, ghostly imitations, hollowly doing household chores and contributing towards the maintenance of the home and family until eventually, they grow vaginas. And all because feminism objected to the ways of life that had served us for so many years, where the man earned the money and protected the family, and the woman took care of home life and didn't get too lippy unless she wanted a black eye.
Not that I advocating violence towards women, obviously. It's just that back in humanity's halcyon days, women were much happier because they didn't have all the pressure of careers and thinking and stuff, and so they were able to take the occasional backhander in good humour. After all, we want men to be manly, don't we? I mean, hitting people is part of what makes a man a man. When did we lose sight of this? Thanks to feminism, I hardly ever get to hit people these days. It's no wonder I've started lactating.
The point is this: we had a good thing going, men and women. Men made the money, fought the wars, ran the governments, owned the businesses, wrote the books, participated in the sporting events, taught the university courses, cured the diseases, built the buildings, explored the world, planned the cities, and massacred the natives; and women baked cakes and provided sexual release. And that worked VERY well. Look at the pyramids. Could they have been built in a world with maternity leave? Don't make me laugh.
So please, let's all take a leaf out of Josephine Asher's book. Men, reassert your dominance. Women, reassert your submissiveness. If we all work together in a spirit of togetherness I am sure we can build a world where nobody will ever have to work together in a spirit of togetherness again.
Then, maybe, we can get that uppity bint Asher to stop writing and get back in the goddamn kitchen where she belongs.
I am going to come right out and say it: Josephine Asher is RIGHT.
Yes, the pursuit for gender equality IS sucking the life out of relationships.
Just the other day, I was about to go out hunting, when my wife said, "Don't forget to vacuum", and I was reduced to a blubbering wreck. "Stop sucking the life out of our relationship!" I screamed, putting down my crossbow and going for a good lie-down.
It seems these days that all I ever do is wear aprons, push trolleys, do my own ironing. It's so humiliating for a man like me, who has such masculine potential if only he were allowed to express it instead of being constantly forced to do the washing up and arrange flowers attractively in vases. Like Josephine's friend "Dave", I feel like I have surrendered my balls. Surrendered them to a vast and evil army, made up of feminism allied with housework and armed with sharp, pointy equality-spears that are stabbing me right in the balls, except they're not because I surrendered them, so they are stabbing me right in my smooth, sexless groin.
Are you happy, feminism? Happy you have reduced me to a Ken Doll with an open wound? Me and "Dave" both?
To be blunt, feminisn:
Thanks to feminism I have failed to master basic masculine skills, which has caused a catastrophic decline in my self-esteem. Thank God I found out. For years I felt bad because I couldn't change a tyre or put up a shelf or kill a jaguar with my bare hands. I thought it was a failing in myself. Only now do I see: it was FEMINISM all along. Those accursed harpies insisting on equal status just drove the usefulness right out of me, and now I am good for nothing save baking scones and braiding hair.
Why, Feminism? Why do you insist on making me less of a man? Why can't it be like it was in the old days, when men were men and women were women and everyone was happy with that, and if they weren't they took powerful anti-depressants and repressed their feelings in a healthy and socially lubricative way, and there were never any arguments over who was going to go out and earn a living at the steelworks or merchant bank and who was going to stay home tending to the children and honey-glazing a ham? Don't we all yearn for those days? I know I do.
Just think of how it makes us feel, when we see a woman, say, build a house, or fire a gun, or drive a car or wear long pants. It makes us feel small. It makes us feel insignificant. It make us feel weak and effeminate. Let's not beat around the bush here: every time a woman picks up a briefcase, a man's penis turns to dust.
I yearn for a time when I wasn't surrounded by independent women. When the females in my circle were not constantly giving me migraines with their carping insistences on having "lives". When relationships were based, as David Deida points out, on "sexual polarity" and we weren't all mixed up and confused by all this sexual equality. Why can't I have a "ravishee", dammit? It's been so long since I felt like a ravisher, like a powerful, confident man making love to a reluctant woman who wasn't really into it. And isn't that what every man wants, in the end?
I'm so grateful to Miss Asher for saying what we were all thinking: independent women abandon their femininity. And what we want are truly feminine women. There is no greater turn-off than a woman who, instead of making herself pretty for you, spends all her time having opinions. What's feminine about that? What's the point of a woman who you can have an intelligent conversation with, if her demented pursuit of equality has caused her to get all mannish on you? What's sexy about a woman who challenges you, who engages you, whose company you enjoy? Why would any man want a woman whose personality delights him? Why would any man want a woman with a personality at all? When did "personality" become so important?
And yet feminism has conned us into thinking we could be happy with this arrangement; that we could be happy with women gadding about the place "independently".
Today it seems the only way you can form a relationship with a woman is by treating her as an actual human being, and frankly, we're not wired for that, ladies. Men are not designed for equal partnerships. We are not predisposed towards mutual respect. We are not genetically structured so as to be capable of acting in a remotely decent manner towards fellow human beings of the opposite sex. When you try to force us to do it, society breaks down, as it is doing right now. Men are reduced to poor, ghostly imitations, hollowly doing household chores and contributing towards the maintenance of the home and family until eventually, they grow vaginas. And all because feminism objected to the ways of life that had served us for so many years, where the man earned the money and protected the family, and the woman took care of home life and didn't get too lippy unless she wanted a black eye.
Not that I advocating violence towards women, obviously. It's just that back in humanity's halcyon days, women were much happier because they didn't have all the pressure of careers and thinking and stuff, and so they were able to take the occasional backhander in good humour. After all, we want men to be manly, don't we? I mean, hitting people is part of what makes a man a man. When did we lose sight of this? Thanks to feminism, I hardly ever get to hit people these days. It's no wonder I've started lactating.
The point is this: we had a good thing going, men and women. Men made the money, fought the wars, ran the governments, owned the businesses, wrote the books, participated in the sporting events, taught the university courses, cured the diseases, built the buildings, explored the world, planned the cities, and massacred the natives; and women baked cakes and provided sexual release. And that worked VERY well. Look at the pyramids. Could they have been built in a world with maternity leave? Don't make me laugh.
So please, let's all take a leaf out of Josephine Asher's book. Men, reassert your dominance. Women, reassert your submissiveness. If we all work together in a spirit of togetherness I am sure we can build a world where nobody will ever have to work together in a spirit of togetherness again.
Then, maybe, we can get that uppity bint Asher to stop writing and get back in the goddamn kitchen where she belongs.
Intemperate Overblown Rant No. 1
OK, Twitter. You know I have always been a friend to you. I have always stood by your side, championed your cause, defended you when others put you down.
But there are some things, Twitter, that are indefensible, and today you hit a new low.
For today was the day when Twitter reached such terrifying subterranean depths of stupid that we may never get out again. So, so stupid did Twitter become that it sucked the real world into its maelstrom of idiocy and suddenly everything was inside out, black was white, up was down, and Denise Drysdale was a small Welsh village.
Here is the story. You may have heard it.
Chapter One: A young woman in America started a Twitter account with the username "@theashes". Apparently this was a nickname bestowed on her by her boyfriend. Who knows why? Perhaps he is a cricket fan. Perhaps he is a pyromaniac. We shall never know; or rather, we probably shall know, and then wish we didn't because it is so boring and stupid.
Chapter Two: Some people start putting @theashes in their tweets about The Ashes, as in the cricketing series. This is presumably because they were too dumb to know the difference between a hashtag (#) and a reply (@). So the first REALLY stupid part of the story comes here, where not only are those people stupid, but for some reason the dominant meme does not become "these people are stupid".
Chapter Three: Awash in cricketing tweets, the young woman quite reasonably asks that people stop tweeting her about cricket, because she is not a cricket match. People do not stop. Getting annoyed, she repeats her request in more robust language.
Chapter Four: Large numbers of people then decide that what would be REALLY funny, would be if they all bombarded the woman with tweets, just to annoy her, because harassing strangers who've done nothing wrong is the real reason for Twitter's existence. Stupidity quotient then increases, as once again, the dominant meme fails to be "This is REALLY freaking stupid".
Chapter Five: It being decided people were really being quite mean, some Twitter users then decided that, just as the solution to a small peper-cut is to cover your entire body in bandages and dive into an Olympic swimming pool filled with antiseptic, the way to redress the situation would be to start a campaign to #gettheashestotheashes. Or, if we look at it another way, it's possible the intention was to redress the situation by making fun of it. Which wouldn't be so bad, BUT...
Chapter Six: The campaign took off, and QANTAS ("getting you to your destination with less than 25% of the plane exploding and/or falling off or your money back") decided oh wouldn't it be a delightful lark if we...if we...
GAVE THIS WOMAN A FREE FLIGHT TO AUSTRALIA!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
She has a FREE TRIP TO AUSTRALIA!
For her USERNAME!
She named herself @theashes - and therefore she gets a free flight to Australia!!!
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, it's not that I wish this girl any ill. Good luck to her, she's a winner out of this.
But the stupid...it BURNS.
It may be the stupidest reason anybody has received free air travel in the history of the world - way stupider than when Virgin Blue flew a flock of sheep to Tahiti as a sacrifice to Ra.
It's like a mighty Stupid Auction - having put in an impressive opening bid by harassing a woman because of her username, Twitter then outbid ITSELF by getting a woman to travel to Australia because of her username.
WHAT MADNESS IS THIS? AM I to be the last sane man left on earth? Shall I wander the land lonely and terrified lest the maniacal idiots surrounding me engage in conversation?
Note: this "Twitter celebrity" is not a celebrity because of anything she's done. Or anything she's said. Or anything she's tweeted. Or anything she IS. Purely and simply because of her username.
"Oh, you're @theashes? Better get you to The Ashes then, right? Logical next step."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
SHE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CRICKET.
This is so stupid. It's like a great ocean of stupid, teeming with stupid fish which are caught in stupid nets hung from the sides of stupid trawlers manned by stupid fishermen.
It's a vast galaxy of stupid, full of enormous stupid stars around which rotate beautiful and mysterious stupid planets, yet to be explored by intrepid stupidnauts who have gone into suspended stupid animation for the long stupid flight to uncharted space.
It's a mountain of stupid, unclimbable apart from the very stupidest mountaineers, who will plant their stupid flags on its stupid peak and proclaim they claim this stupid mountain in the name of Stupid, thus allowing stupid miners to later come and mine the rich seams of stupid running through the mighty stupid mountain, until they run foul of the stupid orcs who live beneath the mountain and prey on the hapless stupid miners, who are forced to arm themselves with stupid weapons and drive the orcs stupidly back into their stupid caves so they can mine in stupid peace, until one stupid day they delve too stupidly and awakwen a stupid Balrog, who kills them all stupidly.
It is...pretty...stupid.
Please, please, Twitter, don't be so stupid again. Or I am going to have to leave you.
But there are some things, Twitter, that are indefensible, and today you hit a new low.
For today was the day when Twitter reached such terrifying subterranean depths of stupid that we may never get out again. So, so stupid did Twitter become that it sucked the real world into its maelstrom of idiocy and suddenly everything was inside out, black was white, up was down, and Denise Drysdale was a small Welsh village.
Here is the story. You may have heard it.
Chapter One: A young woman in America started a Twitter account with the username "@theashes". Apparently this was a nickname bestowed on her by her boyfriend. Who knows why? Perhaps he is a cricket fan. Perhaps he is a pyromaniac. We shall never know; or rather, we probably shall know, and then wish we didn't because it is so boring and stupid.
Chapter Two: Some people start putting @theashes in their tweets about The Ashes, as in the cricketing series. This is presumably because they were too dumb to know the difference between a hashtag (#) and a reply (@). So the first REALLY stupid part of the story comes here, where not only are those people stupid, but for some reason the dominant meme does not become "these people are stupid".
Chapter Three: Awash in cricketing tweets, the young woman quite reasonably asks that people stop tweeting her about cricket, because she is not a cricket match. People do not stop. Getting annoyed, she repeats her request in more robust language.
Chapter Four: Large numbers of people then decide that what would be REALLY funny, would be if they all bombarded the woman with tweets, just to annoy her, because harassing strangers who've done nothing wrong is the real reason for Twitter's existence. Stupidity quotient then increases, as once again, the dominant meme fails to be "This is REALLY freaking stupid".
Chapter Five: It being decided people were really being quite mean, some Twitter users then decided that, just as the solution to a small peper-cut is to cover your entire body in bandages and dive into an Olympic swimming pool filled with antiseptic, the way to redress the situation would be to start a campaign to #gettheashestotheashes. Or, if we look at it another way, it's possible the intention was to redress the situation by making fun of it. Which wouldn't be so bad, BUT...
Chapter Six: The campaign took off, and QANTAS ("getting you to your destination with less than 25% of the plane exploding and/or falling off or your money back") decided oh wouldn't it be a delightful lark if we...if we...
GAVE THIS WOMAN A FREE FLIGHT TO AUSTRALIA!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
She has a FREE TRIP TO AUSTRALIA!
For her USERNAME!
She named herself @theashes - and therefore she gets a free flight to Australia!!!
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, it's not that I wish this girl any ill. Good luck to her, she's a winner out of this.
But the stupid...it BURNS.
It may be the stupidest reason anybody has received free air travel in the history of the world - way stupider than when Virgin Blue flew a flock of sheep to Tahiti as a sacrifice to Ra.
It's like a mighty Stupid Auction - having put in an impressive opening bid by harassing a woman because of her username, Twitter then outbid ITSELF by getting a woman to travel to Australia because of her username.
WHAT MADNESS IS THIS? AM I to be the last sane man left on earth? Shall I wander the land lonely and terrified lest the maniacal idiots surrounding me engage in conversation?
Note: this "Twitter celebrity" is not a celebrity because of anything she's done. Or anything she's said. Or anything she's tweeted. Or anything she IS. Purely and simply because of her username.
"Oh, you're @theashes? Better get you to The Ashes then, right? Logical next step."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
SHE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CRICKET.
This is so stupid. It's like a great ocean of stupid, teeming with stupid fish which are caught in stupid nets hung from the sides of stupid trawlers manned by stupid fishermen.
It's a vast galaxy of stupid, full of enormous stupid stars around which rotate beautiful and mysterious stupid planets, yet to be explored by intrepid stupidnauts who have gone into suspended stupid animation for the long stupid flight to uncharted space.
It's a mountain of stupid, unclimbable apart from the very stupidest mountaineers, who will plant their stupid flags on its stupid peak and proclaim they claim this stupid mountain in the name of Stupid, thus allowing stupid miners to later come and mine the rich seams of stupid running through the mighty stupid mountain, until they run foul of the stupid orcs who live beneath the mountain and prey on the hapless stupid miners, who are forced to arm themselves with stupid weapons and drive the orcs stupidly back into their stupid caves so they can mine in stupid peace, until one stupid day they delve too stupidly and awakwen a stupid Balrog, who kills them all stupidly.
It is...pretty...stupid.
Please, please, Twitter, don't be so stupid again. Or I am going to have to leave you.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Stay Tuned
Things continue to happen, don't they?
Check out a new one by me at Crikey, where I have been standing up for the traditions that make this country great.
And guess what? You can still donate to Movember! You could donate there, or anywhere really. Donate to whatever facial hair you choose, it all goes to the right place.
Also, wheels are turning in regard to my show in next year's Comedy Festival.
STAY TUNED!
Check out a new one by me at Crikey, where I have been standing up for the traditions that make this country great.
And guess what? You can still donate to Movember! You could donate there, or anywhere really. Donate to whatever facial hair you choose, it all goes to the right place.
Also, wheels are turning in regard to my show in next year's Comedy Festival.
STAY TUNED!
Monday, November 22, 2010
Baffling Joke of the Day
A new segment on BPWWOO: The Baffling Joke Of The Day.
Today's Baffling Joke comes from the "Blowflies and Bulldust" section of the Stock and Land, and runs thus:
I can't help feeling that the composer of this joke got lost somewhere along the way. At some point he almost certainly felt he had the makings of a pretty good joke, but then realised he didn't know where he was going, and panicked.
What is it? Is it a joke about Jakob's skills as a businessman? Is it a joke about Ahmed's skills as a businessman? Is it an anti-semitic joke? Is it an anti-Muslim joke? Is it a joke about how funny bras are?
I think we can definitely say, to all these questions, yes. It is, essentially, a shy, unassuming sort of a joke, that is happy to drop subtle hints as to what it's about, without ever quite finding the courage to make this explicit.
Well done, "Blowflies and Bulldust". Your contribution to national humour is noted.
Today's Baffling Joke comes from the "Blowflies and Bulldust" section of the Stock and Land, and runs thus:
AHMED goes to Jakob to buy black bras, size 38.
Jakob, known for his skills as businessman, says black bras are rare and that he is finding it very difficult to buy them from his suppliers. Therefore he has to charge $50 for them.
Ahmed buys 25 pairs.
He returns a few days later and this time orders 50. Jacob tells him they have become even harder to get and charges him $60 each.
Ahmed returns a month later and buys Jakob's remaining stock of 50, this time for $75 each.
Jakob is somewhat puzzled by the large demand for black bras and asks Ahmed, what he does with all these black bras.
The Arab answers: "I cut them in half and sell them as skull caps to the Jewish community for $100 each."
I can't help feeling that the composer of this joke got lost somewhere along the way. At some point he almost certainly felt he had the makings of a pretty good joke, but then realised he didn't know where he was going, and panicked.
What is it? Is it a joke about Jakob's skills as a businessman? Is it a joke about Ahmed's skills as a businessman? Is it an anti-semitic joke? Is it an anti-Muslim joke? Is it a joke about how funny bras are?
I think we can definitely say, to all these questions, yes. It is, essentially, a shy, unassuming sort of a joke, that is happy to drop subtle hints as to what it's about, without ever quite finding the courage to make this explicit.
Well done, "Blowflies and Bulldust". Your contribution to national humour is noted.
Please Note
This was on PAGE 1 - that is, the FRONT PAGE - of the Toowoomba Chronicle of the 18th November.
THE FRONT PAGE
(Full story here)
What?
What?
She has the same name?
That's the story? THe biggest one they could find? A woman in Toowoomba has the same name as another woman in England?
What??????
"There has been quite a buzz about my name"? Are you serious, Kate Middleton? You can actually say something like that without shame burning the inside of your skull?
Who the hell is emailing and calling this woman? What do they say when they call her? "Congratulations"? "Nice work"? "Oh I saw in the paper how a woman called Kate Middleton is about to marry Prince William - is that you?"
I mean, seriously, do people think it might be? Do they think the Kate Middleton they've been reading about in New Idea might be their pal Kate from Toowoomba, who just forgot to mention she's been dating Prince William since 2001? "Kept that very quiet, didn't she? Mmm makes you think."
Or alternatively, do they actually think having the same name as someone else is an achievement? Are they "emailing and calling" to tell Kate they're so happy for her that, after all her years of hard work, she's finally made it? "Sharing a name with a celebrity - it all paid off in the end, huh Kate?"
Let us not dwell on the fact that Ms Middleton is pictured on the front page (!!!) wearing a CROWN and adopting the sort of facial expression you would pretty much expect from someone who thinks she's special because her name is the same as somebody else's.
Let us instead dwell on the fact that apparently other women were "marvelling" over her nametag at the Weetwood Handicap Race Day, which, it has to be said, seems to be very aptly named.
MARVELLING.
"OMG look at that nametag! It features a combination of letters I find familiar! Can I have a photo with you famous lady?"
What a bunch of race-going dickheads.
And as for:
Well that is just a blatant and shameless lie.
And COULD there be another Kate Middleton wedding on the cards? Well, let's examine two relevant points:
1. Probably not, because she has a partner who gives her friendship rings. So don't hold your breath, "Princess".
2. If you care about the REAL Royal Wedding, you're a bit of a twit. If you care about the potential wedding of Kate Middleton, secretary of the Toowoomba Turf Club...well you are just the worst kind of person.
I can think of a hundred ways in which the royal family has made life on earth less pleasant. But the existence of a front page story in a daily newspaper about a random woman who happens to share the not-particularly-unusual name of a foreign celebrity who isn't very interesting or significant herself...is at the VERY TOP OF THE LIST.
I mean...Jesus.
Kate Middleton - History's Greatest Monster?
THE FRONT PAGE
Our Kate finds her prince charming
TOOWOOMBA'S own Kate Middleton is set to play the part of princess and thinks she just may have missed her calling in life.
And she may have found her own Prince Charming.
Being secretary of Toowoomba Turf Club comes with the occasional glamour moment, but it just doesn't seem to come with an 18 carat engagement ring crafted from sapphire and diamonds.
Ms Middleton said there had been quite a buzz surrounding her name, with some of Toowoomba's finest young ladies marvelling over her name tag at the Weetwood Handicap race day
(Full story here)
What?
What?
She has the same name?
That's the story? THe biggest one they could find? A woman in Toowoomba has the same name as another woman in England?
What??????
"There has been quite a buzz about my name"? Are you serious, Kate Middleton? You can actually say something like that without shame burning the inside of your skull?
Who the hell is emailing and calling this woman? What do they say when they call her? "Congratulations"? "Nice work"? "Oh I saw in the paper how a woman called Kate Middleton is about to marry Prince William - is that you?"
I mean, seriously, do people think it might be? Do they think the Kate Middleton they've been reading about in New Idea might be their pal Kate from Toowoomba, who just forgot to mention she's been dating Prince William since 2001? "Kept that very quiet, didn't she? Mmm makes you think."
Or alternatively, do they actually think having the same name as someone else is an achievement? Are they "emailing and calling" to tell Kate they're so happy for her that, after all her years of hard work, she's finally made it? "Sharing a name with a celebrity - it all paid off in the end, huh Kate?"
Let us not dwell on the fact that Ms Middleton is pictured on the front page (!!!) wearing a CROWN and adopting the sort of facial expression you would pretty much expect from someone who thinks she's special because her name is the same as somebody else's.
Let us instead dwell on the fact that apparently other women were "marvelling" over her nametag at the Weetwood Handicap Race Day, which, it has to be said, seems to be very aptly named.
MARVELLING.
"OMG look at that nametag! It features a combination of letters I find familiar! Can I have a photo with you famous lady?"
What a bunch of race-going dickheads.
And as for:
Being secretary of Toowoomba Turf Club comes with the occasional glamour moment
Well that is just a blatant and shameless lie.
And COULD there be another Kate Middleton wedding on the cards? Well, let's examine two relevant points:
1. Probably not, because she has a partner who gives her friendship rings. So don't hold your breath, "Princess".
2. If you care about the REAL Royal Wedding, you're a bit of a twit. If you care about the potential wedding of Kate Middleton, secretary of the Toowoomba Turf Club...well you are just the worst kind of person.
I can think of a hundred ways in which the royal family has made life on earth less pleasant. But the existence of a front page story in a daily newspaper about a random woman who happens to share the not-particularly-unusual name of a foreign celebrity who isn't very interesting or significant herself...is at the VERY TOP OF THE LIST.
I mean...Jesus.
Kate Middleton - History's Greatest Monster?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Time Has Come To Speak Of Important Matters
We have to talk about Junior Masterchef.
Why has it taken me so long to discuss this? Because I have only just awoken from the torpor into which I slumped upon the end of the finale, having collapsed to the floor in a great puddle of disgust, disappointment and pastry.
Because let me just say this:
11/10.
Let me repeat it:
11/10.
And again?
ELEVEN OUT OF GODDAMN FREAK-BUGGERING TEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me explain something to everyone involved with that travesty.
YOU CANNOT HAVE ELEVEN OUT OF TEN
I know this, because back in kindergarten we did a maths problem that went, how many numbers are there in ten? The answer was...TEN.
Then in first grade we learned another maths problem that went, what is one more than ten? The answer was...ELEVEN.
Get that, Junior Masterchef? ELEVEN is MORE than TEN.
MORE
MORE
MORE
In other words, "11/10" is not a score - it is a FREAKING DISGRACE.
Is this how it had to end, Junior Masterchef? After wowing us with how great these kids were at making wonderful dishes, after impressing us with their poise and skill, after dazzling us with their adorable enthusiasm and sincerity, this is what you serve up?
You tell us these kids are real talented chefs, you set us up to believe there is an actual competition going on, and then...
And then you bring it all crashing down around our ears with your 11/10s, with your 53/50 versus 50/50, making real all our worst fears: that it was all a sham, that it was never a real contest at all. You would go to any lengths necessary to manufacture false tension for that final challenge.
What I can't believe is how some people think that pressures of Junior Masterchef were too cruel for the kids. Good Lord, the show wasn't cruel enough! We managed to swallow our qualms about the ridiculously generous scores all series, but when you stoop to the depths of 11/10, we cannot stand any more.
There is NO SUCH THING as 11/10! It's a cheat, it's a fraud, it's a gold-plated five-star supernova of Go To Hell What Do You Take Us For?
Perhaps I can let Kate Miller-Heidke sum up my feelings at the Junior Masterchef finale:
My faith is shaken, Masterchef. You will need to work to restore it. You will need to reassure me that everything I see is not a cruel hoax, an attempt to play on my emotions and my love of vigorous competition in order to sell paper towels, while secretly all of you are laughing behind my back and punching numbers into a supercomputer to determine what mathematically impossible fraction is best-suited to creating a false impression of drama.
I guess what I'm saying, in essence, is: This would never have happened if you hadn't got rid of Zoe.
BRING BACK ZOE!
ZOE!
Why has it taken me so long to discuss this? Because I have only just awoken from the torpor into which I slumped upon the end of the finale, having collapsed to the floor in a great puddle of disgust, disappointment and pastry.
Because let me just say this:
11/10.
Let me repeat it:
11/10.
And again?
ELEVEN OUT OF GODDAMN FREAK-BUGGERING TEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me explain something to everyone involved with that travesty.
YOU CANNOT HAVE ELEVEN OUT OF TEN
I know this, because back in kindergarten we did a maths problem that went, how many numbers are there in ten? The answer was...TEN.
Then in first grade we learned another maths problem that went, what is one more than ten? The answer was...ELEVEN.
Get that, Junior Masterchef? ELEVEN is MORE than TEN.
MORE
MORE
MORE
In other words, "11/10" is not a score - it is a FREAKING DISGRACE.
Is this how it had to end, Junior Masterchef? After wowing us with how great these kids were at making wonderful dishes, after impressing us with their poise and skill, after dazzling us with their adorable enthusiasm and sincerity, this is what you serve up?
You tell us these kids are real talented chefs, you set us up to believe there is an actual competition going on, and then...
And then you bring it all crashing down around our ears with your 11/10s, with your 53/50 versus 50/50, making real all our worst fears: that it was all a sham, that it was never a real contest at all. You would go to any lengths necessary to manufacture false tension for that final challenge.
What I can't believe is how some people think that pressures of Junior Masterchef were too cruel for the kids. Good Lord, the show wasn't cruel enough! We managed to swallow our qualms about the ridiculously generous scores all series, but when you stoop to the depths of 11/10, we cannot stand any more.
There is NO SUCH THING as 11/10! It's a cheat, it's a fraud, it's a gold-plated five-star supernova of Go To Hell What Do You Take Us For?
Perhaps I can let Kate Miller-Heidke sum up my feelings at the Junior Masterchef finale:
My faith is shaken, Masterchef. You will need to work to restore it. You will need to reassure me that everything I see is not a cruel hoax, an attempt to play on my emotions and my love of vigorous competition in order to sell paper towels, while secretly all of you are laughing behind my back and punching numbers into a supercomputer to determine what mathematically impossible fraction is best-suited to creating a false impression of drama.
I guess what I'm saying, in essence, is: This would never have happened if you hadn't got rid of Zoe.
BRING BACK ZOE!
ZOE!
Monday, November 15, 2010
HELP ME
DAY 15!
Oh, what's that you say? Movember's not about beards? Well screw your RULES, man! There's hair on my face, I'm staying right here!
If you're a rebel like me, go here to donate to the cause of men's health, physical and mental.
If you'd like to support a cause that is neither worthy nor demanding of monetary donations, why not go to The Wonkleys?
You can vote for me in the category of "Best Political Journalist". Note my careful use of words: I said you CAN. Not you "should", or you "might want to", or "it won't make you feel dirty to". But you CAN, if that's the way your urges swing.
No I don't know when I became a political journalist. I think it's because I got paid too much to be an amateur blogger, and I spent too many nights not being on Q and A to be a Q and A panellist.
Oh, you can also vote for "almost everything I have said" in the category of "Best Political Comment of the Year", which let's face it would be a pretty accurate award for me to win given all those great things I say sometimes. Remember them? There were some. Google it.
Anyway, there you go. You can donate money to my hairy face, or you can donate a vote to my hairy punditry. It's up to you really. If you genuinely want to, you could even just ignore me and do nothing.
You rude bastards.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
ATHEIST MYTHS DEBUNKED
As an atheist myself, I often find myself licking the blood from my fingers and thinking, Gee, wouldn't it be nice if there was more understanding in the world for those with alternative faith choices? Every day in the media I see another misconception about atheism being perpetuated by heartless believers who see fit to pass judgment on us without even going to the trouble of attending a Baby-Que to see for themselves what we're all about.
So I think it behooves me to here explode a few of the myths about atheists floating around out there.
1. ATHEISTS ARE JUST ANGRY AT THE CHURCH: This is simply NOT true. We are not JUST angry at the church; we are angry at all KINDS of people. Like our parents, the government, people who are happy and secure in our relationships. I am so SICK of atheists being painted as one-dimensional, as if it's just ONE thing that causes us to reject all sense of decency and social propriety. We have LOTS of motivations for our blind hatred, OK?
2. ATHEISTS WANT EVERYONE TO AGREE WITH THEM: No, we do NOT. We want SOME people to agree with us, sure. But MOST people we actually want killed. It's so unfair when people say things like, "Oh atheists, they're just trying to force their message down our throats". Not true: we're actually HAPPY if you disagree with us, because we're planning to exterminate you at our monthly Atheism Plot Meetings.
3. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION: Not at all - atheism is not the sort of structured belief system usually designated as "a religion" - it is in fact a very narrow set of beliefs more properly dubbed a "death cult". It really ticks us off when we get lumped in with the religious, when our soulles blend of nihilism and masochism is really very distinct.
4. ATHEISTS BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD: I can hardly believe anyone actually thinks this anymore, but there you go. Suffice to say, atheists do NOT believe there is no God: we KNOW there is a God, but we reject Him because we want to smoke drugs and have anal sex all the time.
5. ATHEISTS ARE SENT BY SATAN TO TEMPT GOOD PEOPLE FROM THE RIGHT PATH: No, we tempt people from the right path purely for kicks.
6. ATHEISTS ARE ALL HOMOSEXUAL: Actually, many of us are heterosexual. of course, we indulge frequently in homosexual ACTS, because we live only to gratuitously offend people's sensibilities, but we don't ENJOY them. We don'y enjoy any sexual acts, since sex is only enjoyable with a person whom you love, and atheists are incapable of love.
7. ATHEISTS ARE ACTUALLY MUSLIMS IN DISGUISE WORKING TO SUBVERT DECENT CHRISTIAN SOCIETY: We are NOT Muslims. We just work for them.
8. ATHEISTS WORSHIP SCIENCE: None of us worship science; we all know science is rubbish, it's just something we came up with one night when we were trying to think of a way to corrupt the morals of young people. We do, however, worship Richard Dawkins, because of the mind-controlling injections he gave us.
9. ATHEISTS ARE UNHAPPY: As atheists we are incapable of ANY emotions, good or bad.
10. WITH NO SOURCE OF ULTIMATE MORAL AUTHORITY, ATHEISTS HAVE NO REASON NOT ROB, RAPE AND MURDER PEOPLE ALL THE TIME: Rubbish! We have a very GOOD reason: sometimes we get tired.
I hope that's clear now.
So I think it behooves me to here explode a few of the myths about atheists floating around out there.
1. ATHEISTS ARE JUST ANGRY AT THE CHURCH: This is simply NOT true. We are not JUST angry at the church; we are angry at all KINDS of people. Like our parents, the government, people who are happy and secure in our relationships. I am so SICK of atheists being painted as one-dimensional, as if it's just ONE thing that causes us to reject all sense of decency and social propriety. We have LOTS of motivations for our blind hatred, OK?
2. ATHEISTS WANT EVERYONE TO AGREE WITH THEM: No, we do NOT. We want SOME people to agree with us, sure. But MOST people we actually want killed. It's so unfair when people say things like, "Oh atheists, they're just trying to force their message down our throats". Not true: we're actually HAPPY if you disagree with us, because we're planning to exterminate you at our monthly Atheism Plot Meetings.
3. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION: Not at all - atheism is not the sort of structured belief system usually designated as "a religion" - it is in fact a very narrow set of beliefs more properly dubbed a "death cult". It really ticks us off when we get lumped in with the religious, when our soulles blend of nihilism and masochism is really very distinct.
4. ATHEISTS BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD: I can hardly believe anyone actually thinks this anymore, but there you go. Suffice to say, atheists do NOT believe there is no God: we KNOW there is a God, but we reject Him because we want to smoke drugs and have anal sex all the time.
5. ATHEISTS ARE SENT BY SATAN TO TEMPT GOOD PEOPLE FROM THE RIGHT PATH: No, we tempt people from the right path purely for kicks.
6. ATHEISTS ARE ALL HOMOSEXUAL: Actually, many of us are heterosexual. of course, we indulge frequently in homosexual ACTS, because we live only to gratuitously offend people's sensibilities, but we don't ENJOY them. We don'y enjoy any sexual acts, since sex is only enjoyable with a person whom you love, and atheists are incapable of love.
7. ATHEISTS ARE ACTUALLY MUSLIMS IN DISGUISE WORKING TO SUBVERT DECENT CHRISTIAN SOCIETY: We are NOT Muslims. We just work for them.
8. ATHEISTS WORSHIP SCIENCE: None of us worship science; we all know science is rubbish, it's just something we came up with one night when we were trying to think of a way to corrupt the morals of young people. We do, however, worship Richard Dawkins, because of the mind-controlling injections he gave us.
9. ATHEISTS ARE UNHAPPY: As atheists we are incapable of ANY emotions, good or bad.
10. WITH NO SOURCE OF ULTIMATE MORAL AUTHORITY, ATHEISTS HAVE NO REASON NOT ROB, RAPE AND MURDER PEOPLE ALL THE TIME: Rubbish! We have a very GOOD reason: sometimes we get tired.
I hope that's clear now.
Friday, November 5, 2010
How To Not Rape People: SPECIAL NRL EDITION
Some of you might remember a handy guide to avoiding being a rapist that I posted a little while ago.
Many people found this extremely helpful in their own lives as they struggled to find a way to not rape people. However, unfortunately it has come to my notice that the original guide was far too narrow in its scope. Recent events have shown that certain segments of the wider community need the Guide to be adapted to their special needs. With that in mind,
I therefore here present:
THE HANDY GUIDE TO NOT RAPING PEOPLE IN SEVEN EASY STEPS (special NRL edition)
1. When you meet a dog who doesn't want to have sex with you, don't have sex with it.
2. When you meet a dog who wants to have sex with one of your friends, remember the golden rule: You Are A Different Person To Your Friends. Maybe this handy mnemonic can help: Yentl Acted As Ducks Probed Three Yucky Frenchmen. This will help you remember that a dog who wants to have sex with one person does not necessarily want to have sex with every person it meets. Confusing, I know; what can I say - political correctness, etc. Also, you should probably tell your friend not have sex with the dog, because it is a dog.
3. If you meet a dog who DOES want to have sex with you, but then a bit later it says it'd rather not, don't have sex with it. Again, pretty confusing, I know, but it's due to a special Scientific Fact: sometimes dogs change their minds. Like, remember the time you wanted a kebab, but then you thought no, I'll have a hamburger instead? It's a bit like that, only with sex. Also, there is another Scientific Fact: dogs can't talk, so if a dog tells you it wants to have sex with you, you're probably hallucinating. It's best not to have sex with anything while hallucinating.
4. When you meet a dog who is unconscious, don't have sex with it. This is true even if it was drinking before. I may be delving into some fairly arcane theory here, but scientists have discovered there is actually technically a difference between "drinking a lot of alcohol" and "saying yes I want to have sex with you". This difference is especially pronounced when dealing with dogs. In fact, even when dogs are conscious, don't have sex with them.
5. When you go home with a dog, try not to have sex with it until after it says it'd like to. Which it won't, because it's a dog. Even if the dog followed you home of its own volition, follow this role.
6. Practise not having sex with dogs. I know it's hard - sometimes you just look down and it's like, whoops, I'm having sex with this dog, how did that happen? But I bet with a bit of concentration and discipline, you can actually manage to avoid having sex with someone, even when they're in the same room as you and they have four legs and a tail and fur. It's true! Anyone can do it! Why, last week I met at least five dogs who I actually didn't have sex with, without causing myself any particularly severe internal injuries.
7. When you meet a dog who doesn't want to have sex with you, don't have sex with it. I realise I already said this one, but that was five steps ago, and I have a feeling some of you guys might have slightly short attention spans.
Phew! All bases covered! I feel we probably avoided a pretty bad crisis here.
Many people found this extremely helpful in their own lives as they struggled to find a way to not rape people. However, unfortunately it has come to my notice that the original guide was far too narrow in its scope. Recent events have shown that certain segments of the wider community need the Guide to be adapted to their special needs. With that in mind,
I therefore here present:
THE HANDY GUIDE TO NOT RAPING PEOPLE IN SEVEN EASY STEPS (special NRL edition)
1. When you meet a dog who doesn't want to have sex with you, don't have sex with it.
2. When you meet a dog who wants to have sex with one of your friends, remember the golden rule: You Are A Different Person To Your Friends. Maybe this handy mnemonic can help: Yentl Acted As Ducks Probed Three Yucky Frenchmen. This will help you remember that a dog who wants to have sex with one person does not necessarily want to have sex with every person it meets. Confusing, I know; what can I say - political correctness, etc. Also, you should probably tell your friend not have sex with the dog, because it is a dog.
3. If you meet a dog who DOES want to have sex with you, but then a bit later it says it'd rather not, don't have sex with it. Again, pretty confusing, I know, but it's due to a special Scientific Fact: sometimes dogs change their minds. Like, remember the time you wanted a kebab, but then you thought no, I'll have a hamburger instead? It's a bit like that, only with sex. Also, there is another Scientific Fact: dogs can't talk, so if a dog tells you it wants to have sex with you, you're probably hallucinating. It's best not to have sex with anything while hallucinating.
4. When you meet a dog who is unconscious, don't have sex with it. This is true even if it was drinking before. I may be delving into some fairly arcane theory here, but scientists have discovered there is actually technically a difference between "drinking a lot of alcohol" and "saying yes I want to have sex with you". This difference is especially pronounced when dealing with dogs. In fact, even when dogs are conscious, don't have sex with them.
5. When you go home with a dog, try not to have sex with it until after it says it'd like to. Which it won't, because it's a dog. Even if the dog followed you home of its own volition, follow this role.
6. Practise not having sex with dogs. I know it's hard - sometimes you just look down and it's like, whoops, I'm having sex with this dog, how did that happen? But I bet with a bit of concentration and discipline, you can actually manage to avoid having sex with someone, even when they're in the same room as you and they have four legs and a tail and fur. It's true! Anyone can do it! Why, last week I met at least five dogs who I actually didn't have sex with, without causing myself any particularly severe internal injuries.
7. When you meet a dog who doesn't want to have sex with you, don't have sex with it. I realise I already said this one, but that was five steps ago, and I have a feeling some of you guys might have slightly short attention spans.
Phew! All bases covered! I feel we probably avoided a pretty bad crisis here.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
A Good Cause, Right?
I'm now on Day 3 of Movember! It's...kind of weird.
But it's for the benefit of men's health, in particular the fights against prostate cancer and depresseion, so if you can spare anything at all, donate here. I, and many others, will appreciate it.
But it's for the benefit of men's health, in particular the fights against prostate cancer and depresseion, so if you can spare anything at all, donate here. I, and many others, will appreciate it.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Dispensable Musings
The story of Mr Stephen Fry, who said some silly things and was upset.
It is a shame. You will be unsurprised to know that I am an enormous admirer of Stephen Fry. His writing, his acting, his comedy, his QI-hosting, his documentaries, and even his Twitter feed. I yield to no one in my admiration for the man. And it is very easy in such circumstances to forgive your role model the sins you condemn in others. And it's almost as easy to overcompensate and savage your role model for sins you would shrug off in others. So it's important to note, just at the start, that I am hopelessly morally compromised and my opinions on this matter, as in all others, are worthless. However, here goes.
The fact is that, on face value, these comments are fairly stupid. They are fairly ridiculous generalisations that are untrue and no doubt offend a lot of women, and gay men. And to say, "oh but there's a grain of truth there" is of course what is said about all ridiculous generalisations; maybe there IS a grain of truth, but a good rule of thumb is, if there's a grain of truth you wish to express, then express a grain of truth, not a wheatfield of wild exaggeration.
But Fry says he was misquoted, having given a "humorous interview". OK. I am willing to hear him out here. Maybe with others I wouldn't be so forgiving, and maybe that's the bias referred to above. But Fry has, I think, earned a certain level of esteem from me, so I'm willing to listen to any explanation and accept it if it's, well, acceptable. Some will not grant him the same indulgence - such as Germaine Greer, who replied to his stupid generalisations with some of her own; but that's Germaine for you, lovably ballistic as always. I don't blame them at all, for we each must make up our own minds as to what we accept and what we rail against. But I'll hear him out. Hell, I'll hear anyone out, really. It's only fair.
Because after all, I think I'm right in saying that Stephen Fry has not, in the past, established himself as an inveterate misogynist. Of course, he has established himself as a comedian, so if it was humour, it wouldn't be out of character. Even if you might not think it was very funny.
(as an aside, here is a video from some time ago, in which he speaks along the same themes, and does seem to be having a bit of fun more than anything; the old "differences between men and women" schtick, with a bit of "aren't men ridiculous creatures" thrown in. So if the interview he gave was a reprise of that routine...he would seem to have a case for grievance here. In my own, as we have established, worthless opinion.
But maybe it wasn't really a joke. If not, it did come across as the musing of a man who is somewhat baffled by matters sexual, which is pretty much the way Stephen Fry has come across for many years now. So maybe he needs some education.
And maybe, humorous or not, he was, as he says, seriously misquoted. But if so, I would like to know what he really said. I hope I get to find out. Unfortunately, everyone who says something idiotic always cries "misquote" or "out of context", so one craves something more if one is to have one's fears assuaged. This is terribly unfair for the genuinely misquoted, of course - to have done nothing wrong, and then have people demand you justify yourself for a non-existent act or sommen, is extremely frustrating. But still, these are disturbing comments, and it would benefit us all, including Mr Fry, to know his response in full.
So I hope he doesn't stay quiet. I hope he comes out and engages. I hope this even if he just puts this affair behind him and never mentions it again. Because even idiotic comments, while they may tarnish someone's sheen, don't destroy it. Stephen Fry, even with a blemish or two, will remain Stephen Fry. Much worse has been said by people who carried on blithely and without a care in the world. Basically, one stupid opinion does not a monster make. Even Spida Everitt has his good points. Even Kyle Sandilands...well, no, not really.
I think Fry is fragile and easily wounded, and retreats quickly in the face of attack. And to be fair, when you have 2 million Twitter followers, it must be somewhat overwhelming when the world comes down on you.
But I hope he comes back. And I hope, if he is able to set the record straight. And if the record we have is already straight, I hope he does learn the error of his ways.
And those are my thoughts, presented for your disposal.
It is a shame. You will be unsurprised to know that I am an enormous admirer of Stephen Fry. His writing, his acting, his comedy, his QI-hosting, his documentaries, and even his Twitter feed. I yield to no one in my admiration for the man. And it is very easy in such circumstances to forgive your role model the sins you condemn in others. And it's almost as easy to overcompensate and savage your role model for sins you would shrug off in others. So it's important to note, just at the start, that I am hopelessly morally compromised and my opinions on this matter, as in all others, are worthless. However, here goes.
The fact is that, on face value, these comments are fairly stupid. They are fairly ridiculous generalisations that are untrue and no doubt offend a lot of women, and gay men. And to say, "oh but there's a grain of truth there" is of course what is said about all ridiculous generalisations; maybe there IS a grain of truth, but a good rule of thumb is, if there's a grain of truth you wish to express, then express a grain of truth, not a wheatfield of wild exaggeration.
But Fry says he was misquoted, having given a "humorous interview". OK. I am willing to hear him out here. Maybe with others I wouldn't be so forgiving, and maybe that's the bias referred to above. But Fry has, I think, earned a certain level of esteem from me, so I'm willing to listen to any explanation and accept it if it's, well, acceptable. Some will not grant him the same indulgence - such as Germaine Greer, who replied to his stupid generalisations with some of her own; but that's Germaine for you, lovably ballistic as always. I don't blame them at all, for we each must make up our own minds as to what we accept and what we rail against. But I'll hear him out. Hell, I'll hear anyone out, really. It's only fair.
Because after all, I think I'm right in saying that Stephen Fry has not, in the past, established himself as an inveterate misogynist. Of course, he has established himself as a comedian, so if it was humour, it wouldn't be out of character. Even if you might not think it was very funny.
(as an aside, here is a video from some time ago, in which he speaks along the same themes, and does seem to be having a bit of fun more than anything; the old "differences between men and women" schtick, with a bit of "aren't men ridiculous creatures" thrown in. So if the interview he gave was a reprise of that routine...he would seem to have a case for grievance here. In my own, as we have established, worthless opinion.
But maybe it wasn't really a joke. If not, it did come across as the musing of a man who is somewhat baffled by matters sexual, which is pretty much the way Stephen Fry has come across for many years now. So maybe he needs some education.
And maybe, humorous or not, he was, as he says, seriously misquoted. But if so, I would like to know what he really said. I hope I get to find out. Unfortunately, everyone who says something idiotic always cries "misquote" or "out of context", so one craves something more if one is to have one's fears assuaged. This is terribly unfair for the genuinely misquoted, of course - to have done nothing wrong, and then have people demand you justify yourself for a non-existent act or sommen, is extremely frustrating. But still, these are disturbing comments, and it would benefit us all, including Mr Fry, to know his response in full.
So I hope he doesn't stay quiet. I hope he comes out and engages. I hope this even if he just puts this affair behind him and never mentions it again. Because even idiotic comments, while they may tarnish someone's sheen, don't destroy it. Stephen Fry, even with a blemish or two, will remain Stephen Fry. Much worse has been said by people who carried on blithely and without a care in the world. Basically, one stupid opinion does not a monster make. Even Spida Everitt has his good points. Even Kyle Sandilands...well, no, not really.
I think Fry is fragile and easily wounded, and retreats quickly in the face of attack. And to be fair, when you have 2 million Twitter followers, it must be somewhat overwhelming when the world comes down on you.
But I hope he comes back. And I hope, if he is able to set the record straight. And if the record we have is already straight, I hope he does learn the error of his ways.
And those are my thoughts, presented for your disposal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)