Showing posts with label Miranda Devine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miranda Devine. Show all posts

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Compare and Contrast

Miranda Devine:
In a chaotic world of aggregators, of Google and Twitter and specialist web feeds, a newspaper is a "credible one-stop shop" of local news where all the hard choices have been made for the reader. Which is why not trashing the brand is more important than ever. Sorry, Catherine.


Miranda Devine:



(for the more complete story, check out Pure Poison)

Wow...that brand is looking ever so good.

Miranda then deleted her comment about how gay men have sex with animals. I don't know why; it's almost like she thought some people might have considered it inappropriate.

Anyway, good to know Fairfax has standards.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Lead Me Not Into Temptation

Thank God that someone finally understands. It’s so hard being a young man in today’s society, beset on all sides with pressures and temptations, that it comes as a relief when someone shows their comprehension of the modern man’s struggles the way Miranda Devine did in last week’s Herald.

Miranda, with unerring perspicacity, has pointed out the real root of the issues surrounding footballers and their sexual misadventures. It’s all about society’s failure to teach women how to behave properly. And isn’t that the truth? Oh, it may not be fashionable to say so in today’s anything-goes, teenage-sexting, pass-the-crackpipe dole-bludging tree-humping society, but the fact is it is just plain unreasonable to expect men to know how to treat women when women insist on waving their sexuality in our faces like a red rag to a five-eighth.

As Miranda explains, far better than I ever could, without any “expectation of women to modify their behaviour”, it is “putting unsustainable pressure” on these poor befuddled footballers to expect them to know how to act. After all, they may be “drunk, insensitive or carried away by group dynamics”. Hey, we’ve all been there, right? If I had a dollar for every time group dynamics had forced me against my better judgment to jump on top of a reluctant teenager in a hotel room, I would have enough money to put a whole battalion of young girls in cabs after thanking them politely.

The point is, why don’t women modify their behaviour? Why is it always incumbent on we men to restrain ourselves from groping or assaulting or watching a dozen of our friends copulate with, yet nobody ever calls out women for their deliberate and persistent sexual attractiveness? It seems that our moral compass has spun out of control to the extent where we suddenly laud the sexually active woman, but condemn the innocent drunk insensitive footballer. Has the world gone topsy-turvy? When did the balance of power between the sexes shift to such an extent? When did we decide that avoiding sexual assault was the sole responsibility of the assaulter, with no corresponding responsibility on the assaultee? Aren’t relationships these days supposed to be an equal partnership? Not in the case of the relationships between young girls and entire football teams, apparently. No, in those situations, suddenly everything changes and the footballers have to do all the work. They’re expected to read all the subtle signals, pay attention to all the complex issues of consent, say all the thank-yous, make all the police statements. How about a bit of give-and-take, girls?

After all, as Miranda says, with typical warm, knowing wisdom, today “it is men, alone…who must restraint themselves”, despite the very pertinent fact that “young women are told they can act and dress any way they please”; and if that ain’t nail on the head, finger on the pulse, rolled-gold truth. What mad Marxist social engineer hit upon the idea of women acting and dressing any way they please? Have you seen the way they dress these days? It’s like, ladies, I know you have breasts. You don’t have to draw such obvious attention to them. You don’t have to strut around displaying your bodies, as if they were something to be proud of. But there they go, running about in next to nothing, frequenting nightclubs, drinking and dancing and rubbing our noses in their shameless femininity, and here we are, expected to restrain ourselves. We’re expected to just ignore this wanton behaviour, act as if they’re not shattering all our long-cherished moral codes.

We once had a social contract in this country: women covered up and stayed home; and men agreed not to force them into sex except under extreme provocation. As far as I’m concerned, they broke the contract first. Now we have the absurd situation where women get away scot-free with doing whatever they feel like, while somehow a bunch of fit young men are pilloried for no greater crime than giving expression to the perfectly natural, healthy urge that every man has, the urge to climb through a window and stand around naked with some other fit young men, observing each other’s sexual technique. The fact that these men are highly paid elite athletes, for whom any kind of distraction or media brouhaha could seriously affect their match-day performance, just makes the injustice all the more tragic.

Not that men are the only victims here. As Miranda observes, “our era’s turning point in sexual politics confuses women as much as men”. In all likelihood, that lass from New Zealand was quite confused when she went on Four Corners. So you see, women are suffering too. The sheer confusion must be so overwhelming; that’s probably why they act out by seducing all those footballers, or by reading Twilight, or exposing their midriffs, or any of the other bizarre ways in which modern women demonstrate their irretrievable descent into an inescapable moral vortex.

But there’s a way out, ladies. You can turn things around. You can return to your “natural modesty”. You can stop ruining men’s lives with your thoughtless expressions of sexual identity. You can stop blaming the victim – footballers – and start taking responsibility for your own feminist-warped minds.

Just thank God that Miranda came along to save us all, before it was too late.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Just when you thought it was safe to read the Herald...

The Sydney Morning Herald continues its outreach programme for developmentally delayed opinion writers as Miranda Devine, bless her, puts forth her firm and well-researched views on sharks.

Miranda is furious at the attitude taken by so many hippie green homosexualists these days, that sharks have more right to be in the water than humans, and that people, perhaps, know the risk they're taking if they enter the ocean, which is where sharks traditionally live.

Now, personally, I have always found the threat of shark attack to be one of the more easily avoidable in our world. Unlike nuclear war, sharks are relatively limited in their scope, and unlike serial killers, they almost never break into private homes in order to attack. "Stay out of the water" is pretty much the golden, and only, rule, re: avoiding sharks, I thought. Miranda puts us straight.

She begins by waxing lyrical about a "tall, blond, 15-year-old Adonis" of her acquaintance, but let's not delve too deeply into Ms Devine's reverse-Lolita fantasies, and move on to the crux. Apparently the debate has "taken a surreal turn", as people stand up for the rights of those damn sharks.

"'Dirty, stinking humans … scum of the planet and hopefully sharks will be here for millions more years after we're extinct" was typical of one misanthropic comment on a surf website this week.'" she writes. Well, yes, it would be typical. If you're restricting yourself to describing one comment, then quoting that comment will, in general, tend to be quite representative. In a similar way, "I have a dream" was typical of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Well done, Miranda, you have certainly nailed the rampant anti-human feeling spreading like wildfire through that single person.

Miranda then says that Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald's warning for swimmers to avoid going in the water at times when sharks are most active is "blaming the victim." Indeed. It's a lot like when people say that if a woman goes nightclubbing in a short skirt or low-cut top, it's her own fault if a shark eats her. When will we stop blaming the victim and start blaming the SHARKS? Why don't the sharks take some responsibility for their actions? No means no, sharks! If we say we don't want to be eaten, back off!

"We have been designed to swim and are at home in the water," says Miranda in her defence of humans' rights to swim in shark-infested waters. I'm not quite sure she's on such solid ground here, actually. I mean, a lot of humans LIKE it in the water, but to say we've "been designed" for it may be a stretch, mayn't it? We don't seem to be quite as well-designed to swim as, say, every water-dwelling animal on earth. We're not even as well-designed to swim as dogs. And we're probably more at home on land, really. Where our homes are. Especially when compared to sharks, who are "at home in the water" to quite a drastic extent, relatively speaking. I don't think we're really at the top of the league table in terms of at-home-in-the-waterness.

Still, it's a worthwhile point to make. These sharks have gotten away with the unthinking following of their primal instincts for far too long. It's time to get tough on these vicious bastards. As Miranda says, "if it comes to a choice between a shark life and a human life there just should be no contest".

And if it comes to a choice between a shark life and a human finding somewhere else to swim...ah, but that's greenie thinkin'.